Momentum Indicator Update, July 11, 2017

/in , /by

Get the simple talking points you need to strengthen your client relationships with a free trial of The Sevens Report. 

About two months ago, as markets were grinding relentlessly higher despite underwhelming economic fundamentals, I identified four momentum indicators that would tell us when this market was losing momentum and when the chances for a pullback were rising.

Those four indicators were: 1) Consumer sentiment, 2) NYSE Advance/Decline line, 3) Semiconductors (SOXX) and 4) Super-cap internet (FDN).

Over the subsequent eight weeks, three of those four indicators have remained broadly positive. Only semiconductors have lost momentum (SOXX hit multi-month lows in Thursday’s selling). But while the three remaining momentum indicators are still giving positive signals, recently there have been some signs of fatigue.

First, FDN (First Trust DJ Internet Index Fund) held the June lows, but it’s stuck in a range currently and can’t seem to break to a higher high.

Second, the NYSE Advance/Decline line is sitting on an uptrend in place since late-February 2016, and if we get any sort of a nasty sell-off in the next few days (like we saw last Thursday) that trendline could break.

Finally, looking at consumer sentiment, unending skepticism towards this now eight-year-long rally remains its most consistent fuel; however, that may finally be changing.

Retail investor sentiment indicators remain overly cautious. The American Association of Individual Investors Bulls/Bears Sentiment is cautious, as there is just 29.6% bulls vs. a historical 38.5%. But, in a notable change, the number of bears also is below average (29.9% vs. the average of 30.5%).

The difference is made up in the “Neutral” category, which has surged to 40.6% vs. an average of 30.5%. Now, that’s not overtly bullish, but it anecdotally reflects the idea that you simply “must” be invested as they market grinds higher. And, that idea is in line with a recent similar reading from institutional investors.

Yesterday, I read a survey from Citi that showed institutional investors are holding their lowest levels of cash since before the financial crisis! According to survey respondents, in June the median cash holdings for institutional investors was just 2.5%, down sharply from the 7.5% level at the end of September 2016. That’s the lowest level of cash on hand since before the financial crisis.

The results from a Citi survey of institutional investors show that cash holdings by institutional investors are at the lowest level since before the financial crisis..png

Now, one statistic doesn’t mean an impending market pullback, but this survey data does generally correspond to the idea that the TINA trade (There is No Alternative to stocks) has finally, and begrudgingly, pulled the remainder of cash off the sidelines and into the market.

And, as history has taught us, we can all guess what happens next.

Regardless, the major point I’m trying to make here is this: We’re nearing a pretty substantial tipping point in markets, and while both the bulls and bears have points of evidence on their side, the benefit of the doubt remains, for now, with the bulls. Still, we need a continuation of the recent better economic data and better inflation numbers to power this market higher, otherwise the chances of some sort of a pullback will indeed rise.

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report is right for you with a free two-week trial.

7 Dates That Could Make or Break the Market in Q3, July 5, 2017

/in , /by

The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets.

The first half of 2017 was defined by historically low volatility, and one of the quietest macro calendars we’ve had in years. However, with several parts of the market and economy in flux heading into the second half of the year, we’re likely going to see an uptick in volatility, and I think we got a preview of that during June.

So, we’ve identified four key events and seven key dates associated with those events that we believe could either 1) Lead to an acceleration of the rally, or 2) Cause a reversal and substantial pullback in stocks.

We haven’t included the regular monthly economic data (Jobs reports, PMIs, Core PCE Price Index) because that’s always important, every month. Instead, the list below is comprised of events that are not typically on a quarterly calendar, and we want you to be aware of

1) What they are,

2) Why they are important, and

3) How they can move markets.

Everything we do at the Sevens Report is based around efficiency—giving you only the critical information in the shortest amount of time, so in that vain this list is organized by potential impact on markets (i.e. the first events listed have the most potential to move markets).

Q3 Market Event #1:

Q2 Earnings Season. Date: 7/17.

What It Is: Second quarter earnings season. Specifically, big banks (C, WFC, BAC, etc.) start to report earnings as early as 7/14, but the real volume of reports won’t kick in till 7/17, and that’s when things could get interesting.

Why It’s Important: As we’ve said frequently, the unsung hero of the 2017 rally is earnings expectations. Markets are expecting nearly 10% yoy earnings growth for the S&P 500 from 2017 to 2018. That means that conservatively, we’re looking at $137 or $138/share for 2018 S&P 500 EPS, and that doesn’t include a boost for any corporate tax cuts. Those rising earnings make the valuation math work for investors, as it keeps the S&P 500 at 18X 2018 earnings, the historical top for valuation levels. Without that earnings growth, the valuation math on this market won’t make sense, and we’ll get a pull-back.

How It Could Move Markets: If earnings growth looks to be slowing in Q2, that could cause that 2018 expected S&P 500 EPS to decline, to say $135ish. If that occurs, this market is too expensive, and we could easily see a 3%-5% pullback.

Q3 Market Event #2:

What It Is: Government Funding Expires. Date 9/30. What It Is: Markets have taken increasing levels of government incompetence in stride so far in 2017, but that’s only because the market still expects corporate tax cuts in 2018, and because all the noise and distraction hasn’t had any negative effect on the economy. That could change in the next few months.

Why It’s Important: First, the government must raise the debt ceiling by the fall, otherwise we’ll have another default scare. Second, the government must pass a budget to keep funding the government. If they don’t, we’ll have another shutdown scare.

How It Could Move Markets. If the drama in Washington threatens to have real, concrete implications on the markets and economy, then stocks will get hit, potentially hard.

Q3 Market Event #3:

What It Is: Fed Tightening. Date(s): 7/26, late August, 9/20. What Is It: Easily the biggest issue for mar-kets as we exit 1H ’17 is that the Fed is more hawkish than we are used to, and how that materializes over the next three months will move markets. There is a Fed meeting on July 26, and while no one expects a rate hike at that time, if bond yields remain low and financial conditions continue to ease, the Fed could try and send a message. Then, in late August, the Fed’s annual Jackson Hole conference takes place. The Fed could again try and deliver a hawkish message to markets. Finally, the September meeting on 9/20 is where the Fed is expected to begin to reduce its balance sheet.

Why It Matters: No one knows how markets will react if the Fed gets more hawkish. Bonds have been stubbornly buoyant, but that could change, and then the question is whether the rise in interest rates is gradual, or whether we get another “Taper Tantrum.” Conversely, if economic data stays uninspiring in Q3, we could have a scenario where yields are rising but economic growth is not.

How It Could Move Markets: If yields rise too quickly or economic data remains lackluster but the Fed stays on a tightening path, that could hit stocks. Conversely, if economic growth accelerates and the rise in rates is gradual, that could power a reflationary rally, led by banks, small caps and cyclicals.

Q3 Market Event #4:

What It Is: Washington Policy—Healthcare & Tax Cuts. Dates: 7/28, 9/5. What Is It: Things are coming to a head on healthcare and taxes, and over the next few months we’ll see whether the expectation for corporate tax cuts in 2018 is still reasonable. Specifically, the healthcare issue will be resolved one way or the other by July 28, as a bill will either pass the Senate, or it will be dead. Regarding taxes, the Trump administration has promised a specific tax plan by the time Congress returns from the August recess on September 5. If there isn’t something concrete by then, tax reform in Q1 ’18 (which is expected by markets) will become very difficult to achieve.

Why It Matters: Markets still expect corporate tax cuts in Q1 2018, and if that expectation proves false, then investors will reassess owning stocks at these valuations, as there won’t be a visible, positive earnings catalyst on the horizon.

How It Could Move Markets: If there is no concrete, real tax plan (and I’m talking about agreement on border adjustments, interest deductibility, etc.) then that changes the market’s valuation paradigm. Conversely, if we do get progress on this issue that will be bullish for highly taxed sectors such as retail, energy, healthcare, etc.

Bottom Line

There are real, potentially significant market-moving events in the third quarter that could easily cause a “melt up” in stocks, and turn 2017 into a banner year… or cause a nasty pullback. Because just based on the calendar, we’re due for a pullback (there’s been no real pullback since Feb. ’16). While it’d be nice if we got a continuation of the calm, levitating market we saw in the first half, given these looming events (and considering many of them are Washington oriented) it’s unlikely.

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report is right for you with a free two-week trial.

China’s Inverted Yield Curve, June 28, 2017

/in , /by

If A Yield Curve Inverts In China, Does It Signal A Looming Recession?

The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets. Start your free trial today.

China's Inverted Yield Curve

Last week, in our post, “Will Chinese Credit Impulse Impact Global Markets?“, I explained how China remains the largest macro threat to the rally as it begins to deflate its massive credit bubble, a credit bubble that has funded asset bubbles across geographies (Australian property, California property, Treasuries, stocks, etc.).

At this point, it’s just a risk, as there are no concrete signs that the Chinese economy is in trouble, although the Chinese bond market is signaling some caution.

First, it’s well known that inverted yield curves predict recessions. Here in the US, the inverted yield curve predicted the ’81, ’91, and ’00 recession, and the ’08 financial crisis (remember the yield curve inverted in ’05, and stayed that way until the Fed started cutting rates in late ’07).

So, it is noteworthy that the Chinese government bond yield curve is essentially flat, and in some cases has inverted. For instance, as of yesterday the three-year government bond was yielding 3.558%, higher than the 5 year at 3.524%. And, the 7 year was yielding 3.626%, higher than the 10 year, which yielded 3.56%. So, while not a total inversion, it is safe to say it’s flat.

Now, before we go running for the hills and sell stocks, we have to realize this is China, not US Treasuries. As such, liquidity distorts this picture somewhat. For instance, 10-year Chinese bonds are by far the most liquid, so they will move more than other issues. Still, this is not the type of yield curve that implies an economy that is healthy. Again, this matters because the last time we got a Chinese economic scare, it caused the S&P 500 to collapse 10% in a few days… not once, but twice in a six-month period.

Bottom line, I’m not saying get defensive, but I am saying that from a macro standpoint 2H ’17 is shaping up to be more bumpy than 1H ’17, and I want everyone to be prepared. We will be watching China closely for you.

If you feel like at any moment this market could turn around – and in a hurry—subscribe to The Sevens Report. Get smarter, faster.

Could The Fed Give a Hawkish Surprise Today?, June 14, 2017

/in , /by

The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets. Sign up now for a risk-free two-week trial, and see how it feels to be in the know. www.7sReport.com

The simple answer is probably not, but there is a better chance than previous meetings because of one simple reason: Despite two rate hikes since December, in aggregate, “financial conditions” have gotten “looser” in 2017, so Fed rate hikes aren’t really working.

Financial conditions is a term that was coined (for all intents and purposes) after the financial crisis, so we could see financial conditions were getting very tight (i.e. less credit availability) and when liquidity was drying up.

Now, in a post-crisis world, multiple institutions keep “Financial Conditions Indices” that measure the level of interest rates, liquidity in the system, credit availability and other measures of whether the availability of money and credit is getting loose (i.e. more availability) or tight (less availability).

I watch three such indices: (withheld for subscribers—unlock with a free trial). All three have slightly different methodologies, but all generally try and accomplish the same objective, which is to see if financial conditions in the economy are “looser” (i.e. easier credit/more liquidity) or if they’re getting “tighter” (i.e. less credit and less liquidity).

Here’s the important takeaway: All three financial conditions indices have shown aggregate financial conditions getting looser since the start of the year. In fact, in aggregate, financial conditions have eased by the equivalent of a 25 basis point rate cut since 2017 started, despite two rate hikes.

The reasons for this are somewhat obvious: Liquidity remains ample; credit remains readily available, interest rates are down, the stock market and housing prices are up (so more ability to borrow).

From a Fed standpoint, the takeaway is this: The fact that the Fed’s “slow walk” in interest rates isn’t mopping up excess liquidity in the market may make the central bank more prone to get “hawkish,” which again would be positive for banks and cyclicals (i.e. the reflation trade), but negative for defensives and higher-yielding sectors (utilities, consumer staples, REITs).

Again, I’m not saying the Fed will be surprisingly hawkish today, but if I had to bet on a surprise based on these financial conditions indices, I’d bet hawkish over dovish (although I’m making the dangerous assumption the Fed is serious about getting rates back to normal levels).

Bigger picture, though, the takeaway here is that the Fed’s policies, so far, are not having the desired effect. And, if this continues, the Fed will have to “shock” markets with a substantial rate hike at some point if it wants to regain market related credibility—and that increases the risk of higher rates over the longer term (or, higher inflation if they don’t provide that shock).

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report is right for you with a free two-week trial.

Political Update for Investors, April 27, 2017

/in , /by

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report is right for you.

Political Update for Investors

Trading yesterday was driven by multiple political-related headlines. Politics reasserted itself on the market narrative on Wednesday, helping stocks initially rally following renewed hopes for an Obamacare repeal/replace bill, and after the Trump Administration unveiled a significant (though expected) tax cut plan.

Yet despite the media focus on those two events, any actual progress with healthcare or taxes remains unlikely (and didn’t get better yesterday). The third piece of political news, an investigation into aluminum imports by the Commerce Department, was the most important (yet underfollowed) political development for markets yesterday.

I cover each issue below, cut through the noise, and get to any likely market influence. The bottom line is that despite generally favorable headlines, all the political news yesterday was a mild net negative for stocks.

Trump Administration Tax Cut Plan.

What Happened: The Trump Administration unveiled a sweeping tax cut proposal that included a 15% corporate rate, just three individual tax brackets, doubling the standard deduction, and repatriating overseas profits.

Why It Matters: Corporate tax cuts remain the easiest catalyst for a stock breakout, but unfortunately the tax plan revealed yesterday is very unlikely to pass Congress, and the reason is simple: There is no offset to the reduced revenue from lower taxes. As such, this plan will increase the deficit, and that likely means Democrats can filibuster the bill. Going forward, unless a tax plan contains some material offsets to reduced taxes (like border adjustments) then passage of any big tax cuts remains unlikely in 2017, and that’s stock negative.

How Markets Reacted: Tax-related headlines can still cause a pop in markets, but only a credible plan that can pass Congress will be a bullish gamechanger. (For more market insights in your inbox by 7am each morning, sign up for a free 2-week trial at 7sReport.com.)

Healthcare Bill (Obamacare repeal/replace).

What Happened: The details were fast and furious on this yesterday, but as of this writing it appears the House will vote on the bill potentially this weekend, and odds of passing are decent.

Why It Matters: Passage of an Obamacare repeal/replace increases the chances of tax cuts also passing, as it will increase Trump’s political capital and provide more revenue to offset tax cuts. However, even if this bill passes the House, the chances of passage in the Senate in the current form remain slim. So, while a potential moral victory, it won’t significantly increase the chance of healthcare reform, and as such I don’t see it as a bearish gamechanger for healthcare ETFs (XLV, IHF, IBB).

How Markets Reacted: Stocks (including health care names) largely ignored this news, as again the likelihood of any Obamacare repeal/replace becoming law remains slim. (For more market insights in your inbox by 7am each morning, sign up for a free 2-week trial at 7sReport.com.)

Tariffs and Trade.

What Happened: Yesterday the Commerce Department announced an investigation into aluminum imports. No tariffs were announced, but it certainly looks to be moving in that direction. This announcement comes one day after Commerce levied taxes on Canadian soft lumber imports. Additionally, a Politico story hit midmorning that President Trump was close to signing a document notifying Mexico and Canada that the US intends to withdraw from NAFTA within six months. The document does not guarantee a US exit (they can change course), but it is a necessary legal step to begin the process. Since yesterday the White House has said it’s not preparing this document yet but didn’t squash the idea all together.

Why It Matters: These trade events yesterday (and this week) are actually the most important political events of the week, not because of their immediate impact (Canadian lumber and aluminum tariffs don’t mean a trade war, and the NAFTA announcement is likely for negotiating leverage), but it does remind markets of Trump’s potentially disruptive trade policies. That matters, because right now markets have not priced in any trade-related headwinds, so this does represent at least a modest risk to the bullish narrative.

How Markets Reacted: All the trade headlines weighed slightly on stocks during the late afternoon, but the current headlines simply aren’t bad enough to warrant an outright reversal in stocks. (For more market insights in your inbox by 7am each morning, sign up for a free 2-week trial at 7sReport.com.)

Bottom Line on the Political Update for Investors:

Material “gaps” remain that must be filled if the S&P 500 can sustain a meaningful breakout above 2400, including 1) The gap between political expectations and political reality, 2) The gap between too-low Treasury yields and very high stock prices (although that’s narrowed some-what this week, but not enough), and 3) The gap between soft economic surveys and hard economic data.

In the very short term, investor sentiment seems skeptical, and the market acts as though investors are more afraid of missing a breakout than they are a break down (similar to what we saw when the S&P 500 broke through 2300). So, the “pain trade” looks higher short term and that’s helping stocks.

But given valuations (the S&P 500 trading nearly 18X 2018 earnings), I don’t think sentiment alone is enough to push us decidedly through 2400 without positive resolution on some of these gaps. That means we need 1) Actual progress on tax cuts (which didn’t happen yesterday), 2) A rally in the 10 year above 2.40%, or 3) Better economic data starting today.

I am therefore sticking with my call that the 2300-2400 broad trading range in the S&P 500 should hold, and I would not be chasing stocks at these levels.

Cut through the noise and understand what’s truly driving markets, as this new political and economic reality evolves. The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets.

Why It’s Time to Buy Insurance—Right Now! March 1, 2017

/in , /by

This is an excerpt from today’s Sevens Report. To get your free 2-week trial, sign up now!

The Practical Takeaway from Low Volatility

One of the bigger conundrums right now is that volatility in the stock market is plumbing multi-year lows despite the presence of multiple major and binary events that will resolve themselves positively or negatively in the coming months.

Some examples (just to name a few): When/if we will get corporate tax reform? Will the US institute tariffs? Will interest rates continue to move higher? Is inflation finally back?

Each of these events could easily cause a pullback in stocks of at least 10%, yet investors seem unimpressed. Case in point, the VIX recently hit 9.97, which is a multi-year low.

Now, the obvious question is… “Why is implied volatility so low?”

First, implied volatility is low because the macro-economic backdrop has been supportive, and stocks have relentlessly gone straight up since November. This has been the longest stretch without a 1% decline in decades.

However, there is a second reason.

The lack of volatility has invited investors and funds to sell options (specifically puts) and collect premium. Given the lack of volatility, that’s been a profitable strategy, and it has invited more competition.

So, more investors selling options (i.e. selling volatility and collecting premium) pushes the price down, and that’s why implied option volatility (which is what the VIX is based on) has dropped extra low.

Normally, this would catch my attention, but a conversation I had with a friend in the insurance business made me both intrigued and concerned that this inherent “complacency” is prevalent throughout the economy. Here’s why.

It's time to buy insurance.

I’ve almost never been an advocate of buying puts… yet buying puts to preserve market performance may not be a bad idea.

He said in his entire career, commercial and property insurance rates have never been lower than they are now.

And, if you think about it, I guess that makes sense.

I started my conversation with him because I asked my friend if my property insurance would go up because of Hurricane Matthew last year, and he said, “No way.”

He went on to tell me that the insurance companies are so flush with cash, they are just dying to write contracts to take in premium, and with so many competitors out there, it’s caused the price of insurance to drop sharply.

Empirically, that makes sense. With bond yields so low, insurance companies need to generate income and writing insurance over the past several years has been profitable (broadly speaking, we haven’t had any major disasters for the non-health insurance business).

But at this point, my friend remarked that it’s getting a bit ridiculous, as insurance companies are taking on a lot of exposure just to collect a little bit in premium (at least according to his experience).

Practical Takeaways

First, don’t assume that a low VIX means a drop in the stock market is looming. Implied volatility can’t get much lower, but it can stay down here for a while.

Volatility stayed around these levels for about two years in the ’93-’95 period, and again in the ’05-’07 period. Point being, low VIX is not a reason to expect a correction.

Second, insurance in the market (i.e. puts) is cheap, so we should consider buying insurance (i.e. buying puts).

As I said in Monday’s report, I’m almost never been an advocate of buying puts because I hate buying insurance.

Yet given we could easily see an air pocket open up in this market if corporate tax reform dies, or the Fed hikes rates in March, buying puts to preserve performance may not be a bad idea.

For less-experienced options investors, just buying near-the-money puts here might make sense.

For more experienced options investors, buying an at-the-money put and selling an out-of-the-money put may be attractive.

Here’s my logic. We think there’s strong support for the market around 2275, so as long as fundamentals are generally “ok,” we’d be ok buying the S&P 500 at that level.

So, we could sell 2275 puts (meaning we’d get put the stock at that level) and then use those proceeds to reduce the cost of an at the money put, say at 2370. That way, we’ve insured ourselves against any 5% or less drop in stocks, and also have the opportunity to buy the mar-ket cheaper at a level we’re comfortable with.

Third, actual insurance appears cheap, so I’m re-pricing life insurance and other insurance to try and lock in low prices.

Finally, generally, the idea that low yields and a chase for income is pushing both investors and insurance companies to increase exposure in exchange for reduced compensation is making my blood pressure go up.

As we’ve all seen, this can last for a long time, so it doesn’t mean a calamity is around the corner. Still, we all know that’s the kind of anecdotal behavior that leads to nasty consequences. Here’s to hoping it’s different this time.

For a monthly cost of less than one client lunch, we firmly believe we offer the best value in the independent research space. Subscribe to your free 2-week trial of the Sevens Report now.

The Political Outlook for Stimulus is Darkening, February 28, 2017

/in , /by

This is an excerpt from today’s Sevens Report. The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets. Sign up for a free 2 week trial.

It’s obviously impossible to say “when” this will matter to stocks, but I want to make very clear to everyone that the political outlook for stimulus is darkening, and the chance of any pro-growth measures hitting the markets in 2017 are falling, quickly… and sooner or later that will be a problem for this market.

To that point, yesterday there were three separate areas where the outlook for fiscal stimulus darkened. First, while Treasury Secretary Mnuchin did a good job in both his major interviews (WSJ and CNBC) he didn’t add anything incremental regarding corporate tax cuts, and was downright vague on the idea of border adjustments, which is the key to corporate tax cuts.

Yes, he did say he expects a broad corporate tax reform bill by the August recess, but that’s just repeating what Speaker Ryan has said (i.e., nothing new). Bottom line, the outlook for corporate tax cuts in 2017 (and maybe at all) continues to get worse.

Paul Ryan

Speaker Paul Ryan has said he expects a broad corporate tax reform bill by the August recess. The outlook for corporate tax cuts in 2017 continues to get worse.

There were some additional headlines regarding this issue late yesterday afternoon when President Trump told Reuters he supported “some form of border tax.” Markets initially took this as a positive (implying he was supportive of border adjustments) but that’s premature because what he meant was unclear as his subsequent comments more implied he supported tariffs in some form (not the full scale border adjustments needed to pass corporate tax reform).

Beyond Trump’s comments, the major hurdle for border adjustments and corporate tax reform remains in the Senate. There is little support for that idea in the Senate currently, and until that chances, corporate tax reform is unlikely.

Second, Axios reported that Trump is punting infrastructure spending to 2018. That was treated as a notable headline yesterday, but we and others have been saying for weeks now that infrastructure spending never was on the table for 2017. So, while this isn’t an incremental negative for the market, it was a headline that we wanted to cover.

Third, as we’ve covered, the way things are looking right now Republicans must get the repeal/replace of Obamacare done before they can tackle corporate tax reform. Well, Politico reported that Republican Alaska Senator Murkowski won’t vote for any repeal/replace that reduces the Medicaid expansion. With just a 53/47 majority in the Senate, the chances of just getting 50 votes on a repeal/replace continue to dwindle, and by all reports Republicans remain fractured on how to handle the repeal/replace.

Now, I’m not pointing this out for political reason (you know I’m politically agnostic in this Report). The reason I am pointing it out is simple: No Obamacare repeal/replace, then no corporate tax cuts in 2017, and that’s a problem for stocks (how much of a problem will depend on economic growth, inflation and interest rates, but it’s still a problem).

Bottom line, I don’t want to sound like the boy who cried wolf, but I just want to point out consistently and clearly that the gap between market policy expectations and policy reality is widening—and again, that’s a risk that should not be ignored.

This is a volatile, politically sensitive investment landscape—you need the Sevens Report to stay ahead of the changes, and to calm worried clients.

Real Economics vs. Trump’s Washington Buzz

/in , /by

As has been the case since the election, the political noise in the market is deafening.

But cutting through that noise, the reality is this: The gap between market expectations from Washington and the current reality has grown significantly in the month since Trump’s inauguration, and it is not an understatement to say that political disappointment risk is now very high.

Is Trump News Affecting Markets?

Specifically, Trump noise aside, all signs point to massive fractures in the Republican Party over the repeal/replace of Obamacare, and over border adjustments (the key to any material corporate tax reform).

To boot, the constant drama and infighting is draining Trump’s political capital even before we get close to deals on Obamacare and taxes. Specifically, the immigration ban battle, the Gen. Flynn drama, and the Puzder (the Labor Secretary nominee) withdrawal (where a full 12 Republican Senators would have voted against him) all are combining to reduce the likelihood of anything substantial on taxes.

Bottom line, the only thing politically that really matters to markets is tax cuts. But given the fractures appearing on Obamacare and border adjustments, the likelihood of material, pro-growth policy is fading… and fast.

Last week, Trump again touted fantastic things coming up, and Ryan promised an Obamacare repeal/replace by the end of February. Yet neither actually mean any progress (for that we need Republican support for bills in the Senate, and that’s lacking).

Going forward, a key date emerging on the calendar is February 28, when Trump is due to give an address before Congress (first year Presidents give this address instead of a State of the Union).

If there is no material progress on a compromise on a Obamacare repeal/replace or border adjustments within corporate tax reform by this address, then the political reality could begin to weigh on markets as investors begin to lose hope of pro-growth reforms in 2017.

Cut through the noise and understand what’s truly driving markets, as this new political and economic reality evolves with the Sevens Report. Get a free two-week trial: www.7sReport.com.

How Big a Risk is a Trade or Military Dispute? February 16, 2017

/in , /by

An excerpt from the Sevens Report. Sign up for a two-week free trial of the full report at www.7sReport.com.

Earlier this week I began profiling non-political risks to explore when making decisions for your clients and talking with prospects. Here’s number three:

Non-Political Risk #3: Surprise Trade or Military Dispute

Surprisingly, and potentially dangerously, the market has fully embraced Trump’s pro-growth “big three” of tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and deregulation while totally ignoring the hostile trade (and to a lesser degree) military rhetoric—and that selective focus has helped fuel this rally in stocks.

How big a risk is a trade conflict with China?

Part of the reason investors have somewhat ignored the rhetoric is because they assumed that once Trump got into power, the realities of global trade would soften his tone. To a point, that has happened. Last week, Trump embraced the “One China” policy of governance over Taiwan. And, this past weekend visit with Japanese PM Abe came and went with no explicit mention of currency manipulation or unfair trade. But, while those are positives it’d be foolish to think there isn’t a real risk of a trade dispute/war with China.

Originally, the fear was that Trump would instruct the Treasury Department to label China a “currency manipulator” in its semi-annual currency report, due out in late March/early April. That would likely ignite some sort of a trade war as it would place automatic tariffs on Chinese goods. Obviously, that wouldn’t be good for stocks.

Trump appears to have backed away from such a direct confrontation, but as a WSJ article detailed, the administration is looking for a less “in your face” way to punish China for its trade practices (you can read the article if you’re really interested) but basically the strategy is to label currency manipulation an “unfair subsidy,” not just by the Chinese, but by every country. If that’s done, then individual US companies can lobby the Commerce Department to impose du-ties on competitive goods from countries they believe use currency manipulation. It’s basically a less-direct way to put duties/tariffs on Chinese goods.

Here’s the problem: Other countries can retaliate and do the same thing to the US, and cite the Fed’s ultra-low rates as manipulating the US dollar lower.

This will obviously be a fluid situation, but with Peter Navarro as the head of the National Trade Council (remember he wrote the book, Death by China) it’s un-likely that we won’t at least have a trade scare this year with China.

Looking militarily, the only real area of concern right now (well, there are multiple areas of concern, but the most pressing one) is the growing conflict between the US and China regarding their bases in the South China Sea. Trump advisor Bannon is particularly focused on this issue, and military officials have flat-out said that China won’t be allowed to operate a functioning naval or air base on these manufactured islands. Again, this is a low-probability event, but it remains a possibility.

Probability of a disruptive trade war? <30%. While the possibility is there, I’d expect marginal moves to try and correct trade imbalances with China, not all out tariffs or import duties (although I’m sure they will be publicly threatened, which will be negative for sentiment).

“Leading Indicators” and, “How do we position if it happens?” sections are restricted to subscribers.

Take advantage of the limited time special offer—if you subscribe to the Sevens Report today, and after the first two weeks you are not completely satisfied, we will refund your first quarterly payment, in full, no questions asked.

Copyright 2017, Kinsale Trading LLC. All Rights Reserved. www.sevensreport.com

A More Hawkish-Than-Anticipated Federal Reserve: February 15, 2017

/in , /by

An excerpt from the Sevens Report. Sign up for a two-week free trial of the full report at www.7sReport.com.

Yesterday I began profiling a couple of non-political risks to explore when making decisions for your clients and talking with prospects. Here’s the second:

Non-Political Risk 2: A More Hawkish-Than-Anticipated Federal Reserve

Profiling this risk seemed only natural, given Yellen’s Humphrey-Hawkins testimony yesterday, and her marginally hawkish comments served as a good reminder that the market is pretty complacent with regards to expected Fed rate hikes in 2017.

Yellen’s comments to the Fed on Tuesday, February 14th, were slightly hawkish.

Starting with Yellen, she was slightly hawkish in her comments mainly because of her upbeat assessment of the economy combined with her reiteration that waiting too long to hike rates would be “unwise,” and that the Fed will consider further increases at “upcoming meetings.” Finally, Yellen repeated that she expects a “few” rate hikes this year (she cited the median dots were three hikes in 2017).

While none of those comments were new, it was a reiteration that the economy is doing relatively well and that the Fed is focused on removing accommodation, and markets reacted slightly hawkishly as the dollar rose while Treasuries declined/yields rose.

From an equity standpoint, the fact that the Fed has not been hawkish so far in 2017 has helped stocks rally, as the 10-year Treasury yield has backed away from the 2.60% level. Above that we believe higher rates will start to become a headwind on stocks. But, there is clearly a risk that rates rise higher than current expectations, and as such we want to profile that risk.

Probability of 3 rate hikes this year (one more than expected)? > 50%. This is my opinion, and it’s higher than the current consensus, but to me it makes sense. If investors think that better growth is going to support the stock market, then why do they expect that acceleration in growth not to invite more interest rate hikes from the Fed? The answer is because the Fed has been ultra dovish for years, but I believe that is changing due to multiple factors.

First, growth is as good as it’s been in years. Second, dis-inflation/deflation is no longer a threat (we think this is an underappreciated change in the macro-economic dynamic). Even in ’13 and ’14, when growth had periods of acceleration, inflation was still trending downward and the Fed was in full QE mode. Now, inflation is trending upwards. Third, the composition of the Fed will change as Trump can nominate three Fed members this year, and it’s a good bet they will be more on the hawkish side. So, while it’s still Yellen’s Fed, the scales should start to tilt toward the hawks later this year.

“Leading Indicators” and, “How do we position if it happens?” sections are restricted to subscribers.

Take advantage of the limited time special offer—if you subscribe to the Sevens Report today, and after the first two weeks you are not completely satisfied, we will refund your first quarterly payment, in full, no questions asked.

Copyright 2017, Kinsale Trading LLC. All Rights Reserved. www.sevensreport.com