Tag Archives: chicago

Profit Shortage + Economic Weakness + Stimulus Removal = Less Risk Taking

Since I first began identifying the breakdown in market internals in Q3 2014 equal-weight proxies like EWRI have gone nowhere. Virtually every traditional method suggests stocks are overpriced. I encourage all readers, thinkers and ETF enthusiasts to employ some type of portfolio protection to minimize the potential damage of a potential downtrend in 2016. Healthy bull market uptrends tend to feature similar risk-taking characteristics. Specifically, market-based participants will invest in a wide range of stock sectors (e.g., industrials, telecom, health care, energy, etc.) and asset types (e.g., large, small, foreign, preferreds, REITs, high yield corporate, convertibles, cross-over corporate bonds, etc.). There is little reason to discriminate because across-the-board risk leads to impressive returns. Late-stage bull markets are different. Fewer and fewer individual stocks succeed; fewer and fewer asset types gain ground. There is more reason to become selective because across-the-tape risk leads to discouraging results. I initially identified a “changing of the guard” in the third quarter of 2014 . In fact, it was the first time in the current cycle that I served up questions that challenged unbridled bullishness. (Note: Those who have been reading my commentary for the last decade and/or listened to me on national talk radio circa 1998-2005 know that I am neither a perma-bear nor perm-bull. Those who emotionally deride me as a perma-bear may wish to look at independent reviews of my articles over the years at this web link .) So what hit my radar in the third quarter of 2014? The small-company barometer, the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (NYSEARCA: IWM ), as well as the iShares Micro-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: IWC ) were both wallowing in technical downtrends. The Vanguard FTSE Europe ETF (NYSEARCA: VGK ) was rapidly deteriorating. The PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF (NYSEARCA: DBC ) had revisited 52-week lows. And, history’s favorite risk-off asset, long-term treasuries, had been experiencing a monster rally. In sum, a large percentage of asset types had begun to buckle such that I favored a barbell approach of large-cap stocks and intermediate-to-longer-term treasuries. In the August 2014 commentary, I also highlighted the similarities between monetary and fiscal stimulus removal in 1936/1937 and the QE stimulus removal in 2014 with subsequent anticipation of rate normalization efforts set for Q1 2015. I wrote: Most people are aware of the crash in 1929 as well as the capital depreciation that occurred through 1932. Yet many may not be aware of the government stimulus in 1933 that helped the market soar 200% over the next four years. While the stimulus may have aided in pulling the markets higher in the absence of organic economic growth, stocks eventually tanked nearly 50% in a ferocious 1-year bear (3/10/1937-3/31/1938). Here in December, you can find others who have recently started to talk about historical similarities with 1937 . More noticeably, you can find prominent commentators who are beginning to acknowledge the adverse implications of deteriorating market breadth; that is, the lack of breadth across the individual stock landscape, the ten stock sectors, the stock asset class and/or numerous asset types is a major headwind to a continuation of the bull rally. For instance, Jim Cramer of CNBC warned on 12/30 that six of the 10 key stock sectors are in downtrends. Meanwhile, Josh Brown of the extremely popular Reformed Broker didn’t mince words when he posted his “Chart of the Year” on 12/23. (See the chart below.) To wit, Mr. Brown wrote: You can see that the amount of stocks above this uptrend gauge has been cut in half from the start of the year. At present, just 28% of all NYSE names are in uptrends, or less than 1 in 3 stocks. That’s not a bull market. Since I first began identifying the breakdown in market internals in Q3 2014 – a breakdown that has been accompanied by increasing economic strain, undeniable stock overvaluation , a sales recession and a profit shortage – equal-weight proxies like Guggenheim’s Russell 1000 Equal Weight ETF (NYSEARCA: EWRI ) have gone nowhere. Equally troubling, like the vast majority of index-tracking investments, it has been many months since the fund has notched a new 52-week high. It is not just the deterioration in risk preferences (e.g., widening high yield credit spreads, treasury yield curve flattening, fewer stocks participating in the uptrend, etc.) that investors may wish to heed. As I type my final thoughts for the year (12/31), additional evidence on stock overvaluation as well as economic deceleration provide me with ample reason to reflect. For example, 42.9 on the Chicago Business Barometer is the worst reading since July 2009. The data point is a significant drop from 48.7 in November and it is miles away from the 50.0 reading that economists had expected. (Note: The region’s woes are hardly the only example of national economic headwinds .) As for the overvalued nature of U.S. stocks, virtually every traditional method suggests stocks are overpriced. This includes trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-sales (P/S), market-cap-to-GDP, CAPE and Tobin’s Q Ratio . Recently, Ned Davis Research may have come up with a progressive methodology: percentage of household assets. At the end of the 1981-1982 bear market, stocks as a percentage of household assets were a meager 15%. At the end of the 2007-2009 financial collapse, the data point was an exceptionally modest 21%. According to Ned Davis Research, the highest reading came at the height of dot-com euphoria in 2000. A whopping 47%. The third highest level going back to 1951 came before the financial crisis in 2007 (36%). At this moment? Stocks as a percentage of household assets hit 37% in 2015. The first and third highest percentages – 47% in 2000 and 36% in 2007 – occurred at significant market tops. Indeed, it is somewhat unsettling to recognize that 2015 lays claim to the second highest data point. Did we see the market top in the summertime? Perhaps. Bear in mind, the above-described markers line up perfectly with another valuation methodology, “Tobin’s Q.” The ratio at its peak in 2015 is second only to the ratio during “New Economy” insanity (2000). I am going to finish up with a quick anecdote. Although I live in California, I spent the previous week visiting family and clients in Florida. And every time that I go to Florida, I am shocked by the number of motorcycle riders who do not wear helmets. I’ve heard the arguments against their use before – everything from peripheral vision to neck injuries. Studies certainly show that helmets reduce the likelihood of brain injury and/or death. So while I recognize the freedom of choice issue, I still believe it makes sense for car drivers to “buckle up” and motorcycle riders to “helmet up.” In the same vein, I encourage all readers, thinkers and ETF enthusiasts to employ some type of helmet – some type of portfolio protection (e.g., multi-asset stock hedging, put options, limit-loss orders , tactical asset allocation, etc.) – to minimize the potential damage of a potential downtrend in 2016. And on that note, go forward to celebrate your happiness and your health! Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.

Portfolio Diversification Strategy During The Fed’s Rate Hike Cycle

Summary Where the Fed, analysts and the market see the Fed funds rate and when. What we’re trading and how to capture the move higher in the Fed Funds rate. How to experiment with any potential outcome for this fully disclosed Fed Funds Trade. HCB Stocks & trading strategy, which I believe will offer a superior return on risk during the rate hike cycle. I believe diversification and objective risk control will be essential during the next 36 months as the Fed gradually hikes rates. My objective of this report series is to introduce new sectors and strategies to capture the major market moves being generated by current extreme economic fundamentals. As opportunities develop in metals, energies and currencies I’ll share what I’m doing in these sectors and how. I encourage your comments on sectors and trades your in with similar or higher returns on risks. The goal of this report series is generating POSITIVE dialogue among fellow TRADERS who share the objective of finding the most effective solutions to the problem of making money. It’s not set up for tradeless academic master debaters who can subjectively criticize but can’t offer objective facts to support their opinion or a solution. In this report I have provided strategy to capture the move higher in the Fed Funds rate over the next 13 months . I’ve also included 11 HCB stocks (high cash buffers) that could benefit from higher rates and included defined risk strategy on how to trade them during the rate hike cycle. The first rate hike in 10 years is on deck in 5 days (16 December 2015). Using this fully disclosed strategy even if the Fed is wrong about the Fed Funds rate the Fed sets, there is no hike on 16 December 2015, this position is structured to maintain and capture any future rate hikes over the next 9 FOMC meetings through 31 December 2016. Last objective guidance where Fed Chair Yellen sees the Fed Funds rate and when (video 1:59) Source Federal Reserve What the move is worth Current contract value = $552 (cash market 0.1325%). Fed projection by December 2016 = $7,500 (1.8000%). Fed projection by December 2017 = $13,125 (3.1500%). Probability = 85.30% for 16 December 2015 . Source Chicago Mercantile Exchange Click here for more information on what this rate is and how it’s set. One simple trade to capture the move higher in the Fed Funds rate through 31 December 2015 . Trading the Fed Funds rate higher requires establishing a short position in the underlying futures contract . To convert the contract price into the rate it represents Take 100.00 – the contract price = the rate. Example 100.00 – a contract price of 99.46 = a rate of 0.54%. Each 0.01 change in price = $41.67 change in contract value. Position Short at 99.46, the December 2016 CME futures contract (ZQZ16) Trading this rate higher from 0.54% Contract value = $2,250 Objective The Fed’s target by 31 December 2016 Contract price = 98.20 Rate = 1.80% Contract value = $7,500 Click here to enlarge the rate, price, valuation chart below Current chart and quotes To experiment with any potential outcome for this trade. Click here and open the interactive risk reward spreadsheet Watch the 5 minute video linked below on how to use it As this position appreciates we’ll update its performance and share hedging strategy/updated spreadsheest showing you how we’re locking in gains. This trade was originally posted on Seeking Alpha 12 October 2015 . Federal Open Market Committe meetings schedule & Fed statements The last tightening cycle from 1.00% June 2004 to 5.25% June 2006 Stock diversification strategy during the rate hike cycle Below are 11 companies that have built sizable cash buffers and links to monitor them on SA moving forward: Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ), Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ), Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOG ) (NASDAQ: GOOGL ), Pfizer (NYSE: PFE ), Cisco (NASDAQ: CSCO ), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS ), Moody’s (NYSE: MCO ), Oracle (NYSE: ORCL ), AT&T (NYSE: T ), AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV ) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM ). From past ratios and what I’m seeing between interest rate hike expectations through December 2018, relative to stock price change, it appears rate hikes might actually fuel these stocks higher. I’m trading these stocks using “collars” to define my risk on all trades and for the duration of every trading period. Example of a “collar” to define risk: Own 1,000 shares of GOOGL at $745 Write the $800 call collecting premium (1,000 shares) Using the collected premium buy the $700 put (1,000 shares) Trade outcomes 1) The market stays the same, if you set the trade up right you should be collecting approximately as much time value on the $800 call you’ve written against your $745 long position as you’ve spent on the purchase of the $700 put to hedge the position. In some scenarios you’ll actually have a credit. 2) Market sells off hard to $500, your loses below $700 are negated by the put you’ve purchased at $700. At $500 you can offset the put for a $200 profit and reestablish a new hedge by buying a new put at $500 lowering your entry cost by $200. Your new average entry price has now dropped from $745 to $545 making recovery more obtainable. 3) The market continues to move higher and the position is called away at a profit at $800, you can always reestablish it. Click here for more on Seeking Alpha on why we’re trading these high cash buffer (HCB’s) stocks and how.

Lipper U.S. Fund Flows: Investors Pad The Coffers Of Money Market Funds Ahead Of Jobs Report

During the fund-flows week ended December 2, 2015, investors remained on the fence ahead of the U.S. nonfarm payrolls report, the European Central Bank’s details of its stimulus plans, and after learning that Chinese regulators were investigating two Chinese brokerage firms for securities violations. And, of course, investors were anxiously awaiting results of Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales to get a gauge of consumer demand for the upcoming holiday season. With the U.S. market closed for Thursday’s Thanksgiving Day holiday, returns were muted on Friday; investors preferred the comfort of defensive issues after energy shares once again took it on the chin following another decline in oil prices that were pressured by a strong dollar and concerns of a glut in global supply. While energy shares saw a slight boost on Monday after an uptick in oil prices, retail stocks struggled as first reads on the beginning of the holiday shopping season appeared soft. A weaker-than-expected Chicago PMI report indicated the region fell back into contraction territory, but that was partially offset by a 0.2% increase in pending home sales for October. Investors even appeared to shrug off a subpar reading of the November ISM manufacturing index, which fell to 48.9 (the lowest reading since 2009 and signaling contraction), ahead of comments from Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and the nonfarm payrolls report due on Friday. Better-than-expected reports on construction spending and auto sales helped keep investors engaged. On Wednesday, however, stocks turned down as Yellen and Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart both indicated a case for an imminent rate increase and as oil futures sank under $40 a barrel. Nonetheless, investors were net purchases of fund assets (including those of conventional funds and exchange-traded funds [ETFs]), injecting a net $15.2 billion for the fund-flows week ended December 2. Cautious investors turned their back on equity and fixed income funds, redeeming $0.9 billion and $2.1 billion net, respectively, for the week, but they padded the coffers of money market funds (+$17.8 billion) and municipal bond funds (+$0.4 billion) on the uncertain news. For the eighth week in a row equity ETFs witnessed net inflows, taking in $3.8 billion for the week. Despite initial concerns over the holiday season, authorized participants (APs) were net purchasers of domestic equity ETFs (+$3.4 billion), injecting money into the group for a third consecutive week. They also padded—for the second week running—the coffers of nondomestic equity ETFs (but only to the tune of +$0.4 billion). As a result of the relative risk aversion during the week, APs turned their attention to higher-quality, well-known equity offerings, with the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ) (+$2.7 billion), the iShares MSCI Eurozone ETF (NYSEARCA: EZU ) (+$0.3 billion), and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA ) (+$0.2 billion) attracting the largest amounts of net new money of all individual equity ETFs. At the other end of the spectrum the SPDR Gold ETF (NYSEARCA: GLD ) (-$566 million) experienced the largest net redemptions, while the iShares Nasdaq Biotech ETF (NASDAQ: IBB ) (-$267 million) suffered the second largest redemptions for the week. Once again, in contrast to equity ETF investors, for the fourth week in a row conventional fund (ex-ETF) investors were net redeemers of equity funds, redeeming $4.7 billion from the group. Domestic equity funds, handing back $3.4 billion, witnessed their fourth consecutive week of net outflows. Meanwhile, their nondomestic equity fund counterparts witnessed $1.3 billion of net outflows—suffering net redemptions for the third consecutive week. On the domestic side investors lightened up on large-cap funds and equity income funds, redeeming a net $1.7 billion and $0.7 billion, respectively, for the week. On the nondomestic side international equity funds witnessed $1.3 billion of net outflows, while emerging-market equity funds handed back some $0.7 billion. For the fourth consecutive week taxable bond funds (ex-ETFs) witnessed net outflows, handing back a little more than $1.8 billion for the week. Corporate investment-grade debt funds suffered the largest redemptions for the week, witnessing net outflows of $737 million (for their second consecutive week of net redemptions), while flexible portfolio funds witnessed the second largest net redemptions (-$654 million). Despite the increasing chance of a December interest rate increase, bank rate funds—handing back some $367 million for the week—experienced their nineteenth consecutive week of net outflows. For the ninth week in a row municipal bond funds (ex-ETFs) witnessed net inflows, taking in $331 million this past week.