Tag Archives: economy

Negative Rates Could Send S&P 500 To 925 If Not Eliminated

Unless the world’s central banks take immediate action to rid the world of the insidious NIRPs and negative interest rates, the likely outcome will be that all of the world’s income-producing assets will have to undergo significant markdowns. Should the yields of U.S. Treasury debt securities become negative, a meltdown of the global banking system and a crash of global markets might be inescapable. Should that happen the S&P 500 could potentially decline by more than 50% from its most recent 2,045 to 925. My calculation is based on what the S&P 500’s dividend yield was on March 9, 2009. The yen’s appreciation against all of the world’s major currencies since the bank of Japan instituted its negative interest rate policy (NIRP) on January 31, 2016 is signaling that a crash of the world’s markets could soon begin. After observing the most volatility that I had seen in my 40 years in the markets in early 2016, I conducted research on the crash of 2008. This led to my developing the NIRP Crash Indicator, which is powered by metrics that could have been utilized to predict the crash of 2008 and its V-shaped reversal. Throughout the month of March, the NIRP Crash Indicator’s signal remained a Cautionary Yellow. At the close of April 1, 2016 – the day the S&P 500 and Dow 30 closed at their highs for 2016 – the signal was elevated to Pre-Crash Orange. During the week ended April 8, volatility of the markets returned to February 2016 levels, with all of the major global market indices closing down by more than 1%. Following are reports that I have produced covering the negative rates crisis: The best solution to stop the spreading of NIRPs and negative interest rates is for central banks of the world to immediately enact or redact policies to abolish them. This would be the catalyst for the yields of the sovereign securities of Japan and Germany becoming positive. In the absence of this happening, a possible remedy to fight the NIRP and negative interest rate contagion could be the resetting of valuations of all income-producing assets to a discount in the marketplace as compared to their most recent valuations. The decline in valuations of income-producing assets would result in a significant increase in their yields. The yields increasing to sufficient levels should motivate safe haven and other investors to liquidate their holdings in negative- and low-yielding sovereign debt securities to purchase the less secure and much higher-yielding income-producing assets. The availability of significantly higher yields on income-producing assets would, hopefully, discourage safe haven and other savvy investors from “being fearful”, and encourage them to “become greedy”. With significant declines in the values of all less secured income-producing assets, and resultant increase in their yields, market forces would take over. The result would be that markets would drive down prices of treasuries and other sovereign debt securities, and their yields upward into substantial positive territory. Upon yields of the world’s sovereign debt securities skyrocketing, the demand for and prices of negative and low interest rate securities will collapse. The need for central banks to utilize NIRPs will have been completely exhausted. Case Study: American Electric Power versus 10-Year U.S. Treasury Note: To prove my theory and validate my suggested remedy, I conducted research on the share price and dividend yield behavior of the public utility company, American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP ), before and after the crash of 2008. I also focused my research on the price action and yields of 10-Year U.S. Treasury bonds over the same period. My focus was on a utility company because shares of a utility have always been considered the safest form of equity investments. If a utility bill is not paid, the electricity is turned off. For this reason, a utility’s dividend payments are reliable. Thus, the dividends of a utility company are much more secure than are dividends of any non-utility company. During the Great Depression, AEP was able to maintain and increase cash dividends. For these reasons, it is assumed that the yield for shares owned of a utility will always be lower than the yield that one might expect to receive from shares they hold of a dividend-paying, non-utility company. The shares of American Electric Power is a good example of a safe income-producing asset that could potentially motivate a holder of negative or extremely low interest rate sovereign securities to liquidate them to purchase its shares. With a current annual dividend of $2.24, and a most recent share price of $67.00, AEP has a yield of 3.39%. Based on how AEP’s yield and share price behaved before and after the crash of 2008, an increase of its yield to 10% would likely be sufficient to motivate a holder of low or negative interest rate sovereign securities to buy its shares. A decline in AEP’s shares by approximately $45, or by 66%, to a share price of $22 would increase its dividend yield to 10%. Should such a scenario unfold, it would be very similar to what happened to AEP’s share price and yield before and after the crash of 2008. The chart below graphically illustrates the share price and dividend yields of AEP over the last 10 years. On July 31, 2008, AEP’s share price was $27.84, and its annual dividend yield was 5.9%. From the end of July 2008 to March 9, 2009 – the same date that the S&P 500 Index (the Index) bottomed – AEP’s share price declined by almost $10 (or by 36%) to a 5-year low of $17.73 and to an equivalent dividend yield of 9.2%. Over the same period, the price of a 10-year U.S. Treasury note increased by 33%, and the yield fell from 4% to 3%. In June of 2009, three months after AEP’s share price had bottomed, the price of AEP’s shares had increased by 21% and its yield had fallen to 7.6%. Over the same three months, the price of the 10-year Treasury bond declined by 25% and its yield had gone back to the 4% from which it started a year earlier. Based on the opposite behavior of yields, the price action of AEP’s shares, and the 10-year Treasury notes from July of 2008 through June of 2009, it is very likely that holders of the notes were selling them to purchase shares of AEP and other high-yielding utility companies. See CNBC’s historical yields chart for 10-Year U.S. Treasury notes. My research confirms that holders of Treasuries and sovereign debt securities will sell them for less secure income-paying securities upon the yields increasing substantially. On April 8, 2016, the dividend yield for the S&P 500 – based on its close of 2,045 – was 2.1%. Under the assumption that the dividend yield of the Index would have to increase to 4.7%, which was the S&P 500’s yield when it hit bottom on March 9, 2009, the index would have to decline to 925 (based on its annual dividend rate of $43.00 on 12/31/15). The video below titled, “Why Negative Rates could send the S&P 500 to 925”, covers the content of this article, including AEP and the S&P 500. It also provides the rationale as to why I believe the final solution to rid the world of negative rates would require a significant mark-down of most of the world’s non-sovereign income producing assets. There are two concerns or questions that I have about whether or not 925 will be the final bottom for the S&P 500 should a significant markdown of non-sovereign income producing assets occur. The first is that I doubt the yield of 4.7% will be high enough to coax safe-haven investors out of their sovereign bond bunkers. Had the Obama administration not injected massive and immediate fiscal stimulus into the economy as soon as the new President was inaugurated, the S&P 500 would have probably fallen to a much lower level. It speaks volumes that American Electric Power and other utility companies had dividends yielding in excess of 9% at the March 2009 market bottom. After all, why would any red-blooded, dividend-seeking investor want to hold shares in a non-utility company having a dividend yield that is at a 50% discount to a utility? My other concern, or question is, “Will the S&P 500 be able to maintain its dividend rate?” Uncertainty within the energy industry, and the resultant recent volatility in the price of oil will make this more difficult. Also, a sudden and significant decline for the S&P 500 to even near 1,000 would likely induce a U.S. recession. Because many of the world’s economies are either in – or close to entering – a recession, a decline of the S&P to much lower than 925 could be the catalyst for the world entering its first economic depression since the 1930s. In 1930, a year after the crash of 1929, the S&P 500’s dividend rate went to an all-time high. By 1935, the index’s dividend declined by 44%. The S&P 500’s dividend rate did not eclipse its 1930 high until 1955. For the world’s safe-haven investors to liquidate their sovereign debt holdings will likely require that the yields on less secure income-producing assets, including the dividend paying S&P 500 and utility companies, increase to at least 10%. The world is much more financially fragile in 2016 than it was in 2009. The debt of the U.S. has doubled since 2008 from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. The world’s central banks have taken drastic actions to prop up their economies… to no avail. Until the negative interest rates are totally eliminated, investors will remain fearful. Based on my 40 years of experience, I predict that double-digit cash flow returns will be the minimum threshold required for savvy and conservative investors to no longer be fearful. Assuming that all of the world’s central banks that have instituted NIRPs do not repeal them, the issue would become how the resets of the world’s income-producing equity and non-sovereign debt markets – required to exterminate the NIRPs and negative interest rates – might take form? Will it be a swift crash, or a gradual correction? Based on my experience, it is not likely that the markdown will be from a cliff-dive. The correction would most likely occur with valuations of the markets ratcheting downward in stages. Markets would not likely bottom until late 2017, or early 2018 for two reasons, as follows: A correction of more than 40% from a market’s all-time high to its trough has historically taken time. There have been five such corrections over the last 100 years, as follows: 1919 to 1921, 1929 to 1932, 1973 to 1974, 2000 to 2002, and 2007 to 2009. (The four corrections, prior to the one ending in 2009, lasted at least 24 months.) Had massive fiscal and monetary stimulus not been applied in October of 2008, after Lehman filed for bankruptcy, this most recent correction would likely have lasted at least 24 months. If the dividend yield of the S&P 500 Index should go from a most recent 2% to 10% to kill the NIRPs and negative interest rates, the peak-to-trough decline of the Index would be 80%. The only other time over the last 100 years in the U.S. that a decline of more than 50% occurred was from 1929 through 1932. After the market had declined by an initial 40% in October of 1929, the market experienced six powerful rallies that generated trough-to-peak rallies providing returns ranging from 20% to 50%. When the market finally bottomed in the middle of 1932, it had declined by 90% from its 1929 all-time high. I would expect no less drama from a secular bear market that was likely birthed after the market hit an all-time high in May of 2015. The most important issue remaining is that of timing, and when the S&P 500 Index will begin to ratchet downward to new multi-year lows that could eventually take the Index to well below 1,000 by late 2017 or early 2018. The latest significant developments are the NIRP Crash Indicator going to an Orange Pre-Crash reading on April 1, 2016, and the heightened volatility that followed for the Japanese yen and all of the world’s major stock indices for the week ended April 8, 2016. They have increased the probability that the mark-down of the world’s income-producing assets will begin in 2016. Assuming that the renewed volatility proves temporary, there will be plenty of reasons for the market to have an excuse to go to new lows between now and the end of 2016. Extreme controversy surrounding NIRPs and negative interest rates will continue to escalate. Because NIRPs were created by the world’s central banks and bankers who have obtained rockstar status, the next downturn to lower lows will likely be fueled by public statements that will be made by central bankers about NIRPs, negative rates, stimulus, currencies and the health of economies, etc. From April through December of 2016, each of the world’s three leading central banks have six scheduled public policy meetings. The most probable outcome will be that the S&P 500 and the indices for the other global markets will hit new multi-year lows during some or all of the months the meetings are scheduled. Schedule of Remaining Policy Meetings of Central Banks for 2016 European Central Bank (ECB) Bank of Japan (BOJ) U.S. Federal Reserve (FOMC) April 21, 2016 April 28, 2016 April 27, 2016 June 2, 2016 June 16, 2016 June 16, 2016 July 21, 2016 July 29, 2016 July 27, 2016 September 8, 2016 September 21, 2016 September 21, 2016 October 20, 2016 November 1, 2016 November 2, 2016 December 8, 2016 December 20, 2016 December 14, 2016 Based on my analysis, I am recommending that the shares of the Utilities Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLU ) and the shares of its components be sold at their current prices. The shares of the companies that I am recommending be sold include NextEra Energy (NYSE: NEE ), Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK ), Southern (NYSE: SO ), Dominion Resources (NYSE: D ), American Electric Power, Exelon (NYSE: EXC ), PG&E (NYSE: PCG ), PPL (NYSE: PPL ), Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE ) and Edison International (NYSE: EIX ). The share prices of the XLU and its components have increased by an average of 10% since the beginning of 2016 as a result of investors seeking shelter from the market’s extreme volatility. Investors have bid up the share prices of most utility companies to all-time highs since the start of 2016. Unfortunately, when the mark-downs begin, shares of utility companies will decline significantly along with all other non-sovereign income producing assets. Utility companies and related mutual funds, and ETFs should be sold, and should not be repurchased until negative interest rates have been eliminated. Sell Recommendations for Utilities and ETFs Utility/ETF Symbol Price @ 04/08/16 Utilities Sector SPDR XLU $48.85 Duke Energy DUK 79.77 NextEra Energy NEE 116.81 Southern SO 50.73 Dominion Resources D 73.04 American Electric Power AEP 66.01 Exelon EXC 34.70 PG&E PCG 59.30 PPL PPL 37.40 Sempra Energy SRE 104.24 Edison International EIX 70.69 Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

No Bull. Economic Weakness Continues To Pressure Corporate Profitability

Is the U.S. economy really in great shape? The U.S. Federal Reserve does not seem to think so. They started the year with an intention of raising the overnight lending rate four times – from 0.25% to 1.25%. In March, they announced that it would more likely be a mere two. And today, the Atlanta Fed downgraded its Q1 estimate for gross domestic product (GDP) to a new low for the year (0.4%). Granted, GDP for the fourth quarter of 2015 came in at a better-than-expected 1.4% after its third revision. However, that is significantly lower than the average economic performance since 2009 of 2.1%. And then there’s Gross Domestic Income (NYSE: GDI ). This measure looks at the income earned while producing goods and services (as opposed to measuring them on expenditures). GDI finished Q4 2015 at a sub-standard 0.9%, confirming widespread weakness. (Note: Theoretically, GDP and GDI should match one another, but they deviate due to different methods of calculation.) If one ignores the average rate of U.S. expansion in history, disregards the current 6-month slowdown in GDP/GDI, and overlooks the Federal Reserve’s emergency measures for monetary policy accommodation, one might applaud the economic “progress” made between 2009 and 2016. Conversely, realistic observers know that things are not that rosy. For example, U.S. government debt has swelled from roughly $11 trillion to $19 trillion. That’s a great deal of stimulus to keep the economy afloat. The Fed’s balance sheet has bloated from $800 billion to nearly $5 trillion. That’s an incredible amount of stimulus designed to bolster borrowing activity. Yet the big bang from the $12 trillion-plus injection is an economy that can barely hold its head above water. Apologists point to other data points that suggest the U.S. economy is dandy. “Robust job growth,” they say. Of course, they neglect to mention that low-quality positions in leisure, hospitality, retail and customer service account for most of the gains, whereas high-paying positions, particularly in manufacturing, continue to evaporate. That data shows up in average hourly earnings, where stagnation in wages are indicative of a shift toward lower-paying jobs with fewer hours. There’s more. Approximately 14 million jobs have been created since the end of the financial crisis in 2009. Sounds impressive, right? Unfortunately, the size of the labor force grew by roughly 16 million potential participants in the same seven-year period. Now we have 94 million working-aged Americans (16-64) who are not even counted in the labor force – those who have no job and who are not currently looking for a job. Granted, many younger folks are going to school and many older folks have retired. Nevertheless, the bulk of these 94 million individuals (16-64) simply believe that they do not have viable employment options. “But Gary,” you argue. “The economy here would be doing okay if it weren’t for the problems with overseas economies.” That may very well be true. On the other hand, this possibility only clarifies the fact that we live in a world that is more interconnected than ever before. Most of the world’s economies still depend on their product exports. It follows that when the world’s manufacturing is free-falling, the U.S. economy is going to feel it. “We are a consumption-based society with resilient consumers,” you respond. Unfortunately, the idea that resilient U.S. consumers can overcome global manufacturer woes is as erroneous as the notion that U.S. companies can escape the negative impact that weak currencies have had on corporate profits . They can’t and they aren’t. Global manufacturing woes have been adversely affecting the quality of the jobs that people have stateside. In fact, American consumer resilience is little more than “code” for acknowledging that we increase our debts at a much faster clip than we increase our take-home pay. Specifically, at the turn of the century, household consumer credit as a percent of average income had risen to 26%. Today? This percentage has jumped to 34%. Over-leveraged households imply that there will be some constraints on consumption, contributing to the overall weakness in the current economic backdrop. Think that the economic weakness is not going to have an impact on risk taking? Think again. Even the U.S. central bank’s about-face on rate hikes in 2016 – even the 14% surge in the S&P 500 SPDR Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY ) off of its mid-February lows – may not encourage as much “risk on” activity as many investors hope for. Consider the year-to-date performance of the FTSE Custom Multi-Asset Stock Hedge Index (MASH) as it relates to the S&P 500. MASH, with “risk-off” assets such as SPDR Trust (NYSEARCA: GLD ), Currency Shares Yen Trust (NYSEARCA: FXY ) as well as PIMCO 25+Year Zero Coupon (NYSEARCA: ZROZ ) and iShares National Muni Bond (NYSEARCA: MUB ) are collectively outperforming the stock benchmark with significantly less volatility. Click here for Gary’s latest podcast. 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.

Top And Flop Country ETFs Of Q1

The international stock markets had a rough run in the first quarter of 2016, with the Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF (NYSEARCA: VEU ) losing 0.6%, thanks to deflationary worries in the developed market, oil price issues, the Chinese market upheaval and its ripple effects on the other markets (see all World ETFs here ). While these issues made the country ETF losers’ list long, the space was not bereft of winners either. Several countries’ stock markets performed impressively in this time frame on country-specific factors. Plus, a soggy greenback boosted the demand for emerging market investing, increasing foreign capital inflows into those countries. In fact, the lure of international investing may be seen in the second quarter too, as the Fed is likely to opt for a slower-than-expected interest rate rise. Overall, Latin America won the top three winners’ medals, while the losers were scattered across the world. Investors may wish to know the best- and worst-performing country ETFs of the first quarter. Below, we highlight the top- and worst-performing country ETFs for the January to March period. Leaders iShares MSCI All Peru Capped (NYSEARCA: EPU ) – Up 30.8% The Peruvian market was on a tear in the first quarter, courtesy of the sudden spurt in commodity prices. After a rough patch, metals like gold and silver finally got back their sheen this year on a lower greenback. Even copper returned positively, as evident from the 2.6% return by the iPath DJ-UBS Copper Total Return Sub-Index ETN (NYSEARCA: JJC ). Being a large producer of precious metals, Peru greatly benefited from this trend, offering the pure play EPU a solid 30.8% return. iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF (NYSEARCA: EWZ ) – Up 27.2% While the economic growth prospects of Brazil are weakening, heightened political chaos is pushing up its market. Brazilian stocks have generally reacted positively to any political drama related to president Dilma Rousseff. Speculation that Rousseff is incapable of dissuading the impeachment proceedings that have been called against her, and the prospect of a change in governance set the Brazil ETFs on fire. Global X MSCI Colombia ETF (NYSEARCA: GXG ) – Up 22% The Colombian economy is a major exporter of commodities, from the energy sector (oil, coal, natural gas) to the agricultural sector (coffee). It has also a strong exposure to the industrial metal production market. Thus, a rebound in the commodities market led to the surge in this ETF. Though from a year-to-date look oil prices are down, commodities bounced in the middle of the quarter. This might have given a boost to the Colombia ETF. Losers WisdomTree Japan Hedged Financials ETF (NYSEARCA: DXJF ) – Down 24.1% At its January-end meeting, the BoJ set its key interest rate at negative 0.1% to boost inflation and economic growth. The BoJ then hinted at further cuts in interest rates if the economy fails to improve desirably. However, the introduction of negative interest rates weighed on the financial sector, as these stocks perform favorably in a rising rate environment. Also, the currency-hedging technique failed in the quarter due to a falling U.S. dollar. This was truer for the Japan equities, as the yen added more strength by virtue of its safe-haven nature. The twin attacks dulled the demand for the hedged Japan financials ETF, which lost 24.1% in the quarter. Deutsche X-trackers MSCI Spain Hedged Equity ETF (NYSEARCA: DBSP ) – Down 21.6% The Spanish economy is bearing the brunt of deflationary threats despite the ECB’s massive policy easing. Consumer prices in Spain are likely to decline 0.8% year over year in March 2016, the same as in February, as per Trading Economics . This led the Spain ETF to lose 21.6% in the first quarter. SPDR MSCI China A Shares IMI ETF (NYSEARCA: XINA ) – Down 19.21% Since the first quarter was mainly about the nagging economic slowdown in China, most of the China ETFs had a tough time. Within the bloc, XINA lost the most in the quarter, shedding over 19%. Original Post