Tag Archives: government
China ETF Investing: Will It Buoy Up Or Dip Down In 2016?
What a terrible start to the year 2016 for Chinese securities! After what the Chinese economy and securities went through in 2015, everyone thought that the New Year would unfold somewhat better days. But no one had predicted a trading halt on the key Chinese bourses, with the indexes diving 7%, to start the New Year. The decline was the worst single-day performance since the 8.5% decline on August 24, 2015, which was the root of the global market rout last summer (read: 5 China ETFs Up At Least 20% in Q4 ). The most recent massacre is being blamed on hints of further shrinkage in the Chinese manufacturing sector in December. The Caixin/Markit purchasing managers’ index declined to 48.2 in December, representing the 10th successive month of factory output contraction. The data was much worse than 48.6 in November and well below the market’s expectation for 48.9. To complicate the global trading scene, news of Saudi Arabia cutting off diplomatic ties with Iran joined China-led worries to start the year. Needless to say, global stocks followed the downing trend and volatility and safe haven assets like gold rose on January 4. Investors should note that this was the first trading halt on the Chinese indexes after the Chinese securities regulators introduced a “circuit breaker ” to calm the jittery market. Per the rule, a 5% one-day gain or loss in the CSI300 index (before 2:30 p.m.) will close trading in the country’s all equity indices for 30 minutes. Shifts of 7% plus would result in closed trade for the rest of the day. What’s in Store for 2016? China may be leaving no stone unturned to shore up its market and the economy, but there are a number of headwinds still facing the Chinese economy, including shadow-banking activities, credit crunch and money laundering from mainland China to other peripheral destinations like Macau (read: Should You Short China ETFs Despite Rate Cuts? ). A group of economists believe that the government’s excessive focus on anti-corruption activities may hold back GDP growth. This along with a weak domestic market and global growth worries hurting the export profile took investors’ worries over the Chinese economy to a delirious pitch. With no let-up in the downbeat data flows from the Chinese economy, investors have now started to doubt its ability to deliver above-par growth numbers. Most analysts are not hopeful of the Chinese market. UBS stayed very cautious on China and believes that “China’s stock markets will see no gain in 2016.” UBS expects the Chinese economy to contract from 2015’s projected growth of 6.9-7% to 6.2% in 2016. Weak corporate earnings as depicted by the worst earnings in the third quarter of 2015 in almost five years, deteriorating property construction, and overcapacity in industrial and mining sectors will drag down China’s economy and the markets, per barrons.com. In the third quarter, the decline in profits was pronounced in the energy (down 58%), material (down 34%) and transportation (down 10%) sectors. Per Credit Suisse, Chinese companies’ credit worthiness is also deteriorating. Coming to the savior circuit breaker, Deutsche Bank (NYSE: DB ) does not approve of this system and believes that this method will simply increase volatility in the market resulting in a liquidity crunch. Yet another brokerage house Goldman (NYSE: GS ) also sees no respite “after China New Year sell-off.” If this is not enough, analysts expect further sell-off ahead due to the looming expiry of a six-month lockup period on share sales by big shareholders. Notably, to arrest the market crash, the Chinese government banned investors with over 5% stake, from abandoning their shares for six months. Now these shareholders may start running out of Chinese stocks when the embargo is lifted on Friday, per BBC . Goldman Sachs expects this lockup to account for about 5.8% of the total A-share free-float market cap. ETFs Thrashed in New Year Almost the entire Chinese market was in the red on January 4 led by the Market Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF (NYSEARCA: CNXT ) (down 12.11%), the db X-trackers Harvest CSI 500 China-A Shares Small Cap Fund (NYSEARCA: ASHS ) (down 9.89%), the Market Vectors China ETF ( PEK ) (down 8.87%), the db X-trackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund ( ASHR ) (down 8.5%) and the Golden Dragon Halter USX China Portfolio (NYSEARCA: PGJ ) (down 4.62%). Is There Any Way to Win the Slump? All in all, China investing is full of risks. But it’s not that there is no silver lining. After all, the Chinese currency yuan received a privileged reserve currency status from IMF recently and joined the league of the major currencies, namely the U.S. dollar, pound, euro and yen. The GDP growth rate, though tapered from earlier years, is still way better than many emerging and developed economies. Plus, the economy is shifting mode from export-driven to consumption-oriented to ward off foreign issues. It’s just that the transition has been anything but smooth. China has not yet embarked on any outright policy easing. So, policymakers still have ways to check further weakening of the economy. Yes, these are all long-term phenomena. Over the short term, the market is expected to remain rocky. So, investors can have an inverse exposure to the Chinese market via the Direxion Daily CSI 300 China A Share Bear ETF (NYSEARCA: CHAD ) (up 8.76% on January 4), the ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 25 ETF (NYSEARCA: FXP ) (up 6.7%) and the ProShares Short FTSE China 50 ETF (NYSEARCA: YXI ) (up 3.5%). Link to the original post on Zacks.com
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.