TODAY’S S&P 500 SET-UP – September 24, 2013
As we look at today's setup for the S&P 500, the range is 49 points or 1.22% downside to 1681 and 1.65% upside to 1730.
CREDIT/ECONOMIC MARKET LOOK:
MACRO DATA POINTS (Bloomberg Estimates):
WHAT TO WATCH:
COMMODITY/GROWTH EXPECTATION (HEADLINES FROM BLOOMBERG)
The Hedgeye Macro Team
Start receiving Hedgeye's Cartoon of the Day, an exclusive and humourous take on the market and the economy, delivered every morning to your inbox
By joining our email marketing list you agree to receive marketing emails from Hedgeye. You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in one of the emails.
“It has exerted its pull on the West for a thousand years.”
That’s what Scott Anderson called the “lure of the East” in a fascinating new book I just started studying about the history of the Middle East called Lawrence in Arabia (2013).
“That lure brought wave after wave of Christian Crusaders to the Near East over a three-hundred year span in the Middle Ages. More recently, it brought a conquering French general with pharaonic fantasies named Napoleon… Europe’s greatest archaeologists in the 1830s… hordes of Western oil barons… and con men to the shores of the Caspian Sea in the 1870s.” (pg 15)
While 1,000 years is a long time, the lure of central planners clipping coins and/or devaluing the currency of The People has been in motion for at least 2x that. “In 64 A.D., in a naïve attempt to deceive the populace, Nero decreased the silver content in the coins and made silver and gold coins slightly smaller” (The History of Money, pg 52). Bernanke hopes no one has read that history.
Back to the Global Macro Grind…
What is it, precisely, that gave both the Roman and Ottoman Empires the audacity to plunder the purchasing power of their people? After 200 years of operating as an independent bank, what made the British Empire so soft that it felt it had to socialize (nationalize) the Bank of England in 1946? What was the US “Free-Market” Empire and why have we empowered the Fed to change it?
My apologies in advance for thinking this morning. If you disregard the vacuum of history in which Bernanke thinks (1930s) and contextualize the moment that his Fed is in (within the construct of long-term history which will ultimately judge Bernanke when he is long gone), it’s getting scary again. But you already know that – and the sad thing is that some of his Fed heads do too.
Yesterday, Dallas Fed Head (Fisher) basically admitted two things:
I think most people who aren’t paid not to “get” it understand this now. If you don’t understand the history of un-elected politicians devaluing currencies, you have some reading to do. Self-education is the best long-term path to not becoming a lemming.
I’m not that smart. I think most people who have seen my SAT scores get that too. But Mr. Market is a very smart cookie, and what I tend to get (on a lag) is what he (or she) is telling me to get. I don’t wake up every morning trying to bend economic gravity.
Bernanke thinks he can “smooth” gravity, cycles, etc. He’s telling the entire bond, currency, and stock markets they are wrong. #Wow, bro. So let’s rewind the tapes and go to the score – what have markets done since Bernanke didn’t taper?
Now isn’t that last part perfect. Great job Ben. Instead of US growth expectations accelerating, now they are slowing again.
This is the first 2013 US stock market “correction” that I will not buy because Bernanke has decided that the opposite of what I want is what he wants. To review, what I want is A) what was happening and B) what every American should want:
To be fair, there are a lot of people who are in the business of slow-growth (Gold, Bond, MLP, etc.) investing who have a pre-determined path as to what they want (more money to manage). But that’s not what The People want.
You don’t have to go back 2,000 years to get this either:
And maybe Hillary is smart enough to get what Obama doesn’t – and maybe that’s the only way out of this mess:
But that’s more than a few years away and sadly, at some point, someone in this country is going to realize that empowering both Putin and Middle Eastern kings via a Down Dollar, Up Oil policy is no different than doing the same via an un-elected Federal Reserve.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Fed is exerting its misplaced fear-mongering pull on the President. The lure is also to get you, The People, to fear the alternative (“if rates rise, housing will collapse”) when in reality it’s the government policy itself that is luring us away from the free-market system that gave America its empire to begin with.
Our immediate-term Global Macro Risk Ranges are now:
UST 10yr Yield 2.59-2.80%
Best of luck out there today,
Keith R. McCullough
Chief Executive Officer
Takeaway: A strong quantitative argument can be made for the FOMC board to remain on hold throughout the balance of 2013 and throughout 2014 as well.
Like most market participants, we were surprised by the Fed’s decision not to taper its asset purchase program last week.
In our view, both the pace and slope of economic growth has been solid enough to justify commencing a process of weaning the economy and its capital markets off of large-scale asset purchases (LSAP).
The critical takeaway from the aforementioned statement is not the part about the pace and slope of economic growth; rather, the key element of that declaration was indeed the phrase, “in our view”.
Specifically, “our view” of the pace and slope of economic growth is wholly shaped by leading and concurrent indicators, such as market prices, survey data (such as New Orders PMI readings) and our proprietary analysis of that data (e.g. modeling market prices with Keith’s quantitative risk management levels or something like tracking the YoY % change in Rolling NSA Jobless Claims).
Moreover, our process is designed to front-run inflection points in the market(s) and/or policy. Thus, an overt focus on concurrent-to-leading indicators is a prerequisite for any repeatable success in doing so.
The Fed, on the other hand, primarily focuses on lagging economic indicators, like Unemployment, Core PCE and Real GDP. Their primary responsibility is to set monetary policy based on actual – not guesstimated – economic conditions. Thus, an overt focus on lagging indicators is appropriate for their task as it is defined.
While we’d certainly prefer they apply more modern-day analytical techniques (i.e. chaos theory, behavioral economics, etc.) to their policy-setting agenda, for the purposes of keeping this note tight, we will temporarily concede to the consensus view among the academic economist community that the Fed should be more measured (i.e. less dynamic) with respect to setting monetary policy.
All told, understanding this distinction between what market participants are focused on and what the FOMC board is focused on is critical to appropriately preparing your portfolio for the Fed’s next policy move and, more importantly, the timing therein.
Looking at the economy from the Fed’s perspective, it should not have come as a surprise to see them back away from tapering at last week’s FOMC meeting. If anything, their only fault was allowing tapering speculation to percolate throughout the global financial community in the first place!
Investors attempting to get inside of Bernanke's head and/or view the economy as the FOMC board does should arrive at the following three conclusions based on that sequence of data:
Regarding the latter point, both St. Louis Fed President James Bullard and Chicago Fed President Chuck Evans (the both of whom are voting members on the FOMC board) have been calling out low inflation as their chief economic concern in recent weeks/months.
Absent a dramatic near-term acceleration in core inflation – which is all but impossible given the neutering of consumer price indices in recent decades – the Fed is unlikely to find it appropriate to tighten monetary policy [via tapering… tapering is tightening, FYI] over the next few months.
Looking ahead to next year, one really has to see a dramatic acceleration of momentum in the labor market in order for the FOMC board to justify tapering LSAP – irrespective of whomever winds up in charge (no disrespect to Janet Yellen).
By our math which looks at the historical relationship between the deviation from trend in MoM Nonfarm Payrolls SA and deltas in the Unemployment Rate SA, the former series would have to average somewhere between +218.1k and +260k for five quarters in order for the latter series to reach the Fed’s 6.5% “target” (FYI, 6.5% is NOT a target for the initiation of tapering, as Bernanke has repeatedly stated in his recent commentary).
Regarding the study, please note that we purposefully decided to cap our study at a 10Y look-back; similar results hold over a trailing 30Y period as well, but we decided to front-run consensus pushback about how the labor market is structurally different today vs. 20Y or 30Y ago. We get it…
Moving along, it’s worth stressing that five quarters from now is the end of next year; not ironically, that is exactly when the FOMC board expects Unemployment Rate to hit that level.
Of course, maintaining the aforementioned pace of job creation for such an extended period of time would no doubt drag up the average and dampen any future deviations from trend. We understand that and would still expect to see continued improvement in the Unemployment Rate in spite of that – the purpose of this study is simply to gauge what level of economic performance we need to see in order to appropriately front-run the Fed from here.
Looking at the historical relationship between the deviation from trend in YoY Real GDP growth and the deviation from trend in MoM Nonfarm Payrolls SA, the former series would have to average somewhere between +3% and +3.6% produce readings in the latter series that are +1x to +2x standard deviations from the trailing 3Y trend. Using the most recent data set to reverse engineer those deviations produces the aforementioned range of +218.1k and +260k.
Of course, the pace of job creation isn’t the only factor in determining deltas in the Unemployment Rate; rather, there other key indicators, such as the structurally challenged Labor Force Participation Rate, that are integral components of the calculus.
Still, for anyone looking to correlate economic growth to a pace of job creation that is appropriate for the FOMC board to authorize a reduction in its LSAP program, we’d advise anchoring on anything north of +3% YoY. That’s nearly a double from the latest reported rate.
We consider it noteworthy that the Fed’s full-year 2014 GDP growth projection is right in line with that rate, effectively confirming that their economic growth expectations are on track for a 6.5% Unemployment Rate target by EOY ’14.
Right now, our model can get as high as +2.7% for 2014E Real GDP growth, but that’s not an estimate we would advise lending any credence to at the current juncture. As mentioned our previous works, our predictive tracking algorithm is designed to capture deltas and inflection points on a rolling 1-2 quarter basis. It’s worth nothing that trying to predict anything much further out than that tends to negatively skew the balance between facts and assumptions in any economic model.
Even if the economy can get up to and sustain a +3% rate of growth over the intermediate term, investors must continue to be cognizant of the fact that subdued core inflation will continue to keep the doves on the FOMC board uneasy about the mere thought of tapering – let alone hiking the Fed Funds Rate (which is what they likely intend to do when the Unemployment Rate reaches 6.5%, assuming both reported inflation and inflation expectations are in line with the committee’s +2% objective at that time).
Not surprisingly, those market participants closest to the pin-action are already starting to bake this scenario in. The implied probability of the Fed Funds Rate being 0.0% at the DEC ’14 FOMC meeting has increased from 7.7% in early SEP to 25.5% currently. Conversely, the implied probability of the Fed Funds Rate being hiked to 0.75% or 1% at the DEC ’14 meeting has dropped to 7.8% and 1.5%, respectively, from 23.2% and 10.4%, respectively, in early SEP.
All told, a strong quantitative argument can be made for the FOMC board to remain on hold throughout the balance of 2013 and throughout 2014 as well. This debate is likely to become increasingly mainstream in the coming weeks and months and will have meaningful implications for the US dollar, US interest rates and global capital and currency markets at large.
Have a wonderful evening,
Editor's note: This is a brief excerpt from a note Hedgeye Retail Sector Head Brian McGough sent out this morning. For more information on how you can subscribe to Hedgeye research please click here.
What’s New Today in Retail (9/23)
JCP - J.C. Penney Said in Talks to Raise More Money for Turnaround
Takeaway: JCP does not need the cash right now, and our math suggests that it can go the next three years without tapping external sources. But a key consideration is that a new CEO would likely want to come in with zero liquidity risk. Our sense is that JCP is doing this to broaden the pool of potential CEOs.
JCP - JCPenney Cuts Off Free Wi-Fi
Takeaway: This borders on ridiculous. But the reality is that people don’t go to JCP to get free Wi-Fi.
This indispensable trading tool is based on a risk management signaling process Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough developed during his years as a hedge fund manager and continues to refine. Nearly every trading day, you’ll receive Keith’s latest signals - buy, sell, short or cover.