prev

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK

TODAY’S S&P 500 SET-UP – September 26, 2013


As we look at today's setup for the S&P 500, the range is 21 points or 0.58% downside to 1683 and 0.66% upside to 1704.                                         

                                                                                      

SECTOR PERFORMANCE

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 1

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 2

 

EQUITY SENTIMENT:

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 10

 

CREDIT/ECONOMIC MARKET LOOK:

  • YIELD CURVE: 2.30 from 2.29
  • VIX closed at 14.01 1 day percent change of -0.50%

MACRO DATA POINTS (Bloomberg Estimates):

  • 8:30am: Init. Jobless Claims, Sept. 21, est. 325k (pr 309k)
  • 8:30am: GDP Annualized Q/q, 2Q revised, est. 2.6% (pr 2.5%)
  • 9:30am: Reserve Bank of India’s Rajan speaks in Frankfurt
  • 9:45am: Bloomberg Consumer Comfort, Sept. 22
  • 10am: Pending Home Sales M/m, Aug., est. -1% (pr -1.3%)
  • 10am: Freddie Mac mortgage rates
  • 10:10am: Fed’s Stein speaks in Frankfurt
  • 10:30am: EIA natural-gas storage change
  • 11am: Kansas City Fed Manufacturing, Sept., est. 8 (pr 8)
  • 11am: Fed to purchase $1.25b-$1.75b in 2036-2043 sector
  • 12:15pm: Fed’s Kocherlakota speaks in Houghton, Mich.
  • 12:35pm: Fed’s Pianalto speaks in Cleveland
  • 1pm: U.S. to sell $29b 7Y notes
  • 6:15pm: ECB’s Coeure speaks in New York
  • 9:15pm: Fed’s George speaks in Denver

GOVERNMENT:

    • Canadian Minister of Intl Trade Ed Fast meets with Sec. of Commerce Penny Pritzker, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman to discuss job creation and trade
    • 8:30am: Atty General Eric Holder delivers remarks at Justice Dept’s Summit on Preventing Youth Violence
    • 10am: Senate Homeland Security Cmte hears testimony on overhauling U.S. Postal Service
    • 10am: Senate Commerce Cmte hears from airline industry, manufacturers on jobs
    • 10am: House Budget Cmte meets on long-term budget outlook
    • 10:55am: President Obama to speak on Affordable Care Act at Prince George’s Community College
    • 2pm: Senate (Select) Intelligence Cmte holds hearing on FISA

WHAT TO WATCH:

  • JPMorgan said to see possible $11b mortgages settlement
  • Citigroup to pay Freddie Mac $395m to end mortgage claims
  • Lacker says expanding Fed assets increases costs of any missteps
  • U.K. prosecutors said to plan more Libor charges in Oct.
  • NYSE, Nasdaq said to weigh plan to collaborate on backups
  • Deutsche Bank said to propose creating bond platform w/ rivals
  • Icahn-backed Ferrous hires Itau to seek $1.5b in funding
  • J.C. Penney seeks to raise $750m-$1b in new equity: Reuters
  • U.S. data providers hit with cyber attack: Reuters
  • Caesars selling 10m shrs in fresh public offering
  • Takeda duped patients, doctors on Actos risks, lawyer says
  • U.K. eco. growth accelerates in 2Q as consumer spending rises
  • H&M gains most in more than 3 yrs after beating estimates
  • Fed monetary policy didn’t leak early, firm’s study finds: FT
  • Apple ordered to pay 330m yen in Japan on iPod patent: Kyodo
  • Cargill, Bunge study bids for Deoleo, Economista says

EARNINGS:

    • Accenture (ACN) 4:01pm, $1.01
    • Cantel Medical (CMN) 8:30am, $0.23
    • Ferrellgas Partners (FGP) 7am, $(0.31)
    • McCormick (MKC) 6:30am, $0.79
    • Nike (NKE) 4:15pm, $0.78

COMMODITY/GROWTH EXPECTATION (HEADLINES FROM BLOOMBERG)

  • Commodity Constraints Show ‘Super Cycle’ Endures, McKinsey Says
  • U.S. Corn Sales Fall Most Since ’75 as Farmers Reap: Commodities
  • WTI Trades Near 12-Week Low; BofA Sees Iran Diplomacy Limited
  • Wheat Near One-Month High as U.S. Sales, China Demand May Climb
  • Copper Climbs Before Report Seen Showing Stronger U.S. Growth
  • Gold Advances for Third Day in London on U.S. Budget Impasse
  • Cocoa Swings as Ivory Coast Sells Amid Shortages; Coffee Drops
  • Abenomics Peaking for Tocom Volume Means Focus on China, India
  • Rebar Declines to 11-Week Low as China Affirms Property Curbs
  • China Cotton Use Drops in Switch to Synthetics: Chart of the Day
  • China Silver Indicators Lackluster as PC Manufacturing Down 14%
  • Russian Gas Lowest Since 2011 Favors Link to Oil: Energy Markets
  • Aluminum Shipments by Japan Steady in August, Group Says
  • Ivory Coast Offers Cocoa for 2014-15 in a Futures Bull Market

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 5

 

CURRENCIES

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 6

 

GLOBAL PERFORMANCE

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 3

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 4

 

EUROPEAN MARKETS

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 7

 

ASIAN MARKETS

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 8

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

THE HEDGEYE DAILY OUTLOOK - 9

 

 

The Hedgeye Macro Team

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


THE M3: DEALER HIRING

THE MACAU METRO MONITOR, SEPTEMBER 26, 2013

 

 

SANDS EXEC FLAGS RETHINK ON LOCAL-ONLY DEALER RULE Macau Business

Macau’s casinos face “some limit on the availability of people” unless the government changes a rule that only residents can be employed as croupiers, says LVS President and COO Mike Leven.  Leven told an investor forum in Las Vegas the Macau government would have to think about the bottleneck the rule has created.


Business Daily says the casinos would need up to 10,000 more dealers in Cotai by 2018 if the government approves all of the 3,366 new gaming tables the operators want to put in the eight new casino-resorts there.


THE RETURN OF STRIP BACCARAT

Following four months of down Baccarat drop, August was a winner.

 

 

We estimate Las Vegas Strip revenues increased 2-5% YoY in August, assuming normal table hold.  Since the month ended on a Saturday, slot hold will be below normal due to State accounting and that is factored into our estimates.  Assuming consistent slot hold in both periods, we estimate YoY gaming revenues increased 5-8%.  We still expect down slot and non-Baccarat table volume, but our research indicates that Baccarat volume was strong.  Remember that Baccarat volumes have fallen 4 straight months – fueling fears of the end of the 5 year Baccarat bull market.  Our Baccarat revenue projection of 30% YoY growth could actually prove conservative if our suspicions of high hold prove true.

 

State gaming figures should be released early next week.  Here are our full projections.

 

THE RETURN OF STRIP BACCARAT - strip


real-time alerts

real edge in real-time

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.

Sequestration: What's the Impact Again?

Takeaway: The real economic impact of sequestration in 2014 will likely be equivocal. Positive growth will resume for the balance of the decade.

This note was originally published September 24, 2013 at 15:49 in Macro

Knowing Is Half The Battle  - G.I. Joe

 Sequestration: What's the Impact Again? - seq2

It’s been more than two years since the Budget Control Act (BCA 2011) was passed as a first step towards reigning in federal fiscal profligacy.  Subsequent legislation, principally the American Tax Payer Relief Act (ATRA 2012), modified the original provisions and adjusted the caps on discretionary budget authority.  

 

With the new fiscal year here and congressional cantankery again in crescendo, we thought it worthwhile to provide a cliff note review of the 2014 budget setup, with a focus on the projected impacts of sequestration specifically.   Unless you’ve followed the legislation closely, the details are probably fuzzy at this point and a superficial read of the headlines can be misleading in regards to both the magnitude and real economic impact of the legislated cuts.   

 

Garnering a clean read on what a fiscal policy actually proposes, how it’s being measured and scored and the mechanics of its implementation is probably more than half the battle in analyzing fiscal policy measures.  Below we offer a summary refresh on the details of sequestration and some clarity on the main points of confusion. 

 

TWO SETS OF CAPS:  There are currently two discrete sets of caps on discretionary spending in place that are independent of one another.  The Budget Control Act of 2011 placed a first set of caps on discretionary budgetary authority (see top set of numbers in table below).  Cuts legislated under sequestration are incremental to the BCA caps and work to further lower the total discretionary budget authority in each year through 2021 (middle set of numbers in CBO table below).

 

THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT:   The Budget Control Act (BCA), enacted in August 2011, put a cap on total federal discretionary spending with separate sub-caps on Defense and Non-Defense discretionary programs.  The caps were put in place for the fiscal years 2013-2021 with the goal of reducing projected deficit spending by $1.5T over that period (more on that in “Scoring Sequestration” below).

 

SEQUESTRATION:  The BCA created and charged the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (i.e. the “Supercommittee”) with finding deficit savings incremental to those achieved under the discretionary caps set forth in the BCA.  Specifically, it called for $984B in additional budget cuts, divided equally over the nine years spanning 2013-2021 ($109.4B per year, divided equally between Defense and Non-defense Discretionary).   Sequestration was the fall-back provision that automatically cut funding should the Supercommittee fail to reach agreement on an alternative source of deficit reduction.  The committee failed to reach an accord, thus triggering the Sequestration provision. 

 

BUDGET AUTHORITY vs. OUTLAYS:  The statutory caps on discretionary spending target Budget Authority.  Budget Authority represents the allocation of funds in a given year that an agency can use to make financial commitments.  Budget Authority, however, does not necessarily equal spending.  If an agency has excess funds or appropriations from prior years it can still spend those dollars – the effect being that total outlays could exceed total budget authority in a given year. 

 

SCORING THE SEQUESTRATION CUTS:  This point is simple but a key one to remember when evaluating the real economic impact of the “cuts”.  The often cited “Cuts” for a given year do not refer to incremental, year-over-year reductions in spending.  The cuts, as they are quantified and quoted, are relative to total projected spending under the 2010 funding path. 

 

To clarify, when congress was debating the Budget Control Act and the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction committee was actively evaluating deficit reduction options, the latest available data was the official discretionary funding level for 2010 and the CBO’s forecast for discretionary spending over the 2012-2022 period.  In their baseline scenario, the CBO’s took the 2010 funding level for discretionary spending and inflation adjusted it to arrive at projected spending over the subsequent decade. 

 

To illustrate using 2014 as an example - the scheduled cut (as scored by the CBO/OMB and quoted in the press) for fiscal year 2014 is $109B.   This does not mean that discretionay outlays will be $109B less than last year – it means budget authority for 2014 will be $109B less than the CBO projected it would be back in 2010 based on the 2010 inflation adjusted spending path. 

 

EXTRA APPROPRIATIONS: Overseas Contingency Operations (i.e. war funding), Disaster relief, Emergency Designations and Program Integrity Funding all, despite being discretionary in nature, fall outside of the purview of the caps legislated under BCA.  Spending for these programs totaled $152.6B in fiscal 2013 according to the CBO (Here).  Total spending on these ‘adjustment’ items represents the chief means by which total spending could deviate from that legislated under the tight controls in place under the discretionary spending caps.  In fact, adjustments in 2013 increased total discretionary budget authority over the 2012 level. 

 

SEQUESTRATION MODIFICATIONS:   The American Tax Payer Relief Act (ATRA 2012), which served as the resolution to the fiscal cliff issue, modified the sequestration cuts for fiscal 2013 and 2014 legislated by BCA.  Specifically, it lowered the legislated cut for 2013 by $24B from $109B to $85B.  As an offset, ATRA lowered the 2014 cap by $8B (split evenly between defense and nondefense).  

 

It's worth noting that while the total cut was reduced for 2013, the final decision came in March, 5 months into the fiscal year - which, on an annualized basis, equates to ~$140B in cuts.  For any agency that hadn't already adjusted budget expectations, any adjustments had to be concentrated in order to stay below sequestration defined levels over the balance of the year.     

 

ABSOLUTE FUNDING WILL DECLINE IN 2014 BUT RISE THEREAFTER:  Total Discretionary Budget Authority is scheduled to decline $76B to $967B in fiscal 2014 from $1043B in FY2014.   From FY2015 to 2021, funding is scheduled to grow approx +2.5% per year.   

 

Sequestration: What's the Impact Again? - drake1

 

So, unless congress reaches an accord on an alternate path to deficit reduction, total discretionary budget authority will decline by ~$76B in absolute term in 2014.  However, depending on the level of extra appropriations and the difference between actual outlays vs authorized funding, that negative difference could narrow or even turn positive. 

 

All-in, the real economic impact of sequestration in 2014 will probably be equivocal.  For the second half of the decade, discretionary budget authority (and presumably actual spending by extension) will resume positive growth. 

 

Christian B. Drake

Senior Analyst 

 

 

Resources/References:

OMB Sequestration Preview Report for FY 2014 >> HERE

CBO Sequestration update Report (Aug 2013) >> HERE

CBPP – Sequestration, Clearing Up misunderstandings >> HERE

(BCA 2011) Budget Control Act of 2011 >> HERE

(ATRA 2012) America Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 >> HERE

 


THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING

Takeaway: Chinese policymakers appear to be embarking on a clever strategy to offset internal headwinds to growth with foreign capital.

SUMMARY BULLETS:

 

  • Chinese policymakers appear to be embarking on a clever strategy to offset internal headwinds to growth with foreign capital.
  • If executed properly, China’s structural economic outlook – one that we continue to think has many headwinds – will be much improved, on the margin.
  • Near-term risks remain, however, including an additional round of property market tightening and a potential negative revision to China’s 2014 GDP growth target at the 18th CPC Central Committee's 3rd Plenary Session come NOV.
  • Of course, one of, neither of or both of the aforementioned risks may materialize. We have no edge beyond stating that both are likely more probable than consensus may realize. This is the primary reason we are not outright bullish on China at the current juncture in spite of the developing intermediate-to-long-term bull case we have expanded upon in this note.
  • One of the things we’ll monitor to determine whether or not it’s an appropriate time to A) buy China outright or B) trade it with a bullish bias is whether or not the insider-driven Shanghai Composite Index closes above its late-MAY highs. That lower-high came just before the JUN liquidity crunch and subsequent consensus debate about China’s financial sector risks.

 

PLEASE NOTE: The discussion below is a direct continuation of an analysis we presented in our SEP 12 research note titled, “DEBATING THE BULL CASE FOR CHINA”. To the extent you have not reviewed that piece, we encourage you to do so prior to examining the analysis below, as it will help elucidate the conclusions we continue to make. In the event you may have missed it come through, please email us for a copy of that note or to set up a call to discuss China more broadly.

 

This morning we received what we interpreted as positive news with respect to China’s TAIL-duration economic outlook.

 

Specifically, interest rates will be fully liberalized within the Shanghai Free Trade Zone and there’ll be no restrictions on raising capital – either from domestic or foreign banks – for companies operating inside the zone.

 

While still very much in the realm of conjecture, this piece of information is positive, on the margin, for the following two reasons:

 

  1. Interest rate liberalization will allow China’s liquidity-starved banks to compete for the acquisition of foreign deposits. This, of course, assumes some degree of capital account conversion.
    • In a closed setting such as the Shanghai FTZ, the risk of a systemic unwind of the shadow banking system can be offset by continuing to restrict the broader Chinese public's access to liberalized deposit rates or international markets – effectively maintaining their incentive to speculate in the property market and/or in WMP and Trust Products.
    • More deposits = more liquidity and more liquidity = faster credit growth, at the margins. This is a direct offset to what we believe to be the most convincing secular bear case for Chinese economic growth (i.e. sustainably slower credit growth born out of rising NPLs and waning liquidity from the current account).
  2. The unrestricted ability of Chinese firms – particularly credit-starved SMEs – to raise capital in the Shanghai FTZ is also supportive of faster credit growth, at the margins. This, of course, assumes an ample supply of foreign capital.

 

On that last point, we think the powers that be up in Beijing are no dummies when it comes to making China an increasingly attractive destination for foreign capital.

 

Not unlike the migration of foreign capital from the imperiled South America to the then-attractive Asian Tigers in the early-to-mid 90s, China appears to be inclined to promote itself as a bastion of economic and financial stability amid rising risk of EM crises in places India, Indonesia, Turkey and Brazil.

 

Perhaps that’s why the PBoC has been inclined to mark up the CNY over the LTM (+3% YoY and +1.8% YTD).

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - 1

 

Amid that process, the CNY has hit an all-time high on a REER basis, imposing systemic risk to China’s export economy and its razor-thin margins. Moreover, they have done so in the face of some fairly obvious international headwinds to export growth.

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - 2

 

No doubt, Chinese officials appear keen to sacrifice what little liquidity they are likely to receive from the current account over the long term for what may turn out to be a far deeper and more sustainable source of liquidity in the form of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows.

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - 3

 

Furthermore, they appear willing to entice said capital flows with the allure of FX appreciation and higher real interest rates within the Shanghai FTZ (in addition to favorable corporate tax policies). Importantly, their strategy appears to be increasingly effective at improving foreign investor sentiment towards China, on the margin.

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - 4

 

All told, if Chinese policymakers are, in fact, pursuing the growth strategy we have outlined above, then it would behoove us to have a bullish bias on the Chinese economy, its currency and under-owned stock market (less than 20% of Chinese households’ financial assets are allocated to equities vs. 33.7%% in the US).

 

In the face of the bear case getting “less bad” at the margins, easy comps and GDP seasonality support a sanguine 1H14 outlook for Chinese economic growth.

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - CHINA

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - 6

 

We can’t forget that China’s most recent real GDP growth rate of +7.5% was over a full standard deviation (-1.1x) below the trailing 3Y mean. The balance of risks imply some degree of mean reversion born out of a combination of marginal retracement and continued pressure on the average itself. Net-net, the likelihood of a downside economic surprise(s) in China is declining, at the margins, and should be rather muted on an absolute basis in 2014.

 

On the bearish front, the two most probable catalysts that would increase the likelihood of a downside economic surprise(s) over the intermediate term are:

 

  1. An additional round of property market tightening. To recap the recent developments, MOHURD has been investigating local authorities on their potentially lax implementation of the existing nationwide curbs to housing transitions and mortgage lending. Additionally, the latest statistics indicate serious froth in the property market at its most basis levels:
    • Municipal residential land sales (to property developers) are up +26% YTD through AUG;
    • The average price per square meter has increased +43% over that same period, bringing total land sale proceeds for municipalities to 816.5B CNY YTD (+80% YoY);
    • The average starting price at residential land auctions has increased +16% in the YTD and final sale prices have exceeded initial asking prices by +25% on average in the YTD;
    • In MAY ’11, the land ministry required all municipalities to report land sales when the final sale price was +50% higher than the starting auction price… there were 115 such transactions in 2Q13 vs. only 50 in 1Q13 and the average premium on those transactions was +142%!
  2. A negative revision to China’s 2014 GDP growth target. As a refresher, the 2013 target is equal to +7.5% with a “floor” of +7%; will the 2014 target be revised lower to +7% with a “floor” of +6.5%? We don’t know, but it is likely that we will have to wait until NOV’s Third Plenary Session to find out.

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - 7

 

Of course, one of, neither of or both of the aforementioned risks may materialize. We have no edge beyond stating that both are likely more probable than consensus may realize. This is the primary reason we are not outright bullish on China at the current juncture in spite of the developing intermediate-to-long-term bull case we have expanded upon in this note.

 

One of the things we’ll monitor to determine whether or not it’s an appropriate time to A) buy China outright or B) trade it with a bullish bias is whether or not the insider-driven Shanghai Composite Index closes above its late-MAY highs. That lower-high came just before the JUN liquidity crunch and subsequent consensus debate about China’s financial sector risks (i.e. the same risks we called out in our Hedgeye Macro Emerging Market Crisis Risk Index back on APR 23).

 

THE DEVELOPING BULL CASE FOR CHINA: PROGRESSING - China SHCOMP

 

Specifically, a close above that level would be akin to receiving a second quantitative “thumbs-up” (i.e. no more lower-highs) in our playbook (the first being the recent TREND line breakout).

 

Darius Dale

Senior Analyst


QE: Visualizing the Markets Vote

The Fed kept its level of asset purchasing unchanged because it was worried about the level/trajectory of growth and inflation. 

 

Ironically, but not surprisingly, the effect, from a market perspective, has been the opposite of that intended. 

 

Inflation expectations have rolled over, slow growth exposure has outperformed and pro-growth leverage has been marked lower alongside treasury yields, the yield spread and the dollar.    

 

No particularly groundbreaking analysis here, just a quick visual illustrating the market vote on the Feds decision. 

 

Perhaps the Pavlovian response to stimulus policy has officially faded and consensus is coming around to the point we’ve been harping on all year:  #StrongDollar + #RatesRising both reflects and helps perpetuate sustainable real growth, and vice versa.  The graphic below, unfortunately, reflects the “vice versa”. 

 

To Growth,

- Hedgeye Macro

 

QE: Visualizing the Markets Vote -  Un Love Triange 2


investing ideas

Risk Managed Long Term Investing for Pros

Hedgeye CEO Keith McCullough handpicks the “best of the best” long and short ideas delivered to him by our team of over 30 research analysts across myriad sectors.

next