NO STRINGS ATTACHED NEWS THAT MAINSTREAM JUST WON'T COVER.
Leading Dem contender hyping communist rhetoric
https://www.infowars.com/joe-biden-democrats-promote-violent-revolution/
The Bursting Of The Bubble In 'BS'!
Authored by David Robertson via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,
On the surface, middle of the road performance for stocks in the quarter indicated relative calm. Especially coming off strong performance in the first half of the year, there was little cause for concern.
Performance was choppy in the quarter, however, as steady, modest gains were repeatedly undermined by significant losses. In addition, a quant quake came out of nowhere and led to massive outperformance of value over growth for a short period of time. Also, out of nowhere overnight repo rates spiked higher until the Fed intervened. Gold prices rose steadily. Under the surface, something seems to be amiss. What is that something and what does it mean for investors?
For a growing number of investors, the answer is a short one: Stocks have overshot their fundamentals and a market crash is imminent. Such concerns are serious partly because they come from some highly respected players and partly because if true, there would be serious consequences for investors. However, stocks have been highly valued for a long time and for the past ten years bumps in the road have always been smoothed over by central banks. Is anything different this time?
It helps to establish some perspective. One of the more prominent themes over the last ten years has been the outperformance of growth stocks relative to value stocks. Rick Friedman of GMO points out that “Over the past 12 years … value stocks have underperformed”.
John Pease, Friedman’s colleague at GMO adds, “All in all, it has been a harrowing decade for those who have sought cheap stocks.”
This recent underperformance of value provides a notable break from its historical pattern. Friedman continues:
“Historically, buying companies with low price multiples has delivered substantially better returns than the overall market, with the added benefit of lower absolute volatility. From the inception of the Russell 3000 Value index through 2006, value stocks outperformed the broad market in the U.S. by 1.1% per year starting in 1978.”
Dan Rasmussen, founder and portfolio manager of Verdad Capital Management, described just how unusual this performance has been in the September 20, 2019 edition of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer:
“What has been abnormal … is the remarkable performance of growth stocks. That has really been driven by the very largecap tech companies, which have had this amazing combination of high growth, high profitability, high and sustained growth, high and sustained profitability (and starting to actually dividend out money). That historically is very, very anomalous. You don’t typically see the largest stocks grow the fastest.”
Indeed, Friedman explains that the reason value stocks tend to outperform is because they offer an attractive tradeoff:
“While value companies did in fact under-grow the market, their cheaper valuations, higher yields, and a number of other factors more than made up for their weaker fundamentals.”
The “engine of returns behind value portfolios is ‘the replacement process, whereby a formerly disappointing company sees its fortunes change and its prices respond (à la General Electric in the 80s).’
“Investors systematically underestimate the ability of weaker and distressed companies to mean revert to profitability and reasonable growth levels. Instead, they overpay for growth by extrapolating relatively strong growth too far into the future.” notes Friedman.
Pease notes, “In the last 13 years,” however, “rebalancing has disappointed somewhat,” and with it, the primary mechanism by which value tends to outperform. Friedman adds that factors that typically inhibit the most outlandish expectations for growth have been unusually weak:
“Of late, expensive stocks have remained expensive for longer than usual. Typically, high growth companies are unable to sustain excessive growth rates for long periods. In the last decade, however, the growth universe has been more retentive than in the past.“
So, one thing that is amiss is exaggerated expectations for growth. One exercise I regularly perform is to identify market-implied growth rates by matching discounted cash flows with current market prices. A couple of patterns are clear. One is that the prices of a lot of companies assume growth rates that are much higher than those that can be sustained by internally generated cash flows. In other words, the company’s growth is entirely dependent on access to outside capital.
Another pattern that is evident is that many implied growth rates are so high as to defy all practical constraints on growth. Historical experience, competitive response, industry size, economic growth, regulatory response, input costs, input availability, discretionary income, changing tastes and preferences, and real cash flows (as opposed to non-gaap earnings) all provide practical limits on growth for various businesses. It usually doesn’t take a ton of math to identify a ballpark range of growth estimates that is reasonable for a company.
As it turns out, the top-down evidence of unrealistic growth expectations corroborates the bottom-up observations. Rasmussen notes:
“You’re at this point … where the spread between the valuations of growth stocks and the valuations of value stocks is near all-time highs. The two times it has been this high in the past 50 years are 2000—the height of the tech bubble—and 1973—the height of the Nifty Fifty boom.”
One implication for investors, then, is the risk of exposure to exaggerated growth expectations is high right now. That risk may well be greatest in the IPO arena. Grant’s surveys the “abnormal” IPO landscape by way of statistics from Jay R. Ritter, chaired professor at the Warrington College of Business at the University of Florida:
“81% of firms that went public in 2018 showed GAAP losses. To date in 2019, 74% of companies debuting in the public-equity market have been similarly loss-making. Each figure is substantially higher than the 39% average of profitless new public companies that IPO-ed between 1980 and 2018.”
While these numbers portray an exceptional level of enthusiasm for IPOs, cracks have been emerging. The high-profile offerings of Uber and Lyft have both performed poorly and more recently, Peloton fell immediately from its offering price and has remained weak. Obviously, something has changed. Richard Waters from the Financial Times ascribes such weakness to a diminishing desire to believe “airy promises”. In other words, the market finally seems to be pushing back on exaggerated claims for growth.
“Airy promises” are not the only thing amiss in the IPO market, however. As Waters also notes, the easy cash available for many IPOs “has bred bad habits.”
The poster child for bad habits is WeWork. When WeWork started the IPO process, its valuation was targeted at $47 billion. After a great deal of pushback ahead of the roadshow and several price cuts, the IPO was finally pulled.
Not only is the company not going public, however, now it is in serious risk of going bankrupt. The FT reports, “Last week rating agency Fitch downgraded WeWork’s credit rating to CCC+, a level at which ‘default is a real possibility’. It said ‘the risk that the company is unable to restructure itself successfully has increased materially’.” How in the world can a company go from hot IPO prospect to bankruptcy candidate in a couple of months?
While WeWork provides plenty of entertaining drama, it also provides instructive lessons for the broader market. Importantly, all the information necessary to assess WeWork as a fragile financial proposition and a low-grade credit was available for all to see prior to its aborted IPO. There were no surprising revelations at the company. The only thing that changed was how people chose to uate the same body of information.
An important part of that body of information, as is the case with many younger companies, is the founder, Adam Neumann. Well known for his quirkiness, outlandish proclamations, and use of recreational drugs, Neumann also successfully crafted himself as a visionary. The balance between visionary and crackpot, however, is often a very tenuous one as Scott Galloway describes:
“Since people want abnormal results, they try to find abnormal thinkers. But no one should be shocked when people who think about the world in unique ways you like also think about the world in unique ways you don’t like. If you want the party, you also get the hangover. Big, bold, visions are important and should be celebrated. But they have to be matched with stable, reality-based operators who have equal power if those visions are to have a fighting chance at surviving outside incubation.”
He elaborated on this tenuous balance in a separate interview in which he was blunter in his assessment:
“The lines between vision, bullsh*t, and fraud are pretty narrow.”
Galloway’s uation is not just that of some aggrieved tech investor who lost money either. He was actually a CEO during the internet boom of the 1990s and saw all-too-well what can happen when self-indulgence and fantasy are not only not constrained, but actively encouraged. As he puts it,
“If you tell a 30-year-old male he’s Jesus Christ, he’s inclined to believe you.”
Ostensibly, the task of constraining leaders who are naturally inclined to push limits is at least partly that of the board. Among the reasons to have a board is to ensure good decision making and to maintain corporate decorum. That didn’t happen with WeWork. According to Galloway:
“It’s safe to assume that board members already knew all of the details about Neumann’s antics … his hard partying and yoga babble were seen as features, not bugs, until the market threw up on it. Now, all of a sudden, the board is acting shocked. The board didn’t fire this guy; the board enabled him … Basically, as long as people were willing to buy into this charade, they [the board members] kept it going as long as the music kept playing.”
Two other elements come into play in facilitating such excesses. One is the cyclical view towards charismatic leaders. There are times when dynamic founders are replaced by more experienced managers to run a business as it matures. Recently, however, founders have been allowed more latitude to stay in power longer.
The excesses are also partly a function of the marketplace as Galloway explains:
“It’s frothy, and there’s more capital than operators. Any operator who has a vision and can promise the potential and convince people they can be the next Google or Facebook can attract billions of dollars right now. The reality is there’s more money out there.”
All of this provides useful context from which to uate market conditions. First, there are clear analogies with the subprime crisis. As long as things are working, the vast majority of actors are making money. As long as people are making money, there is little incentive to change things. Positive feedback loops ensure the good times run longer than they should.
This creates an interesting possibility. What if the thing that is amiss is simply an increasingly sober uation of existing conditions? What if investors have become less willing to dismiss math as some kind of weird science and more inclined to seriously apply it to growth expectations? What if, in the context of weakening growth, investors are less willing to believe in “vision” and “airy promises” and more inclined to manage downside risk?
What if a bubble is bursting, but it is not one of stocks per se, but one of bullsh*t?
This would have major implications for investors. First and foremost, any exposure to bold visions, airy promises, and barely credible growth expectations would need to be re-uated and re-calibrated. How many of those growth estimates are realistic? How many are off by a long shot? How many are not even possible? How many are only possible if funded indefinitely with free capital? Such scrutiny is even more likely to increase as earnings growth declines, global growth slows, geopolitical tensions rise, and as the credibility of central bankers fades. The result is likely to be a major rotation from growth into value.
Such a rotation would affect more than just growth investors; it would also have a disproportionate impact on broad index investors. Since capitalization weighted indexes overweight stocks that are overpriced and underweight stocks that are underpriced, broad indexes have become increasingly comprised of inflated growth stocks. That exposure becomes especially painful when the process reverses.
To the extent the primacy of bullsh*t diminishes or even vanishes as a determinant of stock prices, it will also have a significant impact on strategies for investors and advisers. When BS is ascendant, investors need only follow the same trends that everyone else does; it is no more complicated than that. Valuation, however, is a fundamentally different exercise. Determination of reasonable growth estimates is subject to all kinds of research, analysis, and judgment. This will create new opportunities for stock selection, but in doing so, will also leave a lot of people bereft of necessary analytical and investment tools.
Finally, the bursting bubble of BS also has implications for risk management. When the inflated expectations facilitated by BS are the norm, there is little reason to worry about how inflated the expectations are. Rather, the main concern is regarding the catalyst that could change things. The current environment provides many good examples including trade wars, election outcomes and the potential for a recession.
Focusing on a catalyst is a poor way to manage risk for a number of reasons, however. It is very hard to imagine all possible catalysts. Often, catalysts have a different effect than supposed. Thing can happen randomly. Further, the world is a complex place; oftentimes there is no particular, recognizable catalyst at all.
The thing that can usually be judged with far greater confidence than a catalyst is downside risk. You usually have a pretty good idea of what you can lose if things go bad. With that in mind, imagine playing a game of Russian roulette with your investment portfolio. You have one chamber of a gun loaded that you know can destroy your savings. Why would you focus on what might cause the barrel to stop spinning at the filled chamber rather than avoiding the inherent risk of the situation altogether? In other words, if stocks are significantly overvalued, why accept so much risk?
In sum, it is fair to say that something is amiss in the investment landscape. If that something is a bubble in BS rather than a bubble in stocks, the fallout will likely be different. Rather than one big, sudden crash, it will be more like a process of individual balloons popping over time as particular manifestations of BS get called out and re-calibrated.
As this happens, it will create a great deal of pain for sure, but there will be opportunities. The best vantage point will be that from security-specific analysis.
Tyler Durden Fri, 10/18/2019 - 11:08 Tags Business FinanceUS-Brokered Ceasefire In Syria Already Shattered By New Turkish Airstrikes
In an entirely unsurprising development, it only took hours for Turkey to break the US-brokered deal for a 5-day ceasefire in northern Syria. The late Thursday newly inked ceasefire was announced by Vice President Mike Pence following a lengthy meeting with President Erdogan; it crucially involved allowing Kurdish fighters to evacuate battleground border towns and in exchange Turkey would agree to halt its offensive.
But new Turkish air strikes near the border town of Ras al-Ain have shattered the apparently fragile agreement. "Five civilians were killed in Turkish air strikes on the village of Bab al-Kheir, east of Ras al-Ain," one Syrian war monitoring group cited in the AFP said. Four SDF fighters were also reported killed in that strike, according to the report.
Aftermath of Turkish airstrikes on Ras al-Ain earlier this month, via Anodolu Agency/Getty
In an official statement the SDF condemned what it called a clear violation of the terms of the US-Turkish agreement. "Despite the agreement to halt the fighting, air and artillery attacks continue to target the positions of fighters, civilian settlements and the hospital" in Ras al-Ain, spokesman Mustefa Bali said.
This despite no Syrian Kurdish representatives being part of the closed door, last minute deal-making in Ankara on Thursday, and despite international pundits noting neither Washington nor the US-backed Syrian Kurds received anything significant in their favor.
Indeed one Turkish official in the immediate aftermath of the deal had boasted to Middle East Eye "We got exactly what we wanted out of the meeting."
An AFP report described some of the circumstances of the alleged Turkish ceasefire violation as follows:
The incident took place even as a 200-vehicle convoy headed towards Ras al-Ain to evacuate civilians who have been virtually besieged there since the start of Turkey's cross-border assault on October 9.
A central element to the deal is that Kurdish forces would be allowed to withdraw from the border outside a strip 32 kilometers, or 20 miles, deep. This area of the ceasefire zone, once a "pause" in fighting leads to a more permanent ceasefire, is to be the future area of a Turkish administered 'safe zone' where Ankara intends to resettle a million or more refugees.
Yesterday: Ceasefire agreement in northern #Syria Today: Turkish airstrikes kill 5 civilians and wound over 20
— Danny Makki (@Dannymakkisyria) October 18, 2019 https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsCritics have noted this will be tantamount to 'legalized' ethnic cleansing, as Erdogan has expressly stated his intent to cleanse it of Kurds while moving Syrian Arab refugees and ethnic Turkmen in.
The Kurdish-led SDF, meanwhile, has agreed only to a ceasefire in the area between Ras al-Ain and Tal Abyad to its west, or in areas that Turkish forces have already effectively captured.
Military situation in northern Syria days before Thursday's US-brokered ceasefire with Ankara, envisioning the 32km-deep 'safe zone' Erdogan desires to establish.
President Trump, for his part has praised the deal as marking "a great day for civilization" and that "millions of lives will be saved" according to a Thursday tweet.
However, Washington's relations with Turkey continue to be at a boiling point, given President Erdogan for the first time lashed out in statements early Friday with respect to Trump's now infamous 'don't be a tough guy or a fool' letter over the deteriorating Syria situation. Erdogan told reporters that his country wouldn’t forget the lack of respect.
“We don’t see this issue as our priority today,” he told reporters in Istanbul. But, “it should be known that when the time comes, necessary action will be taken regarding this issue.” Trump and Erdogan are still expected to meet in Washington on Nov. 13. By then, of course, the big ceasefire deal in northern Syria could be in complete tatters and all but dead.
Tyler Durden Fri, 10/18/2019 - 10:45 Tags PoliticsTrump's Inner Circle Pushed Him To Cave To China And Cut Trade Deal
Shortly after leaving CNBC and joining the Trump Administration - taking a job as Trump's top economic advisor, which had recently been vacated by former Goldman President Gary Cohn - the fintwit brain trust spent a few days obsessing about how Kudlow would reconcile himself with Trump's protectionist bent.
In the end, it was pretty straightforward. As Kudlow transitioned into the role of parroting the administration's economic message on cable news shows, he told his interviewers about the concept of "fair trade". Kudlow explained that while he's a believer in free trade, the Chinese have been taking advantage of the US for decades, and that he supports President Trump's efforts to put a stop to it. With that, Kudlow became the White House's preeminent "fair trade" warrior.
But as it turns out, Kudlow hasn't entirely forsaken the Chamber of Commerce-led American pro-business establishment. And as WSJ reported Friday morning, Kudlow last week organized a meeting in the Oval Office with "outside experts" on trade who reportedly warned Trump that further escalation of the US-China trade war might threaten the stability of the American economy, and hurt Trump's election chances.
It's the first sign yet that even Trump's top economic advisors are pushing him to cave to Beijing and strike a deal on trade that would, in all likelihood, involve raising most, if not all, of the tariffs that Washington has imposed on Chinese goods.
Kudlow was back on CNBC Friday morning to discuss the talks with China, USMCA and the rest of the administration's economic agenda, complete with an "economic boom" in 2020.
But during this Oct. 8 briefing in the White House, which involved Stephen Moore, the one-time Fed-board candidate, as well as economist Lawrence Lindsey, Kudlow was back to championing the free-trade policies that he had espoused before joining the administration.
"There was a general consensus that the economy was really strong, the best economy we’ve had in 30 years, and that what’s going to get him re-elected is the economy," said Moore, who advised Trump during his 2016 campaign.
But "we all agreed that the uncertainty about the trade situation with China is a negative," Moore said.
At one point during the meeting, Trump summoned Peter Navarro, the China hawk and trade advisor who has been working in the West Wing since the dawn of the Trump administration.
"Where's Peter? Get Navarro in here," Trump said.
Since agreeing with Vice Premier Liu He last Friday on a 'handshake' deal for "Phase One" of a US-China trade pact, reports this week have suggested that the two sides aren't so solid.
It's unclear what kind of impact the Kudlow meeting had on Trump's thinking. Trump has agreed to put off a planned tariff hike set for this month, but the next hike, set for December, is still on, as of Friday morning. However, the two negotiating teams are expected to meet again during an upcoming summit in Chile.
According to WSJ, Moore has also advised Trump to pursue a trade "detente" with China. A deal would "remove that obstacle to growth right now, you'll see a nice rebound in 2020, and be in a very strong position to get re-elected," Moore reportedly said.
A White House advisor asked to comment on the meeting said President Trump hears from many advisors espousing a range of view points before making a decision.
In recent months, Trump has heard from several donors who are pushing for him to make a deal, including Republican megadonor Sheldon Adelson. Even Mitch McConnell complained about the impact of the trade war on American farmers.
Trump is "under immense pressure from Wall Street and those members of the Senate that are aligned with the big donors to get rid of tariffs," said Stephen Bannon, former White House chief strategist and an ally of Mr. Navarro on China. "If they have to roll out ‘free market’ economists that have served as Wall Street’s biggest cheerleaders to go down to the Oval and try to convince him to do it, they will."
So far, US growth has remained robust, but there have been some worrying signs in the economic data, including a drop in an index of manufacturing production - the first such drop since Trump's election - and a drop in job openings to a 17-month low. Many worry these are early signs of an economy poised for a downturn.
With the Fed poised to hike rates again this month, a genuine trade truce with China and a Brexit deal in the UK could be enough to lift the global economy out of the doldrums. From where Kudlow sits, even if Washington ultimately caves to Beijing, that would ultimately be worth it for the boost to Trump's electoral prospects.
Tyler Durden Fri, 10/18/2019 - 10:35 Tags Politics"A Light At The End Of The Tunnel" For The Global Economy?
Authored by Richard Breslow via Bloomberg,
It’s grossly premature to speculate too optimistically on the chance that there is light at the end of the tunnel for the global economy. It is akin to trying to catch the falling knife with the vast majority of economists and analysts pushing down hard on the haft. But, with the possibility, even if slim, that a number of the factors that have weighed on sentiment and smothered investment intentions are closer to some sort of resolution, it’s worth thinking about. Don’t smirk.
Source: Bloomberg
It’s true that this week economic forecasts have been lowered all over the place.
Source: Bloomberg
The IMF was downbeat on the global economy, Germany spoke for theirs. And Japan downgraded their assessment. While prognosticators can’t afford to assume that issues they have no control of will dissipate, investors are under no such constraints.
The overnight ranges have, by and large, been modest. The most notable exception being Chinese equities which had a bad day. That looks like more of an over-reaction to the GDP print than anything else. It was a miss, but hardly a shocker. The rest of the market appears to be waiting to see what happens tomorrow in the U.K. Parliament.
BOE Deputy Governor David Ramsden told Bloomberg News that a smooth Brexit would put rate hikes back on the table. And you can be sure that ECB policy makers will be glued to their televisions as the parliamentary debate unfolds. If the deal passes, you will probably hear a lot of Governing Council dissenters claiming they were right all along.
This is important as the fierce debate over the sensibility of negative rates rages, with those against gaining adherents quickly and those in favor sounding increasingly shrill.
Earlier today RBA Governor Philip Lowe said negative rates in Australia ere “extraordinarily unlikely.”
BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, for his part, told the IMF that they need to continue “massive easing.”
You can be sure that both of these governors are following trade dispute developments with rapt attention.
There is little chance that the Fed won’t ease on Oct. 30. But there is a decent chance it could be the last cut before a wait-and-see pause.
Source: Bloomberg
Traders, on the other hand, continue to load up for extremely dovish prospects for U.S. rates going forward. Even going so far as to take fliers on negative ones at some point next year.
Source: Bloomberg
It’s why it was so striking that, Treasuries were showing little reaction to yesterday’s weak data.
Source: Bloomberg
That seemed significant. Especially, because global rates look like they’re attempting to stage a rally. Meanwhile, weekly charts tell a story that differs from the vast majority of narratives.
Weak China GDP? Ten-year yields are at 3-month highs and finally back above their 21-week moving average.
German economy flailing? Yields are above their 21-wma for the first time since last year.
Ten-year Canadian rates flew above their moving average last week and have continued to rise.
The laggard, by this measure is U.S. Treasuries, but being over 25 basis points above the last two weeks’ double low isn’t too shabby.
This is actually a more compelling story than whether or when the S&P 500 will make a new all-time high.
And it’s well worth keeping an eye on the dollar indexes. Both DXY and BBDXY have managed to poke below their 21-wma’s this week. Think of it as positive for the other side of the equation from the dollar. The MSCI Emerging Market Currency Index is up for the third week in a row.
There is at least a chance of changing around the trajectory of the global economic disaster. Now we just have to hope someone doesn’t mess it up.
Tyler Durden Fri, 10/18/2019 - 10:20 Tags Business FinanceStocks Tumble After Draghi Warns Of "Over-Stretched Valuations"
Is Mario Draghi trying to bury Lagarde before she even takes her chair at the head of the European Central Bank?
Having shrugged off record low (negative) yields, record tight credit spreads, soaring stocks, and collapsing risk on the back of his endless puking of monetary easing into the bottomless pit of European peripheral hell, Draghi has decided that now is the time to warn about "mild signs of over-stretched valuations" in markets...
Stocks did not like to hear that truthiness...
Additionally, VIX has traded like a penny stock all morning...
One thing is for sure, if he crashes the market, Lagarde will be forced to move to QE-Moar and the mutinous ECB will likely fall in line.
Tyler Durden Fri, 10/18/2019 - 10:11 Tags Business Finance
![[CB] Up To Their Old Tricks, NP Exposed On The Economy - Episode 1998a](https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Tj6wHSdNKng/hqdefault.jpg)
![[DS] Plan Fails, Strange Messages Sent, 17th Mentioned - Episode 1997b](https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pWjtj9GplsI/hqdefault.jpg)
