ROSENBERG: 6 CHALLENGES FOR THE MARKET

The bears are out as the market begins to look increasingly unstable.  This time it’s David Rosenberg highlighting his 6 hurdles for the market (via Zero Hedge):

“First, there is liquidity — this major catalyst for equities since last October looks set to subside with the Fed seemingly backing off from a QE expansion, at least over the near-term. And the ECB is back talking about inflation so it doesn’t even look like a rate cut is coming despite escalating recession pressures in Europe. It is now also highly doubtful that China will re-open the monetary taps following the disappointing March inflation data. The liquid lunch looks less likely.

Second, there is the U.S. economy — not just the disappointing jobs data on Friday but the reality that 70% of the releases in the past month have come in below expectations. While the chain stores did report what seemed on the surface to be a solid +3.9% YoY sales gain in March, keep in mind that yet again we had very mild weather and we also had an early Easter effect.

Third, there is the rapid slowing in corporate earnings. In Q4, we had the YoY trend in S&P 500 operating earnings slip into single-digits (+9.2%) for the first time in two years, and absent Apple, the pace would have been 6.2% (see the front page of the Investor’s Business Daily). Only 62% of companies beat their estimates, which is far below average. As for Q1, the consensus is all the way down to +3.2% on a YoY basis — well off the +5.5% expectation at the turn of the year and the +12.8% forecast in the mid-part of 2011. Strip Apple out of the numbers, and you are talking about earnings growth of practically nothing— +1.8%.

Not only has earnings growth basically evaporated, but the ratio of negative to positive guidance has risen to levels we last saw two years ago, margins are poised to shrink to a two-year low as well, and only three S&P 500 sectors are actually seen raising their earnings from year-ago levels. Now the question is whether or not the market can move up with earnings contracting and the answer is — of course! We have seen that in the past, as rare as it may be. Just go back to 1998, when the Asian meltdown and strong U.S. dollar severely pinched U.S. corporate earnings, yet the S&P 500 rallied more than 20% that year. But what else happened? Well, we had the Fed cut rates three times as a super-strong antidote, and did so at a time when there was no evident slack in the labor market. Plus, we were in the early stages of an internet-led productivity spree, which underpinned profit margins. In addition, we had a Democratic president working with Congress to pass legislation that reduced red tape, labour rigidities and taxation — with no budget deficit! Please, tell me if we currently have these as antidotes for a weakening trend in corporate profits.

Fourth, there is Europe making the headlines again, and not in a positive way. Spain is back on the radar screen with a very bad bond auction last week serving up as a referendum on the government’s fiscal plan — sending the 10– year yield back up close to 6%.

We have the two rounds of French elections looming (April 22nd and May 6th) and the new government is going to have precious little time or margin of error with regard to delivering a fiscal package that will pass the ‘sniff test’ for Mr. Market. It is very clear that, in Italy, Mario Monti’s honeymoon period is over as he vacillates over parts of his economic reform package. Financial stress is highlighted by the poor performance of the euro area banks (the group that got the cyclical bounce going last November) as the group sagged 4.3% last week and is now trading near three-month lows.

On the macro front, Germany had been an economic lynchpin but no longer with industrial production sliding 1.3% in February and a downward revision to January. U.K. factory output also fell 1% — a big shock to a consensus looking for a 0.1% gain. Not just Europe, but the global economy in general is cooling off. The HSBC diffusion survey of China’s service sector slipped to 53.3 in March from 53.9 in February. Russia’s economy ministry just shaved its 2012 growth forecast to 3.4% from 3.7%.

Fifth, there is the poor technical picture. The large number of distribution days of late. The number of stocks making fresh 52-week highs is on the decline. At last week’s highs in the major averages, divergences were popping up everywhere. One particular glaring anomaly was the surge in global equities in Q1 and the sharp rise in government bond yields at a time when the CRB index faltered — if the first two asset classes were actually prescient in the view of global reflation, wouldn’t it have shown up in basic material prices given their inherent cyclical sensitivities?

Sixth, valuation support is less of a positive than it was six months ago. The cyclically-adjusted P/E at 22x for the S&P 500 is nearly 40% higher than the long-run average of 16x. The forward P/E ratio at over 13x now is about in line with the historical norm. Some nifty analysis cited on page B6 of the weekend WSJ (Why Stocks Look Too Pricey) found that when real rates are negative, as they are today, they tend to represent periods of economic turmoil and as such, the typical P/E multiple during these times is 11x — versus today’s trailing multiple of 14x. On this basis, the market as a whole (keeping in mind that we don’t buy the market, just the slices of it that we strongly believe are undervalued) is overpriced by more than 20%.”

Source: Gluskin Sheff

Cullen Roche

Mr. Roche is the Founder of Orcam Financial Group, LLC. Orcam is a financial services firm offering research, private advisory, institutional consulting and educational services.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterLinkedIn

10 Comments

  1. InvestorX says:

    I tried to summarize Hussman’s rant on QE:

    1. Market:
    • „Fight the Fed“ is still worth if market is overvalued, overbought, overbullish, yields are rising”
    • QE alleviates pain in garbage stocks AFTER a sell-off
    2. Effects
    • Idle excess reserves show: it does not relax any binding constraint
    • Portfolio rebalancing: QE reduces amount of yielding assets -> lower yields of yielding assets (overvalued, easily exchangeable for cash)
    • Sterilized QE: again only aim is to reduce amount of yielding assets available (not “print money”)
    3. Aims:
    • “wealth effect” -> spend, spend, spend (in spite of stagnant real incomes and debt overhang; and in spite of weak historical evidence of any lasting effect on the economy)
    • So hidden aim: bail out (overleveraged) speculators (i.e. banks), like a put option
    • Allow banks to front run the Fed -> provide them trading profits (bail out)
    • Wall Street still believes that QE has a lasting economic (and thus market) effect
    4. Negatives:
    • It does not help the economy, as it only forces capital misallocation towards speculation
    • Thus productive capital allocation is disabled
    • It discourages saving (saving = capital needed for productive capital)
    • Distorts incentives: rescue bad lenders
    • Distorts economic (price) signals
    • Its effects are only temporary, makes market participants dependent on new doses (spoilt children having a tantrum, getting a lollipop)

  2. Larry says:

    The technicals for this market remain relatively strong as long as the SPX can stay above the 1362 level. It has been a very impressive rally off the Oct 3rd low, and the rally gets the benefit of the doubt until we have a deeper correction than the minor one we just had.

  3. B Ferro says:

    I’m not sure I agree that a 430 bps correction peak to trough is signs of an “increasingly unstable” market.

  4. HyperCynic says:

    All of the points raised by Rosenberg are inarguable except that they simply may not matter. With Yellen intimating ZIRP into 2015 and Dudley again making uber dovish remarks, alongside the Bernank’s magical mystery propoganda tour, the market will continue to key on expected policy actions. This is likely to keep a floor under any correction unless and until some exogenous event initiates the next panic wave down (which I do believe will occur).

  5. Ryan says:

    #7

    $AAPL price action

    The big boys are lightening up!

    • B Ferro says:

      And yet the market has killed it over the past two days even as AAPL falters!

      What shall ZH do now as the entire rally was supposedly predicated on one stock’s ability to drag the overall index higher!!

      Bet AAPL hits $1K before it’s all said and done; that’ll be the point CNBC and the head in the sand long only shops get to proclaim the world’s first $1 trillion cap company…

      And that’s the irony…the least of the critical thinkers in this business, the perma bulls, always win in the end…

      • Obsvr-1 says:

        and CSCO was on a path that drove predictions that IT would be the first $1T market cap company — until it wasn’t.

        Now CSCO @ ~110B … the law of big numbers tend to catch up … “even the with the darlings and angels”.

        • B Ferro says:

          You are correct.

          That said, the bowl of marbles AAPL’s playing with today, in the context of massive, multi-trillion global central bank balance sheets, is much different than what CSCO got to play with back then…

          I think you need to think about it on a relative basis.

          Additionally, if you were to comapre the path AAPL has taken since it broke out of consolidation and went parabolic to that of Silver, the two are trading in near lockstep fashion on a % gain basis from the outset. That comparison actually calls for some period of AAPL slowing down here for the interim before the last leg, if the comparison is indeed correct.

          • Rob T says:

            Not sure the two are analogous, only because the current estimate of all silver bullion still in identifiable existence (around 400 million oz per GFMS) would only amount to $20-billion @ $50/oz, whereas AAPL’s supposedly targeting $1-trillion. Sure, Apple can go higher, though I’m more of the mind that the markets are levitating on Facebook pre-IPO fumes. Still, wish I had been long Apple from the first of the year instead of in and out of ETFs at all the wrong times…

            • B Ferro says:

              Rob T – my approach is probably different than yours…

              All I care about is what prices are doing, not having some fundamental justification for what they should do.

              Again, comparing the points at which the two began their parabolic moves and indexing that to 100%, they track nearly perfectly in terms of ebbs and flows and % gains at this point in their rally.

              The latter is all that really matters.

              We can argue for hours on end why the two are similar or different or why something should or shoulnd’t happen, or we can accept the fact that it is and be done with it (and profit from it).

Contact Us:

Name:

Email:

Verification Image

Enter number from above: