« January 6, 2008 - January 12, 2008 | Main | January 20, 2008 - January 26, 2008 »

January 13, 2008 - January 19, 2008

January 18, 2008

Straight Outta Bizarro

For a couple years now, the blogosphere has chronicled the long series of transparently ridiculous statements produced by various spokespeople for the residential real estate business. The most notorious was surely National Association of Realtors "economist" David Lereah.

After a relative respite from the hallucinations, we just overheard this exchange between CNBC real estate reporter Diana Olick and Jim Gillespie, President and CEO of Coldwell Banker...

Olick: Mr. Gillespie, how do you say to [buyers] they aren't buying into a falling market?

Gillespie: Well, this is a golden opportunity for folks to purchase property. I think this is probably the best market for a buyer that I've seen in my 33 years in real estate.

That's right, y'all, step right up to "buy" the most expensive asset you'll ever "own," using a high degree of leverage, in a market characterized by falling prices, grossly elevated inventories, and tightening credit standards.

In some markets (i.e., those where price have already come down), the environment for some buyers (i.e., well-capitalized buyers) is better now than it was a year or two ago. But the best in 33 years? We're ready for the weekend...

Friday Reading

Has a long weekend ever felt more welcome?

Watching Squawk Box

A caveat: We know it's difficult to speak into a microphone without saying strange things from time to time. But this morning's Squawk Box featured a couple flurries that got us scribbling in our notebooks, so here we go...

First: Asked for his view of current conditions, frequent guest Jack Bouroudjian weighed in with this:

We need to take a step back and realize that this is not the NASDAQ market of 2000, 2001. We were not at ridiculous multiples.

That's true enough as far as it goes, but we think it misses an important point about multiples: They have two parts. No, prices aren't/weren't nearly as goofy as we saw at the turn of the century. But multiples aren't functions of prices alone; they're also functions of earnings.

With earnings--and, perhaps more importantly, earnings expectations--falling, we're seeing a perfectly sensible (though not inevitable) decline in prices. So prices can fall while multiples remain relatively steady. The nastiest combination, of course, is declining earnings and multiples, as expected earnings fall and investors pay less per dollar of such earnings. 

Then there's this: The "multiple" of the broad market has ranged very widely over the years. Just as there's no inherently correct multiple for an individual stock--notwithstanding the Street's "price targets"--there's no inherently correct multiple for the broad market. It's just what investors are willing to pay in the Keynesian beauty contest.

Second: Late in the 8:00 (EST) hour, Becky Quick asked economics reporter Steve Liesman how he thought Ben Bernanke "did yesterday in Washington." Here's Liesman:

You know, judged by the way the market performed, not well. But I thought he did reasonable well.

As we wrote yesterday, we thought he did reasonably well too. And we are constantly, even increasingly awed by market participants' expectations of this mortal called Ben Bernanke. Judged by the way the market performed? We think Liesman is too smart to really buy that premise, and we're not trying to pick on him here. We're just using this little aside as evidence of the deeply strange dependence millions of otherwise sophisticated adults appear to have developed--and as a transition to two other comments on CNCB this morning that plumb the psycho-financial depths of that dependence. Here they are (emphasis added in bold):

Jack Bouroudjian: Right now, yesterday was a clear indication, that you have a market that has lost faith in its Fed chairman. Ben Bernanke needs to find some kind of footing so that he can get the faith of this market behind him once again.

Jim Iuorio: I still think yesterday comes into play more than the GE and the IBM news today. I think yesterday they wanted some reassurance from the chairman that either the cuts were coming between meetings, but the cuts were coming for sure. And he mostly gave that. But then when he started talking about inflation, started talking about how in the future that might kind of hamstring him a little bit, the market didn't want to hear that. The market knows it's true, but they didn't want him to say it right now.*

So we've been reduced to this: If only the man behind the curtain wouldn't say things we already know are true, we wouldn't sell equities down such a steep slope. If that doesn't strike you as deeply strange, we don't think we can can help you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* Iuorio is clearly right on the timing of the market's steepening plunge yesterday. As we noted at the time (see the entry at 9:15), Bernanke's riff on inflation expectations sent things sharply lower.

January 17, 2008

The Story in Pictures

In the aftermath of today's bloodletting, we thought it would help to present the current market story in pictures. Here are three charts of five key asset classes, with each asset class represented by a widely-owned ETF. In the following list, we've included the price performance (excluding dividends) in each period (one year, since the October 9th high in the S&P 500, and year-to-date, respectively):

  • U.S. Equities (IWV, in solid blue)
    • -7.64%, -14.72%, -9.35%
  • U.S. REITs (ICF, in solid red)
    • -32.48%, -27.45%, -10.07%
  • Developed Markets Equities (EFA, in dashed green)
    • 0.10%, -12.34%, -9.17%
  • Emerging Markets Equities (EEM, in dashed orange)
    • 19.90%, -13.72%, -12.00%
  • Diversified Commodities (DBC, in dashed gray)
    • 40.82%, 18.43%, -0.48%

One Year

Oneyear_indices_20080117

Since October 9th, 2007

Since_20071009_indices_20080117

Year-to-Date

Ytd_indices_20080117

Now, a couple more charts on market technicals.

First, an update through today's trading of a chart Barry Ritholtz shared earlier: The percentage of NYSE stocks trading above their 200-day moving averages.

Nya200r_weekly_20080117

Next, an update of the put-call chart we posted this morning, with the S&P 500 again in red and significant market bottoms indicated by dashed blue lines. Note: Today's data point might not be final as of this writing. (The StockCharts data feed for $CPCE typically takes a couple late-afternoon/early-evening updates to get the day's final number.) We'll update as needed. (Now updated with the day's official numbers of 0.99 for the day and 0.77 on the EMA.)

Equity_putcall_20080117_3

And one more for the road: The number of new 52-week highs minus the number of new 52-week lows on the NYSE ($NYHL). Note that the blue line is the 14-day exponential moving average of the underlying time series. And note further that the EMA has been mired in negative territory since early November...and didn't return to anywhere near its early-2007 highs even during the mid-August to early-October rally in the S&P 500 (shown here in red).

Nyhl_20080117_3

Genius of the Hearing: We Have a Winner

In this morning's live-blogging post, we nominated Bob Etheridge of North Carolina for our too-snarky-by-half "Genius of the Hearing" award (see our entry at 11:23). His nomination stands, but he won't go home with our imaginary trophy. As it turns out, it wasn't even close. Today's big winner is Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, whose display of cluelessness was truly one for the ages. From the WSJ's Real Time Economics (emphasis in the original):

Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio launched into a lengthy question to Ben Bernanke during the Fed chairman's House testimony about community banks, securitization of home loans and investment banks' role in the crisis, ending with this point: "Seeing as how you were the former CEO Of Goldman Sachs..."

She was quickly stopped by Mr. Bernanke and the laughter in the room.

"I've got the wrong firm?" she asked, before being corrected that she was thinking of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "Oh, OK. Where were you, sir?"

Said Mr. Bernanke: "I was the CEO of the Princeton Economics Department."

Good grief...

Live-Blogging Bernanke

All times CST...

9:10~~"Investors were led to question the reliability of the credit ratings for a range of financial products, including structured credit products and various special purpose vehicles." [Indeed!]

9:13~~"Larger balance sheets and unexpected losses prompted banks to become protective of their liquidity and balance sheet capacity, and thus to become less willing to provide funding to other market participants, including other banks. Banks have also evidently become more restrictive in their lending to firms and households. More expensive and less available credit seems likely to impose a measure of restraint on economic growth." [Yes. Yes. And yes. This is the whole story. In an economy fundamentally dependent on credit expansion, credit contraction is a cold-blooded killer.]

9:15~~"Thus far, the public's expectations of future inflation appear to have remained reasonably well-anchored....Overall and core inflation should moderate this year and next, so long as the public's confidence in the Federal Reserve's commitment to price stability in unshaken. However, any tendency of inflation expectations to become unmoored, or for the Fed's inflation-fighting credibility to be eroded, would greatly complicate the task of sustaining price stability and would reduce the central bank's policy flexibility to counter shortfalls in growth in the future. Accordingly, in the months ahead, we will be closely monitoring the inflation situation, particularly inflation expectations." [And with that, equities fell off a cliff. Should be an interesting day!]

9:20~~Fiscal and monetary stimulus could work well together. But fiscal stimulus could be "quite counter-productive" if it's poorly-timed or compromised fiscal discipline for the longer term. [Truly!]

9:21~~If you do it, do it soon and keep it temporary.

9:23~~We're pretty sure the Chairman just said he expects the housing market contraction to "wane...sometime during this year." [We think he's done pretty well so far, but this is a real howler.]

9:24~~The Fed's base case still isn't recession. It's slow growth.

9:27~~John Spratt asks how we got here in the first place. Bernanke: A "confluence of factors," one key being the housing boom and bust. [This answer feels like a bit of a punt.]

9:30~~We regulators have some serious work to do as we think about how to move forward from here. It won't be easy.

9:32~~Paul Ryan asks an interesting question. Why did the ECB leave rates unchanged when they're facing a slowdown as well? Bernanke: Conditions not the same. Their housing market isn't as bad. They do face some credit market problems. Our slowdown looks worse than those in Europe and Asia.

9:34~~Biggest problem so far has been in subprime mortgages with adjustable rates. So far losses there have been roughly $100 billion. But it certainly could be several multiples of that as delinquency and foreclosure rates rise. [Looks like the "containment" of the "subprime" problem has been pushed down the memory hole.]

9:37~~Interbank lending breakdowns make monetary policy less effective. But our liquidity-related efforts have had some success. [That seems about right.]

9:39~~[Larry Kudlow just smiled for the first time in a while as Bernanke points to the TIPS spread as the best indicator of inflation expectations.]

9:41~~[This is not a political endorsement and has nothing to do with his politics whatsoever, but we have to admit: Wisconsin's Paul Ryan just asked the best set of serious, programmatic, not-obviously-self-serving, non-grandstanding, even sophisticated questions we've ever seen at one of these congressional events. Good for him.]

9:44~~Long-term fiscal responsibility is the thing. Those who want low taxes need to spend less. Those who want to spend more need to find the revenue to do it.

9:46~~Question: Would $100 billion in a $14 trillion economy matter? Bernanke: It would be significant. It wouldn't be window-dressing. [We're not so sanguine on this, but as the Chairman noted earlier, the bigger questions are timing and targeting, and those are things Congress will struggle with almost by definition.]

9:48~~Statement: As late as 2005, Greenspan said he saw problems in local areas, but little chance of a nationwide bubble-collapse. Easy Al's damning words: "Not a particular problem." [Oops.]

10:10~~The securitization model has its problems. We need greater transparency across the board.

10:12~~Question: How do we deal with incipient stagflation? Bernanke: You've put your finger on a very difficult problem. We have two objectives and one policy instrument, and we need to balance those risks appropriately. Inflation expectations seem reasonably well-anchored. Our sense, and we have to look forward because of the lagged effects of our policy moves, is that headline and core inflation will moderate over the next year or two. Then again, futures markets and the Fed have consistently underestimated the increase in oil prices. Our ability to respond to growth shortfalls is critically dependent on maintaining our credibility for keeping inflation low. We can't ignore medium-term price stability. Not only have we had growth issues and inflation issues, we've had financial market turmoil as well.

10:15~~Question: Any clubs left in the Fed's bag? Bernanke: We're focused on liquidity to help markets work better, and monetary policy. We'll stick with those for now.

10:25~~Question: Isn't the bigger picture still relatively bright? Bernanke: We have lots of strengths: Flexible workforce, high productivity, technology. Over the longer term, the American economy should perform well. We have issues of education, health care, the fiscal picture. Every economy goes through ups and downs, and right now we're in a slow period.

10:30~~Whatever our long-term strengths, we can't ignore the short-term challenges.

10:32~~[An aside while the grandstanding grinds on: The S&P 500 is now trading below its intraday low of March 14, 2007.]

10:42~~With one-time payments or tax credits, the biggest bang for the buck comes from those that go to low- and moderate-income people. There's a little more debate in the econometric literature on the question of what sort of business tax breaks demonstrate the most pronounced or durable effects.

10:48~~High oil prices take a double toll: They depress spending by crimping business and household budgets. And they're inflationary.

10:59~~[For what it's worth, we very much appreciate Bernanke's common sense on the ideologically charged issues of taxes and spending.]

11:02~~High oil prices do have one benefit: They encourage "suppliers and demanders" to try to find and use alternative sources of energy.

11:17~~[The energy of this thing seems to be dissipating...thanks largely to the backbenchers' weak combination of grandstanding and cluelessness.]

11:19~~Subprime lending done right is a good thing for individuals and the economy. We need to regulate this part of the marketplace, but not in a way that's so onerous that it shuts the system down.

11:23~~North Carolina's Bob Etheridge stakes his claim for our "Genius of the Hearing" award with this: "And I agree with you. The three T's: Timely, targeted, et cetera."

SUMMARY: Bernanke's plenty concerned about inflation expectations. He expects 2008 to be weak, but stronger in the second half than the first. Fiscal stimulus, if done right, could help as part of a policy response that also includes the Fed's monetary policy moves. Nevertheless, members of Congress shouldn't lose sight of long-term fiscal discipline. And members should fight their other fights (long-term tax policy, &c.) outside of their discussions of short-term stimulus. All things considered, we think Bernanke did exceptionally well today: Clear-minded, not politically compromised, and sober about the short-term environment (if a little too sanguine on the probability of a meaningful near-term bottom in housing).

Bernanke on the Hill

With Ben Bernanke a few minutes from addressing the House Budget Committee, these three pieces provide excellent context:

We'll have a few thoughts on the much-discussed Lowenstein piece later today or tomorrow.

UPDATE: With all the breathless talk about the imperative of delivering $100 billion (or so) in stimulus to a $13+ trillion economy--which will, in Washington's special way, probably be too little and too late to matter, but add too much deficit and debt to the national balance sheet--we offer, again, a relevant excerpt from Stephen Roach's recent column in the Financial Times (emphasis added):

Washington policymakers and politicians need to stand back and let this adjustment play out. Yet the US body politic is panicking in response--underwriting massive liquidity injections that produce another asset bubble and proposing fiscal pump-priming that would depress domestic saving even further. Such actions can only compound the problems that got America into this mess in the first place.

We think Roach is spot-on here. But the bipartisan, inter-institutional stimulus train has clearly left the station.

Volatility and Put-Call Ratios

We've detected more and more chatter about sentiment indicators such as the CBOE's VIX and put-call ratios in the context of this most recent market decline. (Example: The third bullet point in David Gaffen's late-Wednesday-afternoon summary at MarketBeat).

We've been watching these measures of sentiment very closely as they've approached relatively extreme levels--levels that coincided neatly with market bottoms in 2007.

Consider the one-year chart below, which shows the VIX (daily numbers in the shadowy background, 21-day exponential moving average* in blue) and the S&P 500 (in red). We've included dashed blue lines at the points in 2007 where the 21-day EMA of the VIX pushed toward near-term peaks (rising above 14 in March, and 24 in August and November). Those pops in the VIX fit neatly with the three major 2007 bottoms in the S&P 500.

Vix_20080116_2 

Back in March, implied volatility had been so exceptionally low for so long that a move above 14 reflected a significant rise in this "fear gauge." Later in the year, with volatility at higher levels in general, it was 24 that stood out as a telling threshold in the 21-day EMA. What should investors make of the current reading of just over 23?

Of course it's very difficult to say. These numbers are more generally instructive than precisely indicative. But most commentators seem focused on the (relatively) lower levels of the daily readings rather than the just-barely-lower EMA. That said, however, we haven't seen the kind of multi-day spikes in the daily readings that characterized the three 2007 bottoms in the S&P 500. If the VIX has reached a kind of "new normal"--just as it did in rising from the 10s to the 20s midway through 2007--the fearful washout that accompanies market bottoms may well await a series of substantial daily spikes.

Now, let's turn to the put-call ratio, which we prefer to the VIX because it's more substantively related to directional expectations. As the chart below indicates (note that the graphical set-up here is the same as above), the market's 2007 bottoms coincided almost perfectly with peaks in the 21-day EMA of the equity put-call ratio. In March and August, those peaks were north of 0.75; in November, the peak was roughly 0.72. With the 21-day EMA threatening to move above 0.75 once again, contrarians might wonder if the bottom is in (or at least approaching).

Equity_putcall_20080116_3  

One important (and obvious) caveat: Technicals and sentiment indicators are useful, but the news flow will remain plenty important. At the mid-August bottom, for example, it wasn't so much extreme sentiment levels that pushed the market higher. It was the Fed's short-crushing surprise on Friday, August 17th, that changed the game in the short run.

Nevertheless, when investors have stretched the rubber band in one direction or another**, some sort of snapback becomes more likely--though hardly guaranteed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* We use a 21-day EMA because the daily VIX is so...volatile. Stripping out some of the daily noise seems to better reflect medium-term market conditions.

** We've focused on market bottoms in this post. But note that intermediate-term bottoms in the put-call EMA--products of growing complacency among investors--coincided with market tops as well (in July and October).

January 16, 2008

Watch Carter Worth

We'll have more on the topic of broad market conditions tomorrow morning. Until then, we urge you to watch Carter Worth's appearance on this afternoon's Fast Money. To do so, click here, then scroll down to the video file.

We think Worth's synthesis of technical and fundamental conditions is pretty much right on the mark. Here's the key excerpt* from his remarks, beginning about a minute-and-a-half in, as he discusses the perilousness of the S&P 500 teetering at almost exactly the same levels we saw at the March and August lows:

The construction of the market, the DNA, if you will, of the market is much different, although it appears to be identical.

[Finerman asks whether the news flow matters, or whether Worth's charts have "pre-ordained" further declines.]

The news? We know what the news is. We have slowing growth and yet, at the same time, six-year highs in inflation in the EU, four-year highs here, personal income statements, or balance sheet, deteriorating badly. That's the consumer. And every other problem, from gold and oil, it's pretty classic.

[Ratigan asks what difference a Fed rate cut and global growth might make.]

The thing is, we've already had three rate cuts, right? And again, you and I have gone back and forth on this, and quite accurately so: Can you solve the sins of excess liquidity with more liquidity? The idea is that they're going to put more money in? Money's very cheap right now. That's not our problem.

Watch the whole thing. If you do, you'll consider it five minutes well spent. His closing comparison of current conditions to the U.S. in the 1930s and Japan since 1990 might be a bit of a stretch, but we think the essence of Worth's argument is spot on.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* For brevity, we've translated a little crosstalk from Karen Finerman and Dylan Ratigan.

Wednesday Reading

A little midweek perspective...