Magazine Cover Indicator: New York “End of Wall Street”

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - February 6th, 2012, 10:38AM

This week’s New York magazine — a non Business publication — has a rather bearish cover discussing “The Emasculation of Wall Street.

Last week, I mentioned the Barron’s cover was somewhat bullish, with the caveat that Barron’s is a business weekly. New York magazine is more general interest — its not Time or Newsweek, because it covers Wall Street in its back yard.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg is out with this headline today: Investors Fearful as Stock Rally Best Since 1987.

Still, I suspect the NY Mag cover is a bullish sentiment indicator.

>

Source:
The End of Wall Street As They Knew It
Gabriel Sherman
NY, Feb 5, 2012
http://nymag.com/print/?/news/features/wall-street-2012-2/

NYT Sunday Business: Magazine Cover Indicator?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - January 1st, 2012, 12:30PM

Uh-oh:

“I Just Got Here, but I Know Trouble When I See It”


>

That headline and image is the cover page of the Sunday NYT Business section. It may be the closest thing I have seen to an excessively negative magazine cover indicator in a while.

In general, I am negative about the economy going forward — I think we have a better than even money chance of slipping into a recession; I am nowhere near as sanguine about a housing recovery as many of my peers; Job creation appears to be significantly below what is needed to work off the high levels of Unemployment. In short, a typical post-credit crisis recovery is underway.

Yet cover articles like this one make me want to temper my negativity:

Yet if we go beyond the Beltway and the Battery, to where most of American life is lived, the numbers don’t always add up. Yes, the Great Recession officially ended in 2009. But many millions of Americans are out of work or cannot find full-time jobs. Home prices are wobbly. The foreclosure crisis drags on. And the Occupy movement’s campaign against “the 1 percent” has underscored the ravages of income inequality.

It was, as always, a year of ups and downs in business. Washington said the nation’s AAA rating was safe, but Standard & Poor’s concluded that it wasn’t. Europe insisted that its currency was sound, but investors worry that it isn’t. Wall Street seemed perpetually on edge. After so many wild days, the American stock market ended 2011 about where it began.

On this side of the Atlantic, aftershocks of the financial crisis of 2008-9 are still reverberating, though the worst has passed. Now, how Europe’s economic troubles play out may determine whether job growth here finally picks up enough to make up for all the lost ground — and whether that 401(k) is richer or poorer next Jan. 1.

All told, interesting stuff to contemplate from a contrary perspective . . .

>

Previously:
Contrary Indicators

Source:
I Just Got Here, but I Know Trouble When I See It
N. GREGORY MANKIW, CHRISTINA D. ROMER; TYLER COWEN; ROBERT H. FRANK; ROBERT J. SHILLER and RICHARD H. THALER
NYT, December 31, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/business/from-6-economists-6-ways-to-face-2012-economic-view.html

Financials = Value Trap

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - December 12th, 2011, 11:19AM

I don’t often find myself in agreement with bulge firm research, but this is in line with my beliefs:

“This year, inexpensive stocks have simply grown cheaper, with the most notable example of this being Financials. Three of nine industries that make it into our value trap model this month are in the Financials sector, and in aggregate, the sector appears to be inexpensive for the wrong reasons: prices are falling faster than earnings expectations are deteriorating.

We are underweight Financials in part because this model suggests it is too early to buy the sector . . . Risks from Europe, weak investment banking/trading, tepid loan growth, pressure on net interest margins, regulatory risks, and challenging mortgage fundamentals. When will valuation matter again? Valuation is generally rewarded when profits are accelerating and volatility is declining, neither of which we expect to occur in the near future.”

Ahh, I see its from the Quantitative Strategy group of Mother MER. (That makes it less of a surprise)

Of course, as this idea becomes more mainstream, I would have to start thinking of Banks as a contrary play — But we are not there yet . . .

Blog Traffic Goes (Short Term) Bullish in August

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - September 1st, 2011, 10:30AM

I am not particularly bullish these days — 50/50 stocks versus cash/bonds — and while we certainly could see a bounce up towards the 1250 level on the SPX, I am not sanguine about the next 2Qs of market performance.

That said, the chart below may be a very short term, bullish indicator. As we have seen in the past, TBP traffic spikes are often accompany a substantial increase in nervousness. That can set the table for a decent bounce, but as the dates below confirm, it is typically short term in nature. More solid bottoms (i.e., 2 years versus 2 months) were more likely to be accompanied by complacency, not interest.

>

via Site Meter

>

Previously:
Blog Traffic Reading: Complacent! (April 30th, 2009)
Blog Traffic as a Contrary Market Indicator (February 4th, 2008)
Traffic Indicates . . . (June 21st, 2008)
Traffic Peaked Again Near Short Term Bottom (July 18th, 2008)
Crazy Fannie/Freddie Traffic Spike! (September 8th, 2008)

What Do High Levels of Job Anxiety Signify?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - August 31st, 2011, 8:05AM

>

A recent Gallup poll found 31% of US workers are “worried they could soon be laid off.” That number is “similar to the 31% seen in August 2009 but double the level recorded in August 2008 and for several years prior.”

This could have several interpretive meanings for the markets and economy:

Negative for Economy: The working public sees company activity and sales first hand, and can sense when their employer is in trouble.
Negative for Politicians: The 2007-09 Recession was already in full swing while Politicians were denying (See Mental Recession). The public was much more astute and insightful than much of DC
Positive for Economy: Due to the Recency effect, people’s outlooks are backwards looking, greatly impacted by their most recent experiences. In the present case, the fear is of another credit crisis like event.
Positive for Markets: As a contrary indicator, the public’s fears can work well as an entry signal for trades. The last time job insecurity peaked was mid-2009, not a bad entry for equities.

I have no particular insight which of these are correct — I wanted to lay them out for discussion purposes.

Discuss!

>
Source:
In U.S., Worries About Job Cutbacks Return to Record Highs
Three in 10 workers worry they could lose their job, double the level seen in 2008
Lydia Saad
Gallup, August 31, 2011
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149261/Worries-Job-Cutbacks-Return-Record-Highs.aspx

Diverging ETFs: What Are GLD & SPY Telling Us ?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - August 23rd, 2011, 6:30AM

GLD vs. SPY Relative Price

click for larger graphic

Source: Solari Report, Yahoo Finance

>

Here is an interesting observation: The value of the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) is now worth more than the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY) representing the full index. (This refers to the ETFs and not the underlying value of the SPX and Gold).

Note that ETFs are not fully representative of the underlying indices valuation, and that can lead to some odd permutations. For example, Apple (AAPL), a member of the S&P500 Index (SPY) and Nasdaq100 (QQQ), is worth more than both ETFs combined.

Back to Gold: State Street Global Advisors, which administers the ETFs, puts the value of Gold ETF at $76,673.81M versus the S&P 500 ETF at $74,381.35 M.

~~~

What might this mean?

Lets look at the two charts on this page: The one at top shows the relative moves of the two indices. They have diverged, heading in separate directions, and are now extremely far apart. That valuation difference is reflective of sentiment reaching an extreme. This is somewhat reminiscent of back in October 2002, when the Pimco Total Return Bond Fund surpassed the Vanguard S&P500 fund to become the largest mutual fund (See these Contrary Indicators 2000 – 2003 Bear), and could have some contrary value.

The second chart, at bottom, shows a simple ratio of SPY to GLD. It has now dropped below the March 2009 levels. That might also be constructive for a reversion (ie, bounce in SPY and drop in GLD)

It could be a contrary indicator, as the two indices have moved to extremes. Equity markets are now extremely oversold, while Gold has moved parabolically. Some mean reversion would appropriate around now.

One caveat: The MACD reading of this ratio was far more deeply into the red back at the 2009 market lows. That suggests this reading can get further oversold.

Perhaps this is supportive of (warning: selective perception ahead) an oversold bounce that ultimately rolls over, taking this ratio to greater extremes.

>

SPY versus GLD Ratio

click for larger graphic

Source: StockCharts

The Punditry Chronicles

Email this post Print this post
By Invictus - August 16th, 2011, 7:15AM

Forecasting is a rough gig that often confounds even those who do it for a living and generally do it well.

Situational awareness (see e.g., this and this), on the other hand, is all about knowing “what you need to know not to be surprised,” and having “the ability to maintain a constant, clear mental picture of relevant information and the tactical situation…” It’s making sense of the world around us in real-time, whereas forecasting is an attempt to extrapolate those current events to figure out some future outcome.

In the real world, the latter (situational awareness) is an easier task than the former (forecasting). It’s hard to imagine a decent forecaster not having good situational awareness; those folks with bad situational awareness make for awful forecasters.

Of course, we’ve all been wrong in both assessing situations and in forecasting. There are times when situations are so obvious, I’ve often wondered what might be at play beyond incompetence for those who get it so wrong. Is it Upton Sinclair-ism: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Is it a variant thereof in which we substitute “ideology” for “salary,” as I believe is very often the case (Kudlow, Luskin, Bowyer, Laffer)?

Among the reasons I’ve always had a great deal of respect for two commentators in particular — Paul Krugman and David Rosenberg — is because they have consistently exhibited superior situational awareness and forecasting skills, a rare combination to be sure. Their records speak for themselves. The knock on Krugman — that he’s an ideologue — in no way diminishes or tarnishes the fact that he’s been spot-on in his situational awareness and forecasting since well before the crisis began to unfold in 2007. If anything, his accuracy and astuteness support his ideology in the same way the ideologies of the likes of Kudlow, Bowyer, Luskin and Laffer have been discredited as a result of their being woefully, painfully wrong. [BR: Though Laffer did get the Recession call correct circa February 2008]

Below are several examples of situational awareness, both good and bad. Some of it is striking for its insight, some of it for its total lack thereof. Consider it an object lesson in the ever-present need to consider the source, and the source’s motivations and incentives.

[NOTE: Über-hacks like David Lereah and Lawrence Yun were simply not worth researching. They're in a class by themselves.]

A Decade of Punditocracy, Pathetic Edition

George W. Bush, June 17, 2002

“Now, we’ve got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. [...] Freddie Mac will launch 25 initiatives to eliminate homeownership barriers.”

David Rosenberg, August 6, 2004

“We assess the likelihood that the housing sector has entered into a“bubble” phase. There are numerous shades of gray, but when we examine the classic characteristics of a“bubble,” it seems to fit the bill.”

Ben Bernanke, August 9, 2005

“There’s a lot of good news on housing. The rate of homeownership is at a record level, affordability still pretty good. [Ed Note: The first part of that statement was true, the second part demonstrably false.] The issue of the housing bubble is one that people have — whether there is a housing bubble is one that people have raised. Housing prices certainly have come up quite a bit. But I think it’s important to point out that house prices are being supported in very large part by very strong fundamentals.” [Ed Note: In fact, it was exactly at this time that we were beginning to see cracks in the housing market as prices peaked in Boston, Detroit, Atlanta and Charlotte.]

Paul Krugman, August 12, 2005

“How does the country [U.S.] earn its money? The answer, these days, is that we make a living by selling each other houses. [...] Over the past five years housing prices have grown much faster than the overall cost of living, adding about $5 trillion to the public’s wealth.”

Alan Greenspan, September 26, 2005

“In summary, it is encouraging to find that, despite the rapid growth of mortgage debt, only a small fraction of households across the country have loan-to-value ratios greater than 90 percent. Thus, the vast majority of homeowners have a sizable equity cushion with which to absorb a potential decline in house prices.”

Ben Bernanke, March 28, 2007

“At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained.”

Tim Geithner, May 15, 2007

“Financial innovation has improved the capacity to measure and manage risk. Risk is spread more broadly across countries and institutions.”

Henry Paulson, July23, 2007

“There has been a very significant housing correction. I think we’re at or near a bottom there,” Paulson said on CNBC television. “I don’t deny there’s a problem with subprime mortgages but…it’s quite containable.”

Brian Wesbury, July 26, 2007

“The current financial environment does not reflect conditions normally associated with a credit crunch. The bottom line is that fears about the underlying health of the economy and financial markets are more about hypochondria than reality.”

Martin Feldstein, August 31, 2007

“Martin Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, said that there’s a “significant” chance the U.S. economy will sink into recession.”

Joseph Stiglitz, November 16, 2007

Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist, said the U.S. economy risks tumbling into recession because of the “mess” left by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. “I’m very pessimistic,” Stiglitz said in an interview in London today. “Alan Greenspan really made a mess of all this. He pushed out too much liquidity at the wrong time. He supported the tax cut in 2001, which is the beginning of these problems. He encouraged people to take out variable-rate mortgages.”

Larry Kudlow, November 2007

Three More Years of Goldilocks? (“Too much is being made of both the sub-prime credit problem and the housing downturn.”)

Paul Krugman, December 3, 2007

“But the [financial] innovations of recent years — the alphabet soup of C.D.O.’s and S.I.V.’s, R.M.B.S. and A.B.C.P. — were sold on false pretenses. They were promoted as ways to spread risk, making investment safer. What they did instead — aside from making their creators a lot of money, which they didn’t have to repay when it all went bust — was to spread confusion, luring investors into taking on more risk than they realized.”

George W. Bush, March 12, 2008

“I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work.” [Ed. Note: I'm thinking not so much.]

Jerry Bowyer, May 16, 2008

Recession? Not so fast, I say (“But as a member of the “some say no recession” camp, I’m here to say the economy still looks pretty good.”)

Ben Stein, July 8, 2008

Don’t Panic – Buy Index Funds and Real Estate (“The truth is that while the economy is clearly slowing down we are not yet in a recession.”) [Ed. Note: S&P500 closed that day at 1,273.70, on its way to a 676 close in March 2009.]

Phil Gramm, July 9, 2008

“You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession. We may have a recession; we haven’t had one yet. We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline…”

Amity Shlaes, July 12, 2008

“Phil Gramm was right…”

Jerry Bowyer, Sept. 2, 2008

The Recessionistas Were Decisively Wrong (“I’ve spent much of the past year both on Kudlow & Co. and in columns arguing with Jared Bernstein, Robert Reich, Barry Ritholz, Jonathan Chait, and others about whether or not we’re in a recession. These folks were certain we were, while I, along with Larry and other supply-siders, thought we were not.”) [Ed Note: We were.]

Don Luskin, Sept. 14, 2008

Quit Doling Out That Bad-Economy Line (“Things today just aren’t that bad.”)

Christopher Cox, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission, October 2008

“There is no question that, somewhere in this terrible mess, many laws were broken. Right now, the criminal authorities and the civil authorities, not only in the federal government and the state governments, but in other countries, because this is now, as you know, a matter of intense international focus, are working to make sure that lawbreakers are held accountable and people are brought to justice.” [Ed. Note: It's now almost three years later. How are those investigations progressing? Seems the list of folks "brought to justice" could fit on an M&M.]

Alan Greenspan, October 2008

“And what I’m saying to you is, yes, I found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is, but I’ve been very distressed by that fact. [A] flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak. That is — precisely. No, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.”"

David Rosenberg, December 16, 2008 (The Frugal Future, no link)

“The macro themes we are developing now are much more secular in nature. We are witnessing epic changes in the ways in which people approach how they move around and how they allocate their budgets, especially with respect to discretionary spending and their attitudes toward debt. Whether or not this turns into a Japanese-style “kyoukou” remains to be seen, but we are convinced that historians will label the environment we are in today as something different from a garden-variety recession.”

WSJ Editorial Page, May 29, 2009

The Bond Vigilantes (“They’re back. We refer to the global investors once known as the bond vigilantes, who demanded higher Treasury bond yields from the late 1970s through the 1990s whenever inflation fears popped up, and as a result disciplined U.S. policy makers. [...] It’s not going too far to say we are watching a showdown between Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and bond investors, otherwise known as the financial markets. When in doubt, bet on the markets.”) [Ed. note: What would the WSJ tell us the markets are saying now as that is, after all, what we should "bet on"? The 10-yr was around a 3.70% then vs. about 2.25% now; place your bets.]

Arthur Laffer, June 11, 2009

Get Ready for Inflation and Higher Interest Rates

Paul Krugman, July 2, 2009

“Once again a Democratic president has pushed through job-creation policies that will mitigate the slump but aren’t aggressive enough to produce a full recovery. Once again much of the stimulus at the federal level is being undone by budget retrenchment at the state and local level.”

Jerry Bowyer, July 21, 2009

We’re All Inflation Hawks Now

Andrew Bary, Barron’s Cover Story, October 19, 2009


We make our case for the Fed to increase short-term interest rates to a more normal 2% — or risk fostering another financial bubble.

Nassim Taleb, February 4, 2010

Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of “The Black Swan,” said “every single human being” should bet U.S. Treasury bonds will decline, citing the policies of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and the Obama administration.

It’s “a no brainer” to sell short Treasuries, Taleb, a principal at Universa Investments LP in Santa Monica, California, said at a conference in Moscow today. “Every single human being should have that trade.”

Christina Romer, August 2011

“The basic idea that if you increase government spending or you cut people’s taxes that stimulates the economy and lowers the unemployment rate, is a very widely accepted idea. It’s in every economics textbook, that’s what we teach our undergraduates, and I certainly try to teach them the truth. It is a very known and accepted idea and fact and the empirical evidence is definitely there, and people just want to say the sky is green.”

Did I miss anyone . . . ?

Barron’s: Social Networking a Bubble. What Does This Mean?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - July 24th, 2011, 9:00AM

Bubble Trouble: This week’s Barron’s cover story by Mike Santoli proclaims “Yes, its a bubble.”

Before we delve into the article, recognize that 1) This is not your mainstream publication, so it has no validity as a contrary indicator; 2) the definition of social is rather stretched, including Pandora and Zillow, which are not really pure social plays.

That said, let’s look at Barron’s:

Depending on how you carve up the industry, eight leading companies that have either gone public, filed plans for an initial stock offering or are widely expected to do so by the end of next year are now estimated to be worth a combined $200 billion. Together, these eight companies—Facebook, Groupon, Zynga, LivingSocial, Twitter, LinkedIn (ticker: LNKD), Pandora Media (P) and Zillow (Z)—collected $3.5 billion in 2010 revenue. That’s $1 billion less than, say, Washington Post (WPO), whose market value is $3.4 billion. Leaving aside Facebook, which seems to have the best shot at supporting its hypothetical $100 billion value through its market position, growth and profit margins, the rest have negligible profits at this point.”

Three issues leap out to me from that paragraph:

1) Tight float: The trick we have seen already is to only sell a small amount of stock to the public between 5-15%. It take very little public buying to send that stock soaring. These companies are “Semi Public;” put the other 80-95% on the market, and see how much interest — and valuation there actually is.

2) Second Markets: The $65, $75, or $100 billion valuation for Facebook comes via the exchange of shares on a very small, uninformed, opaque market. No public disclosures required, no transparent pricing, just blind fumbling. I have yet to see any evidence that these markets come anywhere near pricing equities accurately.

3)Facebook: Assuming the data is correct, Facebook trades at 100 times revenue. Not earnings, revenue. Unless you expect their profit growth to be historically unprecedented, its hard to see how that $100B ism not terribly expensive.

All of the above are interesting, but not telling as to what is or isn’t a bubble. 8 Stocks do not typically make for a frenzy . . .

>

>

Previously:
5 Questions for Facebook Investors (January 12th, 2011)

Has Facebook Missed Its IPO Window? (July 15th, 2011)

Source:
Bubble Trouble
Barron’s, July 23, 2011
MICHAEL SANTOLI
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111903337604576456281580431232.html

Is Crude Oil About to Collapse?

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - July 2nd, 2011, 8:18AM

The cover story in this week’s Barron’s is a canary yellow screamer: Ready for $150 Oil. (click cover at right for larger graphic)

Normally, the magazine cover indicator does not work with business press; it only applies to mass market magazines (think Time or Newsweek).

In the present case, Gene Epstein is forecasting a new leg up in oil prices — “projected oil shock of spring 2012″ — breaching the prior highs in crude that will shave 1.5% off of GDP:

“Despite the recent 20% decline from April highs, new highs on crude, heating oil, diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline seem likely over the next 12 months. Following some further easing over the summer, the second leg of the long-term bull market in petroleum–the first occurred in 2007-08–probably will begin this fall.

As oil producers’ spare capacity gradually declines to worrisome levels, the average monthly price could reach a record $150 per barrel by next spring, with spikes to $165 or $170. With this, $4.50-a-gallon gasoline will become the norm. That will put a huge dent in consumer wallets, while ramping up the desirability of fuel-efficient cars.”

For many reasons, I have my doubts about an oil shock in the spring of 2012. I do not see the economy as remotely as strong as it was pre-crisis, so demand for Oil is not nearly as robust. Secondly, with the dollar down 40%+ since 2001, the big spurt in Oil prices may have already occurred. Third, a rise towards $150 is likely to slow the global economy down enough to correct prices back towards ordinary levels before we hit that mark. And last, I am less than impressed with the author’s forecasting record.

Regardless, it is in intriguing argument that is worth your time to check out . . .

>

Previously:
The Economy is Just Fine . . . (October 19th, 2008)

Barron’s Bad Book Recommendations (August 15th, 2009)

Source:
Get Ready for $150 Oil
GENE EPSTEIN
Barron’s, JULY 2, 2011  
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111903617204576411791590055646.html

Window Dressing Proceeds Apace

Email this post Print this post
By Barry Ritholtz - June 29th, 2011, 7:23AM

With 6 of the past 7 weeks in the red, the markets have managed to string together a series of winning days. Daily gains both this week and last have ranged between 0.50% and 1.25%. Indeed, the Dow’s gains on Monday and Tuesday represent the first consecutive triple digit gain for the Industrials  since December 1- 2, 2010. This was the fourth triple digit rally since the April 29th highs.

Are we making a major turn? Has psychology become so bad its a contrary indicator? Has the 200 day moving average proved to be inviolable?

Perhaps any of those explanations might prove to be the case, although I have my suspicions otherwise. I suspect it is simply a case of funds marking up stocks into the close of the 2nd quarter.

What data supports this thesis? I would point to 2 things: Psychology and Trading Volume. Most metrics are showing psychology is either neutral or optimistic. This tends to be supportive of a short term trading bounce, and not a longer-lasting rally.

Second, the volume has been anemic, even by the unusually low levels we have seen all year. The overall volume on Monday was well below the 30-day average on both NYSE and Nasdaq. Tuesday was even lower. Rallies on increasingly lighter volume are not signs of aggressive institutional buying. Rather, it supports the Window dressing thesis.

~~~

Explaining the short term noise is often a Fool’s Errand,. In my experience, it tends to reveal more about the speaker’s book than it says about the market conditions. But in the present case, I cannot help but be concerned that the long side trade is a bit of a suckers bet much beyond June 30th . . .

46 queries. 0.455 seconds.