Connect with us

International

Equity market: Summer party

Equity market: Summer party

Published

on

During the bizarre summer of 2020, investors seemed to focus only on the good stuff and to push the health and economic crises to the back of their minds. The rise in global equities continued for the fifth consecutive month and, despite some rises in August, bond yields remain low thanks to central banks’ actions.

The glass is half full … or maybe even more so

Global equities posted a fifth consecutive monthly gain in August (6.0% for the MSCI AC World index in US dollar terms), lifting them above where they were at the end of 2019 (3.5%). The MSCI Emerging Markets Index rose by 2.1% in August but still lagged by 1.2% over the year to date. This broad-based monthly rise in equities occurred despite doubts about whether the rebound in activity is sustainable and concerns over the rise in COVID-19 infections.

After the sharp contraction in second quarter GDP in developed economies and most emerging economies, activity improved markedly in June and July but several indicators were more tentative in August.

Investors focused on the positive macroeconomic and microeconomic factors, welcoming the upward revision in 12-month forward earnings.

The message from central banks was supportive. On 27 August, the Fed Chairman’s speech confirmed that US monetary policy would remain very accommodative for a long time to help underpin employment and activity.

While negotiations on further fiscal packages remain an uphill struggle (especially in the US, where President Trump has had to extend some measures by executive order), additional spending, partly financed by the Next Generation EU plan, is planned in the eurozone.

Geopolitical issues blew hot and cold without upsetting financial markets for any length of time. After some diplomatic tensions, Sino-US relations improved as trade negotiators signalled progress and reaffirmed their commitment to the phase-one trade deal signed in January.

Finally, on the health front, despite signs of the coronavirus resurging, particularly in Europe, the number of hospitalisations and deaths remained below the previous peak. Investors were reassured by the fall in the number of daily cases in the US after a spectacular surge in July. There were also reports of several advances in medical research. US and European laboratories achieved initial encouraging results during vaccine test phases.

Exhibit 1:

Broad-based rise in equities. New all-time highs in the US

Within developed markets, US equities outperformed. After several near misses, the S&P 500 Index first surpassed its previous high point on 18 August and then hit numerous further records to end the month up by 7.0%. The Nasdaq composite index continued to advance. It closed the month at a new all-time high (+9.6%) and was up by 31.2% since the start of the year. The rise in Japanese equities (+8.2% for the Topix index) was only temporarily halted by the announcement of the prime minister’s resignation for health reasons. In the eurozone, the EURO STOXX 50 index advanced by 3.1% in August but remains 15% below its year-high and down by 12.6% compared to the end of 2019.

Globally, technology and consumer cyclicals largely outperformed defensive sectors (utilities, healthcare and telecommunications).

Is the ECB more timid than the Fed?

In Europe, statements were less sweeping than those from the Fed, but Philip Lane, the ECB’s chief economist and a member of the Executive Board, reiterated that the ECB remains ready to adjust all its policy tools if it were necessary for inflation to meet its medium-term objective.

Eurozone bond market movements became more volatile in the second half of August when investors gradually realised that the next few weeks would be marked by large volumes of bond issuances. The yield on the German 10-year Bund, which stood at -0.52% at the end of July, had a bumpy ride, bringing it to -0.40% by the end of the month (+13bp), close to its level at the start of July.

The auctions at the very end of the month were somewhat less well taken up. This was particularly the case in Italy, where the situation contributed to upward pressure on long-term interest rates, even though the BTP market had held up well to that point. By mid-August, the spread with the German 10-year rate had fallen to 138bp, its lowest since 21 February. It ended the month at 149bp.

The European Commission announced that the first additional issuance for the funding of the SURE (Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency) programme adopted on 19 May would occur in September. This news is likely to weigh somewhat on the eurozone’s best-rated states.

Another factor may explain the erratic movements seen in August in eurozone bonds: The ECB’s purchases of securities under the pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP) fell to below EUR 15 billion a week in August (from almost EUR 20 billion a week in July). The amounts purchased so far under the PEPP total nearly EUR 500 billion, with a total envelope of EUR 1 350 billion. As the ECB’s latest comments raised no hopes of any additional increase in this amount in the near future, some investors envisage that this relatively low pace of purchases could be maintained. The purchases could then continue until September 2021 but the ECB would be less active in the market.

However, the ECB continues to insist on the PEPP’s flexibility, over time and between markets. Isabel Schnabel, a member of the Management Board, reiterated that the emergency target (market stabilisation related to the risk of fragmentation), which justified massive purchases in the spring, had been fulfilled and that purchases must now help bring inflation back towards its target.  

Unlike the Fed, the ECB is unlikely to change its medium-term inflation target, which the governor of the Banque de France considers essential, at least until the conclusions of the strategic review are known. In July, inflation remained modest (0.4% for the total index year-on-year). The July acceleration in core inflation (from 0.8% to 1.2%) was linked to the shift in the timing of summer sales compared to 2019 and corrected in August. 

Everything looks brighter during the summer. What awaits us in September?

During the summer months, investors chose to focus on the good news on the macroeconomic, microeconomic and pandemic fronts. They could instead have been concerned about the collapse in GDP and gloomy earnings in Q2, or about the resurgence in COVID-19 infections.

US equities’ strong run may have given the impression that the worst peacetime recession in a century has already been already forgotten. The IMF’s view is that ‘the extent of the recent rebound in financial market sentiment appears disconnected from shifts in underlying economic prospects.’ So, are investors being overly optimistic?

Rather than that, our analysis suggests that, on the one hand, investors are learning to live with the virus; on the other, they appreciate the exceptional economic policies that have been put in place since March. The notion of a recovery in activity rather than a prolonged recession after the collapse in GDP growth in Q2 is fairly widespread. Similarly, the possibility of broad-based deflation has been quickly put aside.

The highly proactive monetary and fiscal policies have therefore enabled investors to remove the two main downside risks from their minds and to adopt a relatively favourable scenario for the medium term.

However, looking at a number of assets (such as the rise in gold prices), we can see that some uncertainties remain. And investors still seem reluctant to take a large overweight in equities: The new all-time highs seen in the S&P 500 index have not been seen across the board.

The authorities seem determined to do everything in their power to prevent a general lockdown of the population. This is reassuring for economic activity even though some sectors are still being penalised by social distancing measures. The end of the summer holiday period also gives rise to concerns about the resumption of the pandemic.

Uncertainty remains the order of the day and could give rise to further volatility in the short term. Given our medium-term scenario and our analysis of market dynamics, we see equity corrections as buying opportunities.


Any views expressed here are those of the author as of the date of publication, are based on available information, and are subject to change without notice. Individual portfolio management teams may hold different views and may take different investment decisions for different clients. This document does not constitute investment advice.

The value of investments and the income they generate may go down as well as up and it is possible that investors will not recover their initial outlay. Past performance is no guarantee for future returns.

Investing in emerging markets, or specialised or restricted sectors is likely to be subject to a higher-than-average volatility due to a high degree of concentration, greater uncertainty because less information is available, there is less liquidity or due to greater sensitivity to changes in market conditions (social, political and economic conditions).

Some emerging markets offer less security than the majority of international developed markets. For this reason, services for portfolio transactions, liquidation and conservation on behalf of funds invested in emerging markets may carry greater risk.

Writen by Nathalie Benatia. The post Equity market: Summer party appeared first on Investors' Corner - The official blog of BNP Paribas Asset Management.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Officials in…

Published

on

Health Officials: Man Dies From Bubonic Plague In New Mexico

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Officials in New Mexico confirmed that a resident died from the plague in the United States’ first fatal case in several years.

A bubonic plague smear, prepared from a lymph removed from an adenopathic lymph node, or bubo, of a plague patient, demonstrates the presence of the Yersinia pestis bacteria that causes the plague in this undated photo. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Getty Images)

The New Mexico Department of Health, in a statement, said that a man in Lincoln County “succumbed to the plague.” The man, who was not identified, was hospitalized before his death, officials said.

They further noted that it is the first human case of plague in New Mexico since 2021 and also the first death since 2020, according to the statement. No other details were provided, including how the disease spread to the man.

The agency is now doing outreach in Lincoln County, while “an environmental assessment will also be conducted in the community to look for ongoing risk,” the statement continued.

This tragic incident serves as a clear reminder of the threat posed by this ancient disease and emphasizes the need for heightened community awareness and proactive measures to prevent its spread,” the agency said.

A bacterial disease that spreads via rodents, it is generally spread to people through the bites of infected fleas. The plague, known as the black death or the bubonic plague, can spread by contact with infected animals such as rodents, pets, or wildlife.

The New Mexico Health Department statement said that pets such as dogs and cats that roam and hunt can bring infected fleas back into homes and put residents at risk.

Officials warned people in the area to “avoid sick or dead rodents and rabbits, and their nests and burrows” and to “prevent pets from roaming and hunting.”

“Talk to your veterinarian about using an appropriate flea control product on your pets as not all products are safe for cats, dogs or your children” and “have sick pets examined promptly by a veterinarian,” it added.

“See your doctor about any unexplained illness involving a sudden and severe fever, the statement continued, adding that locals should clean areas around their home that could house rodents like wood piles, junk piles, old vehicles, and brush piles.

The plague, which is spread by the bacteria Yersinia pestis, famously caused the deaths of an estimated hundreds of millions of Europeans in the 14th and 15th centuries following the Mongol invasions. In that pandemic, the bacteria spread via fleas on black rats, which historians say was not known by the people at the time.

Other outbreaks of the plague, such as the Plague of Justinian in the 6th century, are also believed to have killed about one-fifth of the population of the Byzantine Empire, according to historical records and accounts. In 2013, researchers said the Justinian plague was also caused by the Yersinia pestis bacteria.

But in the United States, it is considered a rare disease and usually occurs only in several countries worldwide. Generally, according to the Mayo Clinic, the bacteria affects only a few people in U.S. rural areas in Western states.

Recent cases have occurred mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Countries with frequent plague cases include Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Peru, the clinic says. There were multiple cases of plague reported in Inner Mongolia, China, in recent years, too.

Symptoms

Symptoms of a bubonic plague infection include headache, chills, fever, and weakness. Health officials say it can usually cause a painful swelling of lymph nodes in the groin, armpit, or neck areas. The swelling usually occurs within about two to eight days.

The disease can generally be treated with antibiotics, but it is usually deadly when not treated, the Mayo Clinic website says.

“Plague is considered a potential bioweapon. The U.S. government has plans and treatments in place if the disease is used as a weapon,” the website also says.

According to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the last time that plague deaths were reported in the United States was in 2020 when two people died.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and…

Published

on

Riley Gaines Explains How Women's Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and bewildering tunnel of social justice cultism?  Global events have been so frenetic that many people might not remember, but only a couple years ago Big Tech companies and numerous governments were openly aligned in favor of mass censorship.  Not just to prevent the public from investigating the facts surrounding the pandemic farce, but to silence anyone questioning the validity of woke concepts like trans ideology. 

From 2020-2022 was the closest the west has come in a long time to a complete erasure of freedom of speech.  Even today there are still countries and Europe and places like Canada or Australia that are charging forward with draconian speech laws.  The phrase "radical speech" is starting to circulate within pro-censorship circles in reference to any platform where people are allowed to talk critically.  What is radical speech?  Basically, it's any discussion that runs contrary to the beliefs of the political left.

Open hatred of moderate or conservative ideals is perfectly acceptable, but don't ever shine a negative light on woke activism, or you might be a terrorist.

Riley Gaines has experienced this double standard first hand.  She was even assaulted and taken hostage at an event in 2023 at San Francisco State University when leftists protester tried to trap her in a room and demanded she "pay them to let her go."  Campus police allegedly witnessed the incident but charges were never filed and surveillance footage from the college was never released.  

It's probably the last thing a champion female swimmer ever expects, but her head-on collision with the trans movement and the institutional conspiracy to push it on the public forced her to become a counter-culture voice of reason rather than just an athlete.

For years the independent media argued that no matter how much we expose the insanity of men posing as women to compete and dominate women's sports, nothing will really change until the real female athletes speak up and fight back.  Riley Gaines and those like her represent that necessary rebellion and a desperately needed return to common sense and reason.

In a recent interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast, Gaines related some interesting information on the inner workings of the NCAA and the subversive schemes surrounding trans athletes.  Not only were women participants essentially strong-armed by colleges and officials into quietly going along with the program, there was also a concerted propaganda effort.  Competition ceremonies were rigged as vehicles for promoting trans athletes over everyone else. 

The bottom line?  The competitions didn't matter.  The real women and their achievements didn't matter.  The only thing that mattered to officials were the photo ops; dudes pretending to be chicks posing with awards for the gushing corporate media.  The agenda took precedence.

Lia Thomas, formerly known as William Thomas, was more than an activist invading female sports, he was also apparently a science project fostered and protected by the athletic establishment.  It's important to understand that the political left does not care about female athletes.  They do not care about women's sports.  They don't care about the integrity of the environments they co-opt.  Their only goal is to identify viable platforms with social impact and take control of them.  Women's sports are seen as a vehicle for public indoctrination, nothing more.

The reasons why they covet women's sports are varied, but a primary motive is the desire to assert the fallacy that men and women are "the same" psychologically as well as physically.  They want the deconstruction of biological sex and identity as nothing more than "social constructs" subject to personal preference.  If they can destroy what it means to be a man or a woman, they can destroy the very foundations of relationships, families and even procreation.  

For now it seems as though the trans agenda is hitting a wall with much of the public aware of it and less afraid to criticize it.  Social media companies might be able to silence some people, but they can't silence everyone.  However, there is still a significant threat as the movement continues to target children through the public education system and women's sports are not out of the woods yet.   

The ultimate solution is for women athletes around the world to organize and widely refuse to participate in any competitions in which biological men are allowed.  The only way to save women's sports is for women to be willing to end them, at least until institutions that put doctrine ahead of logic are made irrelevant.          

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 17:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Congress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness

A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to…

Published

on

Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz

Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after agreeing the U.S. needed to invest tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, Congress is already seriously scaling back its plans.

A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the National Science Foundation, America’s premier basic science research agency, by over 8% relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation US$6.6 billion below targets Congress set in 2022.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are rapidly increasing their science budgets.

I am a sociologist who studies how research universities contribute to the public good. I’m also the executive director of the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits.

Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.

A promised investment

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate.

Congress had just passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act. The science part of the law promised one of the biggest federal investments in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year history.

The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers haven’t been good at doing that recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction.

Research’s critical impact

That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect.

For instance, the basic discoveries that made the COVID-19 vaccine possible stretch back to the early 1960s. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, support jobs and regional economies and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.

Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide thrive by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the economic health of your hometown and the nation.

Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported U.S. employers, including:

  • A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy.

  • A Dallas-based construction company that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.

  • More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from federally funded research done by our consortium’s members.

A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to corporate innovation and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. Our data shows that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.

That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.

High stakes

If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.

Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.

Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 16, 2024.

Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending