Connect with us

Spread & Containment

What Should We Expect From The Market in The Week Ahead?

Market Corrects As COVID-19 Cases Surge 06-12-20

Published

on

This article was originally written by Real Investment Advice.

 
In this issue of “Market Corrects As COVID-19 Cases Surge:”
  • Market Correction
  • Short-Term Excesses Reversed
  • A Note Of Fed Forecasts
  • The Bear Case Is Still Valid
  • Technical Review Remains Bullish
  • Portfolio Positioning
  • MacroView: Rationalizing High Valuations Won’t Improve Outcomes
  • Sector & Market Analysis
  • 401k Plan Manager
Follow Us On: Twitter, Facebook, Linked-In, Sound Cloud, Seeking Alpha

Upcoming Event  – CANDID COFFEE

Sign up now for this virtual “Financial Q&A” GoTo Meeting

June 27th from 8-9 am

Send in your questions, and Rich and Danny will answer them live.


Catch Up On What You Missed Last Week


Market Correction

As I wrote previously, the break above the 200-dma had changed the complexion of the market.
“If the markets can break above the 200-dma, and maintain that level, it would suggest the bull market is back in play.
However, in our Tuesday follow up, we discussed how the market rally had gotten to an extreme. As such, we noted the need to become more defensive in the short-term. To wit:
“Regardless, the markets are bullish biased, and we must be respectful of that reality. No matter how you slice the data, the markets are back to more extreme overbought conditions on a short-term basis. The break above the 200-dma triggered a parabolic advance in the market over the last week. The market is making a 3-standard deviation move to the upside. With indicators very overbought, short-term corrective action is likely. (Note the market was just 3-standard deviations BELOW the 50-dma in March.)”
That correction came swiftly on Thursday. The surge in COVID-19 cases in the U.S. undermined the “V-Shaped” economic recovery meme. As we noted, the market had rallied into overhead resistance, and the correction found support at the 200-dma. Last weekend we had laid out the risk/reward parameters and had assigned probabilities for a correction.
  • -6.6% to the 200-dma vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (70% – Target achieved)
  • -11.2% to the 50-dma vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (20%)
  • -14.4% to previous consolidation lows vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (5%)
  • -18.3% to March bounce peak vs. +5% to all-time highs. Negative (5%)
The market achieved the retracement to the 200-dma support on Thursday during the most intense sell-off since March. Importantly, it was a good reminder of just how brutal markets can be when there is a complete lack of liquidity.  

Correction Reduces Short-Term Excesses

Previously we discussed the more extreme levels of optimism in the markets. These indicators have historically corresponded with short-term market peaks and corrections. The first was the large level of short-positions non-commercial speculators were carrying on the S&P 500. (These are contracts on the S&P 500 in the futures market used for hedging long market positioning.) Net-short positioning had reached a more extreme level, which historically aligns with short-term peaks and bear markets. The correction last week reduced some of that excess. The same goes for the total put-call ratio, This ratio measures the total of option contract buying. Investors had gotten extremely aggressive in buying call options betting the market would only go higher. At extremes, retail “call option” buyers generally wind up on the wrong side of the trade. The quick rout on Thursday reduced some of those excesses. Note, however, the 10-day moving average of the put-call ratio remains in more “bearish” territory, suggesting we may not be done with the correction just yet. The issue remains that the markets have priced in a “V-shaped” recovery, which is well ahead of what the economic data suggests. 

A Note About The Fed

There were two catalysts that ignited the sell-off on Thursday. The first, as stated above, were headlines of a surge in COVID-19 cases. (As discussed in this week’s #MacroView below) stocks economy, #MacroView: The Great Divide Between Stocks & The Economy The second, and probably more important reason, was what the Fed didn’t say following this week’s Fed meeting. While the markets were hopeful for announcements for more stimulus to support the markets, the Fed simply reiterated their current stance. More importantly, the Fed stated that QE would remain at $40 billion per week or $120 billion per month. This is substantially less than the current level of Treasury issuance. As Tavi Costa of Crescat Capital noted this week: As noted previously, while the Fed is doing a massive amount of QE, the “hole” they are trying to fill is substantially larger. In what I call the “PacMan” chart below, the “economic deficit” will consume more than the Fed has currently committed. (Economic deficit is the estimated loss due to ongoing unemployment, reduced growth, and impact of debt and deficits.)

The Worst Economic Forecasters Ever

The Federal Reserve must qualify as the worst economic forecasters ever. Despite annual promises of stronger economic growth, such has yet to be the case. Ever. While the economy will indeed recover in 2021 and 2022, the Fed is likely overestimating the outcome. However, in the short-term, they have little choice.
“Unwittingly, the Fed has now become co-dependent on the markets. If they acknowledge the risk of weaker economic growth, the subsequent market sell-off would dampen consumer confidence and push economic growth rates lower. Therefore, they have to be overly optimistic.”
As discussed Friday, the surging levels of debts and deficits, combined with demographics, will suppress economic growth below 2%. Such leaves very little room for the Fed to make a policy mistake.
“Before the “Financial Crisis,” the economy had a linear growth trend of real GDP of 3.2%. Following the 2008 recession, the growth rate dropped to the exponential growth trend of roughly 2.2%. Instead of reducing the debt problems, unproductive debt, and leverage increased.”
stocks economy, #MacroView: The Great Divide Between Stocks & The Economy While the Fed had an opportunity to disconnect monetary policy from the market, they failed to do so. Instead, they once again opted to bail out financial markets at the expense of economic prosperity longer-term.

By voting to avoid short-term pain, the Federal Reserve has locked the economy into a long-term economic malaise. Like a “frog in boiling water,” the vast majority of Americans will see their economic prosperity slowly fade. The stock market is not the economy. It is a distortion of economics.

The Bear Case Is Still Valid

As my colleague Doug Kass pointed out on Friday:
Yesterday provided at least five reasons for the markets to decline:
  1. Federal Reserve Chairman Powell delivered a cautionary economic message for not only this year but for several years to come. To me, this renders the rosy EPS projections of the consensus, and many high-profile strategists (like my friends Dave Kostin and Thomas Lee) are unrealistic. 
  2. There was mounting evidence that Covid-19 is still not tamed.
  3. Wells Fargo CFO John Shrewsberry said second-quarter loan loss reserves would be higher than in 1Q-2020.
  4. The Robinhood traders’ objects of affection, stocks of bankrupt companies, took a sudden dive. Silly speculation is almost always evidence of a maturing bull market.
  5. Technical signposts are flashing red: Investor sentiment has increased as stock prices rose as a bull market in complacency has quickly unfolded from the depths of MarchMarket breadth has started to wane.
I agree with Doug and have been well ahead of the media in lowering forecasts. As noted previously: “Given the horrific data we now have coming in, we already know our previous estimates of $100/share were too high. A more realistic, and still overly optimistic 50-60% decline in earnings, makes current valuations even more challenging to support. (Using the chart and table below, you can pick your price and valuation level.) “ profits, Fundamentally Speaking: Estimating The Earnings Crash What is essential to understand is that while Fed liquidity is currently fueling a “bull market,” the “bear case” still has teeth. Eventually, the market will fill the gap between “fantasy” and “reality.” 

Technical Review Remains Bullish

In the short-term, however, the technical backdrop of the market remains bullish. The market had gotten overheated over the last couple of weeks, but the correction successfully retested the 200-dma. Such establishes important support. Concurrently, the correction reversed most of the more extreme overbought conditions. However, if we slow our analysis down a bit, we find that the current sell signal remains intact. Such suggests the market could still experience further corrective or consolidative actions over the next couple of weeks or months. The short-term technical structure remains bullish and overbought currently. However, the longer-term fundamentals remain worrisome in light of the economic devastation. While the Fed’s monetary policies mitigated much of the downside risk, it can not be removed entirely. As experienced on Thursday, “reversions happen fast.”

Portfolio Positioning For An Overbought Market

As I noted last week:
“With ‘coronavirus cases’ likely to rise sharply following Memorial Day celebrations and recent crowded protests, the risk of disappointment has risen. Such has been an exceptionally rally. All of our equity positions are now extremely stretched and overbought. Conversely, all of our hedges VERY oversold.”
That reversion happened this past week, with our hedges of Treasury bonds and the U.S. dollar offsetting the decline in our longs on Thursday. We did use the secondary retest of the 200-dma on Friday to add some “Pandemic exposure” stocks back to our portfolio. As we detailed to our RIAPRO subscribers (30-day Risk-Free Trial).
“After the market dropped over 5% yesterday and successfully tested the 200-day moving average, we made slight additions to the portfolios. The positions are small, and we remain vigilant to potentially more downside as the S&P 500 sits on top of its 200-day moving average. Equity Portfolio Buys
  • CMCSA – Initiate 1% position
  • CSCO – Initiate 1% position
ETF Portfolio Buys
  • XLE – Add 1% to bring total to 2%
  • XLP – Add 1% to bring total to 5.5%
We continue to hold our TLT and UUP positions for now as a hedge.”
As discussed over the last several weeks, we have slowly added equity exposure in areas we like. However, we focus on dividend yield, and continue to hedge increases in equity risk with offsetting hedges. We also still carry a higher than normal level of cash. This is a very risky market. Caution is advised.  

The MacroView

If you need help or have questions, we are always glad to help. Just email me. See You Next Week By Lance Roberts, CIO

Market & Sector Analysis

Data Analysis Of The Market & Sectors For Traders


MISSING THE REST OF THE NEWSLETTER?

This is what our RIAPRO.NET subscribers are reading right now! Risk-Free For 30-Day Trial.
  • Sector & Market Analysis
  • Technical Gauge
  • Sector Rotation Analysis
  • Portfolio Positioning
  • Sector & Market Recommendations
  • Client Portfolio Updates
  • Live 401k Plan Manager
 

THE REAL 401k PLAN MANAGER

A Conservative Strategy For Long-Term Investors


If you need help after reading the alert; do not hesitate to contact me

Model performance is a two-asset model of stocks and bonds relative to the weighting changes made each week in the newsletter. Such is strictly for informational and educational purposes only and should not be relied on for any reason. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Use at your own risk and peril.  

401k Plan Manager Live Model

As an RIA PRO subscriber (You get your first 30-days free) you have access to our live 401k plan manager. Compare your current 401k allocation, to our recommendation for your company-specific plan as well as our on 401k model allocation. You can also track performance, estimate future values based on your savings and expected returns, and dig down into your sector and market allocations. If you would like to offer our service to your employees at a deeply discounted corporate rate, please contact me.
The post Market Corrects As COVID-19 Cases Surge 06-12-20 appeared first on RIA.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Many CDC Blunders Exaggerated Severity Of COVID-19: Study

Many CDC Blunders Exaggerated Severity Of COVID-19: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Centers…

Published

on

Many CDC Blunders Exaggerated Severity Of COVID-19: Study

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made at least 25 statistical or numerical errors during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overwhelming majority exaggerated the severity of the pandemic, according to a new study.

Researchers who have been tracking CDC errors compiled 25 instances where the agency offered demonstrably false information. For each instance, they analyzed whether the error exaggerated or downplayed the severity of COVID-19.

Of the 25 instances, 20 exaggerated the severity, the researchers reported in the study, which was published ahead of peer review on March 23.

The CDC has expressed significant concern about COVID-19 misinformation. In order for the CDC to be a credible source of information, they must improve the accuracy of the data they provide,” the authors wrote.

The CDC did not respond to a request for comment.

Most Errors Involved Children

Most of the errors were about COVID-19’s impact on children.

In mid-2021, for instance, the CDC claimed that 4 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 were kids. The actual percentage was 0.04 percent. The CDC eventually corrected the misinformation, months after being alerted to the issue.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky falsely told a White House press briefing in October 2021 that there had been 745 COVID-19 deaths in children, but the actual number, based on CDC death certificate analysis, was 558.

Walensky and other CDC officials also falsely said in 2022 that COVID-19 was a top five cause of death for children, citing a study that gathered CDC data instead of looking at the data directly. The officials have not corrected the false claims.

Other errors include the CDC claiming in 2022 that pediatric COVID-19 hospitalizations were “increasing again” when they’d actually peaked two weeks earlier; CDC officials in 2023 including deaths among infants younger than 6 months old when reporting COVID-19 deaths among children; and Walensky on Feb. 9, 2023, exaggerating the pediatric death toll before Congress.

“These errors suggest the CDC consistently exaggerates the impact of COVID-19 on children,” the authors of the study said.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/24/2023 - 20:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

NIH awards researchers $7.5 million to create data support center for opioid use disorder and pain management research

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – March 24, 2023 – Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine have been awarded a five-year, $7.5 million grant…

Published

on

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – March 24, 2023 – Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine have been awarded a five-year, $7.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) initiative.

Credit: Wake Forest University School of Medicine

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – March 24, 2023 – Researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine have been awarded a five-year, $7.5 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Helping End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) initiative.

The NIH HEAL initiative, which launched in 2018, was created to find scientific solutions to stem the national opioid and pain public health crises. The funding is part of the HEAL Data 2 Action (HD2A) program, designed to use real-time data to guide actions and change processes toward reducing overdoses and improving opioid use disorder treatment and pain management.

With the support of the grant, researchers will create a data infrastructure support center to assist HD2A innovation projects at other institutions across the country. These innovation projects are designed to address gaps in four areas—prevention, harm reduction, treatment of opioid use disorder and recovery support.

“Our center’s goal is to remove barriers so that solutions can be more streamlined and rapidly distributed,” said Meredith C.B. Adams, M.D., associate professor of anesthesiology, biomedical informatics, physiology and pharmacology, and public health sciences at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

By monitoring opioid overdoses in real time, researchers will be able to identify trends and gaps in resources in local communities where services are most needed.

“We will collect and analyze data that will inform prevention and treatment services,” Adams said. “We’re shifting chronic pain and opioid care in communities to quickly offer solutions.”

The center will also develop data related resources, education and training related to substance use, pain management and the reduction of opioid overdoses.

According to the CDC, there was a 29% increase in drug overdose deaths in the U.S.  in 2020, and nearly 75% of those deaths involved an opioid.

“Given the scope of the opioid crises, which was only exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s imperative that we improve and create new prevention strategies,” Adams said. “The funding will create the infrastructure for rapid intervention.”


Read More

Continue Reading

International

How They Convinced Trump To Lock Down

How They Convinced Trump To Lock Down

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via Brownstone Institute,

An enduring mystery for three years is how…

Published

on

How They Convinced Trump To Lock Down

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via Brownstone Institute,

An enduring mystery for three years is how Donald Trump came to be the president who shut down American society for what turned out to be a manageable respiratory virus, setting off an unspeakable crisis with waves of destructive fallout that continue to this day. 

Let’s review the timeline and offer some well-founded speculations about what happened. 

On March 9, 2020, Trump was still of the opinion that the virus could be handled by normal means. 

Two days later, he changed his tune. He was ready to use the full power of the federal government in a war on the virus. 

What changed? Deborah Birx reports in her book that Trump had a friend die in a New York hospital and this is what shifted his opinion. Jared Kushner reports that he simply listened to reason. Mike Pence says he was persuaded that his staff would respect him more. No question (and based on all existing reports) that he found himself surrounded by “trusted advisors” amounting to about 5 or so people (including Mike Pence and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb)

It was only a week later when Trump issued the edict to close all “indoor and outdoor venues where people congregate,” initiating the biggest regime change in US history that flew in the face of all rights and liberties Americans had previously taken for granted. It was the ultimate in political triangulation: as John F. Kennedy cut taxes, Nixon opened China, and Clinton reformed welfare, Trump shut down the economy he promised to revive. This action confounded critics on all sides. 

A month later, Trump said his decision to have “turned off” the economy saved millions of lives, later even claiming to have saved billions. He has yet to admit error. 

Even as late as June 23rd of that year, Trump was demanding credit for having followed all of Fauci’s recommendations. Why do they love him and hate me, he wanted to know. 

Something about this story has never really added up. How could one person have been so persuaded by a handful of others such as Fauci, Birx, Pence, and Kushner and his friends? He surely had other sources of information – some other scenario or intelligence – that fed into his disastrous decision. 

In one version of events, his advisors simply pointed to the supposed success of Xi Jinping in enacting lockdowns in Wuhan, which the World Health Organization claimed had stopped infections and brought the virus under control. Perhaps his advisors flattered Trump with the observation that he is at least as great as the president of China so he should be bold and enact the same policies here. 

One problem with this scenario is timing. The Oval Office meetings that preceded his March 16, 2020, edict took place the weekend of the 14th and 15th, Friday and Saturday. It was already clear by the 11th that Trump was ready for lockdowns. This was the same day as Fauci’s deliberately misleading testimony to the House Oversight Committee in which he rattled the room with predictions of Hollywood-style carnage. 

On the 12th, Trump shut all travel from Europe, the UK, and Australia, causing huge human pile-ups at international airports. On the 13th, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a classified document that transferred control of pandemic policy from the CDC to the National Security Council and eventually the Department of Homeland Security. By the time that Trump met with Fauci and Birx in that legendary weekend, the country was already under quasi-martial law. 

Isolating the date in the trajectory here, it is apparent that whatever happened to change Trump occurred on March 10, 2020, the day after his Tweet saying there should be no shutdowns and one day before Fauci’s testimony. 

That something very likely revolves around the most substantial discovery we’ve made in three years of investigations. It was Debbie Lerman who first cracked the code: Covid policy was forged not by the public-health bureaucracies but by the national-security sector of the administrative state. She has further explained that this occurred because of two critical features of the response: 1) the belief that this virus came from a lab leak, and 2) the vaccine was the biosecurity countermeasure pushed by the same people as the fix. 

Knowing this, we gain greater insight into 1) why Trump changed his mind, 2) why he has never explained this momentous decision and otherwise completely avoids the topic, and 3) why it has been so unbearably difficult to find out any information about these mysterious few days other than the pablum served up in books designed to earn royalties for authors like Birx, Pence, and Kushner. 

Based on a number of second-hand reports, all available clues we have assembled, and the context of the times, the following scenario seems most likely. On March 10, and in response to Trump’s dismissive tweet the day before, some trusted sources within and around the National Security Council (Matthew Pottinger and Michael Callahan, for example), and probably involving some from military command and others, came to Trump to let him know a highly classified secret. 

Imagine a scene from Get Smart with the Cone of Silence, for example. These are the events in the life of statecraft that infuse powerful people with a sense of their personal awesomeness. The fate of all of society rests on their shoulders and the decisions they make at this point. Of course they are sworn to intense secrecy following the great reveal. 

The revelation was that the virus was not a textbook virus but something far more threatening and terrible. It came from a research lab in Wuhan. It might in fact be a bioweapon. This is why Xi had to do extreme things to protect his people. The US should do the same, they said, and there is a fix available too and it is being carefully guarded by the military. 

It seems that the virus had already been mapped in order to make a vaccine to protect the population. Thanks to 20 years of research on mRNA platforms, they told him,  this vaccine can be rolled out in months, not years. That means that Trump can lock down and distribute vaccines to save everyone from the China virus, all in time for the election. Doing this would not only assure his reelection but guarantee that he would go down in history as one of the greatest US presidents of all time. 

This meeting might only have lasted an hour or two – and might have included a parade of people with the highest-level security clearances – but it was enough to convince Trump. After all, he had battled China for two previous years, imposing tariffs and making all sorts of threats. It was easy to believe at that point that China might have initiated biological warfare as retaliation. That’s why he made the decision to use all the power of the presidency to push a lockdown under emergency rule. 

To be sure, the Constitution does not allow him to override the discretion of the states but with the weight of the office complete with enough funding and persuasion, he could make it happen. And thus did he make the fateful decision that not only wrecked his presidency but the country too, imposing harms that will last a generation. 

It only took a few weeks for Trump to become suspicious about what happened. For weeks and months, he toggled between believing that he was tricked and believing that he did the right thing. He had already approved another 30 days of lockdowns and even inveighed against Georgia and later Florida for opening. He went so far as to claim that no state could open without his approval. 

He did not fully change his mind until August, when Scott Atlas revealed the whole con to him. 

There is another fascinating feature to this entirely plausible scenario. Even as Trump’s advisors were telling him that this could be a bioweapon leaked from the lab in China, we had Anthony Fauci and his cronies going to great lengths to deny it was a lab leak (even if they believed that it was). This created an interesting situation. The NIH and those surrounding Fauci were publicly insisting that the virus was of zoonotic origin, even as Trump’s circle was telling the president that it should be regarded as a bioweapon. 

Fauci belonged to both camps, which suggests that Trump very likely knew of Fauci’s deception all along: the “noble lie” to protect the public from knowing the truth. Trump had to be fine with that. 

Gradually following the lockdown edicts and the takeover by the Department of Homeland Security, in cooperation with a very hostile CDC, Trump lost power and influence over his own government, which is why his later Tweets urging a reopening fell on deaf ears. To top it off, the vaccine failed to arrive in time for the election. This is because Fauci himself delayed the rollout until after the election, claiming that the trials were not racially diverse enough. Thus Trump’s gambit completely failed, despite all the promises of those around him that it was a guaranteed way to win reelection.

To be sure, this scenario cannot be proven because the entire event – certainly the most dramatic political move in at least a generation and one with unspeakable costs for the country – remains cloaked in secrecy. Not even Senator Rand Paul can get the information he needs because it remains classified. If anyone thinks the Biden approval of releasing documents will show what we need, that person is naive. Still, the above scenario fits all available facts and it is confirmed by second-hand reports from inside the White House. 

It’s enough for a great movie or a play of Shakespearean levels of tragedy. And to this day, none of the main players are speaking openly about it. 

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Founder and President of the Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Liberty or Lockdown, and thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/24/2023 - 17:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending