Bottom-line: 시진핑이 뚜렷한 후계자를 지정하지 않은채 권력을 연임한 뒤, 14억 중국인들을 위해 경제를 더욱 개방하고 세계와 연결고리를 유지하겠다고 했으며, 경제성장률 데이터까지 예상을 상회했지만 위안화나 증시는 약세를 지속하고 있음. 전문가들은 이번에 집권하면서 시진핑을 보필할 인력들이 그 동안 일관되게 권력에 무조건적으로 동의하며 시진핑의 편에 서 있었다는 점을 위험으로 들고 있음. 그들은 어떠한 경우에도 시진핑의 결정에 도전하지 않을 것이며, 그 누구도 틀렸다고 말하지 않을 것이기 때문임.
Minutes after pulling off a power play that stunned even seasoned China experts, a smiling Xi Jinping gave an optimistic outlook for the years ahead. Noting how the Communist Party brought China fast economic growth and social stability over the past 40 years, Xi vowed to further open the world’s second-biggest economy and stay connected with the rest of the globe. The party would align its priorities with the nation’s 1.4 billion people, he said, and continue working hard to give them “a better life.”. “Its strong fundamentals will not change,” Xi said on Sunday to conclude a twice-a-decade reshuffle of top party leaders, referring to China’s economy. “And it will remain on the positive trajectory over the long run.”. By stacking China’s most powerful bodies with his allies, Xi has ensured he’ll be around to see those pledges through -- possibly for at least another decade after he appointed no obvious potential successors. Yet rather than cheering the stability offered by the 69-year-old leader, who is currently 10 years younger than US President Joe Biden, many China watchers are worried that nobody will tell Xi when he’s wrong. “These are all officials who got to the highest level of power by agreeing with Xi Jinping on everything and by siding with him consistently,” said Victor Shih, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. “They will not start to challenge his decisions regardless of the merits of these decisions.”. China’s yuan and the country’s stocks tumbled in Hong Kong to the lowest level since the depths of the 2008 global financial crisis even as economic growth data beat estimates. The onshore yuan depreciated as much as 0.4% on Monday, while the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index, a gauge of Chinese stocks listed in Hong Kong, plunged more than 5%.
Minutes after pulling off a power play that stunned even seasoned China experts, a smiling Xi Jinping gave an optimistic outlook for the years ahead. Noting how the Communist Party brought China fast economic growth and social stability over the past 40 years, Xi vowed to further open the world’s second-biggest economy and stay connected with the rest of the globe. The party would align its priorities with the nation’s 1.4 billion people, he said, and continue working hard to give them “a better life.”. “Its strong fundamentals will not change,” Xi said on Sunday to conclude a twice-a-decade reshuffle of top party leaders, referring to China’s economy. “And it will remain on the positive trajectory over the long run.”. By stacking China’s most powerful bodies with his allies, Xi has ensured he’ll be around to see those pledges through -- possibly for at least another decade after he appointed no obvious potential successors. Yet rather than cheering the stability offered by the 69-year-old leader, who is currently 10 years younger than US President Joe Biden, many China watchers are worried that nobody will tell Xi when he’s wrong. “These are all officials who got to the highest level of power by agreeing with Xi Jinping on everything and by siding with him consistently,” said Victor Shih, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. “They will not start to challenge his decisions regardless of the merits of these decisions.”. China’s yuan and the country’s stocks tumbled in Hong Kong to the lowest level since the depths of the 2008 global financial crisis even as economic growth data beat estimates. The onshore yuan depreciated as much as 0.4% on Monday, while the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index, a gauge of Chinese stocks listed in Hong Kong, plunged more than 5%.
Bloomberg
Bloomberg Link
Bloomberg Links: cross-platform sharing of Bloomberg Terminal and Mobile content
Bottom-line: 알리바바 및 텐센트를 포함하는 대형 기술주 위주의 지수가 시진핑의 독점적 권력이 확정되며 떠나는 투자자들로 인해 큰 폭의 매도세를 보임. 이 지수의 최고점 대비 낙폭은 -74%로 20년 전 미국의 기술주 거품에 따른 나스닥 지수 낙폭인 -78%에 근접. 하지만 분석가들은 바닥을 논하기엔 아직 이르다 함. 이는 시진핑 권력 하에서 그간 기업 뿐만 아니라 민간 기업이 어려운 환경의 사업을 영위했기 때문임.
After another day of epic selling, the rout in Chinese technology stocks is rivaling the selloff during the bursting of the US dot-com bubble two decades ago, with analysts saying it’s too soon to call a bottom. The Hang Seng Tech Index, which tracks shares of internet giants including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd., slumped almost 10% Monday as investors fled the market in response to President Xi Jinping’s tightening control in China. That took the gauge’s plunge from its February 2021 peak to 74%, nearing the Nasdaq Composite Index’s more than yearlong slump of 78% through October 2002. The selloff suggests investors have little hopes of a revival in private enterprise under China’s new leadership, which is stacked with Xi’s allies. The past decade under his reign saw a crackdown to curb the outsized influence of tech giants. “A lot of bad news have been baked in and the market correction is clearly overshooting, but we’re still looking for an inflection point which is unclear for now,” said Xiadong Bao, fund manager at Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management in Paris.
After another day of epic selling, the rout in Chinese technology stocks is rivaling the selloff during the bursting of the US dot-com bubble two decades ago, with analysts saying it’s too soon to call a bottom. The Hang Seng Tech Index, which tracks shares of internet giants including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Tencent Holdings Ltd., slumped almost 10% Monday as investors fled the market in response to President Xi Jinping’s tightening control in China. That took the gauge’s plunge from its February 2021 peak to 74%, nearing the Nasdaq Composite Index’s more than yearlong slump of 78% through October 2002. The selloff suggests investors have little hopes of a revival in private enterprise under China’s new leadership, which is stacked with Xi’s allies. The past decade under his reign saw a crackdown to curb the outsized influence of tech giants. “A lot of bad news have been baked in and the market correction is clearly overshooting, but we’re still looking for an inflection point which is unclear for now,” said Xiadong Bao, fund manager at Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management in Paris.
Bottom-line: 미국 주가지수의 성장동력을 대변하는 5개의 대형주(애플, 마이크로소프트, 구글, 아마존, 페이스북)가 이번 주 실적을 발표함. 지난 2년 간 꾸준히 두자릿수 성장을 기록했지만, 이번 분기에는 전년 동기 대비 -22% 역성장을 하면서 3개 분기 연속 역성장을 기록할 것으로 예상됨. 이들 5개 대형주가 주가하락으로 3조 달러 가량의 시가총액을 잃고 지수 내 비중이 줄었지만, 여전히 지수의 20% 수준을 차지하고 있음. 뿐만 아니라 전문가들의 추정은 내년에 다시 성장을 할 수 있을 것으로 예상되고 있기 때문에 만일 실적의 부진이 확인될 경우 마침내 최종 항복에 이를 수 있다고 함.
Once the key growth engines for the S&P 500 Index, megacap technology stocks are slated to enter this earnings season with diminished stature: profits are expected to fall by the most in at least three years. That’s a prospect that should frighten investors hoping for an end to this year’s bear market. The five biggest firms by revenue among this cohort -- Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc. -- are mired in a profit slump, with earnings per share projected to fall 22% from the same quarter of 2021, data compiled by Bloomberg show. After losing roughly $3 trillion in market value combined this year amid slowing economic growth and surging interest rates, the group’s weighting is around the lowest in more than two years. But it still accounts for about a fifth of the benchmark -- more than the utilities, energy and consumer sectors combined. That makes the tech giants as important as ever for the direction of the S&P 500. And with Wall Street analysts projecting that megacap tech profits will rebound in the year ahead, any signs of weakness in their forecasts means trouble for the broader market, according to Gina Martin Adams, chief equity strategist at Bloomberg Intelligence. “The consensus still expects a relatively rapid recovery in fundamentals to emerge next year,” she said. “If the companies can’t confirm this forecast, this important segment of the S&P 500 may finally capitulate." Investors are on alert, she said, after Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk said last week that demand has been affected by downturns in China and Europe. Microsoft and Alphabet will be the first to report, on Tuesday after markets close. Meta Platforms follows Wednesday and Apple and Amazon on Thursday. The group is poised for the third consecutive quarter of falling profits, a stark contrast from the past two years, when the quintet consistently posted solid double-digit growth.
Once the key growth engines for the S&P 500 Index, megacap technology stocks are slated to enter this earnings season with diminished stature: profits are expected to fall by the most in at least three years. That’s a prospect that should frighten investors hoping for an end to this year’s bear market. The five biggest firms by revenue among this cohort -- Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp., Alphabet Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc. -- are mired in a profit slump, with earnings per share projected to fall 22% from the same quarter of 2021, data compiled by Bloomberg show. After losing roughly $3 trillion in market value combined this year amid slowing economic growth and surging interest rates, the group’s weighting is around the lowest in more than two years. But it still accounts for about a fifth of the benchmark -- more than the utilities, energy and consumer sectors combined. That makes the tech giants as important as ever for the direction of the S&P 500. And with Wall Street analysts projecting that megacap tech profits will rebound in the year ahead, any signs of weakness in their forecasts means trouble for the broader market, according to Gina Martin Adams, chief equity strategist at Bloomberg Intelligence. “The consensus still expects a relatively rapid recovery in fundamentals to emerge next year,” she said. “If the companies can’t confirm this forecast, this important segment of the S&P 500 may finally capitulate." Investors are on alert, she said, after Tesla Inc. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk said last week that demand has been affected by downturns in China and Europe. Microsoft and Alphabet will be the first to report, on Tuesday after markets close. Meta Platforms follows Wednesday and Apple and Amazon on Thursday. The group is poised for the third consecutive quarter of falling profits, a stark contrast from the past two years, when the quintet consistently posted solid double-digit growth.
Docent: 파월 의장은 어떤 사람으로 기억되길 바라는가? 이에 대해 도슨트 역할을 하고자 함. 그에게는 폴 볼커, 그리고 아서 번스의 선택지가 존재함. 폴 볼커는 해야 할 일을 지체없이 했고, 아서 번스는 망설였고, 결국 실패했음. 물가가 여전히 높고, 자연 실업률 도달을 위한 것보다 세배나 많은 고용이 일어나고, 여전히 일자리에 인력이 채워지지 않고 있음. 이런 점만 본다면 중앙은행은 이전에 책정한 정책금리보다 더 높은 수준을 설정해야 함. 그럼에도 불구 최근 발언을 보면 중앙은행은 ‘더 높게’ 보다 ‘더 오래’를 선택하려는 모습을 보이며 적어도 지금은 아서 번스의 실패를 따를 것 같음. 금리를 계속 높이는 것보다 현재 제시 된 경로의 최종금리를 오래 유지하면 경착륙 확률을 줄이고 통화정책의 효과를 보다 잘 관찰할 수 있지만, 공짜 점심은 없음. 더 높은 금리만이 억제할 수 있는 영역과 그 시간을 놓치면, 이후 더 강하게 금리를 또 다시 올려야 하기 때문임. 파월은 누구로 기억되고 싶은 것일까?
US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell faces a crucial choice as the central bank battles the worst bout of inflation since the 1970s: What kind of chair will he be? A Paul Volcker, who took interest rates ever higher in an uncompromising effort to get prices under control? Or an Arthur Burns, who acted more timidly, in the ultimately futile hope that a less austere approach might be sufficient to do the job? So far, he’s looking more like the latter. To date, the Fed’s monetary tightening hasn’t done much to reduce inflationary pressures or loosen the labor market. As of September, the median consumer price index was up 7.0% from a year earlier, compared with 6.7% in August. Payrolls expanded by 263,000 in September, roughly triple the pace consistent with a stable unemployment rate. The ratio of unfilled jobs to unemployed workers stood at 1.7 in August, far exceeding the 1-to-1 ratio that Powell has cited as appropriate. None of this is consistent with even stable, let alone declining, inflation. Given the lack of progress, one might expect the Fed to take interest rates even higher than previously planned. Yet officials’ recent remarks suggest they’re sticking to their September projections, which foresee rates increasing 75 basis points in November, 50 in December and 25 in January to a peak of 4.50% to 4.75%. In other words, they intend to take rates to a moderately restrictive level, then wait and see if this constrains growth and increases unemployment enough to bring inflation back down to the central bank’s 2% target. If they don’t get the desired outcome relatively quickly, they’ll keep rates at the peak longer, rather than going higher. Emphasizing “longer” rather than “higher” has some advantages. It presumably reduces the risk of a hard landing: If monetary policy is somewhat tight, but not very tight, activity and employment should slow gradually. It gives Fed officials time to assess the consequences of their efforts, recognizing that monetary policy entails uncertainty and affects the economy with long and variable lags. That said, the downside risks are significant. Because less-aggressive tightening takes longer to bring down inflation, it might allow inflationary expectations to become unanchored – a dynamic that only even-higher interest rates could counteract. Also, the rise in rates matters as much as the level of rates. Over time, the effect of the higher level will fade – when, for example, the housing market has completed its adjustment to higher mortgage rates. Once that happens, further rate hikes will be needed to exert further restraint. There’s no free lunch. To increase its chances of getting inflation back down to 2%, the Fed has to be willing to push short-term interest rates higher when the economy doesn’t slow sufficiently and the labor market remains too tight. That increases the likelihood of recession. Volcker did what was necessary and beat inflation. Burns didn’t, and failed. How does Powell want to be remembered?
US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell faces a crucial choice as the central bank battles the worst bout of inflation since the 1970s: What kind of chair will he be? A Paul Volcker, who took interest rates ever higher in an uncompromising effort to get prices under control? Or an Arthur Burns, who acted more timidly, in the ultimately futile hope that a less austere approach might be sufficient to do the job? So far, he’s looking more like the latter. To date, the Fed’s monetary tightening hasn’t done much to reduce inflationary pressures or loosen the labor market. As of September, the median consumer price index was up 7.0% from a year earlier, compared with 6.7% in August. Payrolls expanded by 263,000 in September, roughly triple the pace consistent with a stable unemployment rate. The ratio of unfilled jobs to unemployed workers stood at 1.7 in August, far exceeding the 1-to-1 ratio that Powell has cited as appropriate. None of this is consistent with even stable, let alone declining, inflation. Given the lack of progress, one might expect the Fed to take interest rates even higher than previously planned. Yet officials’ recent remarks suggest they’re sticking to their September projections, which foresee rates increasing 75 basis points in November, 50 in December and 25 in January to a peak of 4.50% to 4.75%. In other words, they intend to take rates to a moderately restrictive level, then wait and see if this constrains growth and increases unemployment enough to bring inflation back down to the central bank’s 2% target. If they don’t get the desired outcome relatively quickly, they’ll keep rates at the peak longer, rather than going higher. Emphasizing “longer” rather than “higher” has some advantages. It presumably reduces the risk of a hard landing: If monetary policy is somewhat tight, but not very tight, activity and employment should slow gradually. It gives Fed officials time to assess the consequences of their efforts, recognizing that monetary policy entails uncertainty and affects the economy with long and variable lags. That said, the downside risks are significant. Because less-aggressive tightening takes longer to bring down inflation, it might allow inflationary expectations to become unanchored – a dynamic that only even-higher interest rates could counteract. Also, the rise in rates matters as much as the level of rates. Over time, the effect of the higher level will fade – when, for example, the housing market has completed its adjustment to higher mortgage rates. Once that happens, further rate hikes will be needed to exert further restraint. There’s no free lunch. To increase its chances of getting inflation back down to 2%, the Fed has to be willing to push short-term interest rates higher when the economy doesn’t slow sufficiently and the labor market remains too tight. That increases the likelihood of recession. Volcker did what was necessary and beat inflation. Burns didn’t, and failed. How does Powell want to be remembered?
Bottom-line: 올해는 2014년 이후 중국 주식시장에서 외국인이 첫 순매도자가 될 가능성이 높음. 시진핑이 모든 권력을 중앙집권화 한 것이 가장 큰 위험으로 보고 있으며, 경제를 부양하기 위한 정책이 제시되거나 경제를 봉쇄하고 있는 정책이 해제되지 않았기 때문에 외국인들의 투자 심리는 바닥을 향하고 있음. 이미 홍콩항셍중국기업지수는 2008년 금융위기 이후 최저 수준에서 거래되고 있으며, 아마도 12월 중앙경제공작회의에서 어떤 활로를 제시할지 보기 전까지 이런 흐름이 이어질 수도 있음.
Foreign investors are on track to turn sellers of Chinese equities for the first time ever for the year, as concerns about a lack of supportive policies from the Party congress and a renewed Covid Zero push spook markets. Overseas investors sold a record net 17.9 billion yuan ($2.5 billion) of mainland shares via trading links with Hong Kong on Monday, according to Bloomberg data, tipping the year-to-date level into a small net outflow. If that holds through year end, it would be the first annual decline since the stock connect program was launched in 2014. Selling spread through markets on Monday following the nation’s twice-a-decade political event, with the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index tumbling to the lowest level since the 2008 financial crisis. President Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power was seen as a major risk, with expectations that the leadership reshuffle would bring a continuation of key policies like Covid Zero. “Foreign sentiment on Chinese stocks is low now,” as the party congress signaled no imminent changes to Covid policies, said Marvin Chen, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. “Markets may need to wait to closer to the Central Economic Work Conference in December to see how the new leadership will address China’s economic challenges.”. China bears are growing by the day as traders turn skeptical over the nation’s economic growth due to its Covid-Zero policy and a heavily-battered property sector.
Foreign investors are on track to turn sellers of Chinese equities for the first time ever for the year, as concerns about a lack of supportive policies from the Party congress and a renewed Covid Zero push spook markets. Overseas investors sold a record net 17.9 billion yuan ($2.5 billion) of mainland shares via trading links with Hong Kong on Monday, according to Bloomberg data, tipping the year-to-date level into a small net outflow. If that holds through year end, it would be the first annual decline since the stock connect program was launched in 2014. Selling spread through markets on Monday following the nation’s twice-a-decade political event, with the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index tumbling to the lowest level since the 2008 financial crisis. President Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power was seen as a major risk, with expectations that the leadership reshuffle would bring a continuation of key policies like Covid Zero. “Foreign sentiment on Chinese stocks is low now,” as the party congress signaled no imminent changes to Covid policies, said Marvin Chen, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. “Markets may need to wait to closer to the Central Economic Work Conference in December to see how the new leadership will address China’s economic challenges.”. China bears are growing by the day as traders turn skeptical over the nation’s economic growth due to its Covid-Zero policy and a heavily-battered property sector.
Docent: 인플레이션의 시대가 도래하며 주식과 채권의 자산배분의 틀이 흔들리고 있는 현재에 모건스탠리의 보고서에 대해 도슨트 역할을 하고자 함. 실상 우리가 경기침체 위험에서 주식의 위험을 방어해준다고 생각하는 채권은 1995년부터 2020년 시기의 이야기라 할 수 있음. 1970년대부터 1995년까지 25년 간 주식과 채권의 가격은 같은 방향으로 움직였기 때문임. 당시 인플레이션을 어떤 것을 감수하고도 잡겠다는 중앙은행의 의지로 인해 주가 하락에도 금리는 계속 상승하면서 채권 가격도 하락했기 때문임. 이 때는 'Buy the dip'이라는 저가 매수의 구호가 통하지 않았음. 반면, 이후 시기에는 중앙은행이 인플레이션보다 성장률 하락을 매 번 걱정하는 완화적 태도의 편향을 유지함에 따라 주가가 하락할 때 채권 수익률도 하락, 이로 인한 채권 가격 상승이 손실을 방어했음. 최근 여전히 주식 가격과 채권 가격의 음의 상관관계를 보면, 투자자들은 주식에 대한 저점 매수 작동원리를 완전히 포기하지 않았다는 생각임. 그렇다면, 주식 가격과 채권 가격의 양의 상관관계는 어떤 의미를 지닐까? 두 가지 중요한 점은, 주식 가격과 채권 가격 간 양의 상관관계는 진정한 채권 금리의 고점을 암시하는 것일 수도 있음, 더욱 중요한 점은 투자자들의 중앙은행에 대한 신뢰라 할 수 있음. 어떤 수단을 동원해서라도 인플레이션을 통제하겠다는 중앙은행의 의지를 인정하는 순간 두 자산 가격 간의 상관관계는 높은 양의 값을 가지게 됨.
In the high-inflation regime (1970s to 1995) – Bonds and equity returns were consistently positively correlated. Rates went up as a reaction to the Fed getting hawkish on inflation, and equities fell, and vice versa. Buy the dip didn’t work as efficiently. In the low-inflation regime (1995 to 2020) – Bonds and equity returns were negatively correlated. There were no high inflation risks, but instead the Fed was always more concerned about faltering growth. Rates went down as a cushion whenever equities went down, as the Fed always had a dovish bias (also known as“buy the dip”, or “Fed put”). Recent correlation numbers have been slightly negative – suggesting that even with highinflation and a hawkish Fed, markets haven’t fully abandoned the "buy the dip" regime yet. But if inflation persists, and the Fed maintains a sufficiently restrictive policy forsome time, the correlation might become more conclusively positive, line with the highinflation regime of the 1970s/80s. There are three corollaries from a positive equitybond correlation. Treasuries may not be as effective a hedge for equities/risk-off/recession as theyhave been for the last 25 years, but more likely the cause of such weakness inequities/risk markets. Positive correlation could be one signal suggesting a true top in yields. Once the correlation turns positive, it could suggest that most investors who may have had hopes of support from the Fed may be finally capitulating, and more likely to suggest a true “peak” in bond yields. Positive correlation could also indicate Fed credibility. A return to positive correlation of 1980s would be one way of concluding that the market sees the Fed ready to do whatever it takes to control inflation.
In the high-inflation regime (1970s to 1995) – Bonds and equity returns were consistently positively correlated. Rates went up as a reaction to the Fed getting hawkish on inflation, and equities fell, and vice versa. Buy the dip didn’t work as efficiently. In the low-inflation regime (1995 to 2020) – Bonds and equity returns were negatively correlated. There were no high inflation risks, but instead the Fed was always more concerned about faltering growth. Rates went down as a cushion whenever equities went down, as the Fed always had a dovish bias (also known as“buy the dip”, or “Fed put”). Recent correlation numbers have been slightly negative – suggesting that even with highinflation and a hawkish Fed, markets haven’t fully abandoned the "buy the dip" regime yet. But if inflation persists, and the Fed maintains a sufficiently restrictive policy forsome time, the correlation might become more conclusively positive, line with the highinflation regime of the 1970s/80s. There are three corollaries from a positive equitybond correlation. Treasuries may not be as effective a hedge for equities/risk-off/recession as theyhave been for the last 25 years, but more likely the cause of such weakness inequities/risk markets. Positive correlation could be one signal suggesting a true top in yields. Once the correlation turns positive, it could suggest that most investors who may have had hopes of support from the Fed may be finally capitulating, and more likely to suggest a true “peak” in bond yields. Positive correlation could also indicate Fed credibility. A return to positive correlation of 1980s would be one way of concluding that the market sees the Fed ready to do whatever it takes to control inflation.
Bottom-line: 경기침체가 완만하거나 깊거나에 대한 것은 중요하지 않다고 제이피모건의 제이미 다이먼 최고경영자는 지적함. 그는 오히려 러시아와 우크라이나, 중국과 미국 등 지정학적 위험이 우리가 걱정하는 경기침체 위험을 훨씬 뛰어넘는다고 함.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said geopolitical uncertainties were among the biggest concerns facing the global economy right now, far outweighing the risk of recession. The most important thing is the geopolitics around Russia and Ukraine, America and China, relationships of the western world,” Dimon said at Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on Tuesday. “That to me would be far more concerning than whether there’s a mild or slightly severe recession.”. A recession is not the most important thing we think about, he said. “We’ll manage right through that.”
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said geopolitical uncertainties were among the biggest concerns facing the global economy right now, far outweighing the risk of recession. The most important thing is the geopolitics around Russia and Ukraine, America and China, relationships of the western world,” Dimon said at Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on Tuesday. “That to me would be far more concerning than whether there’s a mild or slightly severe recession.”. A recession is not the most important thing we think about, he said. “We’ll manage right through that.”
Bottom-line: 뱅크 오브 아메리카의 시장 자금 흐름 분석에서 6주 연속 개별 주식에 대한 극단적으로 강한 매수를 관찰함. 주 된 주체는 헤지펀드와 개인 고객들 중심임. 이 매수 강도는 2008년 이후 99% 수준의 크기이며, 보통 이런 극단적 매수는 이후 급격한 매도세를 선행했던 현상이지만 이번엔 다를 것으로 긍정적인 전망을 했음. 헤지펀드와 개인 고객 매수와 반대로 공모 펀드 자금은 매도로 돌아섰음. 매수 된 자금은 주로 기술, 건강관리, 통신서비스 쪽에 쏠렸고, 금융과 에너지 쪽은 매도였음.
Bank of America Corp.’s clients poured money into US equities for the sixth consecutive week led by hedge funds and private clients, with the intake by single stocks nearing historic extremes. In the past three weeks, inflows into single stocks as a percentage of the S&P 500 Index’s market capitalization were in the 99th percentile of history since 2008, according to BofA strategists led by Jill Carey Hall. Prior extremes like this were followed by above average returns for the equity gauge over the subsequent months and one year later, they said. Still, “most prior instances of extreme inflows following the global financial crisis typically were preceded by extreme outflows in the several months prior,” Carey Hall wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. But that’s “not the case this time,” since cumulative inflows this year in US dollars have been the most positive in BofA’s data history, she added. Last week, buying was led by BofA’s hedge fund clients. Private clients also snapped up equities for the fourth straight week, while institutional clients sold stocks after buying for two weeks. Overall, clients bought stocks across seven of the S&P 500’s 11 sectors, led by technology, health care and communication services while financial and energy stocks saw the biggest outflows. They have been large net buyers of tech, media and telecom stocks at a time when flows were down for consumer discretionary shares.
Bank of America Corp.’s clients poured money into US equities for the sixth consecutive week led by hedge funds and private clients, with the intake by single stocks nearing historic extremes. In the past three weeks, inflows into single stocks as a percentage of the S&P 500 Index’s market capitalization were in the 99th percentile of history since 2008, according to BofA strategists led by Jill Carey Hall. Prior extremes like this were followed by above average returns for the equity gauge over the subsequent months and one year later, they said. Still, “most prior instances of extreme inflows following the global financial crisis typically were preceded by extreme outflows in the several months prior,” Carey Hall wrote in a note to clients Tuesday. But that’s “not the case this time,” since cumulative inflows this year in US dollars have been the most positive in BofA’s data history, she added. Last week, buying was led by BofA’s hedge fund clients. Private clients also snapped up equities for the fourth straight week, while institutional clients sold stocks after buying for two weeks. Overall, clients bought stocks across seven of the S&P 500’s 11 sectors, led by technology, health care and communication services while financial and energy stocks saw the biggest outflows. They have been large net buyers of tech, media and telecom stocks at a time when flows were down for consumer discretionary shares.
The mighty dollar bites. Microsoft reported its slowest sales growth in five years despite resilient demand for corporate cloud computing services that pushed revenue above estimates. Alphabet stumbled with Google's core ads business — search, YouTube and the network division — all falling short of expectations. CFO Ruth Porat blamed "the effect of foreign exchange." Shares fell postmarket.
Bottom-line: 골드만삭스와 모건스탠리는 헤지펀드의 프라임 브로커리지 서비스를 담당하는 최대 규모의 증권사임. 이들이 집계한 데이터에 따르면 헤지펀드는 매도(Short selling) 비중을 초과하는 매수(Long) 비중이 이례적으로 낮아진 상태라 함. 이 비율은 위험선호의 척도로 사용될 수 있으며, 헤지펀드들은 본인들의 포지션을 줄일 수 밖에 없는 한계 수준에 도달하지 않기 위해 먼저 방어적 태세를 갖추고 있는 것으로 해석함. 이런 투자자들은 중앙은행이 지속적으로 긴축적 태도를 취함에 따른 매도 방향의 유동성 쏠림을 우려하고 있음.
Hedge Funds have cut portfolio leverage this year in a conservative turn that has sucked borrowed money from global markets, adding selling pressure to stocks and bonds. Net leverage, a measure of industry risk appetite that takes into account long versus short positions, has fallen almost 20 percentage points to a year low of 66%, according to data earlier this month from Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s prime brokerage. Separate figures from Morgan Stanley’s prime brokerage show a similar decline to 41% among US long-short equity hedge funds, a level reached on only a small number of occasions over the past decade. The data, which was seen by Bloomberg News, provides one of the broadest snapshots of the sector. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have the world’s two largest prime brokerages, serving around 5,000 hedge funds each, according to the latest ranking by Convergence, a research provider. Prime brokerage executives from two other global investment banks said the drop in leverage was driven by defensive positioning among funds as interest rates have climbed and markets have fallen. They declined to be named discussing private matters. Hedge funds want to “make sure they are not getting too close to levels that would force them to sell,” said Charles Lemonides, chief investment officer of Valueworks, a New York Hedge fund. “A further market decline is going to stress that at some point. With every month that the Fed says they’ll get tighter and tighter, you resolve yourself to the fact we may enter one of those big liquidity-driven sell offs,” he said.
Hedge Funds have cut portfolio leverage this year in a conservative turn that has sucked borrowed money from global markets, adding selling pressure to stocks and bonds. Net leverage, a measure of industry risk appetite that takes into account long versus short positions, has fallen almost 20 percentage points to a year low of 66%, according to data earlier this month from Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s prime brokerage. Separate figures from Morgan Stanley’s prime brokerage show a similar decline to 41% among US long-short equity hedge funds, a level reached on only a small number of occasions over the past decade. The data, which was seen by Bloomberg News, provides one of the broadest snapshots of the sector. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have the world’s two largest prime brokerages, serving around 5,000 hedge funds each, according to the latest ranking by Convergence, a research provider. Prime brokerage executives from two other global investment banks said the drop in leverage was driven by defensive positioning among funds as interest rates have climbed and markets have fallen. They declined to be named discussing private matters. Hedge funds want to “make sure they are not getting too close to levels that would force them to sell,” said Charles Lemonides, chief investment officer of Valueworks, a New York Hedge fund. “A further market decline is going to stress that at some point. With every month that the Fed says they’ll get tighter and tighter, you resolve yourself to the fact we may enter one of those big liquidity-driven sell offs,” he said.
Bottom-line: 부도위험에 대한 보험 비용이라 할 수 있는 CDS 스프레드가 전세계적으로 높아지는 가운데, 특히 아시아 지역이 두드러짐. 일본을 제외 한 아시아 지역의 투자등급 채권에 대한 CDS 스프레드가 2011년 이후 최고치를 기록함. 중국의 시진핑이 유례없는 세번째 집권을 함에 따른 위험과 미국 중앙은행의 긴축적 태도가 달러를 강세로 몰아세움에 따른 아시아 내 달러 채무자의 부담이 동시에 커지고 있기 때문임.
The cost of insuring against debt defaults in Asia has surpassed pandemic highs as dual risks from China and the Fed’s aggressive tightening weigh on investor sentiment. A gauge of investment-grade Asia credit default swaps (ex-Japan) widened recently as traders assessed the implications of Chinese President Xi’s precedent-breaking third term. Fears that the country would continue to uphold its strict Covid policy led to a dramatic selloff of regional stocks this week, where some indexes slumped the most since the 2008 financial crisis. The CDS gauge jumped to the highest since 2011. The stress in Asian credit markets is also another sign of fears about the health of the global economy as the Fed presses on with aggressive efforts to contain inflation while the dollar remains high. While CDS spreads have widened globally, Asia’s have been more pronounced than in Europe and the US, which highlights the risks borrowers face in the region as their currencies face a strong dollar.
The cost of insuring against debt defaults in Asia has surpassed pandemic highs as dual risks from China and the Fed’s aggressive tightening weigh on investor sentiment. A gauge of investment-grade Asia credit default swaps (ex-Japan) widened recently as traders assessed the implications of Chinese President Xi’s precedent-breaking third term. Fears that the country would continue to uphold its strict Covid policy led to a dramatic selloff of regional stocks this week, where some indexes slumped the most since the 2008 financial crisis. The CDS gauge jumped to the highest since 2011. The stress in Asian credit markets is also another sign of fears about the health of the global economy as the Fed presses on with aggressive efforts to contain inflation while the dollar remains high. While CDS spreads have widened globally, Asia’s have been more pronounced than in Europe and the US, which highlights the risks borrowers face in the region as their currencies face a strong dollar.
Bottom-line: 중앙은행은 당신이 더욱 가난하다 느끼길 원하고 있음. 40년만의 최고치에 이르는 인플레이션에도 불구하고 S&P 500 지수는 10월 소비자물가지표 발표 이후 저점에서 5% 가량 상승함. 투자자들은 중앙은행의 긴축적 태도가 선회할 것에 희망을 걸고 이런 상승세를 반가워하고 있지만, 오히려 중앙은행이 원하는 바와 반대의 길이라는 것을 알아야 함. 주식시장의 하락에 의한 자산 축소로 인한 소비 감소가 중앙은행이 원하는 인플레이션 하락의 한 방법이며, 이는 소위 행동경제학에서 말하는 역 부의 효과임. 높은 인플레이션과 긴축적 통화정책이 지수를 -20% 가량 하락시키며 일반 소비재부터 고가의 주택에 이르기까지 소비 심리를 냉각시켰기 때문임.
US stocks extended their gains for the third day Tuesday with the S&P 500 climbing 1.7% as investors shifted their focus to the next batch of earnings and away from the numerous geopolitical risks. It’s now regained 5% since the low set soon after the release of the latest CPI data on Oct. 13. Such a move upward is generally celebrated by traders — but they should know that stocks’ gains are robbing the Fed of the wealth effect it needs before it can pivot toward lower rates. Why? Because stock market weakness is precisely what Doug Ramsey of The Leuthold Group said could be the key to cooling inflation. The Fed’s hope, he said, lies in a behavioral economic theory called reverse wealth effect, in which consumers spend less as their wealth decreases. That should lead consumers to buy less stuff, particularly on big-ticket items like homes. And that should either prevent or at least slow the much-feared inflationary spiral. Inflation, now at four-decade highs, and the monetary policy reaction to it has helped push the S&P 500 down by nearly 20% this year. And consumers do feel less wealthy. US consumer confidence fell more than expected to a three-month low in October, with the Conference Board index slipping to 102.5 from 107.8. The pullback reinforced the pessimistic outlook Americans have toward the economy as the prices of goods and services surge. Same goes for the US housing market, which saw a sudden reversal, effectively sapping demand and pushing prices lower by the most in any month since 2009.
US stocks extended their gains for the third day Tuesday with the S&P 500 climbing 1.7% as investors shifted their focus to the next batch of earnings and away from the numerous geopolitical risks. It’s now regained 5% since the low set soon after the release of the latest CPI data on Oct. 13. Such a move upward is generally celebrated by traders — but they should know that stocks’ gains are robbing the Fed of the wealth effect it needs before it can pivot toward lower rates. Why? Because stock market weakness is precisely what Doug Ramsey of The Leuthold Group said could be the key to cooling inflation. The Fed’s hope, he said, lies in a behavioral economic theory called reverse wealth effect, in which consumers spend less as their wealth decreases. That should lead consumers to buy less stuff, particularly on big-ticket items like homes. And that should either prevent or at least slow the much-feared inflationary spiral. Inflation, now at four-decade highs, and the monetary policy reaction to it has helped push the S&P 500 down by nearly 20% this year. And consumers do feel less wealthy. US consumer confidence fell more than expected to a three-month low in October, with the Conference Board index slipping to 102.5 from 107.8. The pullback reinforced the pessimistic outlook Americans have toward the economy as the prices of goods and services surge. Same goes for the US housing market, which saw a sudden reversal, effectively sapping demand and pushing prices lower by the most in any month since 2009.