Volatility

As Wall Street axioms (Santa rally, January effect, as goes January etc.) are rapidly falling by the wayside at the start of 2016, following a chaotic but return-less 2015, the UBS analysts who correctly forecast last year's volatility are out with their forecast for 2016. It's simple - Sell Stocks, Buy Gold... expect a Fed u-turn.

Many people start a new year with renewed optimism. However, "New Year, Same Problems" is the meme of 2016... and recent trading has dashed some of that optimistic 'This time it's different' hope.

We are currently in a transitional phase of geo-political-monetary power struggles, capital flow decisions, and fundamental economic choices. This remains a period of artisanal (central bank fabricated) money, high volatility, low growth, excessive wealth inequality, extreme speculation, and policies that preserve the appearance of big bank liquidity and concentration at the expense of long-term stability. The potential for chaotic fluctuations in any element of the capital markets is greater than ever. The butterfly effect - the flutter of a wing in one part of the planet altering the course of seemingly unrelated events in another part - is on center stage.

"It is time to accept that what we have done has worked brilliantly for twenty years but does not work anymore and move on. We are confident our process will eventually work again – for the laws of economics will never be repealed – but for now they are suspended and may be for some time; an indefinite period involving indeterminate levels of risk during which we think it would be wrong for us to be the stewards of your money."

It's not China, stupid... It's The Fed. "What The Fed did, and I was part of it, was front-loaded an enormous rally market rally in order to create a wealth effect... and an uncomfortable digestive period is likely now." Simply put Fisher concludes, there can't be much more accomodation, "The Fed is a giant weapon that has no ammunition left."

Yesterday JPM, which despite calling for a 2,200 year end price target, paradoxically warned that the regime of "buying dips" is over, and that "we take the view that equities are unlikely to perform well on a 12-24 month horizon" adding that "the regime of buying the dips might be over and selling any rallies might be the new one." So don't buy dips yet somehow the S&P will rise 150 points? Fair enough. Today, it is Citigroup's turn to try to somehow predict both a 12% "gain for global equities in 2016" even as it tells clients to start selling US stocks because "fading EPS momentum and rising Fed funds mean that, after 6 consecutive years of outperformance, we cut the US to Underweight."

After yesterday's historic -6.9% rout in the Shanghai Composite, which saw the first new marketwide circuit breaker trading halt applied to Chinese stocks (on its first day of operation), many were wondering if the Chinese government would intervene in both the once again imploding stock market, as well as China's plunging and rapidly devaluing currency. And, after the SHCOMP opened down -3%, the government did not disappoint and promptly intervened in both the Yuan as well as the stock market, however with very mixed results which global stocks took a sign that the "national team" is no longer focused solely on stocks, and have resumed selling for a second consecutive day. 

"It seems to us that the government’s policy options are rapidly narrowing – one only needs to look at how difficult it has been for the government to hold up GDP growth since mid-2014. A slow-down in economic growth is typically a prelude to financial sector instability. Putting it all together, it seems to us that many of these conflicts may come to a head in 2016."

An 88-page "Research Note" from the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets titled "Equity Market Volatility on August 24, 2015," outlines the facts of that fateful trading day, discussing what went wrong, and which classes of securities were affected. The conclusions of the piece are purely factual, with little or no conjecture, and there's absolutely no policy recommendations. There are dozens of unintended consequences already baked into its proposed rulemaking. That's bad enough when you're talking about the inner workings of mutual funds and ETFs; it's a bigger deal when we're talking about the inner workings of the markets themselves.

With markets wrapped up for 2015 now, reviewing the performance of asset classes last year shows that it was one where negative asset class returns were aplenty, while those finishing in positive territory were few and far between. Indeed, of the 42 assets we monitor in Figure 5, just 9 finished with a positive return in Dollar-adjusted terms over the full year.  At the other end of the scale there were some notable losers.

This week, the gold-silver ratio promptly moved up +2.3%. As readers will recall, we have been calling for a ratio value over 80 for a while.

Though "another Lehman Brothers" isn't likely to happen with banks, it is very likely to happen with commodity firms and countries that depend directly or indirectly on commodity prices.

Main Street is vulnerable to leveraged trading algorithms and Brazilian bonds because it’s not just exotica that is overleveraged. Risk-off, in short, is no longer just a temporary swing of the pendulum, guaranteed to reverse in a year or two. As amazing as this sounds, we’ve borrowed so much money that as hedge funds go, so goes the world.

As we start the new year, there is a debate raging within the market.  No the debate isn’t whether there is weakness in the manufacturing economy, that is taken as a given, especially after Friday’s awful Chicago Purchasing Manager number of 42.9. Instead, the debate boils down to this: 'bears' believe the manufacturing economy and the service economy act in conjunction with each other – that one cannot turn, without the other; 'bulls' view each segment of the economy as relatively independent and they highlight the size of the service economy relative to the manufacturing. The answer lies in the missing cog - the 'wealth' economy.

"Essentially central banks, by unfairly inflating asset prices have compressed risk like a spring to unfairly tight levels. Unfortunately, the market is aware the price of risk is not correct, but they can’t fight it, and everyone is forced to crowd into the same trade. By manipulating markets they have also reduced investors’ inherent conviction by rendering fundamentals less relevant."

- Bank of America