Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Observations and Sample of Recent Trades: ECON, FHLC, PSILX, SRET, VHT

Economy:

Personal income consumer spending February 2019 (estimates due to government shutdown)




Mortgage rates see biggest weekly drop in a decade

Since my last post, the economic reports have been favorable other than the retail sales report which was well below expectations at -.2. Retail sales February 2019 But, the January number was revised higher to +.7% from the previously reported +.2%. The Stock Jocks ignored that -.2% number for February, probably due to January being revised up +.5% and knowing that the .-2% number will be revised in the next report. 


New homes sales in February increased to a seasonally adjusted rate of 667K. The median sales price was $315.3K. New Home Sales: Census Department Release.pdf 


+++++++

Markets and Market Commentary


+++++


Portfolio Management:


The Vanguard Health Care Fund (VGHCX) is one of my holdings that has been throwing off cash as of late, but that fund's performance has fallen short of the Vanguard Health Care Index Fund ETF (VHT) over the past  1, 3, 5 and 10 year time frame. 



Dividends: Vanguard Health 68+ Shares
This fund has paid me $1,447.28 in cash dividend since 12/18/18 of which $250 has been redirected back into buying shares. I will not be buying more shares, but did start a position in VHT with a 5 share purchase discussed below. 

Fidelity has a similar low cost ETF that can be bought commission free by their customers, and I bought 10 shares as a starter position in that account. FHLC: Fidelity ETF Snapshot


Since this fund is held in a taxable account, the tax events being created by the fund manager detract from after tax returns compared to VHT, increasing the performance gap in favor of VHT after taxes. Throwing off more cash is not a substitute for subpar total returns before or after taxes. 


The 10 year annual average return remains excellent at 15.97% through 3/31/19, but still falls short of VHT's number of 17.03%. 


Part of the problem is that the manager, Ed Owens, who produced the superior returns retired in 2013 and was replaced by Jean Hynes. Meet the best investor you’ve never heard of - MarketWatch Since Ms. Hynes took over, investors would have been better off buying VHT.  


1 Year

VGHTX  = 8.92%
VHT = =14.29% 

3 Years Annual Average Total Returns: 

VGHCX = 9.15%
VHT = 13.51%   
  
5 Years
VGHCX = 9.88%
VHT = 11.59%

I may eliminate this fund soon due its continuing and persistent failure to outperform a low cost health sector ETF. 


++ 


I am continuing to hollow out my intermediate term corporate bond allocation by selling into the bond rally. 


Some of those funds have moved to the short term bond/CD allocation. 


No $1K bond positions have been added to my long term bond allocation for over a year. Most of my weighting in that duration consists of Tennessee municipal bonds that would be hard to sell. 


I have been selling off some exchange traded bonds with potentially long durations, primarily first mortgage bonds, and equity preferred stocks that have no maturity dates. 


All of the forgoing repositionings are based on an opinion that yields have fallen too fast and too far based on what can reasonably be predicted now. More positive economic data accelerated the selling.  


++ 


Schwab Account Cash Flow 4/1/19: 


In my last post, I included snapshots of cash flow into my Fidelity taxable account on 4/1. Schwab did not credit the cash flow into my taxable account until 4/2, so the amounts would not be available for trading purposes on the day Schwab received those funds. 







++++++

Trump:

This story needed to be written before the election. How Donald Trump used unusual financial documents to exaggerate his wealth and hide some of his debts - Washington Post The documents reproduced in that article clearly show that Trump is no stranger to lying and fraud. Disclosure would not have changed the election results anymore than the obvious fraud that Trump committed in connection with Trump University which was recent history before the election.   

Trump could repurpose $4.9 billion the Air Force ‘desperately’ needs for his border wall - MarketWatch

Camp Lejeune is still a mess 6 months after Hurricane Florence. Where's the money for repairs?


Air Force Needs Almost $5 Billion To Recover Bases From Hurricane, Flood Damage : NPR


Trump is accusing those who participated in launching the Mueller "witch hunt" as "traitors" who committed "treason" and must pay a price for their treason. He has even gone so far to claim that those who have pled guilty to various felonies were "framed" by a rouge DOJ and FBI.


The Trumpsters chanted "Lock Them Up". Trump Rally in Grand Rapids: CBS News


Trump made it clear that those people would soon have "big problems". Among those who may face the guillotine is Congressman Adam Schiff that Donald called a "criminal". The former CIA Director may be left alone since he is "potentially mentally ill" according to Donald: Fox News


Trump Accuses FBI Officials Who Investigated Him of Treason - Bloomberg;


Mueller probe was 'attempted takeover of our government,' says some committed 'major, major treason' - CNN


Donald further claim that the Mueller investigation was a conspiracy launched by the Democrats and the Deep State to take away the results of the election.


Think about that assertion for more than a second. 


Thinking for a second would cause the Trumpsters' heads to explode so I am recommending that they do not try it. I would not want to be accused in mass tort class actions of causing this result shown at the end of this video clip:




So be careful out there. Never ask a Trumpster to think for a second.


Trump:  “They wanted an insurance policy against me. And what we were playing out until just recently was the insurance policy. They wanted to do a subversion. It was treason. It was really treason.  If the Republican party had done this to the Democrats, if we had done this to President Obama you’d have a hundred people in jail right now, it’d be treason"


Trump later said that “people out there” had done “treasonous things against our country” and called for an investigation into their actions, arguing  we can never allow these treasonous acts happen to another president.”


How would the Mueller investigation overturn the election results?


Trump can be removed from office through impeachment or by utilizing the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, the later option is no option at all for anyone who has actually read it. Trump could start running naked down Pennsylvania Avenue and his cabinet and VP would not make a finding that he is unfit. And, that only starts the ball rolling.


Trump could could be impeached of course if the Mueller investigation found overwhelming evidence that he had committed impeachable offenses so severe that the House would vote out Articles of Impeachment and the Senate would convict with a 2/3rds majority, requiring a substantial number of republican senators to vote guilty. IMO, that would as a practical matter require incontrovertible proof that he was a Russian asset selling secrets to his buddy Vlad or something close to that.


Even if a sufficient number of GOP senators voted to impeach, the results would not put Hillary in office, which is what the Duck is suggesting, but his duly elected republican V-P Mike Pence. But then that would require the Trumpster to think for a second.    


Trump can not be classified as anything other than a lying demagogue with strong authoritarian tendencies and character traits and the unquestioned spokesman for, and leader of the modern day GOP.  


+++++


Russia is, of course, targeting Ukrainian citizens in assassinations. Russia Ordered a Killing That Made No Sense. Then the Assassin Started Talking. - The New York Times  ('In 2006, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin signed a law legalizing targeted killings abroad.")


++ 



Stephen Miller, Trump's nominee for the Federal Reserve, is upset about media reports about facts relating to his tax lien and failures to make payments owed in a divorce. 


As one should expect, Miller calls the reporting of his actions sleazy but does not dispute the accuracy of the reports. 

The tax lien arose when Miller tried to deduct child support payments and alimony, claiming it was just a mistake that the child support payments were deducted. Really and who out there believes that child support payments were deductible other than Miller? Federal Reserve nominee Stephen Moore was in contempt of court 

Note that the GOP's "tax reform", alimony payments made in 2019 and thereafter, pursuant to post 2018 divorce decrees, will no longer be deductible, which incidentally is a tax increase for those subject to that change. New tax law eliminates alimony deductions-but not for everybody -MarketWatch 


The GOP lawmakers voted for a variety of tax increases in their bill which was, as they say, all about helping the middle class.  

++


GOP's Bob and Weave Going Nowhere on Health Care


Trump Retreats on Health Care, Saying Republican Plan Will Appear Only After the 2020 Election - The New York Times This is a recognition that too many voters will see through their transparent attempt to take away health insurance from millions. 

Despite no GOP replacement plan, acting White House chief of staff claims Americans won’t lose health care if 'Obamacare' is struck down - ABC News Mulvaney brazenly claimed that no one will lose their healthcare, including coverage for pre-existing conditions, when if the republicans are successful in their court challenge seeking to end coverage for pre-existing conditions.

If that is the case, why have the republicans made every conceivable effort imaginable to take away the existing coverage for pre-existing conditions, premium support payments and the extension of Medicaid? 


After successfully terminating the individual mandate, why do the republicans refuse to work with Democrats to improve Obamacare rather than trying to eliminate it altogether? 

Those questions would be impossible for Mulvaney to answer truthfully since it would expose what the republicans are actually doing rather than what they claim to be doing with an alternative program. 


Some common sense is required when judging Mulvaney's honesty and that of other republicans who want to eliminate existing coverage and promise to replace it with something that is "better and cheaper". 


The end result will be a loss over health coverage for millions. I would submit that is also the intended result.   


Instead of being truthful, Mealy Mouthed Mulvaney misrepresented, as usual, the GOP's actual plan which they were unable to pass when they controlled both the Senate and the House. 


Mick Mulvaney’s nonsensical math on Obamacare - The Washington Post


The GOP plan only purported to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions. Their bill provided an out for insurance companies to deny certain coverages if "it will not have the capacity to deliver services adequately." You could pass an army through that loophole .


The GOP plan also gave insurance broad leeway to set premiums, including no limitation on how much more the insurance company could charge a old person compared to a young one. Pre-existing conditions: Does any GOP proposal match the ACA? | PolitiFact In short, their plan was a pretend coverage bill where the republicans give with one hand and then took away through unaffordable premiums and allowed for coverage denials. It is all about subterfuge and misdirection or what magicians call legerdemain. I am not even addressing here how coverage can be denied through the GOP's use of inadequate block grants given to the states.   


Say one thing and do something entirely different. That works for the republicans provided the speakers do not break out in laughter. 


The most basic question to ask republican politicians is why are they fighting so hard to get rid of existing coverages, premium supports, and the Medicaid expansion. They abolished the individual mandate, the fine for failure to participate, and the Medicaid expansion is non-mandatory on the states. So what is their problem now?  


The answer will be a false representation designed to mislead the public. The truth is that their donors do not want to contribute through taxes paying for the government's contributions in the those areas. 


Republicans Say They Will Protect Pre-existing Conditions. Their Records Say Something Else. - The New York Times 

++++++


Conway's Spin on Trump's 'Obstructive Conduct' - FactCheck.org "White House counselor Kellyanne Conway falsely claimed that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report concluded that President Donald Trump engaged in “no — quote — ‘obstructive conduct'” during the Russia investigation. Mueller’s report said it “does not exonerate” Trump of obstruction of justice.")  


Saudis hacked Jeff Bezos and leaked racy texts, investigator claims - MarketWatch  I am going to try and stay on the Crown Prince's good side. But, I have to say this. It will be a glorious day for the U.S. when we can tell the Saudis to go to hell. 


+++++++

1. Eliminations and Pares:

A. Sold 1,215.563 shares of the T. Rowe Price Spectrum International Fund:


Sponsor's Webpage: Spectrum International Fund (PSILX-T. Rowe Price


PSILX is another fund of funds:



Owned T. Rowe Price Mutual Funds as of 12/31/18 
This was my position on the day prior to the elimination when the price closed at $13.11:


Position 3/18
Profit Snapshot: +$3,118.68



I price rose by 1 cent on 3/19.

I will not be buying this fund back. I will use lower cost ETFs for foreign stock exposure. 

I will gradually use part of those funds to buy low cost ETFs that own foreign stocks. By gradually, I mean barely a tip toe in the water. 


B. Sold 50 Shares SRET at $14.79-In a Roth IRA Account (commission free transaction for Vanguard brokerage customers):




Quote: Global X SuperDividend REIT ETF


Profit Snapshot: +$45.49 



SuperDividend® REIT ETF (expense ratio .58%)

This fund was launched in 2015.


Dividends: Monthly


This eliminates my position in this Roth IRA  account but I still own 52+ shares in a taxable account. Item # 1.B. Bought 50 SRET at $14.8 Used Commission Free Trade (5/17/18 Post)


Global X SuperDividend® REIT ETF (SRET) Total Returns (rated 5 stars by Morningstar as of 3/22/19) The 3 year annual average total return through 3/22/19 was 11.51% and most of that would have come from the dividend. This is a fund for dividend hogs.


Over the same period, the average annual total return for SPY was 13.12%.


The VanEck Vectors Mortgage REIT Income ETF (MORT) had a 13.98% annual average total return while the iShares Mortgage Real Estate Capped ETF (REM) had the best number of the preceding listed ETFs at 14.01% over the same three year period. The five year annual average total return for REM was 7.7% compared to 10.62% for SPY.


The MREIT stocks have struggled for several years, though treading water as to price has been the theme more recently. Some of the high yielding equity REITs have been losers while others have done well up to now. I will consequently trade the ETF to harvest a total return in excess of the dividend yield.


The benefit from my point of view is that I am starting out with a 8+% annual total  return provided I do not lose money on the shares. A small trading profit could take that number up to 10%.  

2. Short Term Bond/CD Ladder Basket Strategy:

Adds:  $7K

A. Bought 2 Exelon 2.45% SU Maturing on 4/15/21


Finra Page: Bond  Detail (prospectus not linked)


Issuer: Exelon Corp. (EXC) 
Website: Exelon Corporation 

Credit Ratings: 


Subsequent to this purchase, Fitch upgraded the debt to BBB+ from BBB. Fitch Upgrades Exelon and Select Subsidiaries' Ratings; Affirms Other Subsidiaries



Bought at a Total Cost of 98.6
YTM at TC Then at 3.145%
Current Yield at TC = 2.4848%

B. Bought 1 Treasury 1.5% Coupon Maturing on 6/15/20:

YTM = 2.504%



C.  Bought 2 AstraZeneca 2.375% SU Maturing on 11/16/20:





As noted in the snapshot, I redeployed the proceeds from 2 maturing AT & T SU bonds into 2 AZN bonds.

I am also replacing in advance 2 AstraZeneca 1.85% SU bonds that mature on 9/18/19.


For short term bonds, I am engaged in a constant roll.


I decided not to roll the proceeds into another AT & T bond. 


FINRA Page: Bond Detail (prospectus linked)


Issuer AstraZeneca PLC ADR (AZN)

AZN Analyst Estimates
Full-Year_2018_Results.pdf

Credit Ratings:


Bought at a Total Cost of 99.229 (includes $2 commission)

YTM at TC Then at 2.848%
Current Yield at TC = 2.3835%

D. Bought 2 Treasury 1.5% Coupon Maturing on 11/30/19:

YTM = 2.507%



3. Intermediate Bond Basket Strategy:

A. Sold 2 Anheuser Busch 2.5% SU Maturing on 7/15/22:




Profit Snapshot: +$24.26



Item # 3.C. Bought 1 BUD 2022 SU at 96.95 TC  (5/17/2018 Post)

Item # 4.C. Bought 1 BUD 2022 SU at 97.824 (4/19/18 Post)

I still own 1 bond in another account that was purchased in February 2017.


FINRA Page: Bonds Detail


Sold at 98.7

Proceeds at 98.6
YTM at 98.6 = 2.943%
Current Yield at 98.6 = 2.536%

I was selecting some 2022 maturities to sell where the current yield is near 2.5% and was replacing those bonds with similarly rated ones that had higher current yields and yields to maturity that mature sooner. That was possible due to the current yield curve where I could shorten the maturity and increase the yield for similarly rated bonds since investors feared that rates will come back down.


I was doing that until the Fed's monetary policy announcement made on 3/20/18 which caused me quit doing it and to buy one 2022 bond that had a 3+% YTM but a current yield near 2.5% (see below)


In this approach, I would keep the 3.3% BUD SU that matures on 2/1/23 bought at a TC of 99.364 and the BUD 3.625% SU maturing in 2026 bought at a 98.613 TC for two basic reasons.


First, I need to address the current rational concerns that intermediate term rates will decline further.


Second, both of those bonds have higher current yields than the 2022 bond that I sold and consequently are better contributors to current income generation. I will keep to maturity the 2.625% BUD SU maturing on 2/1/21 since that one matures in less than 2 years and was bought at a 99.026 TC. As noted in that last linked post, I lost to an early redemption in April 2018 eight BUD bonds that would have matured last month.


I previously sold the 2022 BUD bond at 100.822 back in August 2017: Item # 4.A. The YTM then was at 2.32%.


It is certainly possible that I will buy the 2022 bond again at some point closer to maturity and at a lower price. I do a fair amount of bond trading in the 3 to 10 year maturity period.  

B. Bought 1 Centerpoint Energy 2.5% SU Maturing on 9/1/22:



FINRA Page: Bond Detail (prospectus not linked)


Prospectus


Issuer: CenterPoint Energy Inc. (CNP)

CNP Analyst Estimates

CenterPoint Energy reports full-year 2018 earnings of $0.74 per diluted share; $1.60 earnings per diluted share on a guidance basis, excluding impacts associated with the merger


2018 Annual Report


For some reason, electric and gas utility companies want to refer to themselves as "energy" companies which apparently sounds more growthy or sexy than simply as staid electric & gas utilities.


CenterPoint Energy and Vectren complete merger | CenterPoint Energy, Inc., (Vectren was a large electric and gas utility company providing natural gas to more than 1 million customers in Ohio and Indiana and electricity to more than 145,000 customers in Indiana. CenterPoint Energy and Vectren to Merge | CenterPoint Energy, Inc.,

Centerpoint also issues first mortgage bonds that are more highly rated than the senior unsecured. I own a few of them. The last issuance of those bonds was in January: CenterPoint Energy subsidiary closes on $700 million of general mortgage bonds | CenterPoint Energy, Inc.,

Credit Ratings:



S & P recently downgraded the SU debt to BBB from BBB+, but kept the senior secured rating at A.  S & P credit reports can be accessed at many brokers including Fidelity where I bought this bond.

Bought at a TC of 97.59 (includes $1 Commission)

YTM at TC Then at 3.245%
Current Yield at TC = 2.5617%

4. Bought 50 ECON at $22.24-Commission Free for Vanguard Customers:




Quote: Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF Overview

Sponsor's Page: Columbia Markets Consumer ETF - ECON
Expense Ratio = .59%
Holdings: 62 stocks as of 3/27/19

Closing Price Yesterday: ECON $22.83 -$0.04 -0.17% 

This is a new ETF for me. It recently decided to abandon the index that it was tracking from the "Dow Jones Emerging Markets Consumer Titans TR 30 Index to Dow Jones Emerging Markets Consumer Titans Index," which has more stocks and different weightings. The change was effective on 3/18/19. So I decided to give it a try. 


Top 30 Holdings as of 3/27/19




ECON Holdings.pdf


This one has been a stinker, though the concept makes sense.


Emerging market consumer demand will be source for most worldwide GDP growth. Insights—Where We Are Finding Growth: The Rise of Emerging Markets Consumers


There is some dividend support.


Morningstar currently gives this ETF a 1 star rating. It does not go any lower. At least I did not buy an ETF that has had the Big Mo or is currently en vogue. That is a fair rating based on past performance. Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF (ECON) Total Returns


Through the day of purchase, the 1 year total return was -13.35%, with the 3 and 5 year total annual average returns at +1.07% and -2.49% respectively. The past may not be prologue to the future.

  
I am basically substituting this ETF for the narrower one,  Global X MSCI China Consumer Discretionary ETF  (CHIQ), that I recently sold.

Item 1.D. Sold 71+ CHIQ at $16.04 (3/13/19 Post) 



5. Health Care ETFs-Commission free ETFs as indicated below


I will be adding to both VHT and FHLC but the purchases will be in 5 and 10 share lots, with at least 50% of the purchases subject to the small ball purchase restriction. The VHT purchases may be funded by eliminating the VGHCX which has underperformed the ETF over the past 1, 3, 5 and 10 year periods. So much for active management.  


A. Bought 5 VHT at $173-Commission Free for Vanguard Customers




Quote: Vanguard Health Care ETF Overview


Closing Price Yesterday: VHT $172.52 -$0.20 -0.12%

I discussed this ETF in my Portfolio Management section above. 


Sponsor's website: VHT - Vanguard Health Care ETF | Vanguard


Expense Ratio: .1%


Top 20 Holdings




Morningstar VHT-Currently rated 4 stars.  


B. Bought 10 FHLC at $44.59-Commission Free for Fidelity Customers:




Quote: Fidelity MSCI Health Care Index ETF Overview


Sponsor's Webpage: FHLC | ETF Snapshot - Fidelity


Closing Price Yesterday: FHLC $44.51 -$0.05 -0.11% 

Expense Ratio: .08%


Some Top Holdings:




DisclaimerI am not a financial advisor but simply an individual investor who has been managing my own money since I was a teenager. In this post, I am acting solely as a financial journalist focusing on my own investments. The information contained in this post is not intended to be a complete description or summary of all available data relevant to making an investment decision. Instead, I am merely expressing some of the reasons underlying the purchase or sell of securities. Nothing in this post is intended to constitute investment or legal advice or a recommendation to buy or to sell. All investors need to perform their own due diligence before making any financial decision which requires at a minimum reading original source material available at the SEC and elsewhere. A failure to perform due diligence only increases what I call "error creep". Stocks, Bonds & Politics: ERROR CREEP and the INVESTING PROCESS Each investor needs to assess a potential investment taking into account their personal risk tolerances, goals and situational risks. I can only make that kind of assessment for myself and family members. 

14 comments:

  1. The slightly uptick in interest rates, a more upbeat outlook on a successful conclusion of the China trade negotiations, and the better economic reports this week has resulted in regional banks managing to put together a multi-day rally.

    SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF
    $53.30 +$0.47 +0.89%
    Last Updated: Apr 3, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. EDT
    https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/kre

    KRE closed at $49.4 on 3/22/19.

    While I anticipate NIM to remain under pressure this year, there will be some relief in the cost of deposits falling some. That is apparent to anyone looking to buy CDs over the past few weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The ADP private payroll report for March came in worse than expected at +129K.

    There was a upward revision in the previously reported February number of 183K to 197K.

    It does appear that the job market is weakening some.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/payrolls-up-129000-in-march-way-below-wall-street-expectations.html

    I am placing a temporary hold on further intermediate term bond sells until the BLS releases its report this upcoming Friday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yesterday the market thought all was very well with the data?

      Delete
  3. Vanguard Health Care Fund Investor Shares VGHCX:

    I discussed this mutual fund in this post, noting its persistent underperformance compared to the ETF VHT since the new manager took over.

    I went ahead and eliminated the fund today after comparing the performance results with another owned mutual fund:

    T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund PRHSX
    http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=PRHSX&region=usa&culture=en-US

    I added to that fund.

    I will discuss those two trades in a subsequent post.

    Annual Average Total Returns through 4/2/19

    3 Years:

    VGHCX = + 8.86%

    PRHSX = +14.73%

    VHT = +13.01%



    5 Years

    VGHCX = +9.47%

    PRHSX = +13.35%

    VHT = +11.33%



    10 Years:

    VGHCX = +15.86%

    PRHSX = +21.51%

    VHT = +16.96%


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting difference. Wonder what criteria of inclusion is causing the difference. Either way, gives a good indication to look at the other two...

      Delete
  4. Alcentra Capital Corp. $8.07 +0.476 +6.27%
    https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/abdc

    After the close yesterday, Alcentra announced that it had hired a financial advisor to conduct a "strategic review".

    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/alcentra-capital-corporation-announces-strategic-alternatives-review-300825138.html

    That kind of review can result in no action or a variety of measures "to enhance shareholder value" including accelerated stock purchases or putting itself up for sale. There is no way to know what the result will be. I do believe that this BDC is too small to remain independent. Even with the spike in the stock price since my last purchase, the market cap is still below $100M.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The jobs report did not impress the Bond Ghouls.

    Various financial publications called it a "strong" report which is Trump type hyperbole.

    The February increase in jobs was revised up to 33K from 20K, which was not reassuring.

    While the March number came in higher than expected, the number was still below 200K.

    The increase in average hourly earnings declined from the prior month, but the overall 12 month's increase remained good at 3.2% but down from last month's +3.4%. I define good in this context as an increase above the inflation rate which becomes better as the real wage number increases. The conundrum is whether this is a trend or just a blip lower.

    iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF
    $105.71 +0.03 +0.03%
    Last Updated: Apr 5, 2019 at 12:40 p.m. EDT

    The probability of a .25 decrease in the FF rate on or before the January 2020 meeting declined from 61.6% yesterday to 61.3% as of 11:35:59 CT. Call that no reaction to the jobs report.

    The somewhat better economic data this week prior to today did have a modest impact on that probability, moving down from 70% as of last Friday.

    https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/interest-rates/countdown-to-fomc.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. On healthcare I saw briefly somewhere (so not verified) that AHA is costing the gov't money, and that's why GOP is working so hard to get rid of it. (Sick & dying people they seem to think will cost less tax money.)

    The best thing would be to get rid of the Iranian gov't. It's what's causing so many regional problems. I'm told by people there, that 90% of it's people want the dictatorship gone because it's horrific. Saudis can be ditched if no needed by US as counter to Iran. With Hezbollah, they've taken over Lebanese gov't. They are active in Syria supporting Bashar's dictatorship. They are cause of threats on Israel through Hamas & Hezbollah, i.e. most of the warring and tensions there. There's other conflicts and wars and terrorism they support... Likely including NKorea deals. Make a democracy in Iran, and Saudis won't be able to hold onto their "kingdomship" dictatorship right next door.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ivascyn's argument is that the inversion is from refinancing causing banks to buy long maturity loans to put the money somewhere?

    He's smart & proven so not sure I want to argue but...

    There should be more of a closed loop. Any given bank may get out of balance, but refinancing is a payment of fees for a lower long term rate. So bank's long term rate is lower, but they don't wind up with more money (in the closed loop, across all the banks.)

    He has motivation to keep rates high and bonds low? Or motivations we can't guess.

    The inversion doesn't mean anything yet, this shallow. It's when it normalizes, then inverts again. At least in the last 3 patterns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Land: You are referring to Daniel Ivascyn who is the chief investment officer at PIMCO who made this argument:
      " a combination of technical factors including increased demand for longer-dated Treasurys because of a sharp uptick in mortgage refinancing applications may have amplified a recent bond-market rally"

      https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-worlds-biggest-bond-investor-is-dismissing-the-recession-warning-of-the-yield-curve-2019-04-01

      Give the narrow net interest margin for banks, and the risks associated with making loans, there is something to be said now for banks to pull back on making riskier loans and keeping excess reserves at the FED earning 2.4% or in treasury bills. Tightening credit standards may now be a rational bank response to the yield curve and concerns about slowing growth and a possible recession, which can then be a self fulfilling.


      Delete
  8. Yardeni's argument is interesting. Yes, recessions are caused by or strongly indicated by credit crunches, not caused by the inversion. I thought that was an well known understood??

    Still he's repeating an argument I've seen that seems strong. Normally the Fed tightens to keep inflation reigned in as the economy heats up. Currently, the Fed isn't between the rock and hard place of needing to tighten against inflation while the economy is slowing down. There's not much inflation. So the credit crunch may not happen. (Assuming I understood those dynamics).

    The rest of the reasons sounded like explaining what usually happens, but claiming that because the explanations aren't usually talked about... the results (a recession) aren't what will happen from the usual events. Their own quote includes over 50% risk in January from their own "Near-Term Forward Yield Spread" indicator.

    It's also interesting because this is now repeat articles on "why this time the inversion is different." Now I'm starting to see how, going into the exuberance phase, common sense and well known indicators are ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Land: The 3 month-10 year inversion has already ended. There are still inversions from the 6 month treasury bill through the 7 year treasury note.

      https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2019

      The Stock Jocks have not shown any concern about the inversions signaling a recession within 18 months. The odds of a recession within that time frame, as reflected in current stock prices, is zero IMO.

      There is ample credit capacity and money available to support the real economy.

      Credit conditions normally start to tighten a few months before a recession which can then make matters worse as struggling businesses have their credit spigot turned off or tightened causing many to fail and file for bankruptcy. The impact then reverberates through the economy on an aggregate basis as people lose jobs and default on their credit obligations.

      Credit conditions are still generally favorable:

      Net Percentage of Domestic Banks Tightening Standards for Commercial and Industrial Loans to Small Firms
      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRTSCIS

      Net Percentage of Domestic Banks Tightening Standards on Consumer Loans, Credit Cards
      https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DRTSCLCC

      This data is based on the Fed's survey of senior bank lending officers.
      https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm

      The last survey was from January:
      https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos/sloos-201901.htm

      There is no reason for the FED to either increase the FF rate since inflation remains subdued nor decrease it based on reasonably foreseeable economic conditions this year.

      Real GDP growth will likely slow this year compared to 2018 but will probably be close to 2% with unemployment remaining close 3.8% to 4% throughout the year and CPI hovering around 2%.

      So far I see no reason to change my real GDP growth prediction for 2019 of 1.75% to 2.25%. With a continuation of favorable data, I will likely raise the range to 2% to 2.5%.

      The Bond Ghouls still believe that a .25% rate cut in the 2020 first half is likely, probably based on their consensus belief that the FED will need to cut in response to a slowing economy. That is reflected in the federal funds future contracts and the yield spread between the 1 year treasury bill at 2.46% and the 2 year treasury note at 2.35%.

      Delete
    2. Earnings will be interesting with the expectation of retracted business, not just less growth. (I think i read that correctly in FG's article.)

      I have concluded that we've entered euphoria stage. Just the beginnings of it. The insistence that inversion means nothing, and this time is different... are signs of euphoria stage warming up.

      This time is different, inflation is low. But the arguments aren't focused on that. They are focused on anything and everything that can give reason why this inversion means nothing.

      Delete
  9. I have published a new post:

    https://tennesseeindependent.blogspot.com/2019/04/observations-and-sample-of-recent.html

    ReplyDelete