Ázsia: mérsékelt optimizmus  

Kosz!
Igen, oriasi a piaci elmozdulas egy het alatt GLD - XLI,XLF elleneben.
Ujra kialakulni latszik, ami az elozo SPY eses idejen es utana tortent. A GLD es SPY parallel mutatja:

link

Nemcsak a hullamhosszakban, hanem .. de ugyis latod.

Mai Barrons-ban van a Bill Gross Interju.
En speciel ketszer okosabbnak gondolom, mint Yellen-t. Valaszkeppen is, mert eppen ugyanezeket a gondolatokat elemzi; es nagyon egyetertek veluk.

link

Kevesen fernek hozza; ide masolom a cikk lenyeget, mert merfoldko lehet. Van benne nehany nagy otlet; ugy szorja oket, mint hajdan.
Csak azoknak erdemes elolvasni, akik valamit ertenek a bond mufajbol.
++++++++++++++

Years of easing by central banks mean that interest rates in most of the developed world will fluctuate narrowly. That offers an opportunity to sell volatility to create return. If you bought a 10-year Treasury bond today and nothing changed, you would get a 1.9% yield. If you bought a seven-year German Bund, you’d get zero. If, however, you sold a three-month call or three-month put on that same Treasury with a 20-basis-point [hundredths of a percentage point] variation—in other words, the yield stayed in the range of 1.7%-2.1% for three months—the trade would produce an annual return of 6%, as opposed to 1.9%.

The risk is that interest rates will go up or down by more than 20 basis points over a three-month period. But my premise is that central bankers will do anything possible to contain interest-rate fluctuations. The sale of volatility is producing the predominant amount of return in my fund.

How is the fund structured?

If you make a pie, you have the crust and the filling. The crust in a $1.3 billion fund is 12- to 18-month corporate bonds and notes, triple-B rated—hopefully, with no credit sinkholes—that yield about 2%. That’s where all the cash goes. If you start your pie with a 2% yield, you aim to get to 5% with a derivatives-based filling, much like the options I just discussed. You do it by assuming credit risk or selling credit risk, buying or selling volatility, taking mild currency positions, or buying or selling liquidity.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking to regulate the use of derivatives in mutual funds. Wouldn’t that pose a risk for you?

The SEC is challenging mutual funds in a number of areas. Leverage in Janus Unconstrained has averaged about 150%. As I understand it, that is within regulators’ potential guidelines, but we’ll see.

You have taken central bankers to task for impotence and ignorance, among other sins. In particular, you have written that Fed Chair Janet Yellen and others are ignorant of the harm done by their policies “to a classical economic model that has driven prosperity.” Just what did you mean, and what sorts of dangers do we face?

The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. President Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1971. For the past 40-plus years, central banks have been able to print as much money as they wanted, and they have. When I started at Pimco in 1971, the amount of credit outstanding in the U.S., including mortgages, business debt, and government debt, was $1 trillion. Now it’s $58 trillion. Credit growth, at least in its earlier stages, can be very productive. For all the faults of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the securitization of mortgages lowered interest rates and enabled people to buy homes. But when credit reaches the point of satiation, it doesn’t do what it did before.

Think of the old Monty Python movie, The Meaning of Life. A grotesque, rotund guy keeps eating to demonstrate the negatives of gluttony, and finally is offered one last thing, a “wafer-thin mint.” He swallows it and explodes. It’s pretty funny. Is our financial system, with $58 trillion of credit, to the point of a wafer-thin mint? Probably not. But we’re to the point where every bite is less and less fulfilling. Even though credit isn’t being created as rapidly as in the past, it doesn’t do what it did before.

Central banks believe that the historical model of raising interest rates to dampen inflation and lowering rates to invigorate the economy is still a functional model. The experience of the past five years, and maybe the past 15 or 20 in Japan, has shown this isn’t the case.

So where does that leave our economy?

In the developed financial economies, as a bloc, lowering interest rates to near zero has produced negative consequences. The best examples of this include the business models of insurance companies and pension funds. Insurers have long-term liabilities and base their death benefits, and even health benefits, on earning a certain rate of interest on their premium dollars. When that rate is zero or close to it, their model is destroyed.

To use another example, California bases its current and future pension payments to civil workers on an estimated future return of 8% or so from bonds and stocks. But when bonds return 1% or 2%, or nothing in Germany’s case, what happens? We’ve seen the difficulties that Puerto Rico, Detroit, and Illinois have faced paying their debts.

Now consider mom and pop and other people who read Barron’s. They are saving for retirement and to put their kids through college. They might have depended on a historic 8%-like return from stocks and bonds. Well, sorry. When interest rates get to zero—and that isn’t the endpoint; they could go negative—savers are destroyed. And savers are the bedrock of capitalism. Savers allow investment, and investment produces growth.

Are you suggesting a recession looms?

No. I see very slow growth. In the U.S., instead of 3% economic growth, we have 2%. In euroland, instead of 2%, growth is 1%-plus. In Japan, they hope for anything above zero.

What governments want, and what central banks are trying to do, is produce, in addition to minimal growth, a semblance of inflation. Inflating is one way to get out from under all the debt that has been accumulated. It isn’t working, because with interest rates at zero, companies and individual savers sense the futility of taking on risk. In this case, the mint eater doesn’t explode, but the system sort of grinds to a halt.

It doesn’t look like anything is grinding to a halt around here. You can see gorgeous golf courses from one window and a yacht basin from the other.

This isn’t the real economy. It is Disneyland and Hollywood. It is finance-based prosperity, based on money that doesn’t produce anything anymore because yields are so low.

Even in a negative-rate environment, as in Germany or Switzerland, banks and big insurance companies have little choice but to park their money electronically with the central bank and pay 50 basis points. But an individual can say “give me back my money” and keep it in cash. That’s what would make the system implode. I’m not talking about millionaires or Newport Beach–aires, but people with $25,000 or $50,000. Without deposits, banks can’t make loans anymore, so the system starts to collapse.

Let’s say Yellen steps down and President Obama appoints you the new head of the Fed. What would you do differently?

What you’re really asking is: What is the way out? The way out is a little bit of pain over a relatively long period of time. That is a problem for politicians and central bankers who are concerned with their legacy. It means raising interest rates and returning the savings function to normal. The Fed speaks of normalizing the yield curve but knows it can’t go too fast. A 25-basis-point increase [in the federal-funds rate] in December had consequences in terms of strengthening the dollar and hurting emerging markets.

Will the Fed raise rates this year?

Yes, as long as the stock market permits it. They have to normalize interest rates over a period of two, three, four years, or the domestic and global economy won’t function. In today’s world, normalization would mean a 2% fed-funds rate, a 3.5% yield on the 10-year bond, and a 4.5% mortgage rate. Would this create some pain? Of course. Housing prices probably would stop rising, and might fall a bit. The Fed has to move gradually.

What will be the 10-year Treasury yield at the end of 2016?

Close to what it yields now. I expect the Fed to raise rates once or twice this year. That would put the fed-funds rate at 1%. Does the 10-year deserve to yield 1.90% with fed funds at 1%? Yes, so long as inflation is 2% or less. If the Fed raises rates, the euro and yen could weaken. That would mean rates in Europe and Japan don’t have to go negative, or to extreme lows. In a sense, the Fed is driving everything. But it can’t raise rates too much without threatening a country like Brazil, whose corporations have tons of dollar-dominated debt.

What will the global economy look like in five or 10 years?

Structurally, demographics are a problem for global growth. The developed world is aging, with Japan the best example. Italy is another good example, and Germany is a good, old society, too. As baby boomers get older, they spend less and less. But capitalism has been based on an ever-expanding number of people. It needs consumers.

Another thing happening is deglobalization, whether it’s Donald Trump building a wall to keep out Mexicans, or European nations putting up fences to keep out migrants. Larry Summers [former secretary of the Treasury] has talked about secular stagnation, or a condition of little or no economic growth. At Pimco, I used the term “the new normal” to refer to this condition. It all adds up, again, to very slow growth. The days of 3% and 4% annual growth are gone.

How can an investor prosper in a world of low bond yields and sluggish growth?

When rates are low, it pays to borrow, rather than invest. How do you do that relatively safely? One way I try to do it in the fund is to invest in merger-arbitrage situations, where the acquiring company is borrowing for you. Take Berkshire Hathaway’s [BRKA] $35 billion bid last year for Precision Castparts. Janus Unconstrained bought Precision Castparts shares in advance of the closing. There was a $3-$4 gap in the price of the Precision Castparts between the time the deal was announced and the time it closed. That produced a 4%-5% return for us, with little risk.

Here’s another example. Anheuser-Busch InBev [BUD] is planning to buy rival SABMiller [SAB.UK] for 44 British pounds [$61.85] a share. The deal could close by year end. A-B InBev has already borrowed about $50 billion by selling bonds cheaply in the U.S. and Europe. You’re letting the company borrow for you, and you’re taking advantage of the gap between the current stock price, in this case £42, and the deal’s expected closing price. Plus, you’re collecting a dividend in the intervening months. It’s a pretty safe bet.

Merger arbitrage hardly seems safe, given the possibility that a deal will unravel before the closing, as many have.

It is never risk-free, but that is why you want to hang your banner with a Warren Buffett [chairman of Berkshire Hathaway] or a company such as Anheuser-Busch that has already borrowed a substantial amount of money to do the deal. This sort of arbitrage accounts for maybe 10% of fund assets, and these types of situations can produce returns of 4% to 5%.

Another way to borrow and invest is to sell puts and calls around the current yield on the 10-year Treasury bond, as we discussed. A third way is to buy a closed-end fund. Most closed-end funds borrow, and lever their assets 35% to 50%. They might borrow at Libor [London interbank offered rate] types of rates, and use the funds to buy municipal bonds, which yield more. When an investor can buy a municipal closed-end fund at a discount to net asset value—most are trading at discounts of 6% to 10% of NAV—that’s a head start. The leverage then produces a return of 5% or 6%, tax-free. Janus Unconstrained has 8% to 9% of assets in closed-end funds selling at a discount to NAV. Sure, there is risk in this leverage, but so long as rates stay low, it is unlikely to be a problem.

What are some closed-ends you like?

Nuveen Preferred Income Opportunities fund [JPC] holds bank preferred stock, and sells at a 6% discount to NAV. It is preferable to a large preferred-stock ETF because the mild use of leverage produces a higher yield. JPC currently yields 8.5%. I also like the Duff & Phelps Global Utility Income fund [DPG]. This is a global utility-stock closed-end fund trading at a 14% discount to net asset value. It yields 9.2%.

Another example of letting others borrow for you is Annaly Capital Management [NLY]. Annaly and American Capital Agency [AGNC] are bank-like real estate investment trusts without a bank infrastructure. Annaly is levered four to six times—less than banks, which are levered eight to nine times—and invests in government-guaranteed mortgages. It borrows money in the overnight repo [repurchase agreement] market. It yields about 11% because of leverage, not risky assets. The concept, again, is letting corporations borrow for you to produce a return higher than the 1% to 2% return the bond market gives you today.

You’ve had an extraordinary career. Who, among today’s younger bond managers, might become the next Bill Gross?

I don’t think there will be another, and that’s not because I’m some kind of Babe Ruth. My career coincided with a unique period in which credit expanded from $1 trillion to $58 trillion, and returns justified that growth. That isn’t going to happen again. The Earth is fully formed now; it isn’t in a molten stage anymore. In other words, the system itself has matured. There will always be bond kings and queens, but less cachet will be attached to the job.

Sziasztok,

Ha valaki a JPY-en gyengulesere akar kereskedni en megvarnam az osszi szezont...
Szeptember-Oktoberi idoszakot.
Akkora tul leszunk a Brexit-en es nagyabol kirajzolodik, hogy az amcsi elnokvalasztasnal ki a 2 jelolt...(ha Hillary nem lesz ott, akkor nem lesz konyu USD erosodesre kereskedni szinte semmivel szemben, mert Trump es Bernie hozhat 1 kis turbulenciat a piacra)
2. ok pedig, ha minden jol alakulna akkor az olaj arnak osszel emelkednie kellene ill. magasabban kellene lennie mint a mostani 40$ koruli ar....
(magasabb olajar, ill. energia koltsegek a Japan export adatokat komolyan befolyasoljak, mert Japan nem rendelkezik energiaval ill. komolyabb nyersanyaggal, ok azok akik imortaljak a dolgokat majd megprobalnak valamilyen hozzaadott ertekkel exportalni az eloallitott termeket...)
lasd auto, szamitastechnika, cipo es egyebb markas termekek...

Nagyon sok hedge fundnak voltak es vannak carry trade-jeik ill. sokan ceg vett fel hitelt JPY-ben (mint CHF-ben tettek Europaban)....
Az igaz hogy a BOJ elkezd majd intervenalni,de nem szabad az elsok kozott beugrani az ismeretlenbe...
sokkal celszerubb elorebb engedni masokat...
es hamar a piac oldalazgat nehany hete esetleg 1-2 honapig majd elkezdene a piac a 20-as ill. 50-es MA folott zarni akkor kisebb tetelekkel lehet tesztelni a piacot...
Egyebkent is ha a BOJ intervenal azt lehet majd latni mind a kereskedesben mind a grafikonon....
En kereskedtem ha jol emlekszem a JPY-et amikor 76-77kozott folyt a kereskedes...:

link

Nem kell kapkodni, es nem muszaly megprobalni elkapni az aljat, mert az altalaban draga mulatsag!!!

u.i.:
raadasul az rv piacok ill. az arany arfoyam mozgasa is korrelacioban szokott nagyon gyakran lenni a JPY-el ill. negativ korrelacioba az USD/JPY-el

Sziasztok, lassan április közepe így a májusra igért fórumtalit lassan elkezdem szervezni.
Megy egy körmail jövőhét elején azoknak akiktől van email címem.
Akitől nincs, de lenne kedve eljönni az viszont ide írhat nekem:
emerald07@freemail.hu

Mindenkit szeretettel várok/unk, teljesen ingyenes a részvétel.

Igen, nagyon volatilis a piac, gyors fe-le mozgás benne van.

Meg nem biztos, hogy nem szakad 107.7 ala; nagyon erzelemdus es nagy momentumos most ez a piac. De az csak-1-3 napnyi "overthrow" lehet.

Ezt a 107.7 koruli fordulat-kilatast megerositi a dollar erosodesi iranyu fordulata is, ami EURUSD-ben is erezhetoen elindult. Ott is fordulopont van.
(Amikor SPY elgyengul, a Dollar erosodni szokott: oda menekulnek)

Akkor amit múltkor írtál 107-s célár, nagyjából megfelel 107.7-nek?

Pénteken 1,10 körülre vártam, majd onnan vissza 107.7-ig, de csak 109-ig ment, gyanúsan nem volt benne több potenciál.

Szia,
USDJPY kezd gyanus lenni, hogy kozel a fordulat.
Most a JPY-re a traderek 95%-a bull; ez onmagaban is a fordulat elojele. Es mar regeteget erosodott yen.
A BOJ nem fogja feladni a harcot a gyengitesert, bar mar hetek ota semmit sem ert el; de meg tud lepni, direct intervencioval, hiszen akarmennyi yent kepes nyomtatni.
Talan dupla-alj lesz 107.70 korul.

Szoval, ha tradeled, en a helyedben keszulnek egy outside-fordulo napra. 109.10-tol nyilvanvaloan long.

A shortterm (60 min) SPY chart egyelore megerositeni latszik a napus chartbol lathato kilatast.
link

2)Nincs erdemi ujsag a bond es az USD piacon.

3)GLD egyelore oldalaz tovabb. Meg nem esett le a target tartomanyba.

Viszont az aranybanyaszok egyresze, a legjobbak mint AU KGC AUY, kitortek. Maga a GDX index nem, de nagyon kozel van hozza.
De ha GDX a kovetkezo napokban kitor, akkor erdemes lesz vele menni; akkor egy running correctiom forma volt, es folyatodik a rally. Joval magasabbra.

Az UsdJpy-t hogy látja? Várható korrekció a további esés előtt?

1) SPY
A fractalok ketszer mukodtek. A harmadik fractal elkezdodott. Es az elso fele napra pontosan ismetlodott: Pontosan a hullamhossz, 5 honap, felenel elerte a felso trendvonal szi0ntjet. Es oldalazni kezdett.

link

Ha az ismetlodes tart, (marpedig ha tavaly majus ota tart, akkor van esely hogy tart), szoval,

akkor a kovetkezo 2-3 het egy W format fog rajzolni, nagyjabol 2015-2072 savban.
Aztan elesen leszakad.

.50=6.5 USD

Ide masolom a Barclays mai ertekeleset PBR-tol. A lenyeg szerintem:
"interesting special case with substantial potential upside"
++++++++++++++

Barclays Paul Cheng and his team reiterated an Equal Weight rating on Petrobras and a $6.50 price target, although he prefers Petrobras A shares (PBRA)—he has the same price target on those, but an Overweight rating.

His thoughts on Petrobras’s first quarter, which it will report on May 13:

"While we assume a slight operating profit this quarter of $0.18/share, we think that the company will continue to recognize significant impairments and other one-off items throughout 2016 and will end the year with a loss, which legally justifies the lack of dividend payment to shareholders. Therefore, we have assumed a R$20 billion loss in 4Q16, enough to lower the full year result to a loss of $0.25/share.
We reiterate our view that PBR remains an interesting special case with substantial potential upside, but only for the long-term investor due to the continuing short/medium term headline risk."

Ordinary Petrobras and Petrobras A shares were both higher at recent check, to $5.72 and $4.49, respectively. The iShares MSCI Brazil Capped exchange-traded fund (EWZ) is up as well.

Nagyon ugy tunik, hogy igen. Kozel 2%-ot erosodott a brazil real. Tehetett volna egy szivesseget es kicsit gyengulhetett volna meg a heten. Lejjebb vartam a fordulot.

Ugyanakkor nagy ressel nyitott ma. Ewz, bovespa, pbr, minden hatalmas gap-pel kezdte a mai kereskedest. 1 heten belul szerintem betolti.

Pbr-ben az olaj hurra hangulatnak is koszonheto a mai 9%. Undorito, hogy eleg hozza egy "talan/lehet megallapodunk" nyilatkozat a szaros Kuvait reszerol. Nem lennek meglepve ha jovo heten szaud cafolna a tegnapelotti hireket. Kezdunk visszaterni a regi jol megszokott olaj-manipulativ mozgashoz. Arra megyunk amerre ezek a kretenek beszelik. Semmit nem jelent a mai 6%. Hetfon eppen -4% volt, aztan meg +2, aztan meg -3, ma meg +6.. Hogy mi lesz hetfon? Rulett. Johet itt jobb vagy rosszabb adat, a piaci teljesen irracionalis viselkedese garantalt.

EWZ rendesen beindult , véget ért a korrekciója , vélemények ?

0)SPY-ra a Jan.21-el feltett fractalis-chart projekciomnak az elso fele nagyon szepen kialakult. Emlekeztetoul:

link

A top forma keszen van. (Vagy meg egy kisse magasabb uj top lehetseges, de mar kevesbe valoszinu)

A kovetkezo hetekre a kilatas lenyegeben ugyanaz, cask talan kisse pontosabban lehet a fractalist megrajzolni a kovetkezo 3 honapra.

link

Jopar dolog kovetkezik abbol, ha valoban ez alakul ki: a poziciokat legalabbis hedgelni kell, de inkabb a short iranyu tradelesre felkeszulni.

A kovetkezo par napban ezt erdemes lesz alaposabban targyalni a lehetseges strategiakat.
Ha a Elliott- szamozas jo, akkor (3) hullam kovetkezik lefele: durva, eroszakos, korrekciok nelkuli szakadatlan zuhanas lehet belole.

Valami ilyesmi is morfolodhat belole:

link

Azsiaban folytatodik a fokozatos gyengules.
1)Japan JPY elesen letorte a 109 szintet. NIKKEI vele parallel esett, mar 15750 szintnel jar, szoval 5000 ponttal van a 9 honappal ezelotti csucs alatt.
A 2 hetes eses miatt tuladott, ezert egy eles felpattanas idoszeru lehet.

2)Austral ASX 2 hete esik, itt is tuladott allapot van, es egy parnapos oldalazo-felpattano korrekcio valoszinu lehet.
A Bear piacnak nincs vege; ha a 2 hettel ezelotti top tenyleg (2) hullam volt, akkor ebben a (3) hullamban a februari 4700-as bottom szintnel joval lejjebbre tart.

3)India NIFTY Index egy hete esik. A momentum meglepoen eros. Az aggodalomra adhat okot, hogy ilyen nagy a lendulet, es esetleg melyebbre megy, mint eddig gondoltam.

4)Kina SSEC meg mindig 3000 korul van, de egyre gynengulonek latszik. Innen le kellene fordulnia egy elesebb esesbe a kovetkezo napokban.

Bejönni látszik...
VIX is megugrott...