investment viewpoints
Bubbles, inflation, negative breadth: which market myths matter for 2022?
Have people told you that the Great Wall of China is visible from space, or that a goldfish has a memory span of three seconds? These are common misconceptions. The financial world also perpetuates myths – and some are circulating in the press today. This issue of Simply Put, where we make macro calls with a multi-asset perspective, tests their validity.
Need to know
|
|---|
Market myth #1: bad breadth befouls market returns
Our first culprit is the relationship between market breadth and price behaviour. A well-engineered chart of the NASDAQ index versus its breadth since the end of 2019 seems to unequivocally point to an upcoming correction. Yet there are several problems with such comparisons.
First, this compares a bounded indicator (the breadth can only take values between zero and 100%) to a price series, which is by definition unbounded, as prices can theoretically keep on rising. Second, so-called chart engineering is critical to creating a somewhat conclusive chart. If this chart were extended back to 2001, the same conclusion would not be so apparent. Third, a simple statistical test can easily rule out any kind of informational gain from such an indicator.
Figure 1 represents the NASDAQ and the percentage of stocks above their 200-day moving average – the market’s breadth. The low percentage of stocks driving the performance of the entire index indicates negative breadth, suggesting that the market is fragile. But this necessarily trigger negative performance?
To test this theory, we first created a binary variable, where 1 indicates that more than 50% of stocks are above their 200-day moving average and zero infers that 50% or more of the stocks are below this measure. We then looked at the index performance over the subsequent year. On average, we found that if less than 50% of the stocks were on a positive trend (above their 200-day moving average), the index’s average performance for the following year was 17%. If breadth was more than 50%, the market went on to return 11%. This tells us that negative breadth does not necessarily compromise performance.
However, negative breadth does seem to align with increased volatility and lower risk-adjusted returns. It has historically been followed by periods of high volatility (26% on the NASDAQ ), while positive breadth comes with low volatility (13%). In our view, if negative breadth can predict anything, it’s a forthcoming surge in volatility.
FIG 1. NASDAQ performance relative to market breadth
Source: Bloomberg, LOIM as at December 2021. For illustrative purposes only.
Market myth #2: growth stocks are in a bubble!
Global growth stocks have risen by about 20% so far in 2021 (see figure 2). Are they in a bubble? To test this view, we ran a cointegration test between the MSCI World Growth index and the earnings per share of its underlying stocks with US 10-year Treasury yields since 2005. Cointegration, developed by Nobel laureates Robert Engle and Clive Granger in 1987, tests whether two time series share a common trend over the long term.
Our test showed, with a 97% degree of certainty, that the performance of growth stocks can be explained by higher earnings and lower yields. In our view, growth stocks are performing as they should and fears of a bubble should be questioned. However, if earnings contract or rates increase significantly, or both, these stocks could decline.
FIG 2. MSCI World Growth versus earnings
Source: Bloomberg, LOIM as at December 2021. For illustrative purposes only.
Market myth #3: the Fed is fuelling the stock-market rally
These days, investors dread hawkish actions by central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve (Fed). The rational is as follows: if the Fed stops buying or even starts selling bonds, interest rates will increase, increase financing costs for companies and therefore stifling their growth. Is this actually true? Is the Fed’s balance sheet really correlated to equity price movement? Further, does tapering cause equities to decrease?
To assess this theory, we ran a cointegration test between the Fed’s balance sheet and the S&P 500 index since 1995 (see figure 3). While the results are statistically insignificant, from the chart we can see two instances that highlight our point. In 2009, when the Fed increased its balance sheet to combat the financial crisis, stocks fell. Between the end of 2017 and September 2019, the Fed shrunk its balance sheet, yet stocks kept rallying. In our view, this simple analysis seems sufficient to put this myth to rest. If anything, the Fed’s balance sheet is a counter-cyclical indicator.
FIG 3. S&P500 returns relative to the Fed’s balance sheet
Source: Bloomberg, LOIM as at December 2021. For illustrative purposes only.
Market myth #4: food prices fertilise inflation in the near term
Fertiliser prices increased by about 230% in 2021, while those for agricultural goods by 35%. Looking at figure 4, these two curves could be regarded as cointegrated. It is also logical to assume that because agricultural output is extremely dependant on the price of fertiliser, an increase in its price would feed through to the prices paid for agricultural commodities.
To grow food efficiently, farmers need fertiliser. Once again, we ran a cointegration test on the data from 1994 to today. The results were inconclusive, meaning we cannot say with a high enough degree of certainty that they share the same trend. The debate remains open and prices for agricultural commodities could rise in the coming months. Markets may have underestimated this risk.
Given the heat of the inflation debate these days, food prices could intensify inflationary pressures in emerging markets – where the cost of food plays is a large component of inflation – as well in developed countries, where they amount to about 10% of consumer prices indices.
FIG 4. Fertiliser and agricultural commodity prices
Source: Bloomberg, LOIM as at December 2021. For illustrative purposes only.
|
Simply put, it is important to distinguish market myths from facts by using concrete data and robust statistical models. After investigating a series of misconceptions, we believe it will be worth keeping an eye on the volatility of stock returns and food inflation in 2022. |
Informazioni importanti.
RISERVATO AGLI INVESTITORI PROFESSIONISTI
Il presente documento è stato pubblicato da Lombard Odier Funds (Europe) S.A., una società per azioni di diritto lussemburghese avente sede legale a 291, route d’Arlon, 1150 Lussemburgo, autorizzata e regolamentata dalla CSSF quale Società di gestione ai sensi della direttiva europea 2009/65/CE e successive modifiche e della direttiva europea 2011/61/UE sui gestori di fondi di investimento alternativi (direttiva AIFM). Scopo della Società di gestione è la creazione, promozione, amministrazione, gestione e il marketing di OICVM lussemburghesi ed esteri, fondi d’investimento alternativi ("AIF") e altri fondi regolamentati, strumenti di investimento collettivo e altri strumenti di investimento, nonché l’offerta di servizi di gestione di portafoglio e consulenza per gli investimenti.
Lombard Odier Investment Managers (“LOIM”) è un marchio commerciale.
Questo documento è fornito esclusivamente a scopo informativo e non costituisce un’offerta o una raccomandazione di acquisto o vendita di titoli o servizi. Il presente documento non è destinato a essere distribuito, pubblicato o utilizzato in qualunque giurisdizione in cui tale distribuzione, pubblicazione o utilizzo fossero illeciti. Il presente documento non contiene raccomandazioni o consigli personalizzati e non intende sostituire un'assistenza professionale in materia di investimenti in prodotti finanziari. Prima di effettuare una transazione qualsiasi, l’investitore dovrebbe valutare attentamente se l’operazione è idonea alla propria situazione personale e, ove necessario, richiedere una consulenza professionale indipendente riguardo ai rischi e a eventuali conseguenze legali, normative, creditizie, fiscali e contabili. Il presente documento è proprietà di LOIM ed è rivolto al destinatario esclusivamente per uso personale. Il presente documento non può essere riprodotto (in tutto o in parte), trasmesso, modificato o utilizzato per altri fini senza la previa autorizzazione scritta di LOIM. Questo documento riporta le opinioni di LOIM alla data di pubblicazione.
Né il presente documento né copie di esso possono essere inviati, portati o distribuiti negli Stati Uniti d’America, nei loro territori e domini o in aree soggette alla loro giurisdizione, oppure a o a favore di US Person. A tale proposito, con l’espressione “US Person” s’intende un soggetto avente cittadinanza, nazionalità o residenza negli Stati Uniti d’America, una società di persone costituita o esistente in uno qualsiasi degli stati, dei territori, o dei domini degli Stati Uniti d’America, o una società di capitali disciplinata dalle leggi degli Stati Uniti o di un qualsiasi loro stato, territorio o dominio, o ogni patrimonio o trust il cui reddito sia soggetto alle imposte federali statunitensi, indipendentemente dal luogo di provenienza.
Fonte dei dati: se non indicato diversamente, i dati sono elaborati da LOIM.
Alcune informazioni sono state ottenute da fonti pubbliche ritenute attendibili, ma in assenza di una verifica indipendente non possiamo garantire la loro correttezza e completezza.
I giudizi e le opinioni qui espresse hanno esclusivamente scopo informativo e non costituiscono una raccomandazione di LOIM a comprare, vendere o conservare un titolo. I giudizi e le opinioni sono validi alla data della presentazione, possono essere soggetti a modifiche e non devono essere intesi come una consulenza di investimento. Non dovrebbero essere intesi come una consulenza di investimento.
Il presente documento non può essere (i) riprodotto, fotocopiato o duplicato, in alcuna forma o maniera, né (ii) distribuito a persone che non siano dipendenti, funzionari, amministratori o agenti autorizzati del destinatario, senza il previo consenso di Lombard Odier Funds (Europe) S.A. ©2021 Lombard Odier IM. Tutti i diritti riservati.
