Wikinvest Wire

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

The World According To Rosie

ZeroHedge posted the following list from David Rosenberg of things that people are not talking about but should be (at least this is how ZH interprets the list):

1) Hedge funds have not piled into the equity market to play catch-up.

2) The Super Committee did not come to a compromise (and remember Moody's has the U.S. debt rating on "credit watch" and Standard & Poor's still with a "negative outlook".., shades of August).

3) The Europeans have not managed to resolve let alone contain their credit crisis.

4) Germany has not acquiesced and agreed to having poor sovereign credits ride off its AAA rating via a "Eurobond".

5) The ECB has not moved towards QE. Nor will it — have a look at today's WSJ editorial on the matter. Brilliant.

6) Mr. Market saw through the Q3 earnings season and recognized the lack of visibility in the guidance provided.

7) China did not start to ease policy just because inflation rolled off the 6%-plus peak.

8) U.S. recession risks, as per the San Francisco Fed, did not recede and actually stayed above 50% even with the better statistical tone to Q3 and Q4 GDP.

We've all heard point number one many times, often referred to as window dressing, but this is something that I have never understood how it can be pulled off. To take an extreme example, if a portfolio reports owning nothing but names that are up 20% but the actual portfolio is only up 2% then wouldn't all credibility be lost?

The apparent failure of the super committee should surprise no one. Washington has become more ineffective than I can ever remember. It starts at the top and goes all the way down to both sides of the aisle. This has no shot of changing until Obama is gone. As a side note there was a write up over the weekend in the WSJ making the case that Obama should not run in which case Hilary would, she would win (a comment on how fouled up the GOP is these days) and draw on her experience of having a front row seat (presumably) to the manner in which her husband reached across the aisle.

Points 3, 4 and 5 all underscore the extent to which Europe's fundamentals stink and are going to continue to stink for many years. Long time readers will know I have been saying this for a long time and there appears to be no visibility for substantial improvements. Actually the visibility is for things to continue to deteriorate (it looks like Belgium's temporary honcho resigned last night).

Earnings are complicated these days. As you know, companies give guidance to analysts then report their numbers shortly thereafter creating the appearance (at the very least) that things are going better when they beat their own guidance. It is true that the percentage gains in reported earnings has been good for a meaningful number of companies but Rosenberg's comments are also true.

The other complicating factor is that earnings have not mattered in the short run for quite a while as the market is being driven more by macro factors. The first time I had ever heard of 90/10 days was in 2000 or 2001 in Barron's and it was portrayed as being a very rare event. Now they happen many times in a year contributing to the real or perceived increase in correlation.

Everything about China is complicated, promising, worrisome and exciting all at the same time. The story on the ground of modernization, urban migration and middle class ascendancy is continuing to happen and I contend will continue uninterrupted. This should mean good things for the right stocks long term but there will be short term lumpiness and sometimes it will be severe.

The wrong stocks need to be avoided (obvious statement) and by wrong stocks I mean Chinese banks, real estate companies and the companies that have their primary listing in the US. This will guarantee nothing but if China really implodes then ground zero will be the banks and real estate companies. I am not in the Chanos camp in terms of magnitude but I do believe these groups are on shaky ground. As far as companies that have their primary listing in the US, this is where most of the frauds occur. You may feel that not being able to discern when a company is simply lying makes for an unacceptable risk which would be valid but there are plenty of real companies in China.

And finally about a recession in the US; during the summer I said I thought we were in a recession and I still feel that way. This call will either be right, or early, or too early to be right or simply wrong but I continue to believe that things are unhealthy fundamentally and that jobs and housing a shockingly behind where they should be by now. More important than whether we are in a recession right now or not is that we are still in the event of the financial crisis that started four years ago.

Congratulation to Justin Verlander on winning both the Cy Young Award and the MVP.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

The quote below from the post you cited at ZeroHedge is more insightful.

"Hardly reassuring and perhaps once and for all, we will see the average talking-head for what they are - a self-aggrandizing marketing toy with the only goal of raising AUM at investor expense - as opposed to providing balanced research, investment advice, and occasionally contrarian perspectives."

Anonymous said...

I feel sorry for Rosie. It's gotta be tough to be a perma bear.

Anonymous said...

I feel we are in a bull market on US equities. 666-1185 looks lke a bull to me.

Anonymous said...

As someone who makes opposing points of view here a lot, I say keep up what you are doing.

I do not always think you are correct, but the comment that your process evolves sorta like the world and the markets evolve was just stupid.

even though I frequently disagree about this or that, I also acknowledge people could do a heck of a lot worse than follow you thoughts. I also freely admit I try to include some of your better ideas in my process. And guess what my process evolves.

keep up the good work and do not let a little disagreement get you dow, because sometimes I'm right :)

Roger Nusbaum said...

7:38, I think he has been right about the fundamentals but there is nothing that says the stock market has to care about the fundamentals.

7:46, you highlight an important point; the animal caricatures are unproductive. We had similar moves in the early 1930s. These moves should not be missed but do not mean trouble is over.

thank you 8:06.

Stephen Drone said...

Hmm, i can't seem to find the editorial referenced in #5.

Anonymous said...

Roger, in my view Rosie has been quite wrong about the fundamentals as he was predicting over a year ago a 90% chance of a recession. The data is not pointing to a recession at this time, although I think the stock market is currently pricing one in @10x.

Really, it comes to are you an investor or a speculator. I think many market participants who fancy themselves as investors are actually speculators, which adds to their frustration at the current time. For a true investor (not a speculator), lower prices with solid fundamentals equals opportunity with the proper time horizon.

Anonymous said...

10:16

Excellent comments in 2nd paragraph.

Stephen Drone said...

Question. If technically the economy is growing, however slowly, so we're not in a recession...

BUT unemployment is high...

what's that called? I guess technically it's not a recession.

Roger Nusbaum said...

SD, Richard Koo and Cullen Roche would tell you this is and has been the same balance sheet recession all along.

Stephen Drone said...

Hmm, ok. Normally I'd assume that means a government balance sheet (deficit) but if I broaden my understanding to pull in consumer balance sheets, it makes sense.

Anonymous said...

Roger,

don't confuse me with logic and reason

this is not a recession if gdp is expanding quarter to quarter.

It ain't wonderful either.

Our current president does not know how to fix this economy. From what I see he doesn't even focus on fixing it. He only focuses on redistribution of assets. He is basically a one trick pony.

Anonymous said...

Roger, your paragraph which includes:

"... failure of the super committee ..."
"... Washington ... ineffective"
"... starts at the top and goes all the way down to both sides ..."
"... no shot of changing until Obama is gone..."
"... Hilary ... would win ..."

is brilliant political commentary (and I know I left out a lot of words, but I don't think I changed the meaning).

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm... has anybody else noticed that David Rosenberg's thoughts and commentary always seem to be one-sided? Are we to believe that he looks at all evidence available and comes up with unbiased comments? Maybe it's just me, but he seems to be a tad biased towards seeing negative evidence. Investing is most successful when one can view the world like a robot - with as little emotion and bias as possible, and without seeking out evidence to confirm a preconceived notion.

- aagold

Anonymous said...

It is interesting how many people are obsessed with the dismal science of Macro Economics, and its non rigorous, caviat loaded opinion. Another trick is to change the definition of an economic term (recession & depression come to mind) to fit your thesis. Rosie is particulary adept at this, as he states we are in a "Modern Day Depression", because his call of depression has been wrong.

Rosie also likes to have it both ways with the consumer and their spending. In 2009 the US consumer was bringing down the economy because of too little spending, as the rate of savings was going to go to 15%, and we were going into depression. in 2011 the consumer is not saving enough, and we are now going into depression, or as Rosie likes to call it "Modern Day Depression". And you wonder why they call it the dismal science.

Roger Nusbaum said...

That Rosie is one sided is not bad if you know he is one sided. He lays out the bear case and then you can decide if he is right, wrong or just partially right.

11:31, if you're not teasing me, then thank you and if you are teasing me you were too subtle for me to pick up on it.

Anonymous said...

12:07,

Right on!

Warren Buffett claims to pay no heed to macro level events. Investment decisions must be made regardless how economic conditions are labeled.

Anonymous said...

Roger, this is 11:31 again. I am not a subtle person and I was not teasing. I think your political commentary is spot-on.

Anonymous said...

Rosie...would that be Rosie Palmer?

Proud Member Of