What We're Reading

This week, the SEC gave us a belated Christmas present.  But what does it actually portend?

The present in question is an 88-page "Research Note" from the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets titled "Equity Market Volatility on August 24, 2015." It's an innocuous-enough title, but for us market-structure wonks, it's kind of a big deal.

The conclusions of the piece are purely factual, and include dozens of pages of juicy charts and tables (be still my nerdy heart!). There's little or no conjecture, and there's absolutely no policy recommendations.

It outlines the facts of that fateful trading day, discussing what went wrong, and which classes of securities were affected. It's a gold mine for folks who want to dig in and understand what happens when things break, and, for any investor, it's worth reading at least the first six pages.

Key Findings

Here are the most interesting findings—not just because they're objectively interesting—but because they give you some insight into where the

Intellectually I knew there were two forms of market participants already: price-sensitive “investors” and price-insensitive “traders”.  The former buys low and sells high, and has a process for determining why they are doing so.  The latter sells low and covers lower, or buys high and sells higher.  Both are entirely legitimate ways to make returns in any market, but it’s important to distinguish between them; who you listen to and surround yourself with will inform your market view and trading positions.  When the stock market opened for its “Black Monday” on August 24th, those selling were “traders”, whether they want to admit it or not.  They didn’t care what level prices were at, just that they were going down. “Get me out, NOW!!!”  Those who were in buying blue chip, mega-cap, high quality secular growth stories at 10 or 20% discounts to that day’s close? They were investors.  More on this below, but when you’re in a crash, make sure that you’re not trying to inform investing dec

Indeed, I've read much concern over this area as oil collapsed so it does merit a warning.  From ZeroHedge:

The S&P 500 Energy sector stocks are down over 12% year-to-date, tumbling over 3% today to fresh 20-month lows. The spread (or risk) of high-yield energy credits surged again today, breaking above 850bps for the first time... The overall high-yield credit market is being dragged wider by this contagion as hedgers try to contain the collapse that is possible. For now, the S&P 500 remains entirely ignorant of the fact that over a third of its CapEx was expected to come from this crushed sector...

According to DB

US private investment spending is usually ~15% of US GDP or $2.8trn now. This investment consists of $1.6trn spent annually on equipment and software, $700bn on non-residential construction and a bit over $500bn on residential. Equipment and software is 35% technology and communications, 25-30% is industrial equipment for energy, utilities and agriculture, 15% is transpor

Stock markets have enjoyed a banner half-decade, forcefully reclaiming the ground lost to the financial crisis, and then some. This vigorous performance has occurred thanks, above all else, to two key enablers: surging earnings and recovering valuations. On the surface, there is nothing especially questionable about either. Earnings naturally rise as economies grow, and valuations recover as risk aversion fades.

However, a closer examination reveals a significant vulnerability within this cozy equation. Corporate earnings growth has been, in a sense, too good – persistently outpacing both revenues and the economy. This has driven profit margins to multi-decade highs.

Worryingly, profit margins have long been assumed to be mean-reverting, arguing that these juicy gains may eventually have to reverse. Such a scenario would necessitate an eye-watering one-third decline in the S&P 500. With stakes as big as these, a clear sense of the downside risk is imperative. This report evaluates th

The ECB left its key lending rates at record low levels, and the four-week moving average for initial claims is at an eight-year low.  That sounds like a pretty good setup for a stock market that worries about earnings prospects tied to a stronger dollar, loves the thought of central bank policy rates holding near the zero bound, and is anxious to see evidence the U.S. economy is gaining momentum.

Despite the setup, it has been a swing and a miss so far for the stock market, which has once again been greeted with steady, and broad-based, selling pressure.

ECB President Mario Draghi is getting a lot of blame for the disappointing price action based on reports that his presentation regarding the ECB's asset-backed securities purchase program was lacking and the impression from today's press conference that the ECB's ability to change the economic dynamic in the eurozone is also lacking.

There is some merit to the latter claim given the seeming lack of urgency to implement structural r

Ask 10 different money managers what metric they use to determine if a stock (or particular market) is overvalued, and you'll more than likely receive 10 different responses.  Of course buying at "the bottom" is easier said than done, as we all know so I submit to you this perspective.

Kyle Caldwell, personal finance reporter at the Daily Telegraph, determined whether stock markets were undervalued or overvalued. Caldwell used three measures: price to earnings (P/E), cyclically adjusted price to earnings ratio (CAPE) and price to book (P/B). His analysis included 34 countries, both developed and emerging and compared current measures to historical averages.

The CAPE adjusts for cyclical variations and takes a longer term view than the P/E considering the earnings average over the last 10 years instead of the 12 month average. Its premise is that eventually earnings will move back to their long term trend. Price to book divides the current value per share over the equity value sho