TBOND-BUND-EUROSTOX-FIBMERD fine del capitalismo(V.M.98anni)

Dario ha scritto:
Gipa Buongiorno, se posso farti una domanda:
(Non so se hai già scritto qualcosa e mi scuso se non sono andato a cercarlo.)

Hai un'opinione sul perchè la curva dei rendimenti in Italia è ancora così "normale" rispetto all' UK (in primis) , Germania e Usa che nell'ordine sono già invertite. MI riferisco soprattutto al tratto molto lungo (30 anni), ma il discorso vale anche per il 10 anni. Chi è che manca come acquirente del tratto lungo in italia, rispetto agli altri paesi? (fondi pensione?). Hai dei siti dove approfondire e cercare dati del genere?
Se poi hai anche un'opinione sui tassi per il 2007, non potrei chiedere di più.
Mi scuso ancora se l'hai già scritto da qualche parte.

Deng iu

La posizione della curva dei tassi italiana sebbene sia leggermente diversa da quella degli altri paesi ha seguito il medesimo trend.
La differenza è data principalmente dai tassi a lunga perchè mentre i tassi a breve sono legati alle decisioni della BCE i tassi a lungo seguono l'indicazione dei mercati e l'Italia ha storicamente uno spread da pagare rispetto per esempio alla Germania legato alla percezione del rischio Italia.
Questo differenziale di spread sulla parte a lunga fa si che l'Italia abbia una curva più pendente dei principali paesi europei a causa della percezione del rischio sulla stessa.

per i tassi ed il 2007 invece al momento non ho ancora le ide chiare in quanto dipenderà molto dal comportamento degli altri mercati.
Vi sono due spinte macro fondamentali che fanno si che le tendenze si compensino almeno in parte.

Da una parte le spinte disinflazionistiche derivanti da un'eccesso di produttività a basso costo del settore manifatturiero che spingono i prezzi dei manufatti a scendere di prezzo a parità di prodotto.
Tenuto conto che su molti indicatori di prezzo hanno un peso preponderante i beni prodotti si capisce perchè l'inflazione sia alquanto calma (escudendo gli aggiustamenti effettuati su molti panieri dalle autorità per sottostimare i valori ed avere quindi un vantaggio nel pagamento del debito domestico e nel parametrare i salari a quei valori)

Dall'altra parte ci sono le spinte inflazionistiche derivanti dal settore dei servizi non replicabili (in poche parole non callcentrizzabili..) e dalle materie prime limitate che crescono a ritmi sostenuti stimolati anche dalla forte immissione di liquidità proveniente non tanto dalle Banche centrali ma bensì dalla facilità di liquidazione di asset che in un recente passato non erano liquidabili e dall'aumento strutturale del debito privato nei paesi avanzati. (e dal fenomeno del carry...)

A questa dicotomia dei prezzi si accentua la dicotomia dei redditi che porta una divaricazione significativa tra le crescita dei consumi dei beni di lusso e quella dei beni di categoria inferiore che pone dei dubbi sulla sostenibilità della crescita dei consumi che evidentemente cresce sui volumi grazie ai consumatori di elevato standing
 
Sulla dicotomia dei redditi e sul loro impatto sui dati macro e sull'economia...
articolo e pdf molto interessanti.


Ali G Economics and the Gini Coefficient Puzzle
Paul Kasriel of Northern Trust has put together a collection of charts that reveal some dramatic economic changes underway. Let’s go through them. Charts 12-15 are a snapshot of the leverage used by American consumers. These are variations of the charts and data that I have blogged on all year. If you want more background they are sprinkled throughout in my commentary.


I make a primary distinction from this data, and that is the American consumer is now very bifurcated. Most economists act as if it’s fairly monolithic. This bifurcation is measured by what is called the Gini Coefficient (GC), which reflects income and wealth distribution inequality. (It is important that you click the thumbnail link to enlarge the chart.) The latest estimate for the US GC is from 2005 and checks in at about 47, so visually adjust the yellow line on the chart accordingly. It’s now just a bit below Mexico, a process being accelerated by illegal immigration to the tune of 60,000 per month, or six Topeka, Kansas’ per year. It is estimated that only 3% of America’s 12 million illegals have a college education, and many don’t pay taxes.

1166388696gini.gif


It is my view however that 47 is likely to be understated, and that the last two years in particular has witnessed a parabolic acceleration, probably to well above 50. Therefore, it is vital when looking at the American economy to start using an economic model that is much closer to Mexico, or even Brazil, than to comparisons with other advanced countries such as Europe, or Japan. Therefore I feel Kasriel’s charts actually understate what’s going on, as they include plutocrats (Bullies). It would be interesting to see an economist do the same charts excluding the top 10% of income earners. In fact, just exclude the top 1%, and I’ll bet it would be a shocker. My strong hunch is that some where between 1-10%, is a mind blowing bifurcation chart. Then you’d get the real picture. This is an idea of how consumption growth looks for Brazil Americans and Bullies using broader quantiles. It’s my theory that the middle group is now in full retreat, and that this chart is skewed even worse.

1166388751consumptioninequal.png


Another reason (besides open borders) for this worsening GC is that the housing Bubble has reversed, and about 69% of the Americans who are homeowners benefited temporarily (many just to make ends meet) from that Bubble. The other 31% are called non receivers in Austrian economics and were just left out of this artificial Bubble largess. They just eat all the high cost inflationary fumes, without any benefits of the Bubble. I call this group Brazil Americans, an obvious inference to Brazil’s GC. Unfortunately, this inflationary housing Bubble benefit has largely been used up even for the homeowner group. They’ve borrowed huge sums (see Kasriel chart 10), and are left with huge liabilities and high costs to service (chart 14). A large portion of this group is now slipping into the Brazil American group, and it is likely more are on the way. Before going on, I would ask my readers not to get too anal in calibrating the extent of this, but instead just focus on my larger general theme. The calibration can come later.

The activities and expenditures of this lower 80 to 90% group have played right into the hands of the Bully, and especially the Pig Men (financial sphere) and corporatist class. They’ve been binging on the profits, mostly by slashing wages to labor (see next chart). Then they collect all the fees, soft money and switcheroos that goes with loaning out the trillions that the emerging Brazili-fried underclass needs to subsist as they are being “globalized”. Further, the fizzling housing Bubble, has recently been replaced in 2006 with another stock market Bubble. Stock market Bubbles are much more selective in terms of who temporarily benefits. As this study indicates, the top 10% in income of American households hold 77% of all the common stock. Therefore, we come to the obvious. A fizzling housing Bubble affecting 69% of all American households, combined with a big stock market rally (fueled in part by cutting labor’s part of the pie) that benefit only about 10%, or 20% at best and the second 10% just a smidgeon, is going to blow the Gini Coefficient sky high. Then throw in 700,000 uneducated illegals a year, and it’s not too tough to connect the dots.

1166388796nationalincome.png


Now I profess that Bubble blowing as economic policy is doomed to failure from the get go. It’s a bit like excessive drug and alcohol use, feels good when you’re high. Afterwords, though it’s Ali G economics, not to be confused with the mental process of the other AG, Alan Greenspan.


Ali G: When I was high, I sold my car in Amsterdam, for 24 chicken McNuggets. Ain’t it wrong to do dat?

Dr. Schultz: “Don’t be high, that’s a real rule, when your buyin’ and sellin’”

But blowing stock market Bubbles at this juncture is the ultimate folly. If it actually works (for awhile), welcome to Brazil America. We can turn to Kasriel’s charts to get a glimmer of what Brazil America is starting to look like. Chart 2 shows a dramatic peak and rollover in credit market borrowing that corresponds with the peak in housing. Despite the large rate of change, household credit growth is still at historic high levels of around 8-9% year over year. That’s because lenders are still willing for the time being to extend credit to these consumers as if we were still operating in an advanced country model, as opposed to the actual Brazil America model. When lenders and their foreign central bankers buddies wake up to the realization that they’ve been lending to Brazil America instead, look out! A credit spread adjustment will have to be made.

1166388846absspreads.png


Indeed, those who are following the export to the US consumer model may wish to rethink their plans as well. Chart 7 shows that the level of vendor financing may be surpassing whatever demand,and ability to pay is left from the US consumer. In fact, this looks more like a Ponzi scheme than anything else. For the globalization exporters, this could be a Wiley Coyote moment for those outfits as well. The chart shown on this blog, entitled, “China: foreigners run the trade, not locals”, give clues as to who those outfits are. Gee, seems like the same corporatists?

1166388877china-exports.png


But, what makes economic modeling really difficult when officials and economists use the wrong model, is the impact from the top 10% Bully class. As their financial Bubble is running full tilt, their consumption is as well. And one Bully or one non productive Pig Man can put more consumption (and inflationary pressure) back into the economy than twenty Brazil Americans shopping at Wal Mart. And Bullies don’t need to borrow to fuel their consumption. For example, they can use their corporation’s cash to buy back their inflated stock in giant manipulations, and convert that into currency. Therefore, as long as financial Bubbles persist, you will continue to see strange, perplexing economic reports. That’s because there are two distinct Gini coefficient economies developing. So if you ask me how’s the “economy” is doing, my retort every time will be “which one?” Can the parasites and plutocrats float the US economy alone without the ability to heavily exploit or loot the declining Brazil American class? Highly problematic, as there is a tipping point out there. They will also need a large chunk of the top quintile to hang in there, as that group as a whole is reasonable for 39% of all US consumption.

I believe the financial Bubble is all temporary. That’s because Pig Men and all their foreign central banks (numb nuts who “invest” their national reserve holdings) , pension funds (other numb nuts, who “invest” Brazil America’s remaining retirement funds), and hedge fund (Riskloves) pals and cronies are playing a very high risk game. That game is engaging in late stage speculative lending and exporting to the expanding class of Brazil Americans. Then they trade these securities with each other, and even “insure” each other’s holdings. All I can say to that is, “Lots of luck”. And the reason it won’t work is that there is a rapid and obvious rate of change in Brazil America’s ability to make payments on all the overpriced securities that numb nuts and Riskloves hold. The corporatist players who plan on surviving better glean a new economic model, and quickly.
 
1166390728timeprice15122006.gif


Over the past several months in these newsletters, we have been pointing out an apparently growing number of patterns that appear to be converging in the late 2006 early 2007 time zone. If the stock market were declining into the time zone encompassed between the last quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007, we could make a strong argument that a very important market bottom was being registered. In our October 5th, 2006 newsletter, we noted a combination of a large number of periodic time patterns. Most of these numbers were a multiple of the number 4 and, because the 4 year cycle has been so consistent, it was a simple process to combine two 4 year cycles to form an 8 year cycle, three 4 year cycles to form a 12 year cycle, four 4 year cycles to form a 16 year cycle, and even eight 4 year cycles to form a 32 year cycle.



Our presentation of all those combinations of 4 year cycles was used in association with the George Lindsay theory that virtually all important market tops display a bottom-to-bottom-to-top pattern and we theorized for several reasons that it was possible that these large numbers of combinations of 4 year cycle multiples could well be doing exactly that, namely combining to form a very important market top. We will discuss several reasons in the technical section why we believe there is a better chance that a top of great importance will be formed between the last quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007, but in this cycle section we want to continue with the presentation of these potential bottom-to-bottom-to-top patterns that we believe are telling a significant story.



The front page chart in today's newsletter represents a depiction of three separate potential bottom-to-bottom-to-top patterns. The longest pattern on the front page chart begins at the April 1942 market low, one of the most significant lows of the 20th century. If we measure the distance between that very major low and what might be considered another of the two or three most important lows of the 20th-century, namely October 1974, then measure the same distance forward from October 1974, we would arrive at March 2007. The exact date would be March 12th, 2007. For those of you receive the newsletter via e-mail, that pattern is depicted by dark green lines and arrows.



The next pattern on the front page chart is one we have not discussed before. The June 1949 market bottom was notable, not because there was a large decline into that time period, but because it was a springboard for a market rally that would, in effect, last for almost 17 years. If we measure the distance from that June 1949 springboard bottom to the important market low that occurred in March-April 1978, there is a time span of between 10,487-10,520 days, depending on whether the March 1st, 1978 bottom is used or the April 3rd, 1978 bottom is used. Using the March 1st, 1978 bottom would result in a bottom-to-bottom-to-top resolution on November 16th, 2006. Using the secondary low which occurred on April 3rd, 1978 would result in a resolution on January 21st, 2007. Those of you who have color charts will note that this pattern is depicted by brown lines and arrows.



The final pattern scheduled to resolve in the first quarter of 2007 was discussed in our October 5th, 2006 newsletter although we did not depict the pattern in that newsletter. August 1982 certainly qualifies as one of the most important market bottoms of the past 50 years or longer. It was that bottom which began the explosive move that would fuel an ultimate 17-18 year rally of historical proportions in the United States equity markets. In this case we count the time span between that 1982 bottom and the November 1994 bottom of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which acted as a springboard for one of the greatest five-six year rallies in market history. It encompassed a period of 4489 calendar days. If we add an additional 4489 calendar days to the November 23rd, 1994 bottom in the Dow, it results in reaching the date of March 9th, 2007. Note that the March 9th date is only one trading day away from the March 12th, 2007 date that marked the potential resolution of the 32 year pattern discussed above. This pattern is marked in red for those of you who have the chart in color.



In addition to all these resolutions that are theoretically due in the first quarter of 2007, we would like to quickly review both the 25 Year and a 75 year patterns discussed in the August 4th, 2006 newsletter. We should begin by quoting our August 5th, 2005 newsletter where we wrote:



... every resolution of the 25 Year cycle has been an exact resolution and has marked a low point which the market has never since penetrated. More specifically, the lows of 1907, 1932, 1957, and 1982 have been exact bottoms and the market has never again moved below those levels. That makes the prospects for the year 2007 very interesting. First of all, it argues that there will be no important bottom in the year 2006 unless it occurs very late in the year and it joins forces with a very early 2007 resolution of the 25 Year cycle bottom. Remember that in the past, if the two cycles [the 4 year and 25 year] had different resolutions, it was the 25 year cycle that ruled. The larger question that looms, of course, is whether the 25 Year cycle will be as important a bottom this time around as it has been in the past. It is our contention that if that is to occur, that cycle resolution will be preceded by a devastating decline and a long period of investor bearishness.



There are 20 trading days remaining in the year 2006. It is very highly unlikely that there will be a devastating decline over that time period. We are not aware of any devastating declines that have ever occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas and we are confident this year will be no different.



There is a chance, of course, that the 25 year cycle will cause a severe decline into the first quarter of 2007. It is our contention, however, that the more probable course of action will be to see the current rally which has carried many of the market averages to new all-time highs continue into the first quarter of 2007. Should that occur, then we face the possibility of adding two more very long term potential bottom-to-bottom-to-top patterns that would be due to resolve in 2007, probably in the first quarter of that year. That would mean that between the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 there would be potential resolutions of bottom-to-bottom-to-top patterns of two years, four years, eight years, 12 years, 16 years, 25 years, 32 years, and 75 years. A culmination of that many patterns within such a relatively short time zone would mean that we could be facing one of the most important six month time periods in market history. We will look forward to facing those resolutions along with our subscribers.



We discussed the 75 year cycle in our August 4th, 2006 newsletter but will quickly review it for new subscribers. If we were to show you a long term chart of stock prices going back to the 19th century, as we did in our August newsletter, there are at least two market bottoms that stand out dramatically on the chart. Those are the bottoms of 1857 and 1932, 75 years apart. As it turns out, although the data is sparse, we can make a case using British stock prices prior to 1800 that there was also an important market bottom around 1784, just under 75 years before the 1857 bottom, and another market bottom around 1707, just over 75 years before the 1784 bottom. This group of periodicities points to the year 2007 as the next potential year for the resolution of the pattern. The fact that the market is making new all-time highs on some of the major indexes as we approach the end of 2006 suggests the possibility that both the 25 Year and the 75 year cycle, which are due to resolve in 2007, could result in a George Lindsay bottom-to-bottom-to-top configuration rather than resolving in an important market low.



The bottom line is that an amazing number of intermediate to long-term to very long term market patterns appear to be pointing towards a convergence of potentially great importance, with the focus of that convergence occurring sometime between the middle of the fourth quarter of 2006 and the end of the first quarter of 2007. In other words, it should not surprise us if the market has already made an important high but it should also not surprise us to see a final high occur as late as March 2007. We believe the market is living in an endangered time zone and, although we will present evidence in the technical section that the top has not yet occurred, we should be prepared at any market downturn to concede the possibility the market has registered a very important high.
 
Editor's Note: This article was written by Beth Gaston Moon and Joseph W. Sunderman of Schaeffer's Investment Research.

Among the quantitative sentiment indicators my firm follows in our stock and option analysis is the Investors Intelligence (II) survey, released weekly to publicize the current opinion of polled investment advisors. The numbers show the current bullish and bearish percentages, as well as the percentage of advisors who believe a market correction is on the way.

Last Wednesday, December 6, the II numbers registered a bullish percentage of 59.8% - the highest since last December's 60.4% bullish reading. This week's reading was virtually unchanged, at 59.6%, but the bearish reading dropped to a new low for 2006 of 21.3%. Those polled are displaying healthy optimism in the market and in the economy, thanks to a successful earnings season that has been put to bed, reduced energy prices, and an election turnout that leaves the country under bipartisan rule.

As illustrated in the chart below, the newsletter editors surveyed for this weekly poll are becoming increasingly more bullish and nearing the top end of an intermediate-term range (near the 60-percent mark).

1166390931ii15122006.gif


My firm looked at the significance of the signals for two distinct market environments - the bear market of 2000-2003 (producing three instances when the II readings were near current levels) and the bull market of 2003 to the present, yielding 11 signals. Additionally, we looked at all 26 signals of historically high II readings dating back to 1990. Here were the results:

1166390960statisticalii15122006.gif


As you can see (and as my firm frequently reminds readers), heavy-handed optimism is far more detrimental when it corresponds to negative price action (such as that endured in the bear market at the beginning of the decade). Optimism amid strong technicals is to be expected, and therefore is not necessarily a bearish contrarian indicator.

In 2003, the numbers were high and simply stayed high while the market itself continued to rally. At the time, many pointed to the II numbers as a reason why the market was about to top due to optimism. As it turned out, the fears about optimism turned out to be part of the fuel that drove the market higher.

This time around, other than an isolated column or so, there hasn't been much related to II-related worries
 
***Position Summary***

The bulls gathered their courage yesterday and the morning stampede led to breakouts in many key indices. QQQQ broke triangle resistance, SPY broke consolidation resistance, IWM broke flag resistance and DIA surged to new highs. Volume was a wee bit above average, breadth surged and all nine sectors participated. The bulk of the evidence is now bullish and we should expect higher prices until the evidence changes. I will take it one day at a time and judge the evidence as it unfolds.

Long positions were established with Wednesday’s strong open. In the Wednesday 6AM commentary, I set a buy point or bullish trigger point and this buy point was hit on the open. My prior concerns remain and I will keep my stops fairly tight. In fact, I am going to move my stops to breakeven and not even tolerate a loss. In addition, I will look to book some profits on further strength by closing 1/2 of each position (QQQQ at 46.65, SPY at 143.5 and IWM at 80). This is just a safety mechanism for a choppy market. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

***Previous Day***

Stocks surged early Thursday, the gains held and all of the major indices closed higher. The Nasdaq 100 led the way and was the only major index to gain over 1%. The S&P 500 and S&P 100 were next in line as large-caps took the lead. The Russell 2000 was one of the weaker indices and only managed a gain of .69%. Volume was slightly above average and not all that impressive.



The Nasdaq gapped up and surged through resistance at 2440 to turn start an upswing. The advance lasted about an hour and the index traded flat the rest of the day. Broken resistance around 2440-2445 turns into support and this is the first area to watch for a test. Upswing support is marked at 2430 and it would take a move below this level to turn short-term bearish again.



All sectors were up on the day with Energy and Consumer Discretionary leading the way higher. These were the only two sectors to gain over 1% on the day. Finance, Materials and Technology were also strong. There were breakouts in the Energy SPDR (XLE), Oil Service HOLDRS (OIH), Consumer Discretionary SPDR (XLY) and Retail HOLDRS (RTH). The Semiconductor HOLDRS (SMH) surged off support, but remains short of a breakout. All of the gains occurred in the first hour and there was no follow through. I would like to see follow through and a break above 35.15 before turning short-term bullish on SMH.



Gold and bonds were down, while the US Dollar Index and oil were up. The StreetTracks Gold ETF (GLD) consolidated over the last few days with support at 61.8 and resistance at 62.7. Look for a range break for the next short-term signal. The U.S. Oil Fund ETF (USO) gapped up and ended the day right at the trendline extending down from 1-Dec. The gap is positive, but USO has yet to take out last week’s high and remains with a series of lower high. Follow through and a break above 54.5 is needed to reverse the short-term downtrend in USO.

***Nasdaq 100 ETF (QQQQ)***

No change. The daily chart captures the advance from mid July to late November and reinforces the importance of support at 43. The ETF broke consolidation resistance levels in mid August, mid September, early October and mid November. Broken resistance turned into support after each breakout and these breakouts held (38, 39.5 and now 43). Strong uptrends hold their breakouts and there are no concerns as long as the latest breakout at 43 holds. In addition, RSI has held above the 45-50 support zone since mid August and momentum remains bullish as long as RSI holds above 45.



QQQQ broke triangle resistance with a gap and strong move above 44.5. RSI broke above 55 to turn momentum bullish and the bulk of the evidence has shifted to the bulls. Lack of follow through dampens bullish enthusiasm as the ETF fell back below 44.5 by the close. There is still resistance in the 44.5 area. The gap and broken resistance turn into a support zone and this is the first area to watch for signs of weakness. A move back below 44 would be quite negative and call for a reassessment of my bullish stance. A break below key support at 43.5 would be outright bearish.

***S&P 500 ETF (SPY)***

No change. The daily chart captures the uptrend that began in July and there are no signs of weakness. Broken resistance at 138 turned into support as the ETF held the July trendline for the sixth time. RSI is holding above the 45-50 support zone to keep momentum bullish. There is no sense second guessing the obvious (strong uptrend) as long as SPY holds 138 and RSI holds 45.



SPY surged above 142 again on Thursday and held the breakout. This move signals yet another continuation of the medium-term uptrend. It is also enough to label the short-term trend as up again. The trendline extending up from 28-Nov and Wednesday’s lows converge to mark support around 141.5. A move below this level would totally negate the breakout and call for a reassessment. RSI held the 45-50 support zone over the last six days and surged above 60 to keep momentum bullish.

***Russell 2000 iShares (IWM)***

No change. On the daily chart, it has been surge and consolidate (gray ovals) since September. The ETF is currently consolidating within an uptrend and a break above 80 would start the next surge. Perhaps it already started last week. A breakout would target a move to around 84. The late November low and July trendline converge to establish support at 76. The bulls are in good shape as long as IWM holds 76 and RSI holds 45. A break below 140.8 in SPY and 45 in RSI would totally reverse the uptrend and target a decline to around 138.



IWM opened strong and surged above channel resistance to reverse the short-term downtrend. RSI broke above the red trendline and moved above 50 to turn short-term momentum bullish. The breakout occurred in the first hour and trading was flat after this surge. Nevertheless, the breakout is holding and it is bullish until proven otherwise. The trendline extending up from 28-Nov and support from the 13-Dec lows converge to mark support at 78.3 and a move below this level would call for a reassessment of my bullish stance. A break below 78 would be outright bearish and call for further weakness towards the next support level at 76.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Alto