Etikett: Bull Market

When will the bull market end?

Deutsche Asset Management When will the bull market end?When will the bull market end?

When will the bull market end?

The rise in the equity market continues. What hurdles could cause the bull to stumble?

Stock markets around the globe are testing new highs. The bull market in U.S. equities started in 2009. With each new high, investors are asking themselves whether the bull market will simply continue. Is there a risk it could suddenly turn into a bear market? A glance at historical data helps answer this question. Let’s take a closer look at the U.S. equity market, the biggest market and the one that sets the pace globally.

The rally in prices without any major correction is causing more and more investors to fear that the U.S. stock market could be vulnerable. Such concerns tend to crystalize around the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E ratio) of the S&P 500. This ratio signals that, on average, U.S. stocks have reached historically high valuations. Moreover, low volatility could be a sign that some market participants are acting too carelessly and ignoring warnings.

Reasons for a bear market

The higher valuation and low volatility are definitely important warning signs. It is even more important, though, to take a look at the factors that have caused bear markets and thus resulted in markedly falling prices of 20 percent or more compared to the previous high. Since 1967, there have been five recessions in the United States which were accompanied by bears dominating the stock market. There was one case of a bear market without a recession.

What is striking is that bear markets lasted longer in a recessionary phase, and that share-price losses were particularly high. 1 The S&P 500, for instance, fell by an average of 43.5% compared to the previous high during the five bear markets accompanied by a recession. The average duration of these price corrections was 21.6 months. During the only bear market without a recession of the past 50 years, the U.S. stock-market barometer dropped 33.1% below its previous high. The bear market lasted 5.7 months. 2

The reason why bear markets perform worse when accompanied by a recession is quickly found. In terms of allocation, gross domestic product (GDP) primarily consists of income from labor and capital income such as interest rates and profits. Income from labor as well as interest income are rather rigid in the short to medium term. This is why corporate profits are often hit particularly hard in phases of decreasing GDP. This in turn results in significant declines in share prices.

What does this mean for the current situation? For shareholders, the good news is that U.S. leading indicators are not signaling a recession. Unless there are some nasty surprises – such as major policy mistakes -, the risk of recession appears low. However, this does not rule out the possibility of equity-market corrections.

Slide without recession

In October 1987, markets crashed although there was no recession in sight. None followed either, thanks in part to the aggressive loosening of monetary policy by the US Federal Reserve Board (the Fed) in response to the crash. This led to investigations into the reasons why. In the years leading up to the crash, the U.S. stock market experienced a rally, driven by decreasing inflation since the beginning of the 1980s as well as falling interest rates and faster economic growth. Furthermore, the U.S. government intensified deregulation and tax cuts as of 1981 (Reaganomics), and this additionally boosted growth.

From 1982 on, the stock market’s P/E ratio rose disproportionately compared to the bond market’s equivalent of the P/E ratio (100 divided by the yield of a U.S. Treasury Note). In 1987, the resulting valuation mismatch was well above the levels typically seen during the 1960s and 1970s. Accordingly, it is presumed that investors were suspecting an overvaluation of U.S. stocks relative to U.S. government bonds, and this eventually contributed to the selloff in October 1987. In retrospect, it can be said that the slump in share prices was a buying opportunity.

Do we have to reckon with a similar scenario next year as seen in 1987? Parallels certainly exist. As was the case then, we have recently experienced a long period of rising share prices. Another parallel is the increase in the stock market’s P/E ratio. The essential difference, however, lies in the fact that at least compared to bonds, equities still appear rather cheap. In particular, the valuation indicator ”stock-market P/E ratio divided by bond-market P/E ratio” is at historically low levels.

In the crash of 1987, automated trading also played a key role. With the help of nascent computer-based trading strategies, investors aimed to increase their chances of making a profit while limiting their losses. This intensified selling pressure during the correction phase. The importance of automated trading systems has grown further since then but so has the awareness of risk, at least in that respect.

With all the parallels to 1987 that can be identified, differences exist as well. Valuations are high across almost all asset classes. Compared to bonds, however, equities have a better return potential. As inflation will likely remain moderate next year and yields will presumably rise only slightly, we do not expect this situation to suddenly change. Moreover, corporate earnings should continue to grow at a healthy pace next year. This would indicate that time is not running out for the current bull market yet. But we need to stay alert.

A glance at the S&P 500 and corporate earnings

Share prices and earnings tend to decline during recessions. The fall in earnings was particularly marked during the last two recessions.

Source: Robert Shiller, Yale University as of 11/10/17

Relation between stock market P/E ratio and bond market P/E ratio

We are seeing historically high stock-market P/E ratios, but even higher bond-market P/E ratios. Compared to bonds, equities remain appealing.

Source: Robert Shiller, Yale University as of 11/10/17
1

Elena Holodny: It usually takes a recession to bring down the stock market. Business Insider, 8/25/15
2

Edward Yardeni: Stock Market Briefing – S&P 500 Bull & Bear Market Tables, 8/11/17

All opinions and claims are based upon data on 12/7/17 and may not come to pass. This information is subject to change at any time, based upon economic, market and other considerations and should not be construed as a recommendation. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Forecasts are based on assumptions, estimates, opinions and hypothetical models that may prove to be incorrect. Deutsche Asset Management Investment GmbH

Gold Bull Market Loses Some Shine, But Remains Healthy

Gold Bull Market Loses Some Shine, But Remains Healthy

Market Review – Gold Bull Market Loses Some Shine, But Remains HealthyGold Consolidates Amid Late Summer Doldrums

Gold Market Commentary September 2016

Market Review

Gold was range-bound in September, moving in the $1,300 to $1,350 per ounce range. Economic news from the U.S. was generally weak and central bank announcements were supportive of gold. The Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) kept rates on hold and downgraded its median GDP growth projection for 2016 to 1.8% from 2.0%. The Bank of Japan (BOJ) acknowledged that negative rates and quantitative easing are not working as well as planned, so it decided to experiment further with unconventional monetary policies. The BOJ is now targeting the yield curve and attempting to keep 10-year Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) sufficiently above shorter term negative-yielding maturities. This initiative is aimed at aiding banks, pension funds, and insurance companies who are having difficulty making ends meet in this low/ negative rate environment the BOJ and other central banks have engineered. We believe that these ongoing attempts to manipulate markets will lead to unintended consequences that raise systemic risk.

Gold bullion ended the month at $1,315.75 per ounce for a 0.5% gain while gold stocks experienced more positive returns. The NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR)1 posted a 3.8% gain while the MVIS™ Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR)2 advanced 5.8%.

Market Outlook

Gold had been consolidating in a narrow $1,300 to $1,350 per ounce range since hitting its post-Brexit highs in July. As we write in early October, markets are again pricing in a higher likelihood of a Fed rate increase in December based on comments made by Fed members following its September meeting. This, in turn, is lending strength to the U.S. dollar.

As a result, gold has fallen below $1,300 per ounce and broken below the longer term trend line that had been established this year. This leads us to be less aggressive in our gold price expectations for 2016. It looks like the current consolidation could persist through October, dependent on any economic news that develops. However, this price action changes virtually nothing in our positive long-term outlook for gold. Price weakness is likely to spur seasonal demand out of India and Asia. We continue to believe that a Fed rate increase would ultimately be seen as another misstep that puts global growth at risk. In addition, the U.S. presidential election, implementation of Brexit, and further loss of confidence in central bank policies should support gold through 2017 and beyond.

Each year in mid-September, top managements of gold companies converge on Colorado for the Precious Metals Summit and the Denver Gold Forum. Based on our 41 meetings, eight presentations, and numerous dinners, gatherings, and interactions with industry contacts, we came away with a more refined outlook for the gold mining sector. Here are some important takeaways:

1) Costs savings continue, margins expanding – We questioned whether the cost cycle had run its course after all-in sustaining (mining) costs fell from roughly $1,200/oz in 2012 to $900/oz in 2016. We were surprised to hear companies anticipate continued savings in mining practices, technology implementation, procurement (the act of finding, acquiring, buying goods, services or works from an external source) and contractor costs. We now believe industry costs can trend towards $800/oz through 2018.

2) Companies focused on organic opportunities – Low gold prices forced companies to look inward at existing operations and projects. Success with brownfields exploration (modification or upgrades based on a prior project) have led to expansions or extended mine lives. Revised planning has enabled development projects to require less capital with higher rates of return and phased expansions.

3) Heavy M&A cycle not likely until late 2017/2018 – With more organic opportunities, there is not as much pressure to make acquisitions in the near-term. That said, corporate development teams were quite active, suggesting some companies are preparing to pull the acquisition trigger at some point to replace future production declines.

4) Dividend increases to be limited in 2017 – We had hoped to hear of strong dividend growth in 2017, however, we now believe any increases will be limited due to capital allocations to existing property developments and in some cases to further help pay down debt.

5) Ongoing industry themes – An emphasis on free cash flow over production growth, flat management structure, mine management focused on Net Asset Value (NAV) growth, use of double digit hurdle rates at conservative gold prices on new projects, partnering with juniors for exposure to greenfields (a property or project where no previous work has been conducted).

One of the dominant financial trends of the past decade is a move by investors out of actively managed funds and into passively managed index funds or exchange traded funds (ETFs). The latest example is the Illinois State Pension Board, which according to The Wall Street Journal, decided to jettison active mutual fund managers altogether, leaving only passively managed choices for its state workers. The reasons cited for the move into ETFs included lower fees and potentially better performance as many active managers fail to outperform their passive peers. We have witnessed this recent preference for ETFs here at VanEck.

Although gold has experienced some consolidation recently, we still maintain our positive outlook for gold and believe that investors would be wise to consider their exposure to gold stocks, either passively or actively, as these equities typically outperform gold bullion in a rising market and underperform when gold falls.

by Joe Foster, Portfolio Manager and Strategist

With more than 30 years of gold industry experience, Foster began his gold career as a boots on the ground geologist, evaluating mining exploration and development projects. Foster is Portfolio Manager and Strategist for the Gold and Precious Metals strategy.

1In the U.S., the federal funds rate is “the interest rate” at which depository institutions actively trade balances held at the Federal Reserve, called federal funds, with each other, usually overnight, on an uncollateralized basis. Institutions with surplus balances in their accounts lend those balances to institutions in need of larger balances. 2The correlation coefficient is a measure that determines the degree to which two variables’ movements are associated and will vary from -1.0 to 1.0. -1.0 indicates perfect negative correlation, and 1.0 indicates perfect positive correlation. 3U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) indicates the general international value of the U.S. dollar. The DXY does this by averaging the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and six major world currencies: Euro, Japanese yen, Pound sterling, Canadian dollar, Swedish kroner, and Swiss franc. 4The ISM Manufacturing Index is an index based on surveys of more than 300 manufacturing firms by the Institute of Supply Management. The ISM Manufacturing Index monitors employment, production inventories, new orders and supplier deliveries. 5A survey of consumer confidence conducted by the University of Michigan. The Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index (MCSI) uses telephone surveys to gather information on consumer expectations regarding the overall economy. 6The U.S. consumer confidence index (CCI) is an indicator designed to measure consumer confidence, which is defined as the degree of optimism on the state of the economy that consumers are expressing through their activities of savings and spending. 7NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR) is a modified market capitalization-weighted index comprised of publicly traded companies involved primarily in the mining for gold. 8MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR) is a rules-based, modified market capitalization-weighted, float-adjusted index comprised of a global universe of publicly traded small-and medium-capitalization companies that generate at least 50% of their revenues from gold and/or silver mining, hold real property that has the potential to produce at least 50% of the company’s revenue from gold or silver mining when developed, or primarily invest in gold or silver.

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the author and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time.

Important Information For Foreign Investors

This document does not constitute an offering or invitation to invest or acquire financial instruments. The use of this material is for general information purposes.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers actively managed and passively managed investment products that invest in the asset class(es) included in this material. Gold investments can be significantly affected by international economic, monetary and political developments. Gold equities may decline in value due to developments specific to the gold industry, and are subject to interest rate risk and market risk. Investments in foreign securities involve risks related to adverse political and economic developments unique to a country or a region, currency fluctuations or controls, and the possibility of arbitrary action by foreign governments, including the takeover of property without adequate compensation or imposition of prohibitive taxation.

Has the bond bull market moved ahead of itself?

Has the bond bull market moved ahead of itself?

Fixed Income Research – Has the bond bull market moved ahead of itself?

Highlights

  • We have identified four major risks that could cause the bond bull trend to reverse: (1) an unexpected acceleration of growth rates and inflation (2) unsustainable debt trends; (3) credit demand and investment pick up; (4) an acceleration of China’s economic growth.
  • We see these risks contained in the near term. Therefore, we believe that although many investors yearn for a return to “normality,” we are not there yet.
  • The mixed economic outlook should allow bonds to keep trading in a broad range albeit with a high degree of volatility.

Is the 30-year bond bull market over?

After decades of declining interest rates and with the Fed on the cusp of raising rates (50% chance for December based on fed funds futures, as of September 28th), many investors wonder when the bull trend on the bonds market will reverse. While the economic data remains bond-bearish, the jump in global yields in early September raises the question of whether the bond market has moved ahead of itself.

(Click to enlarge)

On September 8th, the global bond market started to sell-off after the ECB kept its policy unchanged and failed to suggest any QE expansion beyond March 2017, and after Fed officials made hawkish comments ahead of their meeting scheduled later in the month. G10 long-dated bond yields rose by an average of 10 to 15bps and volatility moved higher – the VIX index edged up from 12 to 20. Additionally, credit spreads widened significantly especially for US and European High yield bonds (by 18 and 8bps respectively), while the emerging market (EM) government bond market proved resilient – credit spreads widened by only 3bps. Since then, global yields and volatility have declined after the Fed voted to hold any rate hike due to mixed macroeconomic data.

Beyond monetary policy, other factors can be important catalysts for a bond market crash. We have identified four main risk factors on which investors should focus on. Unless there is a reason to believe that central banks are seriously behind the curve or that there is a material change in at least one of the four risk factors below, the bond market should be broadly stable.

Risk 1: Inflation, growth rate and monetary policy

The global bond market is primarily affected by monetary policy. If growth and inflation rates begin to pick up, central banks might allow inflation to overshoot their targets to a certain extent before promptly removing monetary accommodation and increasing the pace of rate hikes, which would lead to a severe repricing higher of yields.

However, the current outlook suggests otherwise. According to the OECD, the global economy is projected to grow at a slower pace this year than in 2015, with only a modest uptick expected in 2017. In the US, where the economic recovery is the most advanced, the FOMC median economic projections for growth and inflation for 2016 were revised downward in September, from 2.0% to 1.8% and from 1.4% to 1.3% respectively. In addition, inflation and markets-based inflation expectations are persistently below the Fed’s 2% inflation target, with only modest signs of rising. The yield difference between regular 10-year Treasury notes and 10-year Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (a gauge of market’s long term inflation expectations) is at 1.54%, as of September 28th.

Risk 2: Fiscal sustainability and uncertainty

With the range of monetary policy tools nearing exhaustion, central bankers have been urging governments to provide fiscal stimulus and implement structural reforms in order to stimulate growth. Although, according to the IMF, fiscal positions have worsened significantly with public debt to GDP ratios being revised upwards in most countries (greater than 100% of GDP on average). The anaemic growth exacerbates the debt overhang problem. A further increase of debt to GDP ratio without a sustained increase of growth will raise concerns about the sustainability of public debt. In turn, this would likely have a material impact on investors’ perception of risk, raising sovereign risk premiums and, leading them to cut duration by reducing long-term bond positions. During the Eurozone debt-crisis in 2010, long-term Eurozone government bond yields rose from 2% to above 6% in countries where investors had serious doubt about the credit-worthiness of the government.

In addition, political choices also play an important role for fiscal policies. For instance, the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget published a report on September 26th showing that Trump’s agenda, if enacted, would push the federal debt-to-GDP ratio from its current level of 75% to 105% within the next decade, while his rival Clinton would increase the ratio to 86%.

However, most advanced countries are constrained by strict budget rules, ensuring that future fiscal plans are sustainable. We thus see the fiscal risk contained in the near term.

Risk 3: Credit demand and investment

The Federal Reserve of San Francisco in its September Economic Letter1, highlighted the divergence between real interest rates and real returns on capital. The authors found that the recovery in credit markets following the Great Recession has been slower than the previous recovery, resulting in a slow recovery of growth and investment.

(Click to enlarge)

1 “Slow Credit Recovery and Excess Returns on Capital”, FRBSF Economic Letter (September 26th, 2016)

As a result, only the projects with a high probability of high return are funded, limiting the number of investment
opportunities and keeping interest rates low. While credit demand and investment dynamics remain subdued, any acceleration of these two indicators could be the start of a bond rout.

Risk 4: International capital flows

Bond performance since the early 2000s has been strongly correlated to the increase of central banks’ foreign currency (FX) reserves, in particular in EM and China.

(Click to enlarge)

Since the Fed started to taper its asset purchase programme in 2014, the US dollar has strengthened while the Yuan weakened. Consequently, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) sold approximately 20% (USD808bn) of its foreign-currencies holdings to maintain the Yuan’s value and limit capital outflows, before finally devaluing its currency in January 2015. The PBOC’s bond sale was more than offset by the capital outflows from China into safe heaven assets, which resulted in lower global bond yields. In the meantime, G10 central banks have intensified their quantitative easing programmes, which has also contributed to lowering global bond yields. In our opinion, if China’s growth rate accelerates, foreign capital flows from developed markets could rapidly resume and exert upward pressures on global yields. However, current data suggest that the excess capacity in China will only enable the economic growth rate to stabilise.

Although we see four risks that could derail the current stability of the bond market, the mixed economic outlook should allow bonds to keep trading in a broad range albeit with a high degree of volatility. We believe that good quality corporates credit and EM markets with sound fundamentals can continue to provide decent yield differentials while being more resilient in time of market stress.

For more information contact:

ETF Securities Research team
ETF Securities (UK) Limited
T +44 (0) 207 448 4336
E info@etfsecurities.com

Important Information

The analyses in the above tables are purely for information purposes. They do not reflect the performance of any ETF Securities’ products . The futures and roll returns are not necessarily investable.

General

This communication has been provided by ETF Securities (UK) Limited (“ETFS UK”) which is authorised and regulated by the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”).

This communication is only targeted at qualified or professional investors.

The information contained in this communication is for your general information only and is neither an offer for sale nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This communication should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance and any investments may go down in value.

This document is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, an advertisement or any other step in furtherance of a public offering of shares or securities in the United States or any province or territory thereof. Neither this document nor any copy hereof should be taken, transmitted or distributed (directly or indirectly) into the United States.

This communication may contain independent market commentary prepared by ETFS UK based on publicly available information. Although ETFS UK endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the content in this communication, ETFS UK does not warrant or guarantee its accuracy or correctness. Any third party data providers used to source the information in this communication make no warranties or representation of any kind relating to such data. Where ETFS UK has expressed its own opinions related to product or market activity, these views may change. Neither ETFS UK, nor any affiliate, nor any of their respective, officers, directors, partners, or employees accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this publication or its contents.

ETFS UK is required by the FCA to clarify that it is not acting for you in any way in relation to the investment or investment activity to which this communication relates. In particular, ETFS UK will not provide any investment services to you and or advise you on the merits of, or make any recommendation to you in relation to, the terms of any transaction. No representative of ETFS UK is authorised to behave in any way which would lead you to believe otherwise. ETFS UK is not, therefore, responsible for providing you with the protections afforded to its clients and you should seek your own independent legal, investment and tax or other advice as you see fit.

Gold Extends its Strength in April

Gold Extends its Strength in April

Market Review – Gold Extends its Strength in April

The gold market has moved from a position of strength to one of even greater strength. The gold price entered a consolidation in March but never traded below $1,200 per ounce. Late in April the gold price broke out of its consolidating pattern to reach its 2016 high of $1,296 per ounce and ended April at $1,292.99 per ounce for a gain of $60.28 (4.9%). On May 2 gold traded above $1,300 per ounce for the first time since January 2015. We believe that an increasing sense of financial risk and U.S. dollar weakness are driving investment demand for gold. When commenting on the global economy in a Bloomberg interview on April 5, International Monetary Fund (IMF) President Lagarde indicated that downside risks have increased and “we don’t see much by way of upside.” Gold moved to its high for the month following the Commerce Department’s April 28 release of weaker-than-expected first quarter U.S. GDP growth of just 0.5% annualized. Markets seemed confounded by the strength exhibited by the Japanese Yen (JPY) and the Euro (EUR), despite negative rate policies in both regions. As a result, the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)1 declined 1.7% in April and fell to a 15-month low on May 2.

This year’s bull market in precious metals gained in breadth as silver kicked into gear in April. Like gold, silver is a monetary metal but it had been lagging gold’s performance. In fact, the gold/silver ratio reached a long-term high of 83.2 on March 1. Strong inflows into silver bullion exchange traded products (ETPs) in March and April enabled silver’s year-to-date performance to surpass gold on April 14. For the year, silver is up 28.7%, while gold has gained 21.9% and the gold/silver ratio ended the month at 72.4. We regard silver as a leveraged proxy for gold and wouldn’t be surprised to see the gold/silver ratio continue to fall further towards its long-term average of around 60.

Another sign of the strength of the current market is the performance of gold stocks. On April 8 the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR)2 surpassed its previous high for the year and never looked back, advancing 28.1% in April. Many of the larger producers announced favorable first quarter results in April, which boosted the performance of gold equities.

Our patience was tested in the first quarter by the underperformance of many junior producers and developers. The junior gold stocks had been lagging but our perseverance has appeared to pay off. The MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR)3 gained 36.8% in April and had lagged the GDMNTR until April 8 but is now outperforming the GDMNTR by 11.7% for the year. The MVGDXJTR caught up with the GDMNTR for the year by outperforming in March with an 8.6% gain.

Market Outlook

We identified several reasons for this year’s spectacular rise in gold stocks, which has caused gold stocks (GDMNTR) to gain 87.4% and the juniors (MVGDXJTR) to gain 99.1% year-to-date:

• Positive changes in sentiment and investment demand for gold.
• Companies have successfully slashed costs, cut debt, gained efficiencies, and generated cash.
• Mean reversion in a sector that had been oversold during the worst bear market in history.
• Elimination of short selling pressure that had been weighing on gold and gold stocks since they crashed in 2013.
• Limited liquidity in a relatively small sector with a global market cap of just $260 billion.

These heady gains suggest to us that gold stocks have become overbought. We expect there will probably be a correction at some point this year. Seasonal patterns have been absent in the gold market for the past several years, possibly due to the overwhelming selling pressure that prevailed. Without such intense selling, we may again see seasonal patterns from Asia and India lead to some weakness in the summer months but strengthening in the fall and extending into the new year. We remain cognizant that GDMNTR is still down 61% from its 2011 highs, which translates to a 159% gain needed to return to 2011 levels. The gold price was much higher in 2011 as well, topping at $1,921 per ounce, but we think the earnings power of the gold sector is greater now than it was back then. We estimate that a $100 (roughly 8%) move in the gold price from $1,300 to $1,400 per ounce would result in a 38% increase in free cash flow for the majors in our research universe, while the mid-tier producers would see a 68% increase in free cash.

The $217 per ounce (23%) increase in the gold price since the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) hiked interest rates in mid-December wasn’t caused by a crash or panic in the financial markets. There hasn’t been a systemic crisis and in fact, global conditions today aren’t that different than six months ago when gold struggled near its lows. In our view, the fundamental change that has enabled gold to perform well since the Fed’s rate announcement is a change in investors’ view of central banks. The U.S. dollar has weakened mainly because the market no longer anticipates a series of Fed rate increases. Investors are realizing that central bank policies lack efficacy and have run their course without accomplishing their intended results. In general, central banks appear to be rapidly running out of options to help stimulate economies. In fact, rather than helping, quantitative easing, zero rates, and negative rates have created distortions in capital allocation, leading to the mispricing of assets and currencies, wealth inequality, and possibly other harmful, unintended consequences on the financial system.

We think the solution to most of the world’s problems hinges on re-establishing robust economic growth. A major reason that central bank policies haven’t been able to foster as much growth as desired is that fiscal and regulatory policies are working against them. Governments around the world have increased debt to unheard of levels to raise capital to spend on projects, programs, and entitlements that generate a fraction of the jobs and growth that the same capital may have generated through private sector channels.

The popular perception that the banks were responsible for the subprime crisis has resulted in fines and regulatory burdens that hamper the formation of capital at the center of the financial system. The “wolf” character in the 2013 movie “The Wolf of Wall Street” ran a boiler room on Long Island that was unrelated to investment banks on Wall Street. The 2015 film “The Big Short,” an Academy Award nominee for Best Motion Picture, puts the blame for the financial crisis squarely on the banks. It makes barely any mention of the Government Sponsored Enterprises’ (GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac4) role in sponsoring subprime loans or the long-running government policies under the Clinton and Bush Administrations that enabled high risk borrowers to own homes despite their inability to service a mortgage. The tone was set in 2009 when President Obama labeled bankers as “fat cats.” While banks certainly played a part, the government played the lead, in our opinion. Unfortunately, these misperceptions and misplaced blame have guided policy, leading to a financial system that is probably weaker than it was before the crisis. We believe that the economy is clearly weaker.

In addition, regulations that burden the private sector have also increased. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration is on track to issue 439 major regulations in its 8 years in office, more than the Bush Administration’s 358 or Clinton’s 361. Heaping on more and more regulations only serves to stifle business formation, profitability, and innovation.

A similar tipping point has been reached with tax policies. Some companies have been re-domiciling away from the United States to avoid tax rates that are among the highest in the world. Instead of revising and simplifying the tax code to address the problem, the U.S. Treasury implemented new regulations that force U.S. corporations to remain in the U.S., placing them at a disadvantage to their global peers.

How often do we see leaders in government promote policies that help make business more productive, efficient, or profitable? As to where we are heading, we look to possibly the most monolithic governmental institution in the world. An article published in The Wall Street Journal and written by a retiring United Nations (“UN”) assistant secretary general for field support articulated a sentiment worth sharing. After relocating to the New York headquarters of the UN, he became disheartened, remarking: “If you lock a team of evil geniuses in a laboratory, they could not design a bureaucracy so maddeningly complex, requiring so much effort but in the end incapable of delivering the intended result. The system is a black hole into which disappear countless tax dollars and human aspirations, never to be seen again.”

We believe this is the sentiment that gold investors feel when they see central banks resort to more radical monetary policies in an attempt to spur economies bogged down by taxes, regulations, and bureaucracy. Moreover, there are social policies that incentivize people not to work and foreign policies that have resulted in chaos. The investment demand evidenced by the strong inflows into the bullion ETPs this year suggests that many investors are making a strategic investment in gold to diversify and prepare their portfolios for the uncertainty of a financial system that may become increasingly dysfunctional.

by Joe Foster, Portfolio Manager and Strategist
With more than 30 years of gold industry experience, Foster began his gold career as a boots on the ground geologist, evaluating mining exploration and development projects. Foster is Portfolio Manager and Strategist for the Gold and Precious Metals strategy.

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the author and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time.

Important Information For Foreign Investors

This document does not constitute an offering or invitation to invest or acquire financial instruments. The use of this material is for general information purposes.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers actively managed and passively managed investment products that invest in the asset class(es) included in this material. Gold investments can be significantly affected by international economic, monetary and political developments. Gold equities may decline in value due to developments specific to the gold industry, and are subject to interest rate risk and market risk. Investments in foreign securities involve risks related to adverse political and economic developments unique to a country or a region, currency fluctuations or controls, and the possibility of arbitrary action by foreign governments, including the takeover of property without adequate compensation or imposition of prohibitive taxation.

Please note that Joe Foster is the Portfolio Manager of an actively managed gold strategy.

Any indices listed are unmanaged indices and include the reinvestment of all dividends, but do not reflect the payment of transaction costs, advisory fees or expenses that are associated with an investment in the Fund. An index’s performance is not illustrative of the Fund’s performance. Indices are not securities in which investments can be made.

1U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) indicates the general international value of the U.S. dollar. The DXY does this by averaging the exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and six major world currencies: Euro, Japanese yen, Pound sterling, Canadian dollar, Swedish kroner, and Swiss franc. 2NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR) is a modified market capitalization-weighted index comprised of publicly traded companies involved primarily in the mining for gold. 3MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR) is a rules-based, modified market capitalization-weighted, float-adjusted index comprised of a global universe of publicly traded small- and medium-capitalization companies that generate at least 50% of their revenues from gold and/or silver mining, hold real property that has the potential to produce at least 50% of the company’s revenue from gold or silver mining when developed, or primarily invest in gold or silver. 4Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association); Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation)

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the author and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time. Not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. Historical performance is not indicative of future results; current data may differ from data quoted. Current market conditions may not continue. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck. ©2016 VanEck.

Blir den en tuff sommar för börsen i år?

Blir den en tuff sommar för börsen i år?

Blir den en tuff sommar för börsen i år? Den nuvarande börsuppgången, det vi i vanligt fall kallar för en tjurmarknad, eller en bull market, har nu pågått under 85 månader, och den fortsätter. Investerarna har vaggats in i ett självbelåtet läge sedan S&P 500 sedan 2014 har handlats i intervallet 1 820 till 2135. På dagens aktiemarknad är det gott om investerare som aldrig har upplevt en börs som går i sidled, än mindre varit med om otrevliga börsfall. Det mest oroväckande de har sett är att börsen har rasat till botten av handelskanalen för att sedan studsa upp igen med full fart upp till sin all-time-high. Den allmänna uppfattningen är att aktiemarknaden kommer att fortsätta uppåt igen, och att det därför är viktigt att vara inne på börsen.

Det har funnits tider när det räckt att blunda och välja aktier, men detta tillvägagångssätt fungerar inte längre. Tillvägagångssättet fungerar bra när börsen i sin helhet är undervärderad och det finns en underliggande stark tillväxt. I dag finns inte dessa förutsättningar eftersom det saknas makroekonomiska förutsättningar för ett kommande börsrally. Det finns bedömare som anser att börsen i dag är perfekt prissatt.

FED kommer att komma till räddning

Många investerare har länge levt i tron att den amerikanska centralbanken FED kommer att hålla dem om ryggen, och vem kan egentligen klandra dem för ett sådant tankesätt? Vi har under många år sett at varje gång som ekonomin har vänt ned och börsen börjat falla så har FED gått in med stöd och pengar samt ändrat sin penningpolitik på ett sådant sätt att centralbankens agerande har stöttat aktiemarknaden.

Situationen har emellertid förändrats eftersom FED, precis som så många andra centralbanker, har börjat får slut på verktyg för att stötta upp ekonomin och aktiemarknaden. Förr eller senare kommer ekonomin att åter börja sakta ned och aktiemarknaden utsättas för en kraftig korrektion nedåt. Frågan är om Janet Yellen kommer att kunna agera riddare i nöden den dagen det inträffar?

Det finns tillfällen när börsen stiger utan att det egentligen finns några ekonomiska förutsättningar eller starka framtidsutsikter som stödjer detta. Baserat på historiska data är det sannolikt att anta att den amerikanska börsen (som i allmänhet befinner sig för Europa och Sverige) kommer att utvecklas svagt, till och med ogynnsamt under det kommande halvåret, till slutet av oktober. Vi har tidigare sett hur rapporterna för det första kvartalet 2016 inkom betydligt svagare än för det första kvartalet 2015 och det är ovanligt att se stora vinstökningar under en svag börs, det krävs i allmänhet en stark katalysator för att driva upp vinsterna för hela börsen. Det finns all anledning att oroa sig för att börsen är övervärderad. Det finns i dag ingen större potential för ökade vinster, det saknas möjligheter till stöd från många centralbanker som har gått över till negativa räntor och vi har en period som historiskt sett visat en svag utveckling framför oss.

Långvarig börsuppgång

(Klicka för att förstora bilden) Längden på en börsuppgång säger inget om hur en investerare kommer att agera på aktiemarknaden i framtiden. En börsuppgång kan fortsätta betydligt längre än vad placerarna tror, men den nuvarande längden på börsuppgången kan ge en indikation om att aktiemarknaden inte kan fortsätta upp hur länge som helst. Historiskt sett har börsuppgången, mätt i form av kursutvecklingen på S&P 500 sedan 1929 stigit med i snitt 31 månader och gett en uppgång på 107 procent.

Den nuvarande börsuppgången började den 9 mars 2009 och har således löpt under 85 månader. Under samma tid har S&P 500 stigit med 205 procent. Både tidsmässigt och resultatmässigt dubbelt så mycket och långt som den genomsnittliga börsuppgången,

Tre rekordlånga börsuppgångar

De enda tre tjur marknader som har producerat större vinster än den nuvarande är perioderna 1949 till 1956, 1982-1987 och börsuppgången 1987 till 2000. Det betyder att även om den nuvarande börsuppgången står ut jämfört med genomsnittet sedan 1929 så är det inte fullt så anmärkningsvärt jämfört med den genomsnittliga börsuppgången sedan 1949, även om den är starkare än genomsnittet. Sedan andra världskriget har börsuppgångarna varat längre och gett högre avkastning.

Det finns anledningar till detta fenomen, till exempel den snabba utvecklingen för den amerikanska industrin, tekniska framsteg, tillkomsten av Internethandel och FEDs ständiga stöd till aktiemarknaden. Frågan är om detta räcker för att börsen skall kunna fortsätta stiga? Det finns all anledning att tro att det blir en tuff sommar för börsen i år.

(Klicka för att förstora bilden)