Navarro's
Big Economic Picture
The
Ratchet Effect
In
the fourth quarter of last year, the GDP growth rate fell to an anemic
1.7%, sparking fears of recession. However, all signs are now pointing
to a strong rebound in the first quarter GDP numbers due on April 28th.
Based on this anticipated rebound, there is a growing presumption that
the economy is “back on track.” It is important, however, not to be
deceived by robust growth in the possible last stages of an expansion.
The accompanying figures explains why, and why, as I have been warning,
that this economy feels a lot like the 2000 economy.
In
the first quarter of 2000, real GDP growth fell from a knockout 7.3% to
a meager 1.0%, sparking fears of recession. However, in the second
quarter, growth bounced back sharply to 6.4% and most everyone once
again breathed a sign of relief. That was premature. By the next
quarter, GDP went negative and really never breached 3% again until the
second quarter of 2003.
The
possible parallel to the current situation should be obvious. Even if we
get a blowout GDP number for this quarter as a rebound from last
(estimated as high as 5% or more), that doesn’t mean that higher
interest rates, higher commodity prices, a persistent oil price shock,
and a slow motion collapse in the housing sector won’t bring a repeat
of the slow-growth 2001 scenario – and validate the yield curve
inversions signaling trouble ahead.
|
1999
04 7.3
|
2001
04 9991.6
|
2004
01333 4.3
|
|
2000
01 1.0
|
2002
01777 2.7
|
2004
02555 3.5
|
|
2000
02 6.4
|
2002
02111 2.2
|
2004
03777 4.0
|
|
2000
03 -0.5
|
2002
03444 2.4
|
2004
04555 3.3
|
|
2000
048882.1
|
2002
04000 0.2
|
2005
01 9993.8
|
|
2001
01 11-0.5
|
2003
01 0001.7
|
2005
02 5553.3
|
|
2001
02 7771.2
|
2003
02 0003.7
|
2005
03 4.1
|
|
2001
03 33-1.4
|
2003
03 8887.2
|
2005
04 1.7
|
|
|
2003
04 7773.6
|
2006
01
|
>5.0%
est.
|
This
Week's Market Movers - National Inflation Week
The
week will start off slow but quickly pick up inflationary steam. The
producer price index hits on Tuesday and the CPI on Wednesday. At this
juncture, these are two of the most important reports in the data
portfolio because the big question facing the Fed is whether
inflationary pressures are getting ready to burst out of control.
The
consensus has the PPI decelerating from last month’s jump to a
manageable core rate. Any upside surprise would send a jolt through the
markets.
The
CPI is expected to inch upward on the basis of rising medical costs and
diminishing auto incentives. It is unlikely that the CPI will provide
any succor to the “one and done crowd.” Watch this on carefully.
Other
reports of interest will be housing starts on Tuesday, which should show
continuing weakness, and the Fed minutes from the last March 28 FOMC
meeting – always an exciting read for the geeks.
Portfolio Shorts and Pans - Know When to Hold 'em & Fold 'em
I
added nothing this week at took some defensive action, paring holdings
in IMAX and STAA. I’m holding AKSY, a hemodialysis play; Acacia
Research (CBMX), a genetics play; Spherix (SPEX), a biotechy sweetener
play, Synergetics (SURG), a glaucoma microsurgery play; SVA, the bird
flu play; XING, the China mobile telephone play’ and Xoma (XOMA),
which manufactures antibodies and other genetically-engineered protein
products to treat immunological and inflammatory disorders, cancer, and
infectious diseases. My star of the week was DVSA, which I added to. It
is benefiting from the ethanol boom.
I’m
remain short QQQQ, and had a week back towards the green. I also
continue to be short the financial sector ETF XLF – and discount all
that nonsense about how higher long term bond yields are going to offer
more profitable spreads (hey, it’s still only 25 basis points).

Davio's
Hedging Your Bets
It's
"Different" This Time - Or Not!
In 2000, the
conventional wisdom said it’s different this time when the
yield curve inverted. The rationale then was it was an “artificial
inversion” due to the low outstanding amount of thirty-year treasuries
so no recession would be forthcoming. We all know what happened then.
Today, we’re again
told that it’s different this time. The
new rationale is because China and Japan are buying US
Treasuries, they are thereby keeping yields on long-term paper
artificially low. This leads us to ask, If Europeans or Americans were
the ones buying bonds instead of the Chinese or Japanese, would it still
be artificial buying.
The 10-year rates
closed Friday at 5.036% and the 30-year is well over 5.12%. There is a
clear “slowing” in real estate nationwide particularly in the fast
moving west coast California markets and southwest Arizona and Nevada
along with some of the stronger east coast markets in Florida,
Washington, D.C., and Boston. Foreclosures are at 20-year highs and in
places like Denver, it is downright ugly. Lending constraints are also
beginning to tighten down. The jobs continue to come in “just right”
according to the BLS numbers, but when you dig down and dirty, most of
the jobs appear to be marginal at best, with the service and Real Estate
sectors driving most opportunities.
With manufacturing jobs
disappearing and interest rates rising, here’s my question: Is the
growth in Real Estate, which has recently gone parabolic, going to
continue? My bet is not.
Wage growth in the US
is flat at best. Higher interest rates will cause some major economic
slowdowns in the next 3 months to a year as rates for ARMs and exotic
mortgages are reset in a big way.
Consider this: When a
400k home is reset at the higher interest rates of today, most people
will see a full $1,000 a month difference in their payments. Where will
the strapped consumer who used the housing ATM to finance purchases the
past 4 years get this additional income? Maybe they will have to sell
that house and downsize. Maybe, their neighbors will be doing the same
thing.
It really is a fine
line that the Fed has drawn in some very thin sand. I hope Ben Bernanke
is a true artist because I don’t see how the higher interest rates and
higher commodity price inflation will translate to anything but lower
consumption over the next few years. The parabolic move we had in real
estate is first going to slow and then revert to a mean. In this
process, I would not be surprised to see Real Estate move swiftly down
and cause a big ripple in the economy.
The
broader point here is to show that this certainly won’t be the first
or last time we ever hear the term it’s different this time.
However, we should be on guard, because whenever we hear it’s
different, it usually isn’t.

Vaino's Biotech
Corner
Celgene (CELG) - A
Beaten Down Value Play?
Things
have been ugly for biotech stocks these past few weeks. Biotech ETF IBB
has dropped almost 10% in the past month. The “Market Map” section
of the Markets Data Center at WSJ.com definitely shows rotation out of
biotech and pharmaceuticals and into industrials, telecommunications,
and basic materials. Oil, gas, steel, and gold prices have been on a
tear lately.
Biotech
stocks should be more dependent on science, that is clinical trials, than
on the business cycle. Typically, they are considered a defensive
position in a bearish market. I’ll leave reading the business cycle
tea leaves to those more qualified. By this I mean the simultaneous
shift into industrials and metals, and out of healthcare, baffles me.
What I care about is that this dip provides some good buying
opportunities.
When
stock prices of good companies fall for no rational reason, that’s a
good time to buy. Celgene (CELG) is an example of a good company caught
in a market down draft. An article last week in The
Wall Street Journal questioning how much higher CELG can go didn’t
help matters. In the last week of March, CELG was trading 400% higher
than in March 2004. CELG traded at $44 on March 31 and closed at $36.59
on April 11. Ouch!
Celgene
is a solid company with a good pipeline. They received FDA approval late
last year for Revlimid, which is a much more effective version of the
currently marketed Thalidomid; and they are also applying for approval
in Europe.
Revlimid
works by inhibiting the growth of new blood vessels required to support
tumors; my chemistry buddies refer to this as angiogenesis inhibition.
Revlimid has been proven effective to treat multiple myelomas. It also
has the potential to treat a range of solid tumors. Clinical studies in
support of this are underway. I think Revlimid is going to be big, and
that it will give Avastin (from Genentech) a run for the money.
My
bottom is this: Stock prices are just future earnings divided by risk. I
don’t think CELG is riskier today than it was two weeks ago. Celgene
has been taken down by an ornery market, not by any weak scientific
underpinnings. This type of irrationality always gets corrected. CELG
will report Q1 results late this month or early in May, and I’m
increasing my long position in anticipation.

“Any
trader or investor who ignores the power of macroeconomics over the
world’s
financial markets will, sooner or later, lose more than they
should—and if they are
trading on margin, perhaps more than they
have.”
-- If It's Raining in Brazil, Buy Starbucks
|

|
Peter
Navarro is a business professor at the University of California
and the author of the best-selling investment book
If It's
Raining
in Brazil, Buy Starbucks. His latest book is
The
Well-Timed Strategy |
|

|
Matt
Davio is a managing partner at the hedge fund,
Red Rock Capital Fund.
Catch
his Daily
Blog as PeterNavarro.com
|
|

|
Andrew
Vaino is a Ph.D. chemist who spent two years at
The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA, working in the
laboratories of Nobel-Laureate Barry Sharpless and Kim Janda. He
currently teaches at The University of Maine, where his research
group is focused on exploring the interface between enzymology,
organic chemistry, and nanotechnology. |
© 2006
Peter Navarro, Matt Davio and Andrew Vaino
www.peternavarro.com
Editorial Archive
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Peter Navarro
Irvine, California USA
Email
| Website
DISCLAIMER:
This newsletter is written for educational purposes only. By no means do
any of its contents recommend, advocate or urge the buying, selling, or
holding of any financial instrument whatsoever. Trading and investing
involves high levels of risk. The authors express personal opinions and
will not assume any responsibility whatsoever for the actions of the
reader. The authors may or may not have positions in the financial
instruments discussed in this newsletter. Future results can be
dramatically different from the opinions expressed herein. Past
performance does not guarantee future performance.
Disclaimer
|