| With
the S&P 500 gaining on its March high we have to wonder if
the cyclical bull market is in the midst of another upleg. Short
answer: fat chance. Long answer: what do I know? Let’s deal
primarily with the short answer as for those familiar with these
writings, the long answer doesn’t require much explanation.
First off, any
good market hypothesis must include considerations of the
opposing viewpoint so let’s get the bullish factors out of the
way first. Here they are:
1) As we’ve
discussed ad nauseum, the Fed isn’t about to let this market
fall much, at least not if they can help it. Big plus for the
bulls. Not enough to inspire committed buying, but it’s always
nice to know that the “full faith and credit and printing
presses” of Uncle Sam are on your side.
2) Interest
rates remain exceptionally low and as I’ve speculated for some
time in the pages of TSS, they’re likely to remain low even
while Uncle Greenscam scratches his head and pretends not to
understand the “conundrum.”
(Given that the
conundrum is pretty much the only thing holding up this house of
cards, G’s confusion doesn’t fly with me. The left hand says
“Golly, I’m so conundrummized! Why aren’t rates rising?”
while the right hand exchanges high-fives with Bernanke and all
the other buffoons hell-bent on bankrupting the country.)
And there you
have it. The bullish case. Onward to my favorite part: the bad
news. Let’s start with the technical considerations.
As the S&P
500 encroaches upon its bull market high, the Dow and Nasdaq
continue to lag by a very fat margin. While the S&P 500
trades slightly over 1% from its cyclical bull market high, the
Nasdaq lags by nearly 5% and the Dow by nearly 4%. That’s what
I call a glaring divergence and a potential non-confirmation. In
a healthy bull market we want to see the major indices moving
hand-in-hand. But we’re not. One index lagging is a potential
divergence. Two indices lagging seems to imply that the leading
index doesn’t really know what the heck it’s doing.
Then there’s
that pesky crude oil which simply refuses to cooperate with the
assessments of all our high-falootin oil “experts” who only
a handful of short weeks ago were splattered all over the media
going on and on merrily about “the top.” USA Today rolled
out some smug buffoon/expert prattling on about how the panic
about high gas prices was a sure sign that the bull market was
over. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell crude oil.
High oil prices
are here to stay and cheap oil will be relegated to a charming
little chapter in the history of the 20th century.
Corporate and consumer America will continue footing the tab,
pulling money from wages and consumer expenditures to account
for the difference. Energy isn’t a discretionary expenditure.
You buy it or you learn to enjoy your new home under the
viaduct. Oil prices are hitting profit margins and it’s only
going to get worse.
The yield curve
is looking relatively flat these days. Flat is what happens
before it inverts, and inversion is an exceptionally reliable
indicator of forthcoming economic weakness. That is, recessions.
Not so good for cyclical bull markets.
Not to mention
that the narrowing spread between short and longer-term interest
rates continues to make the so-called carry trade less
profitable and risky. Today’s “service” economy depends so
much upon shuffling money around from one party to the next in
order to generate “profits” and far less on producing
anything of real value. The fallout of an unwinding carry trade
says “goodbye” to fat profits for the financial firms and
banks.
Real estate is
looking rather frothy. Although admittedly, there’s so much
press these days about the “real estate bubble” that I
suspect we’re nowhere near a top. The day the mainstream press
calls a market top accurately is the day I head to my
underground bunker to hole up in preparation for the Martian
invasion. (And to hide from yet another Tom Cruise film.)
For those who
argue that Time magazine has signaled a top with its recent
“Why We're Going Gaga Over Real Estate” cover, I submit that
our new lightning quick information age and its attendant
technology has simply allowed the folks at Time to get stupid
faster than usual. Time might be going gaga, but the top may not
be in just yet.
But dangers
abound nonetheless. According to the Economist, 40% of all jobs
created since 2001 are directly related to housing, including
construction, mortgages and brokerage. The fallout from a slump
in real estate could be a huge damper on the economy. That’s
in addition to the fact that declining real estate prices would
withdraw one of the primary sources of “income” from
American consumers: borrowing against the value of the home.
But the costs
of a pricked real estate bubble extend far beyond that. When
everyone stops trading up Mini-McMansion for McMansion Deluxe or
Biggie McMansion with Fries they also stop buying new
appliances, new carpeting, new furniture, etc. Not so good for a
cyclical bull market struggling to do much of anything.
Still more
subtle signs of danger lurk. Take a look at recent strength in
gold. This, despite healthy gains for the dollar. Are we finally
seeing a sustained decoupling of gold the dollar? Thus far
during most of the current bull market in gold, the dollar has
called the shots. But now gold appears to be developing its own
momentum and is even beginning to look strong against the euro.
Why is that
important? Because gold is the ultimate barometer of the
financial system. (When it isn’t being successfully
manipulated by the criminals at the Fed, that is.) When gold
rallies relative to other currencies it serves as a warning that
paper is in trouble. The latest action suggests that gold is no
longer simply moving in knee-jerk reaction to the dollar but is
in fact climbing on its own merits. Hard to imagine stocks doing
very well in an environment where investors are worried enough
to buy gold.
Does this mean
that stocks are about to crater? Hardly. I maintain my
hypothesis that for the time being the Fed and their cronies
will continue to support the market and prevent any significant
declines. We’ve been in one iteration of a trading range or
another since early 2004 and I see no reason for that to change
until the market is shocked by a major exogenous event.
Or until
Greenspan walks away leaving the next sorry sap to deal with his
mess...Along with the rest of us, of course.

© 2005 Mark M. Rostenko
Bio and Editorial Archive

www.sovereignstrategist.com
|