Bull or bear dollar in the near future?

Bull or bear dollar in the near future?

(Note: companies that could be impacted by the content of this article are listed at the base of the story (desktop version). This article uses third-party references to provide a bullish, bearish and balanced point of view; sources listed in the “Balanced” section)

Since the trade war erupted with between China and the U.S. early last year, the dollar has gained about 3 percent compared to other currencies. However, President Trump feels that it would be a benefit to the U.S. if the dollar were weaker so that exports would be more competitive. China devalued their yuan this week in response to the ongoing trade war and President Trump feels they did this to gain the advantage in trade. Now, the Trump administration and the IMF believes the dollar should be weaker, although there are some experts that feel differently.

What Are the Dangers of the Capital One Data Breach?

What Are the Dangers of the Capital One Data Breach?

(Note: companies that could be impacted by the content of this article are listed at the base of the story (desktop version). This article uses third-party references to provide a bullish, bearish and balanced point of view; sources listed in the “Balanced” section)

Capital One, on Monday, reported a data breach of customer’s personal information affecting over 100 million Americans. The Capital One costumer user data had been stored with Amazon.com Inc., on a remote data cloud server where companies will incorporate their web applications using Amazon Web Services (AWS). The AWS cloud data was not compromised the former employee who breached the Capital One web application. An Amazon spokesperson stated, “The perpetrator gained access through a misconfiguration of the web application and not the underlying cloud-based infrastructure.” Multiple other data breaches have occurred over the last couple years and many American’s private information could have been stolen. Federal prosecutors have stated that the Capital One data breach is one of the largest bank data thefts and customers should be prepare extra measures of security to prevent identity theft.

Tensions Rise on First Federal Reserve Rate Cut in a Decade

On Wednesday, the United States Federal Reserve policymakers may cut interest rates for the first time in a decade. Jerome Powell, the Fed Chairman, will have to convey to the central bank the necessity of a stimulant. There is a high possibility that the Fed chief will see at least one dissent.

Eric Rosengren, the Boston Fed President, stated he does not want an ease in policy, “if the economy is doing perfectly well without that easing.” In September 2007, Charles Evans, Chicago Fed President, voted for a half-percentage-point rate cut, which was the first of many that would decrease the federal funds rate to almost zero. Esther George, Kansas City Fed President, may also vote against a rate cut. George stated, that monetary policy was “in a good range,” but is “prepared to adjust those views” if risks arise. George and Rosengren will be among 10 voters on the rate cut on Wednesday and they have the ability to change the normal Fed consensus-driven approach. If policymakers choose to dissent, it would be more controversial than the Fed’s last four rate-cutting cycles. In three of the last four, 1998, 2001, 2007, the votes were unanimous for lower rates. Thomas Hoenig, the previous Kansas City Fed President, was the only dissent in 1995.

Powell is under pressure by the Trump Administration over not boosting the economy enough and could face more adversity if either voter dissents. On Wednesday, at 2 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT), the Fed will release its policy statement and a press conference will be held by Powell after. Powell should be aware of a dissenter’s concerns regarding a series of cuts, or he can choose to reinforce a “dovish” stance. Voter dissent is not an absolute thing, and Fed policymakers may be apt to change after the two-day meeting. Powell is expected to cut rates, citing the tensions between the U.S. and China as a reason for slower global economic growth and growing risk of inflation. The constantly changing economy has led members such as George to take different stances, and even possibly dissent.

DOVISH

George dissented seven times in 2013, worrying that the Fed’s bond-buying strategy could cause unnecessary inflation. George was willing to join the majority when the Fed, at the year’s last policy meeting, stated it would reduce the purchases of stimulative bonds.

The unemployment rate ended at 6.7% last year and is now 3.7%. Inflation is at 1.8%, the Fed’s preferred measure, which is still below the U.S. central bank’s 2% annual inflation target. Both consumer spending and the economy are growing at an almost unsustainable rate while unemployment is almost at a 50-year low. The overall attitude of the Fed may have shifted since fewer voters are expected to dissent. Narayana Kocherlakota, previous Minneapolis Fed President, who had dissented multiple times, stated “I do hope that there is a dissent next week that goes on record as opposing the (Fed’s expected) 25-basis-point cut. The Fed has become more ‘dovish’ – it seems more willing to court higher inflation in 2019 than in 2015, even though it’s clearly doing better on the employment mandate.” A voter who dissents would present to investors that the Fed is aware of the risks of inflation.

Moderate Increase in U.S. Prices and Consumer Spending

In June, prices and U.S. consumer spending rose, indicating slower economic growth and inflation which could lead to the Federal Reserve, for the first time in decade, cutting interest rates. On Tuesday, the Commerce Department, stated that consumer spending which is a majority of economic activity in the United States, had gained a 0.3% increase in services offsetting the decline in motor vehicle purchases.

Consumer spending rose 0.5% from data in May. The second-quarter gross domestic report from last Friday, presented a 4.3% annualized rate in consumer spending increased, growing from 1.1% through the period of January to March. The GDP was impacted by weakened exports, inventory accumulation, and business investment which had been offset by robust consumer spending.

The economy grew by 3.1% in the first quarter which declined last quarter growing at 2.1%. Both food and energy prices fell while consumer prices increased by 0.1% in June. In May, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index saw an increase of 0.1%. The PCE price index increased by 1.4%, over the last year into June.

The PCE price index heightened by 0.2%, increasing by three straight months in a row. In May, the PCE price index had an annual increase from 1.5% to 1.6%. The Fed uses the core of the PCE index to measure inflation which was lower than the 2% target this year by the U.S. central bank. On Tuesday, the Fed were initially going to have a two-day policy meeting regarding the slowing economic growth. The U.S. economy facing decreased global growth and trade tension, has been slowing due to fading stimulus of last year’s $1.5 trillion tax cut.

In June, consumer spending increased by 0.2% when adjusting for inflation. In May, there was an increase of 0.3% in real consumer spending. Spending on goods increased by 0.3% last month. Also, there was an increase in services by 0.3%. In June, consumer spending was supplemented by an increase of 0.4% in personal income. There was an increase in wages by 0.5%. There was an increase in savings from $1.31 trillion to $1.34 trillion since May.

Regulatory Overstep? How will MiFID II impact financial markets?

(Note: companies that could be impacted by the content of this article are listed at the base of the story (desktop version). This article uses third-party references to provide a bullish, bearish and balanced point of view; sources listed in the “Balanced” section)

Effective as of January 3, 2018 in the European Union, the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) II is a legislative framework that builds upon MiFID I (put into force on November 1, 2007) to regulate financial markets in the EU and to improve protections for investors. MiFID II covers nearly all aspects of financial investment and trading affecting nearly all financial professionals within the EU. A key element of MiFID II is the unbundling of research costs from trading/execution costs. Traditionally and to a large extent currently in the U.S., institutional money managers received access to the investment research of Wall Street brokerage firms as part of doing business with the firm, oftentimes via directing trading activity through such firms. MiFID II requires fund managers in the EU to either pay for research themselves or to set up a research budget account, where the budget has been agreed with the client. 

MiFID II, however, is not compatible with existing U.S. SEC regulations, which prohibits funds from paying cash to U.S. brokers for investment research. This has created some conflict and confusion among investment managers, particularly those with operations that fall under the EU directive. In 2017, the SEC issued three no-action letters allowing U.S. broker dealers to comply with certain MiFID II research unbundling requirements when they are doing business with European investment managers. This relief expires in July 2020.

Big Tech Headed For A Big Breakup? FAANG

(Note: companies that could be impacted by the content of this article are listed at the base of the story (desktop version). This article uses third-party references to provide a bullish, bearish and balanced point of view; sources listed in the “Balanced” section)

Washington lawmakers have initiated an antitrust probe into FAANG and other big tech companies in order to review problematic practices relating to unfair competition and anti-consumer actions. The FAANG stocks; Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Netflix (NFLX), and Google’s parent company Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL), have previously maintained dominance in the market. The break up of these major tech companies may provide more value to shareholders as smaller entities.

News – The Great Debate: Active or Passive Management?

Active vs Passive Investing: Is there Still a Place for Stock Pickers?

(Note: companies that could be impacted by the content of this article are listed at the base of the story (desktop version). This article uses third-party references to provide a bullish, bearish and balanced point of view; sources listed in the “Balanced” section)

At some point in 2019, the market share of passive funds will top 50%, marking an inflection point in the active versus passive debate. Since the end of 2006, investors have withdrawn approximately $1.2 trillion from actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds and have allocated some $1.4 trillion to U.S. equity index funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs). At the end of 2018, mutual funds and ETFs that passively track indexes held 48% of market assets. By definition, active portfolio management focuses on outperforming the market compared to a specific benchmark, while passive portfolio management aims to mimic the investment holdings of a particular index. But, as we shall see, the line between passive and active investing is not black and white.

News – Stock Buybacks: Good, evil, or maybe something in between?

Who benefits from stock repurchases, the investors or the executives?

(Note: companies that could be
impacted by the content of this article are listed at the base of the story
(desktop version). This article uses third-party references to provide a
bullish, bearish and balanced point of view; sources listed in the
“Balanced” section)

Stock buybacks are on the rise and there are concerns over the effectiveness. It is even becoming a Political issue. Share buybacks, also known as stock repurchases, are when corporations purchase its own shares in the open stock market, reducing the total number of shares outstanding. The result of the buyback could increase earnings per share and increase return on equity, possibly increasing the stock price. 2018 was an all-time, record year for buybacks, with $1.1 trillion in announcements and some $800 billion repurchased during the year. Reasons have been postulated about why the pace of buybacks has increased over the years, including the generation of significant free cash flow by companies, muted organic investment opportunities, a lack of accretive acquisitions, as a means of boosting EPS by reducing the share count. Notably, stock repurchases were illegal until 1982 and Congress is looking at curbing the exercise as a means of narrowing the growing income inequality in America and advocating an element of social responsibility. Senators Charles Schumer and Bernie Sanders penned an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that, “corporate boardrooms have become obsessed with maximizing only shareholder earnings to the detriment of workers.” The pair suggest they will introduce legislation to limit buybacks unless companies meet certain conditions, including a $15 per hour minimum wage, providing workers with decent pensions, and solid health benefits, among other things.

News – High-yield bonds: Trash or Treasure?

The case for high-yield bond investing.

(Note: related companies are at base of the story and all the sources
listed in the “Balanced” section)

High-yield bonds, once thought of as appropriate only for sophisticated investors or bond investment houses, have become more commonplace in recent years with the spread of high-yield bond ETFs.  Through these ETFs, individual investors can have a diversified exposure to an investment class with characteristics of both bonds and equities.  But investing in high-yield bonds is not for the faint of heart.  High-yield bonds performed poorly in 2018 causing the spread between junk bonds and treasuries to widen.  This potential for higher return begs the question:

Is now a good time to invest in high-yield bonds?

News – The Fed raised its rates, now what?

The Fed raised its rates, now what?

(Note: all the sources listed in the “Balanced” section) 

In December, 2018, the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark Federal Fund rates 0.25% to a targeted level of 2.25-2.50%.  The increase marks the ninth time it’s raised rates since 2015 and the fourth time in 2018.  The Fed took a slightly more dovish approach indicating that it now expects two additional rate hikes in 2019, down from three, and described a neutral level to be 2.8%, which is down from 3.0%. 

Although the rate increase was largely expected, the Dow closed more than 350 points in the red after the afternoon announcement.  The rate increase is being criticized by many political and economic pundits.  So, is the Fed being overly cautious in raising rates, or are rate increases needed to prevent the economy from overheating? 

News – Gold – Trending Up?

Time for Gold to Shine?

(Note: all the sources listed in the “Balanced” section)

Gold investors remember the good old days, the period from 2001 to 2011 when gold prices climbed 475% from $272 per ounce at the end of 2000 to $1,563 per ounce at the end of 2011.  During that period, gold reached a low of $255 per ounce, peaked at $1,901 and averaged $705 per ounce. The key drivers for the “Gold Rush” were:  1) selling among central banks abated, 2) gold production was constrained, 3) new investment vehicles, such as exchange-traded funds, made it easier to invest in gold, and 4) the U.S. dollar weakened during much of the period.  Since that time, gold prices have languished and seem to be stuck in a trading range for the past 4 years between $1,051 and $1,366.   
During the first three quarters of 2018, the price of gold declined 8.5% to $1,191.  After a 1.7% increase during the first quarter that provided a glimmer of hope, gold prices declined 5.4% and 4.9% during the second and third quarters, respectively.  According to the World Gold Council, third quarter gold demand grew less than 1% on a year-over-year basis to 664.3 tonnes. While bar and coin demand increased 28%, central bank demand increased 22% and jewelry demand increased 6%, outflows in gold-backed ETFs offset much of this growth. 1
During the fourth quarter through November 14, gold prices rose 1.6% to close at $1,211 per ounce.  Gold’s strength at the beginning of the fourth quarter may be attributed to increased financial market volatility driven by geopolitical tensions and concerns about domestic and global economic growth.  Additionally, reports that central banks may increase purchases of gold, especially among those representing emerging markets, may have provided a boost to investor sentiment.  In the comparable time frame, the performance of the broader market indices was volatile with the S&P 500 posting a 7.3% decline during the period.  Gold may have performed its role as a “safe-haven” investment.
Gold investors may be wondering if the promising start to the fourth quarter will signal continued gains for gold or will it turn into a head fake?