Egypten?

Är det verkligen Egypten och Tunisien som ligger bakom  korrektionen? Många vill få det till det – att oron för oljebrist katalyserar en korrektion som i vilket fall som helst redan behövdes.

 

Andra orosmoment inkluderar stagflationen i UK (negativ BNP-tillväxt i Q4 och högre inflation än centralbankens mål) och även BNP i USA där oljeprisbaserat statistiktrolleri och en icke uthållig konsumtionsboost lyfte BNP till 3,2% tillväxt i årstakt i Q4.

 

Två kommentarer på BNP från Mauldin:

Oil in the 4^th quarter rose from roughly $81 to $89, or about 10%. On an annualized basis, this is 40%. Inventory investment is equal to the change in book value of the inventories, minus what is known as the IVA, or inventory valuation adjustment, which is used to correct for prices going up or down. Because the value of oil rose and thus cost more to acquire, the accounting requires that you reduce the value of the current inventories. Thus "real" imports fell at a 13% annual rate. Why? Because the deflator rose by 19%, largely because of the rise in the price of oil.
 
...
 
If oil were to go back down this quarter by the same amount, that "growth" could be wiped out [det är således synd att säga att det var äkta tillväxt som är värd något]. There is no conspiracy here. It is just a statistical necessity, like hedonic measurements, and it is all very clear in the fine print; but when there are wide swings in oil prices over a quarter, and because our imports of oil are so large, you can get these odd accounting factoids. Which the gunslingers on TV (and elsewhere) miss in their urge to be the first to get out a bullish statement!

 

How much did it change things? Lacy thinks by anywhere from 0.5% to 1%.

 

Konsumtionen

The really surprising number you saw the talking heads on TV mention was the growth of consumer spending, at 4.4%. Is the US consumer back? After all, real final sales rose by 7.1%, a number not seen since 1984 and Ronald Reagan. But real income rose a paltry 1.7%. Where did the money that was spent come from? Savings dropped a rather large 0.5% for the quarter. That was part of it. And I can't find the link, but there was an unusual drawdown of money market and investment accounts last quarter, somewhere around 1.5%, if I remember correctly. (David Walker remembered that article as well.) That would just about cover it. But that is not a good thing and is certainly not sustainable.
 
Med andra ord: Hur kan man konsumera om man inte har inkomsten för det? Det skulle kunna vara en tjuvstart givet att konsumenterna vet att inkomsten snart blir bättre, men om den inte blir det måste de snarare minska konsumtionen desto mer framöver.
 
En annan kommentar på tillväxten I USA från Rosenberg:
· The funds rate moved down from 4.5% to zero.
· The Fed's balance sheet expanded by more than 1.5 trillion dollars.
· The printing of M2 money supply of around 1 trillion dollars (the illusion of prosperity).
· Expansion of federal government debt of 4.8 trillion dollars.
"All this heavy lifting just to take the economy back to where it was in the fourth quarter of 2007. [för att inte tala om 7 miljoner förlorade jobb på de tre åren som gått]

 

En korrektion har legat i korten ett bra tag och vad som helst kan knuffa börsen över kanten. Blev det Egypten den här gången, eller studsar vi upp igen direkt? Det är omöjligt att säga, men jag ligger beredd på en fortsatt korrektion i alla fall. Jag ligger således kvar minimalt kort och med lite säljoptioner som extra skydd på nedsidan