From Bloomberg,
U.S. stocks may plunge in the second half of the year “like in 1987” if the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) climbs without further stimulus from the Federal Reserve, said Marc Faber, whose prediction of a February selloff in global equities never materialized.
“I think the market will have difficulties to move up strongly unless we have a massive QE3,” Faber, who manages $300 million at Marc Faber Ltd., told Betty Liu on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” from Zurich today, referring to a third round of large-scale asset purchases by the Fed. “If it moves and makes a high above 1,422, the second half of the year could witness a crash, like in 1987.”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 23 percent on Oct. 19, 1987 in the biggest crash since 1914, triggering losses in stock-market values around the world. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index plummeted 20 percent. The Dow still closed 2.3 percent higher in 1987, and the S&P 500 advanced 2 percent.
“If the market makes a new high, it will be a new high with very few stocks pushing up and the majority of stocks having already rolled over,” Faber said. “The earnings outlook is not particularly good because most economies in the world are slowing down.”Profit Growth
More than 69 percent of companies the S&P 500 that reported results since April 10 have exceeded analysts’ forecasts for per-share earnings, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Profits are due to increase 3.9 percent in the second quarter and 6 percent the following period, estimates compiled by Bloomberg show.
Faber said a third round of quantitative easing would “definitely occur” if the S&P 500 dropped another 100 to 150 points. If it bounces back to 1,400, he said, the Fed will probably wait to see how the economy develops.
see Bloomberg's interview of Dr. Marc Faber below
Media has the innate tendency of reducing investment gurus into astrologers or soothsayers by soliciting predictions over the short term. And investing gurus eager to gain media limelight fall into their trap. And this is why Dr. Faber’s warnings comes with a Bloomberg notice about his latest failed predictions, which has been punctuated by "whose prediction of a February selloff in global equities never materialized."
Dr. Faber, who introduced me to the Austrian school of economics through his writings, is simply stating that if a tsunami of central banking money has been responsible for the buoyant state of markets, then a withdrawal of which should mean lower asset prices. In short, the state of the financial markets heavily, if not almost totally, relies on the actions of central bankers.
Yet since we can’t entirely predict the timing and the degree of central bank interventions, or if they intervene at all, we should expect markets to be highly sensitive to excessive volatility.
And aside from money printing, the risk of high volatility has been amplified by many other interventions on the marketplace (via various bank and financial market regulations). And heightened volatility could translate to a crash. And don’t forget a crash could be used to justify QE 3.0.
As to whether the Fed’s QE 3.0 will come before or after a substantial market move is also beyond our knowledge, since this will depend on the actions of political authorities. I have to admit I can’t read the minds of central bankers.
Yet QE 3.0 may come yet in the form of actions of other central bankers, e.g. ECB’s LTRO and or SMP.
What I know is that inflationism has been seen by the mainstream and by the incumbent political authorities as very crucial for the survival of the current forms of political institutions. This is why I, or perhaps Dr. Faber, sees the probability for more central bank interventions over the marketplace. This is because the cost of non-intervention would be a substantial reduction of the political control over society from vastly impaired political institutions.
It must be noted that Austrian economics is basically an explanatory science, where given a set of actions we see the consequence being such or such. The idea of reducing logical deduction into some form of predictive science is wizardry.
In short, while I don't predict a crash I would not rule out this option. Especially not in a highly distorted and politicized markets
No comments:
Post a Comment