Navarroâ,"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 28. Based on this anticipated rebound, there is a growing presumption that the economy is â,"back on track.â, 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 doesnâ,"t mean that higher interest rates, higher commodity prices, a persistent oil price shock, and a slow motion collapse in the housing sector wonâ,"t bring a repeat of the slow-growth 2001 scenario â,“ and validate the yield curve inversions signaling trouble ahead.
This Weekâ,"s Market Movers â,“ 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 monthâ,"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 â,"one and done crowd.â, 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 â,“ always an exciting read for the geeks.
Portfolio Shorts and Longs â,“ Know When to Holdâ,"em & Foldâ,"em
I added nothing this week at took some defensive action, paring holdings in IMAX and STAA. Iâ,"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 playâ," 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.
Iâ,"m remain short QQQQ, and had a week back towards the green. I also continue to be short the financial sector ETF XLF â,“ and discount all that nonsense about how higher long term bond yields are going to offer more profitable spreads (hey, itâ,"s still only 25 basis points).
Davioâ,"s Hedging Your Bets: Itâ,"s "Different" This Time â,“ Or Not!
In 2000, the conventional wisdom said itâ,"s different this time when the yield curve inverted. The rationale then was it was an â,"artificial inversionâ, due to the low outstanding amount of thirty-year treasuries so no recession would be forthcoming. We all know what happened then.
Today, weâ,"re again told that itâ,"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 â,"slowingâ, 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 â,"just rightâ, 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, hereâ,"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 ARMâ,"s 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 donâ,"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 wonâ,"t be the first or last time we ever hear the term itâ,"s different this time. However, we should be on guard, because whenever we hear itâ,"s different, it usually isnâ,"t.
Vainoâ,"s Biotech Corner: Celgene (CELG) â,“ 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 â,"Market Mapâ, 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. Iâ,"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, thatâ,"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 didnâ,"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 donâ,"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 Iâ,"m increasing my long position in anticipation.
Peter Navarro is a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, and can be contacted at pn@peternavarro.com. Matt Davio is a managing partner at the hedge fund, Red Rock Capital Fund, and be contacted for hedge fund services at redrock@peternavarro.com. Andrew Vaino is a Ph.D. chemist currently teaching at The University of Maine.
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.
Free Festival of Traders Videos
