>>> What to look at this (long) Week End - 1st, 2nd & 3rd Decemb

Yearly Performance (Local Currency)
Dow-2.23% S&P-0.73% Nasdaq+5.73% Russell-5.71% Brazil-13.31% EuroStoxx-6.83% FTSE-9.85% CAC-2.64% Dax-1.71% IBEX-16.70% MIB+1.07% SMI-2.58%% Nikkei +8.54% Hang Seng-7.11% Shanghai +4.60%
Yearly Performance (USD)
Dow-2.23% S&P-0.73% Nasdaq+5.73% Russell-5.71% Brazil-42.07% EuroStoxx+3.85% FTSE-4.93% CAC+8.53% Dax+9.56% IBEX-7.15% MIB+12.66% SMI-1.84% Nikkei +9.07% Hang Seng-7.16% Shanghai +9.41%

The week started off on a sour note as Chinese stocks tumbled on Monday after the latest industrial profits data declined for the sixth straight month. US data was mostly disappointing as well, with key regional readings in Chicago and Dallas dropping sharply. The 2-, 5-, and 7-year treasury auctions all showed poor results and dragged yields higher for the week. Crude oil prices dripped lower again and continued to exert influence on broader markets. US stocks alternated red and green in the post-holiday week as the S&P flipped back and forth from positive to negative on the year. For the week, the DJIA was down 0.7%, and the Nasdaq and S&P500 each lost 0.8%. For the year, the DJIA fell 2.2%, the Nasdaq gained 5.7%, and the S&P500 slipped 0.7%, its first losing year since 2011.

Macro :
- White House Delays New Financial Sanctions on Iran: WSJ
- FT : Cash lures investors from high-grade debt http://on.ft.com/1ZF86Mg
- FT : Brevan Howard’s $20bn flagship fund falls for second year http://on.ft.com/1moEc0V
- FT : Tech group public-private funding gulf widens http://on.ft.com/1SqE1hq
- Hedge Fund Lutetium Plans to Liquidate, Return Investor Cash
- IMF Not Convinced Greece Will Meet Fiscal Targets: Tsakalotos
- China’s First Data Point in 2016 Shows Growth Stabilizing

Keep an eye on :
- Auto Sector : French Dec. Car, Light-Vehicle Registrations Rise 11.8%: CCFA
- ADS GY : Adidas Optimistic on FY, 1H Order Books Full, CEO Tells SZ
- AIR FP : Airbus set to widen lead over Boeing http://on.ft.com/1SqCkAC
- AKZA NA : Akzo Nobel Paints a Prettier Profit Picture - Barron's : http://bit.ly/1JlIkc0
- AZN LN : WSJ : AstraZeneca Needs to Set Itself Free http://on.wsj.com/1OEWcQR
- EN FP : Orange, Bouygues May Reach Takeover Deal in 1Q, JDD Reports
- DIS FP : Disney: ‘Star Wars’ Has Highest Sales Ever for a New Year’s Day
- ENGI FP : Engie in Talks to Start U.K. Retail Energy Business, Times Says
- GOOGL US : Authors Guild Files to Take Google to Supreme Court: Wash Post
- LHA GY : Lufthansa Said Hiring More than 4,000 New Employees in 2016
- CFR VX : Chinese May Be Buying Swiss Watches Outside Hong Kong: Bilan
- SAN FP : Sanofi Sues Roche’s Genentech, Says MS Drug Patent Is Invalid
- SHP LN : Shire Said in Advanced Talks to Buy Baxalta for ~$32b Cash/Stock
- STMN SW : Straumann rumoured to interest 3M and other US companies - Sonntagszeitung
- TSLA US : Tesla Bursts Into Flames at Recharging Station in Norway: FVN
- TKA GY : ThyssenKrupp Expects Steel Industry Combinations, CEO Tells WamS
- VRX US : Pershing Sells Shrs of Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Holds 8.5% Stake

WSJ : AstraZeneca Needs to Set Itself Free

AstraZeneca Needs to Set Itself Free

Long-term growth, strength of pipeline should take priority

The U.K. pharmaceuticals company has been bolstering profits with a series of “externalization” deals, designed to keep its earnings per share above $4.20. That is one of the targets baked into management pay plans, which requires earnings per share to be at least 1.5 times dividend payouts.

There are good reasons to ditch the threshold. It leaves AstraZeneca open to the charge of cannibalizing long-term earnings power for short-term gain. It also fuels worries that Astra won’t be able to control its spending, while simultaneously feeding concerns that the company isn’t investing enough.

Astra’s existing business faces near-term patent expiries as well as mounting pressure in areas like diabetes. But the company’s appeal is built on long-term growth and the strength of its pipeline.

Recent deals, like the purchase of ZS Pharma and a stake in blood-cancer specialist Acerta, have underlined that Astra’s real focus is on long-term growth, not short-term earnings. As data next year shore up confidence in new drugs, the stock—which has gone virtually nowhere since Pfizer abandoned its £55 ($81) a share takeover interest in Astra in May 2014—should benefit.

True, the $4.20 marker has forced Astra to prioritize. UBS concedes that the company has raised about $2 billion through licensing, partnerships and other deals this year, without negatively affecting forecast earnings and cash flows.

But it is odd that a business whose value rests on the long-term future of its pipeline is being run to hit such a short-term goal. Astra does have scope to economize: Its cost-to-sales ratio is the highest in the European sector, notes Moody’s, partly thanks to depressed sales. But some investors worry that Astra actually isn’t investing enough.

In immuno-oncology, Astra is going up against Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck and Roche, rivals with a head-start on the U.K. company. As the science develops, the goal posts for success shift. Astra said in November that its first immuno-oncology trial, designed to speed up getting to market, now likely wouldn’t enable regulatory filings given rival approvals. Getting an edge means finding combinations of drugs that are highly effective, which requires large numbers of expensive trials.

Astra is on track to spend about $4.5 billion in research and development this year on its broad-ranging pipeline. Yet oncology specialist Roche is forecast to spend about 9.3 billion Swiss francs ($9.41 billion). This isn’t too surprising: Roche has roughly double Astra’s overall revenues. But one analyst estimates close to 40% of Roche’s budget may be going into immuno-oncology, where it has about 30 combination trials running across eight new drugs. In other words, Astra faces big-spending opposition.

Ditching the target shouldn’t mean letting management off the hook. By all means, link pay more closely to the ambitious revenues target of $45 billion for 2023, unveiled in the heat of the Pfizer defense. That would be more in tune with investors’ concerns, and Astra’s strategy.

FT : Confrontational activism rare in the UK

Confrontational activism rare in the UK

High-profile campaigns at Rolls-Royce and Alliance Trust take a British tack

Europe’s defences remain strong against the threat of US style shake-ups despite several high-profile battles between investor groups and British and European directors.
Two years ago, Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer and Linklaters, two large international law firms, warned British companies that US hedge funds were coming to Europe, keen to shake out some of the cash that was piled up on corporate balance sheets. Britain would be their first port of call, said the lawyers keen to help companies put up their defences.

Also that year Bill Ackman, the US activist founder of Pershing Square Capital, said Europe “was a good 10 years behind the US in the degree of shareholder activism”, adding that pressure to meet pension obligations “will make shareholders inherently more active”. He was right. European investors, under pressure from regulators to push for better corporate governance and prevent the failings that led to the banking crisis, have started pushing companies harder to improve governance and returns.
But by the summer of 2015, Mr Ackman’s message to investors had changed. As he took a 7.5 per cent stake in US-listed snacks business Mondelez, he said he still has plenty to do in the US without venturing abroad.
There were high-profile confrontations in the UK in 2015 — notably Electra Private Equity Investment trust, Alliance investment trust and Rolls-Royce, the engineer.
But Piers Prichard Jones, a London-based Freshfields partner, says: “Activism hasn’t really taken off in the way that people thought it would two years ago.
“Taking big positions and agitating for change is still relatively uncommon. There is still the desire in the UK to do things behind closed doors. And Europe is even harder to break into,” he adds.
US activists may have missed their opportunity, he suggests. European companies are underperforming their US competitors but they have been spending their cash on mergers and acquisitions, and lifting dividends — up 15 per cent across Europe last year. And now dividends are expected to tail off as the corporate outlook falters and interest rates rise.
Linklaters maintains that 2015 has still been a record year for activism globally, citing figures from Activist Insight, a specialist database showing that there were more than 860 actions globally in 2015. That is an increase of 170 per cent since 2011.

The biggest rise was in the US, where actions tripled, but actions in Europe rose 126 per cent over five years “with the UK [being] the most targeted jurisdiction”.
But Activist Insight’s data uses a broad definition of activism that goes well beyond US-style “proxy fights” involving public confrontations and shareholders threatening court action to gain board seats. It includes anything from mainstream institutions voicing widespread concerns over the Tesco accounting debacle to Thorntons, the chocolatier bought by Ferrero, where shareholders lobbied privately for change.
Most of the big 2015 investor campaigns in the UK ended up with consensual resolutions rather than proxy fights.
New York-based Elliott Associates first began building its stake in Alliance Trust in 2011. Its goal was similar to those of arbitrageurs, sometimes dubbed vulture funds, that have for decades picked off investment trusts whose shares trade at wide discounts to the value of underlying assets.
But the effort ended with Alliance appointing two “independent” non-executive directors at Elliott’s behest.
ValueAct’s campaign to shake up Rolls took a similar approach. In November, the San Francisco fund increased its stake in the engineer to 10 per cent after a series of profit warnings. ValueAct is pressuring for board seats, cost cuts, disposals and a change in strategy. But the fund, which typically holds stakes for long periods, prefers to work with management and talks about injecting private equity disciplines into public companies.
Graham Bird of Gresham Strategic says this form of activism has been around in the UK since the 1990s. “A lot of engagement happens, but using influence rather than legal threats,” Mr Bird says. He doesn’t think the aggressive US style tactics will gain much traction in Europe “particularly given the momentum in markets now”.
Perhaps the nearest the UK got to confrontational activism in 2015 was the attack against Electra by Sherborne, a UK-quoted company backed by some of Britain’s biggest investment institutions and founded by Edward Bramson, a British lawyer based in New York. The row between Electra directors and Mr Bramson became as bitter as any in the US.
Eventually Mr Bramson won a seat on the Electra board. But it was a struggle. “Most UK shareholders dislike confrontations with boards to become public except as a last resort,” says the UK head of a big investment group.

Although US companies routinely give board seats to activists, UK shareholders continue to worry that adding an investor with a short-term agenda to the board will undermine the independent non-executives charged with representing all shareholders.
Activist battles in Europe are often long and hard and for every activist campaign that succeeds in the UK, another fails. Sherborne, for example, bought shares in Electra’s direct rival 3i Group before withdrawing without comment and taking on Electra.
That resistance, alongside the rising costs and probability of lower returns, will continue to hold back the promised wave of aggressive UK activism for a while yet.

FT : Equities: And then there were nine

Apart from a few stocks, the US markets are in a slump with fears post-crisis rally has run its course

Had it not been for a small group of nifty companies, 2015 would have entered the history books as a terrible year for the US stock market. As it was, stocks were almost exactly flat, as were bonds and cash, meaning that US bonds and equities had their second-worst collective 12 months since 1995 — outstripped only by the disaster year of 2008.

“It’s the world of low numbers,” says Andrew Milligan, chief investment strategist at Standard Life in Edinburgh.


Yet there were some very high numbers for a group of four companies that have come to be known as the “Fangs” — Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google — and for a slightly wider group that added Microsoft, Salesforce, eBay, Starbucks and Priceline to create the “Nifty Nine”. Both groups gained more than 60 per cent for the year.

Away from the excitement generated by these hot companies, things were dire. The S&P 500 equal-weighted index, where each of the 500 companies receives 0.2 per cent of the index, was down, and underperformed the S&P weighted by market capitalisation.

Such a “narrowing” of the market is a classic symptom of a lengthy rally — this one has lasted almost uninterrupted since 2009 — that is coming to an end. Investors run out of ideas and instead pour money into a few companies with a positive story to tell. The underperformance of smaller companies is a sign that investors are growing more cautious.

The dominance of the Nifty Nine recalls the late 1960s and early 1970s, when a long bull market petered out into a period dominated by a “Nifty Fifty” of companies such as Xerox.

“Technically this feels very bearish,” says Jim Paulsen, chief strategist at Wells Capital Management. “The closest feel is the Nifty Fifty era when much of the market peaked in the late ’60s but the Nifties carried on until 1972.”

He said the performance of Amazon, which is revolutionising consumer industries, is particularly distorting, and that of the wider consumer discretionary sector — which was the best performing sector of 2015 — had a “night and day difference” without it.

Part of the reason is that profits are in decline, mainly due to the problems falling oil prices have created for energy companies. “We shouldn’t be surprised, because there’s a profits recession, and in profits recessions markets become very Darwinist,” says Richard Bernstein, an investment consultant. That Darwinism means that money flocks to the companies that can show strong revenue growth, such as Netflix — whose profits halved in the third quarter but continues to show subscriber growth — or Amazon. Both saw their share prices more than double, as funds flooded out of companies perceived to be losing out to them and registering disappointing profits, such as Viacom and other mainstream television media groups or Walmart and other retailers.

According to Peter Atwater of Financial Insyghts, who analyses market psychology, narrow participation is a symptom of extreme nerves, as last seen during the 1990s internet bubble. Writing before the US Federal Reserve decided to raise rates last month, he pointed out that for 2015, “the top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 are up 13.9 per cent while the other 490 are down 5.8 per cent — the largest spread since the late 1990s!”

It has also grown more important to pick winners, while there are plenty of losers to choose from. Thomas Lee of Fundstrat says that he had seen Fang-like concentrations in the past, but usually the top and bottom 10 cancel each other out. In 2015, the winners far outperformed the losers.

Mr Lee warned that “Fang likely ends with a Dang!” as top movers in one year have a strong tendency to underperform in the next.

Valuation trends suggest that the next move is more likely to be downwards. US stocks endured a correction during 2015, dropping more than 10 per cent in August as the Chinese currency revaluation sent tremors through the financial world. But, to quote Mr Paulsen, it was “not a pause that refreshes”.

“We did not reset valuations or refresh the profit cycle,” he says. Instead, the S&P 500 had almost regained its highs by the end of October, and US share prices, judged by a multiple of earnings, ended the year as expensive as they began it.

Telling indicators

The two critical measures that should set the market’s direction are earnings and interest rates. In the third quarter, S&P 500 earnings dropped by 0.8 per cent year on year, and the consensus expectation is that they will be down 3.5 per cent in the fourth quarter, mostly thanks to energy. Meanwhile, Europe may have hit the bottom of its own profits recession, with earnings for the Stoxx 600 companies falling 5.1 per cent year on year in the third quarter.

The renewed fall in the oil price has raised concerns that energy companies will be forced to write down the value of the assets more sharply. Once this damage is done, hopes on Wall Street are high for a rebound from a low base; brokers’ analysts now forecast 7.9 per cent earnings growth for the S&P 500 as a whole in 2016. However, equity strategists and asset allocators, who take a more top-down view, expect these numbers to be marked down considerably as the year continues. Further, earnings tend to move in cycles, and in the US the cycle appears to have turned.

As for rates, the Fed has told markets to brace for four more rate rises this year, while the Fed funds futures market is implicitly only pricing in two. All else equal, lower rates would aid share prices. But all else is not equal. Lower rates would imply a sickly US economy, which would hit hopes for earnings.

So the great hope that a narrow US market will not tip over into a bear market this year is the US economy. There are few signs of a recession — and without a recession, equity bear markets are usually not severe. Indeed, outside of manufacturing, which is in a global downturn, the economy looks robust. The hope is that services will start to benefit as US consumers at last begin to spend the money they have saved on oil.

“Profit margins are not going any higher, and rates aren’t going any lower, and there’s a lot of things used up,” says Mr Paulsen, whose best guess is that another flat year is in the offing. “But it’s hard to see a recession.”

Chart: economic data

Excitement around a few big new-economy stocks was intense during 2014. Netflix and Amazon both more than doubled, while Facebook and the Google companies also enjoyed a great year. Put these stocks (known as the Fangs for their initials) together with Ebay, Priceline, Salesforce, Microsoft and Starbucks, to create a “Nifty Nine” and they beat the rest of the US market by more than 60 per cent.

Chart: economic data

That is worrying. Dominance by a few big companies – or a “narrowing” market – is a symptom of the end of a bull run, as it was in the early 1970s (dominated by the “Nifty Fifty”) or the late 1990s (dominated by the dot-coms). The biggest 50 companies rose last year, but the Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell, showing concerns about the economy, while an equal-weighted version of the S&P also fell. Most stocks were down, and interest is restricted to a few.

Chart: economic data

S&P 500 companies saw earnings decline slightly in 2015. This was in large part due to falling revenues at energy companies, driven by falling oil prices. But the strong dollar, which hit overseas earnings, was a factor. So was declining margins, as wages started a slight recovery. Both earnings and margins tend to by cyclical, implying both could have further to fall. Meanwhile, earnings in Europe fell by even more, raising hopes that European companies have reached the bottom of the profits cycle.

Chart: economic data

Valuing stocks is and will always remain an imprecise science. Many Wall Street analysts now make technical criticisms of Prof Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price/earnings multiple, which compares to prices to average earnings over the previous decade. But a simple multiple of the previous twelve months’ earnings, which is much noisier and leapt to extremes during the earnings recession of 2009 when investors universally assumed that earnings would recover, gives a similar conclusion. Prices are not extreme, but clearly look expensive by historical standards.

Chart: economic data

The US stock market has vastly outperformed the rest of the world (including both developed and emerging markets) since the 2008 crisis. Lenient monetary policy helped this, as did the strength of the US economy, while the strong dollar amplified the outperformance. But the strong dollar should hit US companies’ overseas earnings, while strengthening the rest of the world, and other central banks are now aggressively easing monetary policy while the US Federal Reserve has just started to raise rates.

Chart: economic data

2015 was dominated by speculation over when the Fed would raise rates. There is every reason to expect this to continue. This chart shows the “dots” issued by the Fed, in which each dot represents the prediction of a different Fed governor for where target rates will be at the end of 2016. The median forecast is for four rises of 0.25 percentage points. The market expectation, derived from the Fed Funds futures market, is for two rises. This gap will have to be reconciled during 2016.

>>> Straumann rumoured to interest 3M and other US companies - report (translate

Straumann rumoured to interest 3M and other US companies 

Straumann, the listed Swiss dental technology group, could be a target for US company 3M, Sonntagszeitung reported. The Swiss weekly noted market rumours that 3M is one of several US companies looking at Straumann. The paper said the main question is whether the Straumann family is willing to sell its share holding to an American company. A bidder could offer CHF 400 per share in the next few months valuing the company at CHF 6.4bn and representing a 30% premium on the current share price.

Straumann currently has a market cap of CHF 4.9bn.

Sonntagszeitung

(JDD) Orange et Bouygues Télécom avancent sur leur mariage

Orange-Bouygues : les premières avancées des négociations - article attached

INFO JDD - Les grandes lignes du rachat de Bouygues Telecom par Orange se précisent. Des réunions entre les deux opérateurs se tiennent cette semaine.

Orange entame les négociations en vue du rachat de Bouygues Telecom. Selon plusieurs sources, l'opérateur historique et le groupe Bouygues ont signé la veille de Noël un accord de confidentialité, scellant le démarrage de leurs pourparlers officiels. La chaîne TF1, objet de rumeurs, n'est pas concernée. Cette semaine, plusieurs réunions sont prévues entre les deux états-majors pour plancher sur les points clés : valorisation, gouvernance, social et concurrence. Sur ce dernier volet, l'opération passerait, selon nos informations, devant l'Autorité de la concurrence en France et non à Bruxelles. "Les équipes s'entendent bien, les discussions avancent, on saura vite si on va au bout, résume un protagoniste au cœur des négociations. Il n'y a pas d'obstacles pour le moment." Les plus ambitieux espèrent aboutir à la fin du mois, les plus prudents à la fin du trimestre.

5 milliards d'euros de cessions
Bouygues Telecom sera valorisé environ 10 milliards d'euros, dont 8 donneront à Bouygues une participation d'environ 15% dans Orange. Le solde sera payé en cash, comme le PDG du groupe le souhaite. L'État se retrouvera dilué dans l'opération légèrement au-dessous de 20%, voire davantage si la Banque publique d'investissement en profite pour vendre un peu sa part. "Bouygues aura une participation inférieure à celle de l'État, assure une source. Même symboliquement." La question de sceller un pacte d'actionnaires entre eux se pose. Bouygues n'y serait pas favorable. Il sera d'autant plus difficile à mettre en place si les deux participations pèsent plus de 34 %, seuil qui oblige à lancer une OPA. Le plus probable est que chacun garde sa liberté.

Les questions de gouvernance, cruciales, donneraient une place de choix à Bouygues chez Orange. Le nouvel actionnaire hériterait logiquement de deux sièges d'administrateurs, comme l'État, dont un pour Martin Bouygues, ainsi qu'il le demande. Le PDG de Bouygues Telecom, Olivier Roussat, pourrait devenir responsable de l'intégration de l'opérateur. "Il faudra intégrer la direction opérationnelle de Bouygues Telecom, reconnaît un proche d'Orange. Mais ce n'est pas le point central." Concernant l'aspect social, les salariés seraient repris par Orange, qui s'engagerait à ne pas licencier.

Des négociations avec Free
Reste le point le plus sensible : la concurrence. Des cessions d'actifs (antennes, fréquences, abonnés…) à Free et SFR seront indispensables pour remplir les contraintes concurrentielles. Orange, qui n'a pas encore approché ses deux rivaux, souhaiterait qu'elles atteignent 5 milliards d'euros pour récupérer un maximum de cash. La clé de l'opération réside dans un accord avec Xavier Niel, le patron de Free. Sans réseau lors de son lancement en 2012, il a fini par le construire. Il pourrait ne racheter que quelques centaines d'antennes dans les grandes villes alors qu'il avait accepté d'en reprendre 1.000 lors du rachat avorté de Bouygues Telecom par SFR en juin. Ce sera aussi l'occasion pour Free de mettre la main sur des fréquences.

Orange pourrait demander à Free de racheter tout ou partie des 600 boutiques de Bouygues alors qu'il n'en a pas besoin. En échange, le trublion négocierait le rachat d'une partie du réseau fibre d'Orange alors qu'il peine à développer le sien. Free et SFR se disputeront aussi une partie des abonnés mobile et fixe de Bouygues Telecom. SFR serait intéressé par des contrats de clients mobile à petit prix, car ceux d'Orange (Sosh) et de Bouygues (B&You) seront dominants sur le marché. L'opérateur lorgnerait aussi quelques clients entreprise. Ces négociations devraient débuter mi-janvier, quand Orange et Bouygues auront validé les grandes lignes de leur rapprochement.

(ZeroHedge) From $500,000 To $170 Million In A Few Months: The N

From $500,000 To $170 Million In A Few Months: The Next "Subprime Trade" Emerges

Ever since a few far-sighted, contrarian traders made a killing by betting on the collapse of subprime in 2005 and 2006 - and by implication on the implosion of the capital markets - a trade famously resurrected in the latest Wall Street movie The Big Short (whose Michael Burry recently warned that "The Little Guy Will Pay" For The Next Crisis, again) everyone has been dreaming to uncover the next "subprime" - a trade that has a 20-to-1 upside to downside ratio, which can be put on in massive size, and which would lead to a quick and lucrative retirement.

So far the next "subprime trade" remains elusive, with global capital markets continuing to grind ever higher thanks to constant central bank manipulation, as first called out on this website many years ago, and as admitted recently even by such "serious" legacy institutions banks as Bank of America which in an attempt to explain market instability

Central bank’s risk manipulation well explains local tails

 

A good way to explain why we have seen local tail risks arise so frequently since central banks began to heavily manipulate asset prices is with the following analogy, illustrated in Exhibit 1. Essentially central banks, by unfairly inflating asset prices have compressed risk like a spring to unfairly tight levels. Unfortunately, the market is aware the price of risk is not correct, but they can’t fight it, and everyone is forced to crowd into the same trade. By manipulating markets they have also reduced investors’ inherent conviction by rendering fundamentals less relevant.

 

This then creates a highly unstable (fragile) situation that breaks violently when a sufficient catalyst causes risk to rise – overly crowded positioning meets a market with little conviction.

The above explanation leads to a critical line of thought: perhaps the next "subprime" trade is not shorting a mispriced asset at all?

After all, all assets are mispriced as a result of central bank intervention.

As BofA admits "the market is aware the price of risk is not correct, but they can’t fight it, and everyone is forced to crowd into the same trade", which is logical: after all why should one fight the Fed when any time there is even a 5% drop in the S&P500, the Fed can and will either jawbone and threaten to cut rates or launch QE4 or NIRP, or just do it? In doing so, of course, the Fed merely "kicks the can" and with every failed attempt at reprice risk and bring back some trace of price discovery, guarantees that the next market crash will be the most epic ever, one which will wipe out not only the Fed's credibility but the bedrock of the modern financial and economic system, a monetarist system based on neo-Keynesian rules. Frankly, the devastation can not come fast enough.

But first, why not make some money?

And if one is limited from generating 20-1 returns in a market of suppressed volatility due to a global central bank puts, perhaps the next "subprime" trade has to do with the process of actually putting the trade on.

A process which involves ETFs.

To be sure, we - and many others - had issued many warnings about the very nature of ETFs in recent years, especially during 2015. Here is a brief chronology of the countless warnings we have issued on this topic in the past year alone:

All of these warnings became realized on August 24, the day of the infamous ETFlash Crash which even the SEC remarked on in the last week of December with an 88-page note on "Equity Market Volatility on August 24, 2015."  What the SEC essentially said is that it is generally concerned with plumbing and exchange regulation, with an emphasis on ETFs.

To be sure the story of broken markets as a result of the epic proliferation of Exchange Traded Funds continued after August, with stories such as:

Is it possible that "the next subprime trade" was so obvious that it was staring everyone in the face for the past year?

A trade which involved betting on the collapse not of the central-bank supported market, but the death of the instrument which allows this unprecedented global central bank "put" to prop up markets, and which like the infamous coiled spring in the Bank of America "revelation" is just waiting for a catalyst to snap: in other words, betting against ETFs?

Actually the answer is yes, and for some, the "next subprime trade" is already happening.

Meet David Miller and his Catalyst Macro Strategist Fund (ticker: MCXCX). The introduction, provided by WaPo reads like something straight out of a Michael Lewis book:

The Michigan-native is betting against one of the most popular investment vehicles for mom-and-pop investors: exchange-traded funds. The bets have paid off, turning Miller’s little known Catalyst Mutual Funds into one of Wall Street’s most successful players in 2015.

It sure sounds like a story about one of the lucky few who correctly predicted in 2006 what would happen to not just subprime, but the overall market just a few years later... and would retired filthy rich.

The comparisons between Miller's story and the "Michael Burry's" of the subprime era don't end there, because the young asset manager has not only figured out what to bet against, but how to make a lot of money in the process: ever since it started making complicated bets against some leveraged ETFs, Miller’s Catalyst Macro Strategies Funds has since grown from $500,000 in assets at the start of the year to about $170 million. It achieved a more than 50 percent return this year, placing it far ahead of its competitors.

In a year in which virtually not one hedge fund generated notable returns, and most were an embarrassment, it is surprising that not all financial media outlets are talking about Catalyst's performance, which as shown below, is quite impressive. Behold the 2015 performance of the Catalyst Macro Strategy Fund, which according to Morningstar held a total of $169.5 million in assets most recently.

 

Miller's initial target in the broken sector: leveraged ETFs: "Our goal is to identify poorly designed financial vehicles,” said Miller, Catalyst’s senior portfolio manager. “The strategy has certainly worked out well for us."

While still a tiny part of the market, the growth of leveraged ETFs has been explosive. Nearly nonexistent in 2005, the market has grown to more than $20 billion this year, according to data from Lipper. The market has doubled since 2011.

The regulators have, as usual, been asleep at the wheel, making such debacles as August 24 a recurring reality, and allowing people like Miller to make outrageous profits by betting against the broken market:

[A]s the industry has grown, so have concerns around whether investors understand the risks. The Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rules in December to rein in these type of funds. And the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, also known as FINRA, has cracked down on brokers who have sold complicated ETFs they didn’t understand.

 

“The SEC and FINRA have been coming down on them, and they still have not gone away,” Miller said. “Money keeps coming into them despite their poor performance.”

But if leveraged ETFs are the "BBB" CDO tranches in the subprime analogy, then regular, and just as broken ETFs, will be the A, AAs and higher which will be the next to flame out: "Even traditional ETFs aren’t immune from market volatility. Over the summer, the price of some ETFs dropped off a cliff, then bounced back within minutes. Investors who automatically sold as their value plunged, faced heavy losses."

Catalyst may have been the first, but many more are coming, looking to profit from problematic ETFs. New York hedge fund Hilltop Park has employed complicated trades to bet against some ETFs, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Perhaps the final analogy to the subprime crisis is the infamous straw that broke the camel's back: back then, just like now, the fulcrum security was safe... until enough bets had been made against it (infamously by such as Goldman itself, which via Abacus and others, was selling exposure to CDOs only to short them at the same time), at which point the bubble bursts.

And while 10 years ago it was the subprime bubble, this time it will be the ETFs that go first as more and more bets against them proliferate, and when they do, it will be all up to the central banks to preserve the last artificial asset prices in "markets" which over the past eight years forgot how to discount reality, and merely reflect the intentions of a few clueless economist hacks.

To help accelerate this process, we present Catalyst Macro Strategy's latest prospectus, with hopes more modern "Michael Burrys" emerge and take on what the fulcrum security of today's broken markets.