(The Daily Beast) Exposing Russia’s Secret Army in Syria

Exposing Russia’s Secret Army in Syria

Some wear uniforms, some don’t, but from highway checkpoints to jet fighters, Russians are being spotted all over the Assad dictatorship’s heartland.

Russian military officers are now in Damascus and meeting regularly with Iranian and Syrian counterparts, according to a source with close contacts in the Bashar al-Assad regime. “They’re out in restaurants and cafes with other high officials in the Syrian Army,” the source told The Daily Beast, “mainly concentrated in Yaafour and Sabboura, areas that are close to each other, and in west Mezze,” referring to a district in the capital where Assad’s praetorian Fourth Armored Division keeps an important airbase. “The Russians aren’t in uniform, but they’re constantly hanging out with officers from the Syrian Army’s central command.”

Other Syrians claim to have seen Russians in uniform.

One family recently traveled from Aleppo to Damascus by taxi before emigrating by plane to Turkey and says it saw a small contingent of Russian troops embedded with Syrians at a military checkpoint in the capital. “We were near the Shaghour district when we noticed two soldiers who were not Syrian,” a family representative said. “They were tall, blonde and blue-eyed and wore different fatigues from the Syrians and carried weapons. I’m telling you, they were Russian.”

The opposition-linked website All4Syria seems to corroborate such eyewitness accounts. Many residents of Damascus, it claimed, have “observed in the first three days of September a noticeable deployment of Iranian and Russian elements in the neighborhoods of Baramkeh, al-Bahsa, and Tanzim Kfarsouseh.” The Venezia Hotel in al-Bahsa “has been turned into a military barracks for the Iranians.”

Such news comes amid a flurry of reports that Russia has made plans for a direct military intervention in Syria’s four-year civil war and may actually have started one already. The New York Times reported Saturday that Russia has sent prefabricated housing units, capable of sheltering as many as 1,000 military personnel, and a portable air traffic control station to another Syrian airbase in Latakia. That coastal province, the Assad family’s ancestral home, has already seen Russian troops caught on video operating BTR-82 infantry fighting vehicles against anti-Assad rebels, atop rumors that Moscow may be deploying an “expeditionary force,” including Russian air pilots who would fly combat missions.

They may already be doing so. A social media account affiliated with the al-Qaeda franchise Jabhat al-Nusra posted images of what appeared to be Russian Air Force jets and drones flying in the skies of Syria’s northwest Idlib province. They were, specifically, the Mig-29 Fulcrum, the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker, the Su-34 Fullback and the Pchela-1T drone. These images were analyzed as credible by the specialist website The Aviationist, which also noted that “during the past days, Flightradar24.com has exposed several flights of a Russian Air Force… Il-76 airlifter (caught by means of its Mode-S transponder) flying to and from Damascus using radio call sign ‘Manny 6,’ most probably supporting the deployment of a Russian expeditionary force.”

ISIS isn't in Idlib; the terror army that calls itself the Islamic State was driven out of the province completely. As one U.S. intelligence official put it to The Daily Beast, "The question is, what are Russia's underlying motivations? Are they really there to fight [ISIS], or just to prop up Assad?"

The concern is that Russia could use military strikes against ISIS as a kind of cover or feint for attacking rebel forces as well, including non-Islamist groups. The U.S. sees these forces as a potential bulwark against ISIS. But they also have as one of their primary goals overthrowing Assad—an effort that Washington has been unwilling to support.

The White House has fallen back on its customary posture of wait-and-see as proof mounts that the Russians are coming. Spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters this week: ”We are aware of reports that Russia may have deployed military personnel and aircraft to Syria, and we are monitoring those reports quite closely. Any military support to the Assad regime for any purpose, whether it's in the form of military personnel, aircraft supplies, weapons, or funding, is both destabilizing and counterproductive.” Another unnamed U.S. official told Britain’s Daily Telegraph, ”Russia has asked for clearances for military flights to Syria, [but] we don't know what their goals are.”

Actually, their goals aren't terribly hard to discern, nor do they necessarily contradict implicit White House policy, whatever Josh Earnest says.

Photographs circulated on social media showing what appeared to be Russian soldiers in Zabadani, a city 45 kilometers north of Damascus, which has changed hands several times during the civil war. For months rebels have been fending off a scorched-earth assault by the Syrian army, Hezbollah and Iranian forces, which the U.N. assesses to have led to “unprecedented levels of destruction.” So the injection of Russian legionnaires into a multinational cocktail of combatants duking it out in Zabadani would make perfect sense. The city is considered the sine qua non of Iran’s “strategic corridor” in Syria, which runs from the capital to Lebanon and up along the Mediterranean coastline. The formidable Islamist rebel brigade Ahrar al-Sham knows who’s in charge here—it has even negotiated an ultimately unsuccessful ceasefire directly with the Islamic Republic rather than with Assad.


“The Russians are clearly setting themselves on the ground in regime areas, planting the flag in ‘Alawistan,’ as it were,” says Tony Badran, a Syria expert at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, referring to the Alawites, the schismatic Shia sect to which the Assad clan and the more powerful Syrian regime elites belong. “This, ironically, reinforces the Obama administration’s position, which has drawn a clear line around the regime enclave. The opposition is not to enter Damascus and the coastal cities. So the Russian deployment actually fits well with the administration’s approach.”

Right on cue, then, came Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement Friday that Syria would soon hold new parliamentary elections and inaugurate a power-sharing government with what he deemed a “healthy” opposition. He did not specify what he considered the diseased opposition, although this would almost certainly include Free Syrian Army fighters the CIA and Pentagon has been recruiting as U.S. proxies.

While Putin dismissed the existence of any Russian combat forces in Syria as “premature,” he did allow that he was “looking at various options” for militarily involving himself in the war. Coming from someone who only admits to Russian invasions after the fact, such a signposting of motive should not be ignored.

Moscow’s close coordination with Tehran, both in Damascus and internationally, is also no coincidence. Iran is now busy shopping a new international “peace plan” for Syria, one that goes beyond the parameters of the previously inked Geneva II protocol.

Intriguingly, just weeks after Iran agreed to a deal to control its nuclear program in exchange for international sanctions relief, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of its own expeditionary force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force, flew to Moscow for talks with Russian officials, violating the international travel ban related to his terrorist activity. No doubt solidifying Russian backing for whatever he has planned for Syria was high up on Soleimani’s agenda.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time since the Syrian war broke out that there’s been chatter about Russian troops in Damascus.

In May 2013, sources close to the Kremlin suggested that Putin had dispatched the Zaslon special forces detachment to the Syrian capital. Formed in 1998, and conceived as a clandestine unit combining the purviews of America’s Delta Force and Secret Service, Zaslon consists of a mere 280 highly-trained operatives. It answers to Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the SVR, and is tasked with protecting high-value Russian officials in uncertain conditions and sometimes even conducting assassinations. It was rumored to have killed Iraqi insurgents in 2006 after the latter had captured and executed Russian diplomats.

As Mark Galeotti, a New York University-based specialist on Russia’s military and security forces, observed two years ago: “According to one Russian report, two Zaslon elements were also deployed to Baghdad in the dying days of the [Saddam] Hussein regime. Their mission was to seize or destroy documents which Moscow would have found embarrassing had they ended up in U.S. hands. Given the scale and depth of Russian support for Assad, it could similarly be that they are also in Syria to cover Moscow’s tracks or else ensure that sensitive military technology — including new surface-to-air systems — does not end up in foreign hands.”

>>> Musings on Markets, interesting article.


Musings on Markets


The Fed, Interest Rates and Stock Prices: Fighting the Fear Factor

Posted: 04 Sep 2015 04:47 AM PDT

If it feels like you are reading last year’s business stories in today's paper, there is a simple reason. The Federal Reserve's Open Markets Committee (FOMC) meeting date is approaching, and in a replay of what we have seen ahead of previous meetings, we are being told that this is the one where the Fed will lower the boom on stock markets, by raising interest rates. While this navel gazing may keep market oracles, Fed watchers and CNBC pundits occupied, I think that the Fed’s role in setting interest rates is vastly overstated, and that this fiction is maintained because it is convenient both for the Fed and for the rest of us. I think that there are multiple myths about the Fed’s powers that have taken hold of our collective consciousness, and led us into an investing netherworld. So at the risk of provoking the wrath of Fed watchers everywhere, and repeating what I have said in earlier posts, here are my top four myths about central banks.

1. The Fed sets interest rates
Myth: The Federal Reserve (or the Central Bank of whichever country you are in) sets interest rates, short term as well as long term. In my last post on this topic, I mentioned my tour of the Federal Reserve Building, with my wife and children, and how sorely tempted I was to ask the tour guide whether I could see the interest rate room, the one where Janet Yellen sits, with levers that she can move up or down to change our mortgage rates, the rate at which companies borrow from banks and the market and the rates on US treasuries. 
Reality: There is only one rate that the Federal Reserve sets, and it is the Fed Funds rate. It is the rate at which banks trade funds, that they hold at the Federal Reserve, with each other. Needless to say, not only is this an overnight rate, but it is of little relevance to most of us who don't have access to the Fed windows. While there is a tenuous link of Fed Funds rate to short term market interest rates,  that link becomes much weaker when we look at long term rates and their derivatives.
Why preserve the myth: Giving the Fed the power to set interest rates gives us all a false sense of control over our economic destinies. Thus, if rates are high, we assume that the Fed can lower them by edict and if rates are too low, it can raise it by dictate. If only..

2. Low interest rates are the Fed’s doing
Myth: Interest rates are at historic lows not just in the United States but in much of the developed world, and it is central banking policy that has kept them there, through a policy of quantitative easing The myth acquires additional sheen when accompanied by acronyms such as QE1 and QE2, which bring ocean liners to my mind and a nagging fear that the next Fed move will be titled the Titanic!
Reality: The Fed has had a bond-buying program that is unprecedented and large, but only relative to the Fed's own history. Relative to the size of the US treasury bond market (about $500 billion a day in 2014), the Fed bond-buying (about $60-$85 billion a month) is modest and unlikely to have the influence on interest rates that is attributed to it. So, what has kept rates low? At the risk of rehashing a graph that I have used multiple times, it is far simpler and more fundamental, and it lies in the Fisher equation, which decomposes the nominal interest rate into its expected inflation and real interest rate components:
Nominal Interest Rate = Expected Inflation + Expected Real Interest Rate
If you make the assumption that in the long term, the real interest rate in an economy converges on real growth rate, you have an equation for what I call an intrinsic risk free rate.  In the graph below, I graph out the actual US 10-year treasury bond rate against this intrinsic risk free rate and you can make your own judgment on why rates have been low for the last five years.'

To me, the answer seems self evident. Interest rates in the US (and Europe) have been low because inflation has been non-existent and real growth has been anemic, and it is my guess that rates would have been low, with or without the Fed’s exertions. In fact, the cumulative effect of the Fed's exertions can be measured as the difference between the intrinsic risk free rate and the US treasury bond rate, and during the entire quantitative easing period of 2008-2014, it amounted to about 0.13%. It is true that the jump in US GDP in the most recent quarter  has widened the difference between the treasury bond rate and the intrinsic interest rate, but it remains to be seen whether this increase is a precursor to more healthy growth in the future, or just an one-quarter aberration. 
Why preserve the myth: I think it is much more comforting for developed market investors to think of low interest rates as an unmitigated good, pushing up stock and bond prices, rather than as a depressing signal of future growth and low inflation (perhaps even deflation) in much of the developed world. That problem will not be fixed by Fed meetings and is symptomatic of shifts in global economic power and a re-apportioning of the world economic pie.

3. The reason stock prices are so high is because rates are low
Myth: Stock prices are high today because interest rates are at historic lows. If interest rates revert back to normal levels, stock prices will collapse. 
Reality: Low interest rates have been a mixed blessing for stocks. The low rates, by themselves, make stocks more attractive relative to the alternative of investing in bonds. But if the low rates are symptomatic of low inflation and low real growth, they do have effects on the cash flows that can partially or completely offset the effect of low rates. One way to decompose the effects is to compute forward-looking expected returns on stocks, given stock prices today and expected cash flows from dividends and buybacks in the future to see how much of the stock price effect is fueled by interest rates and how much by cash flow changes. If this bull market has been entirely or mostly driven by the drop in interest rates, the expected return on stocks should have declined in line with the drop in interest rates. In my most recent update on this number at close of trading on August 31, 2015, I estimated an expected return of 8.50%, almost unchanged from the level in 2009 and higher than the expected return in 2007. 
At least based on my estimates, the primary driver of stock prices has been the extraordinary fountain of cash that companies have been able to return in the last few years, combined with a capacity to grow earnings over the same period. By the same token, if you are concerned about cash flows, it should be with the sustainability of these cash flows, for two reasons. The first is that earnings will be under pressure, given the strength of the dollar and the weakness in China, and this is starting to show up already, with 2015 earnings about 5-10% below 2014 levels.  The second is that companies will not be able to keep returning as much as they are in cash flows; in 2015, the cash returned to stockholders stood at 91% of earnings, a number well above historic norms. In the table below, I check to see how much the index, which was at 1951.13 at the close of trading on September 3, would be affected by an increase in interest rates (increasing the US 10-year T.Bond rate from the 2.27% on September 3, to 5%) as contrasted with a drop in cash flows (with a maximum drop of 25%, coming from a combination of earnings decline and reduced cash payout):
Base: S&P 500 on September 3= 1951.13, T.Bond rate = 2.27%; ERP = 6.34%, g=6.30%
If you hold cash flows constant, an increase in interest rates has a relatively small effect on stock prices, with stock prices dropping 8.76%, even if the US T.Bond rate rises to 5%.  In contrast, if cash flows drop, the index drops proportionately, even if interest rates remain unchanged. You are welcome to make your own "bad news" assumptions and check out the effect on value in this spreadsheet.
Why preserve the myth: For perpetual bears, wrong time and again in the last five years about stocks, the Fed (and low interest rates) have become a convenient bogeyman for why their market bets have gone wrong. If only the Fed had behaved sensibly and if only interest rates were at normal levels (though normal is theirs to define), they bemoan, their market timing forecasts would have been vindicated. 

4. The biggest danger to the Fed is that the market will react violently to a change in its interest rate policy
Myth: The biggest danger to the Fed is that, if it reverses its policy of zero interest rates and stops its bond buying, stock and bond markets will drop dramatically.
Reality: While no central bank wants to be blamed for a market meltdown, the bigger danger, in my view, is that the Fed does what it has been promising to for so long, and nothing happens. That is a good thing, you might say, and while I agree with you in the short term, the long-term consequences for Fed credibility are damaging and here is why. The best analogy that I can offer for the Fed and its role on interest rates is the story of Chanticleer, a rooster that is the strutting master of the barnyard that he lives in, revered by the other farm animals because he is the one who causes the sun to rise every morning with his crowing (or so they think). In the story, Chanticleer’s hubris leads him to abandon his post one morning, and when the sun comes up anyway, the rooster loses his exalted standing. Given the build up we have had over the last few years to the momentous decision to change interest rate policy, think of how much our perceptions of Fed power will change, if stock and bond markets respond with yawns to an interest rate policy shift.
Why we hold on to the myth: If you buy into the first three myths, this one follows. After all, if you believe that the Fed sets interest rates, that it has deliberately kept interest rates low for the last five years and that stock prices are high because interest rates are low, you should fear a change in that policy. Coupled with China, you have the excuses for your underperformance this year, thus absolving yourself of all responsibility for your choices. How convenient?

What next?
Over the last five years, we have developed an unhealthy obsession with the Federal Reserve, in particular, and central banks, in general, and I think that there is plenty of blame to go around. Investors have abdicated their responsibilities for assessing growth, cash flows and value, and taken to watching the Fed and wondering what it is going to do next, as if that were the primary driver of stock prices. The Fed has happily accepted the role of market puppet master, with Federal Bank governors seeking celebrity status, and piping up about inflation, the level of stock prices and interest rate policy. Market watchers, journalists and economists have found stories about the Fed to be great fillers that they can use to fill financial TV shows, newspaper and opinion columns.

I don't know what will happen at the FOMC meeting, but I hope that it announces an end to it's "interest rate magic show". I think that there is enough pent up fear in markets that the initial reaction will be negative, but I am hoping that investors move on to healthier, and more real, concerns about economic growth and earnings sustainability. If the Fed does make its move, the best news will be that we will not have to go through more rounds of obsessive Fed watching, second-guessing and punditry.

Past Posts
  1. The Fed and Interest Rates: Lessons from Oz (June 21, 2013)
  2. Dealing with Low Interest Rates: Investing and Corporate Finance Lessons (April 2015)
Data
  1. Interest Rates, Stock Prices and Expected Returns
Spreadsheets

FT : G20 supports China’s efforts to stabilise economy

G20 supports China’s efforts to stabilise economy

China received broad international support for its economic policy and changes to its currency peg on Saturday, with finance ministers and central bankers from the world’s leading economies accepting Beijing was managing a difficult economic transition.
The Chinese authorities managed to convince most leading finance ministers and central bankers that is devaluation and new currency management arrangements were a step on the road to a more market-determined exchange rate.

Their success dispelled some official fears that China’s new exchange rate regime, introduced on August 11 and which has sparked global turmoil in financial markets, was a competitive devaluation designed to boost its exports.
The relief about China’s intentions came as the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors, representing 85 per cent of the global economy, pledged to take steps to improve growth and expressed confidence in the economic outlook. The optimism came despite evidence that global growth is falling short of expectations.
Speaking after the two-day meeting in Ankara, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said there had been a very open dialogue with China over its economy and policies and she thought it “extremely comforting to have that level of understanding”.
On the sidelines of the meeting, European ministers and officials also showed firm support for Beijing. Wolfgang Schäuble, German finance minister, said the G20 agreed there was no reason to fear slower Chinese growth.
George Osborne, UK chancellor, said China was going through a difficult transition from an investment-led economy to one more dependent on consumption and the authorities commitments had been more open than before. “We don’t want to see that blown off course. The messages we’ve been receiving here about that have been encouraging”.
Pierre Moscovici, the EU Commissioner for Economic Affairs, praised “the absolute determination of the [Chinese] authorities to sustain growth”.
Growth is too low, productivity is too low, trade numbers are too low, investment is too low, infrastructure projects are too few and the only thing that is too high is unemployment
- Christine Lagarde, International Monetary Fund
European enthusiasm for Beijing was replicated in softer terms by US officials. Jack Lew, US Treasury secretary, pressed Lou Jiwei, his Chinese counterpart, for a signal that China would allow market pressures to drive the renminbi up as well as down.
A senior US Treasury official added that since the new currency regime was in place, “the [authorities’] interventions have been to stabilise” to “prevent an uncontrolled drop”, but he added the real test would come if the authorities let the currency rise when there was market pressure for an appreciating renminbi. He urged Beijing in future to communicate its intentions better.
Only Japan expressed dissatisfaction at the explanations China gave to the G20. Taro Aso, the Japanese finance minister criticised Chinese representatives for an incomplete explanation of their motives. “They may have tried to be constructive, but they weren’t detailed enough”, he told reporters.
The G20 communique sought to bind China into its commitments with a common pledge to “refrain from competitive devaluations” and to “avoid persistent exchange rate misalignments”.
Although the meeting was clouded by uncertainty over the global outlook and growth falling short of previous expectations, the ministers “pledged to take decisive action to keep the economic recovery on track”, adding that “we are confident the global economic recovery will gain speed”.
G20 defies gloom to forecast rise in growth
An investor gestures as he checks share prices at a securities firm in Shanghai on August 26, 2015. Shanghai stocks closed down 1.27 percent in volatile trading on August 26, extending days of falls despite a central bank interest rate cut aimed at boosting the flagging economy and slumping shares, dealers said. CHINA OUT AFP PHOTO
Finance ministers from world’s largest economies to issue upbeat communique
Read more
Ms Lagarde again urged the US Federal Reserve not to raise interest rates until it was absolutely sure it had fulfilled its mandate on price stability and the labour market although she declined to put a date when the Fed should act.
The G20, however, concluded that “monetary policy alone cannot lead to balanced growth” and urged members to reinforce actions to reform their economies to boost both actual growth rates and the potential for expansion.
Highlighting what she called the “urgency of implementation”, Ms Lagarde said that moderate global economic performance was not good enough. “Most things are just too low. Growth is too low, productivity is too low, trade numbers are too low, investment is too low, infrastructure projects are too few and the only thing that is too high is unemployment”.

>>> Eni chairman says all options open for Saipem stake

Eni chairman says all options open for Saipem stake 

Emma Marcegaglia, the chairman of listed petroleum group Eni, has said that all options are open with regard to the sale of its 43% stake in oil services group Saipem, Italian language daily Il Sole 24 Ore reported. The report cited Marcegaglia as saying that the priority for Eni was to deconsolidate Saipem's debt.

The item also said Marcegaglia did not rule out a sale of a stake in Saipem to CdP, the holding of the Italian Treasury,, However, Marcegaglia added that Eni was pursuing a number of scenarios and that it was only in the initial stages of deciding the fate of its stake in Saipem.


The report interpreted Marcegaglia's remarks as an indication that Eni was in no hurry to sell its stake in Saipem, especially since Saipem was carrying out a restructuring to allow it to deal with the worsening market caused by the fall in oil price.

As previously reported, CdP holds a 26% stake in Eni.

Saipem has a market cap of EUR 3.45bn.

Il Sole 24 Ore

(Barron's) U.S. Stocks Could Rally More Than 10% by Year End

U.S. Stocks Could Rally More Than 10% by Year End

Wall Street’s top strategists are bullish on U.S. stocks through the end of this year and into 2016. Why they like technology, financials.


The bull has stumbled, but his run isn’t over. Despite the stock market’s first 10%-plus correction in four years, touched off last month by fresh indications of slowing growth in China’s once robust economy, Wall Street’s top strategists remain optimistic that U.S. shares will finish the year with a gain, albeit a smaller one than they previously had forecast. Stocks will pick up the pace in 2016 as investors stronger profit growth, they say.


Collectively, the strategists expect the Standard & Poor’s 500 index to rise to 2150 by the end of the year, which would mean a gain of more than 10% from Friday’s close of 1921.22. Their year-end outlook implies a return of 4.4% for the full year. Barron’ssurveys a group of 10 prominent market strategists every September and December, to gauge their outlook for stocks, bonds, and the economy in the year ahead.

With memories of the 2008 financial crisis still somewhat fresh, it might seem churlish to sniff at a 12-month return of 4% to 5%. Yet 2015 has hardly measured up to Wall Street’s initial expectations. Last December, the strategists were forecasting that the S&P would advance 10% in 2015, to 2200; the index peaked year to date in May, at 2130.82. By way of comparison, stocks gained 11% last year, 30% in 2013, and 13% in 2014.


Scott Pollack for Barron's

The strategists’ year-end targets for the S&P 500 range from a low of 2100 to a high of 2200. That’s a much tighter range than in December.

The average of their 2015 profit expectations for the S&P 500 is $120.25, down from $127 as the year opened. These market seers see S&P earnings rising by 7% in 2016, to $129. (That consensus figure is based on eight estimates, as some strategists haven’t yet established their 2016 price targets or earnings estimates.)

With the summer’s setback, the market’s valuation has fallen from historically high levels. The S&P 500 index now trades for 14.8 times 2016 consensus earnings estimates, down from 16 to 17 times forward estimates earlier in the year, and a long-term average of 15. Some of our seers look for the stock market’s price/earnings ratio, or P/E, to expand in the months ahead, possibly returning to 16 or 17 times earnings.

At this point in the year, there isn’t much of a gap in earnings estimates between the Street’s strategists and industry analysts, who are predicting S&P profits of $119. The analysts, typically more optimistic, forecast an 11% gain in 2016, to $132, according to Thomson Reuters.

ALTHOUGH THE TONE of the strategists’ commentary seems less upbeat than in past surveys, there is no dissent in the group on the market’s direction: upward. Any disagreements are over how fast and by how much. “U.S. stock valuations are reasonable given the prospects for growth and inflation,” says Russ Koesterich, global chief investment strategist at BlackRock, who worried about “stretched” valuations last December.

Near term, he says, stocks are “particularly attractive relative to bonds.”

Dubravko Lakos-Bujas, chief U.S. equity strategist at JPMorgan Chase, agrees. Compared with international markets, the U.S. provides stocks of superior quality, he says.

The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds fell last week to 2.13% from the previous week’s 2.19%. Yields were 2.12% at the start of this year. The strategists’ mean forecast calls for yields to rise to 2.47% in the fourth quarter (bond yields rise inversely to prices), based in part on an assumption that the Federal Reserve will move to lift interest rates before the end of the year.

The S&P 500’s dividend yield is 2.24%.

The “earnings yield gap” is another measure that indicates stocks are fairly cheap. It compares the market’s earnings yield, or the inverse of the P/E, now about 6%, to the 10-year Treasury yield. The spread is roughly four percentage points, much higher than the 1.2-percentage-point average of the past 20 years.


Poor economic data from China rocked markets again last week. Still, the U.S. market’s correction “was a long time in coming,” says Jeffrey Knight, head of global asset allocation at Columbia Threadneedle Investments. The downdraft here had more to do “with the length of time since the last [major selloff], and investor complacency, than with any particular catalyst, China notwithstanding,” he says.

Knight expects the S&P 500 to end the year at 2150.

The magnitude and speed of the initial selloff in August were surprising and relatively rare in the annals of stock market history, says Adam Parker, Morgan Stanley’s head of U.S. equity strategy. It might be that “China is a scapegoat” for other issues, he says, such as the dollar’s rise in value, emerging-market woes, plunging oil prices, and the uncertainty over the timing of the Fed’s next move.

Despite these concerns, Parker sees “a relatively benign backdrop for U.S. equities,” with slow economic growth, low inflation, and a gradual but slow tightening of monetary policy by the Fed.

JOHN PRAVEEN, chief investment strategist at Prudential International Investments Advisers, recently lowered his 2015 S&P target by 100 points, to 2150. Nevertheless, like most strategists, he thinks earnings could improve in the current and fourth quarters, on the back of stronger U.S. gross-domestic-product growth. U.S. GDP was revised upward to 3.7% in the second quarter, but the economy grew by a mere 0.6% in the first three months of the year.

Praveen expects GDP growth to top 3.5% in the second half, helped by a buoyant housing market, solid consumer spending, and rising consumer confidence and employment. The strategists’ mean prediction calls for 2.5% GDP growth in 2015, up from 2.4% in 2014.

For all of the concerns about China and emerging-market dislocations, David Kostin, chief U.S. equity strategist at Goldman Sachs, says the Middle Kingdom’s struggles “will not derail the U.S. economic expansion.” Approximately 2% of the revenue of S&P 500 constituents is generated in China, and U.S. exports account for just 13% of GDP, with less than 1% going to China.

As even neophyte investors know, stocks are driven by profit growth—or the lack thereof. With the economy expanding, our strategists expect second-half corporate profits to exceed first-half results and, more important, exceed expectations.

Even before this year’s setbacks in China and other emerging markets, U.S. stock indexes were struggling to make big strides. Blame that on subpar profit growth in general, and trouble in the energy sector in particular.

IN THE FIRST AND SECOND QUARTERS, S&P 500 earnings rose just 2% and 1%, respectively. That is far less than the double-digit profit gains projected last October, according to Thomson Reuters. Additionally, this year’s profits are down sharply so far from 2014, when S&P earnings rose 8%. S&P 500 energy-sector profits plummeted nearly 60% in this year’s first and second quarters. Analysts look for a 3.4% decline in S&P 500 earnings in the third quarter, and a 2.2% rise in the fourth. That would not seem to be a promising recipe for a meaningful stock market advance.

But BlackRock’s Koesterich expects that third- and fourth-quarter earnings will be better than expected. After the anniversaries of the dollar’s rise and oil’s plunge—which both began about 12 months ago— the comparisons will get easier, he says.

U.S. economic data might be spotty, but they reveal that the U.S. economy is weathering the slowdown in China. The Institute for Supply Management reported last week that its manufacturing purchasing managers index fell to 51.1% in August from 52.7% in July, but the latest level still indicates expansion. Orders for durable goods rose 2% in July, after a 4.1% increase in June.

Prudential’s Praveen expects S&P 500 earnings to jump nearly 5% for the full year, after a poor first-half showing.

Earnings will look better for many non-energy-sector companies, even if business doesn’t improve, says Tobias Levkovich, chief U.S. equity strategist at Citigroup’s Citi Investment Research. Some of the drag from lower oil prices will dissipate, along with the some of the impact of a strong dollar on companies with international sales. Sentiment is subdued, valuations are OK, and there will be benefits from job growth, wage increases, and lower energy prices, says Levkovich. He has a year-end target of 2200 on the S&P 500 index.

According to Savita Subramanian, head of U.S. equity and quantitative strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, investors will be begin to anticipate better profit growth for 2016 toward the end of this year, which will help to bolster stocks prices. She has a year-end target of 2200 on the S&P 500, one of three strategists with the same telescope.

Corporate share buybacks, which reduce shares outstanding, will continue to contribute to earnings-per-share growth, as has been the case in recent years, says JPMorgan’s Lakos-Bujas. He thinks there will be positive revisions to earnings per share, and notes that buybacks among S&P 500 companies already have totaled about $439 billion so far this year. They are on pace to surpass the previous annual record of $690 billion, according to JPMorgan. “Buybacks could add two to 2.5 percentage points” to earnings growth if the pace persists, he says.


JONATHAN GLIONNA, head of U.S. equity strategy at Barclays, is best described as a subdued bull. Glionna, who hasn’t changed his 2015 year-end target for the S&P 500 since last December—it’s 2100—concedes that because the market has reset lower, there is a “decent outlook” for the rest of the year. But with the index trading for 1.6 times expected sales, he worries that investors might be paying too much for growth. Historically, parity has been the rule.

The price/sales ratio is an even loftier 3.5 times for the 100 stocks in the S&P 500 with the fastest-growing expected revenue. Glionna says that both revenue and earnings growth aren’t strong enough to justify so high a valuation.

UNTIL CHINA ROCKED WALL STREET by devaluing its currency in the aftermath of disappointing revelations about the pace of the nation’s growth, the Federal Reserve’s intended actions were the talk of the Street. It has been expected, at various times and in various quarters, that the U.S. central bank would raise its interest-rate target in September, or December, or maybe even next year.

The strategists Barron’s consulted generally agree that the Fed will raise rates sometime this year—and that it will be a good thing, too. But they don’t agree on the timing. Most are counting on calm returning to Asian markets, and they expect the Shanghai Composite stock index, which has fallen 40% from its highs, to stabilize at some point, too.

Similarly, they look for oil prices to bottom and the U.S. dollar to stop surging. Greater stability in other markets and asset prices could encourage Fed Chair Janet Yellen and her team to act, rather than delay a decision on rates.

At the start of the year, the strategists expected the Fed to begin normalizing monetary policy by midyear, by lifting its federal-funds rate target above the abnormally low 0% to 0.25% range that has prevailed since December 2008. The federal-funds rate is the overnight lending rate banks charge one another for funds maintained at the Fed.

Such predictions have since gone by the boards. The strategists are evenly split at this juncture between those who see a modest hike coming later this month or in December. The call typically is made by each firm, not by individuals on the strategy team.

For years, investors took solace from the Fed’s highly accommodative monetary policy. But now it is time for rates to rise and credit to tighten, the strategists say, as the U.S. economy looks to be gaining steam.

FED WATCHERS HAVE been viewing a monetary-policy-themed version ofGroundhog Day for the past two years, wherein each time it seemed that the Fed was about to raise interest rates, something happened to stay its hand. Last year, European bond yields plunged. Lately, there have been fears that dislocations in China and other emerging markets could restrain inflation or promote deflation. The U.S. central bank maintains an inflation-rate target of 2%.

“If the volatility continues, the Fed won’t hike in September,” says Stephen Auth, chief investment officer of Federated Investors. It will do so when things calm down, says Auth, who has been among the most bullish Street strategists for several years.


He recently took his 2015 S&P target down to 2200 from a prior 2350. But next year, he expects the benchmark index to rally to 2500.

“I’m looking forward to a [rate] hike,” says Auth. “The market needs a return of normalcy.”

A 1% federal-funds rate is good for the economy, good for the banks, and still good for corporate debt funding, he says.

Auth sounds no less bullish than in December, despite the ratcheting down of his S&P price target. He sees an “impressive rally” in the fourth quarter. Markets are underestimating the ability of China to get its house in order, and with a “massive $3.5 trillion in currency reserves,” the country has the wherewithal to combat its problems, he says. This isn’t like the emerging-markets problems of 1997-98, when underdeveloped countries had few currency reserves and current account deficits, he says. China, in contrast, is a creditor nation.

By November or December, says Auth, investors will see that “China is not blowing up” and earnings are improving. With the U.S. job market showing strength, consumers reaping the benefits of lower energy prices, and the dollar’s muscle baked into earnings comparisons, the “stage is set” for another big stock market rally in the fourth quarter, going into 2016. “That’s where you will get a big rush into equities,” says Auth.

Bull markets, he notes, end when recessions hit or valuations become extended, and “we aren’t there yet.”

FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, investors whooped it up each time the Fed was forced to postpone raising interest rates. Now, however, “if the Fed doesn’t tighten, it would be a negative signal on a global basis,” says Merrill’s Subramanian.

“It needs to be this year,” adds BlackRock’s Koesterich of a rate increase. “When you look at the strength in the labor market, it is hard to justify that zero is the correct policy rate,” he says.

The U.S. Dept. of Labor reported on Friday that unemployment fell to 5.1% in August from 5.3% in July.

It is one thing to be bullish about the outlook for the S&P 500 and its fellow indexes. But where, exactly, should investors put their money? A majority of strategists favor information-technology stocks, particularly after the sector’s 5% slide this year. Tech, says Barclays’ Glionna, offers strong profit margins, the fastest dividend growth in the past three years, for which it doesn’t get credit, and share buybacks, which help to lift earnings per share, and thus, stock prices.

Moreover, capital-expenditure trends are favorable, notes Citi’s Levkovich. Corporations need to refresh their computer systems and move into cloud computing, jobs growth leads to use of more technology, and cybersecurity is becoming increasingly mission-critical.

Certain technology subindustries, such as semiconductor manufacturing, could benefit from the recent decline in the Chinese yuan, which will reduce costs, says JPMorgan’s Lakos-Bujas.

Indeed, in a world where growth is weak, tech is one of a few areas likely to see revenue gains. And now, valuations have fallen. Kostin, of Goldman Sachs, likesAlliance Data Systems (ticker: ADS), a Plano, Texas–based provider of branded credit-card, marketing, and customer-loyalty programs.

FINANCIALS HAVE REPLACED industrials as the Street’s second-favorite market sector. When the Fed finally lifts its rate target, perhaps to 1%, that will benefit banks and insurance companies. Net-interest-margin spreads could widen. Strengthening economic growth could foster credit growth, while an expanding housing market could be a positive for this mostly domestic sector, which is down 9% this year. And like tech, Glionna points out, financials are showing fast dividend growth in 2015.

Morgan Stanley’s Parker says financials could see the most growth in shareholder return, and they have little exposure to the rising greenback. Valuations are unchallenging, as well. Among them, he likes Bank of America (BAC).

There are differences of opinion, too, about the details of a market recovery. For example, Goldman’s Kostin advocates a “Buy America” theme, favoring companies that derive most of their profits from the U.S. and have little or no exposure to emerging markets.

Others, like Subramanian, say it is time to buy the now-cheaper megacap U.S. stocks that have substantial international exposure because they are able to grab share during tough times.

She is also one of the few strategists to favor the decimated energy sector, which looks to be an interesting contrarian call. Energy stocks are down 21% or more this year, reflecting a precipitous drop in the price of oil that began last fall. Subramanian notes that mutual funds specializing in large-cap stocks have record underweight positions in energy shares, even as industry analysts have stopped cutting their earnings estimates and are starting to revise them upward.

The sector trades for 1.5 times book value. The last time the group reached such an inexpensive extreme, it outperformed in the following year by 33 percentage points.

Subramanian likes ExxonMobil (XOM), which makes her a rarity these days. The stock yields nearly 4% and typically suffers less than other integrated energy companies when oil prices fall, due to the benefit of lower prices to its extensive refining operations.

KNIGHT’S FAVORABLE VIEW of telecom stocks is another out-of-consensus call. The group is down 6% this year. In the past, strategists have viewed telecoms as bond proxies that would be hurt by rising rates. The Columbia Threadneedle strategist says the sector, dominated by Verizon Communications (VZ) and AT&T (T), offers attractive dividends and defensive characteristics, and has underperformed in the recent selloff. That creates an opportunistic entry point, he adds.

Knight also thinks investors who want to “buy the dip” should look at markets outside of the U.S., “where there are way bigger dips to buy.” Some markets fell for good reason, he adds, but he notes that Taiwan and Korea might offer good value.

Another internationally focused strategist is Koesterich. Stocks outside of the U.S. are more reasonably valued, and face less of a currency head wind, he says, particularly in developed markets such as Europe and Japan. European net profit margins, running around 6%, have room to grow, compared with record-high U.S. profit margins of 8% to 9%.

German stocks are down 6% in dollar terms this year. Koesterich likes the iShares Currency Hedged MSCI Germany exchange-traded fund (HEWG), a currency-hedged ETF that mimics the MSCI’s index for Germany. (IShares is owned by BlackRock.)

The utilities sector, down 14%, is the least favored among the strategists. It is likely to be affected negatively when the Fed finally begins to raise rates. It also offers little growth, and the shares aren’t particularly cheap.

The strategists don’t think much of materials stocks either, as plunging commodities prices in the past 12 months have dented companies’ revenue, earnings, and prospects.

ALTHOUGH WALL STREET’S STRATEGISTS generally have been bullish and prescient in recent years, many things could dash their optimism. Perhaps most important, they are betting that the dislocations in China and emerging markets will be temporary in nature, and won’t have much of an impact on the U.S.

China’s economic growth might continue to slow, “but it will be good enough not to blow the rest of us up,” says Federated’s Auth.

Yet, investors’ fears about contagion could overwhelm reality. As JPMorgan’s Lakos-Bujas points out, in extended selloffs such as last month’s, technical factors like poor breadth, and reduced liquidity sometimes overpower fundamentals. “Spikes in volatility can create technical deteriorations that foster a negative feedback loop, and fundamentals no longer hold,” he says.

In bull years, the rally that began in March 2009 is getting old. But no matter the tremors in the rest of the world, earnings will drive stock prices over time. The big bet on Wall Street is that corporate earnings will improve next year, allowing this bull market to celebrate yet another birthday. 

(Barron's) European Retail and Real Estate Stocks Headed Higher

European Retail and Real Estate Stocks Headed Higher
Europe must still cope with China and deflation. But certain sectors still look like opportunities.

Dow Jones Global Indexes | Global Stock Markets

European investors received a much-needed shot in the arm last week when the European Central Bank hinted it could expand its quantitative-easing program to help combat pressure on inflation from weak commodities prices and China’s economic woes.

The Stoxx Europe 600 index closed more than 2.3% higher on Thursday after ECB President Mario Draghi stressed the central bank’s “willingness and ability to act if warranted.”

Stocks around the world have taken a battering lately, as oil prices resumed their downward path, and China, a key export market for the euro zone, continued to push out disappointing economic data. Following Thursday’s gains, the Stoxx index had still tumbled by almost 12% from the previous month.

The problems afflicting markets have upset the ECB’s efforts to lift inflation, dampening the positive impact of its 60 billion euros ($67.44 billion) a month bond-buying program launched earlier this year. As a result, its initial signs of success turned out to be short-lived.

The euro dropped to about $1.05 when QE was launched in March, but more recently crept back to around $1.12 ahead of last week’s ECB announcement.

At Thursday’s meeting, the ECB reduced its inflation forecast for this year to 0.1% from its previous figure of 0.3%, which itself was modest relative to its medium-term target of just under 2%. In August, euro-zone inflation was only 0.2% on the year. The ECB also lowered its expectations for next year to 1.1% from 1.5%, and for 2017, to 1.7% from 1.8%.

Some adjustment had been widely expected following comments from the central bank’s Chief Economist Peter Praet a week earlier, who warned the risk of Europe suffering weak inflation in the longer term had increased.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Europe economist Gilles Moec had expected minor tweaking to the ECB’s monetary policy, with the possibility of a more substantial move further out. “In the medium run, we believe the negative risk to consumer prices from the China-related turmoil matters more than the adverse shock on growth,” he says.

Hopes that China’s problems weren’t as deep-rooted as some feared were shaken on Tuesday when the country published weaker-than-expected manufacturing data.

Apart from the likely positive impact on European stocks from more extensive monetary intervention, investors are buoyed by the prospect that ongoing economic weakness will continue to keep a lid on interest rates. Janus Capital reckons China’s woes and low rates will be especially helpful for Europe’s retailers and property businesses. “China’s weakness to some extent is a boon to consumers, with lower oil and gasoline prices, lower prices on imported goods such as apparel, and lower raw-material prices overall. Retailers can do well if positioned to take advantage of healthier and savvier consumers,” says Janus European Equity Strategy fund portfolio manager Wahid Chammas.

LOW INTEREST RATES, in particular, should be good for European real estate businesses, he says. “The property market is firming throughout Europe and looks especially attractive in Germany,” he says, as lower rates keep prices high and provide cheap financing for acquisitions.

He says Germany has one of the fastest growth rates in household formation, as people continue migrating from the countryside to cities and as the number of working immigrants increases. “The German housing market is one of the lowest priced when considering their [gross domestic product] per capita, their average wage rate versus house prices, and their low interest rates,” he says.

Vonovia (ticker: VNA.Germany), formerly Deutsche Annington Immobilien, Germany’s largest residential real estate player, last month reported that its funds from operations more than doubled in the first half of the year to €264.3 million from €130.3 million a year earlier. JPMorgan Cazenove’s European property analyst, Tim Leckie, described the figures as “positive” and in line with the bank’s upbeat view of the company.

He has the stock at Overweight with a €32.50 price target. It closed on Friday at €29.57.

Among retailers, says Chammas, many apparel and food “discounters” in the United Kingdom have generated strong growth that should go further. “Online retailers continue to see positive momentum, and it is another area that we expect positive growth from,” he says.

RBC Capital Markets analyst Richard Chamberlain says a challenging summer for European apparel retailers is likely to give way to a stronger fall and winter period. Among others, he favors undervalued British stocks, such as Debenhams (DEB.UK). Last week, he upgraded the company to Outperform with a 100-pence ($1.53) price target. He expects Debenhams to post its first full-year pretax profit in four years in October, something he says isn’t currently factored into the share price. The stock closed Friday at 74 pence.

(ZeroHedge) What Does It Mean If The Fed Hikes... And If It Doesn't

What Does It Mean If The Fed Hikes... And If It Doesn't
Today's jobs report was supposed to be a tiebreaker for the Fed's September rate decision, giving fed funds and eurodollar traders some respite after a summer that has been a gut-wrenching, dramamine-chewing rollercoster. It did not, in fact it boosted uncertainty, with the probability of a September rate hike rising from 26% to 30%.

 

In other words, any hope for clarity was promptly dashed with a job report that once again was both bad and good, depending on one's bias.
Which means that the September 17th decision will come to the absolute wire, with little if any guidance available in the 13 days left until what may be the Fed's first rate hike in 9 years... or not.
Here is an oddly accurate explanation of what it means if the Fed does hike rates on September, and alternatively, what it means if Yellen punts once again, and leaves the decision to the October or December meeting, or just punts to 2016 and onward altogether. As a reminder, Goldman does not expect the Fed to hike on September 17.
On Wall Street only 2 things matter: interest rates and earnings. Everything else is noise unless it impacts rates and earnings. No-one impacts interest rates more than the Fed. So the Fed’s September 17th rate hike decision is a big deal.

 

Should the Fed decide to raise interest rates, it will be the first Fed hike since June 29th 2006. In the 110 months that have since past, global central banks have cut interest rates 697 times, central banks have bought $15 trillion of financial assets, zero [or negative] interest rates policies have been adopted in the US, Europe & Japan. And, following the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, both stocks and corporate bonds have soared to all-time highs thanks in great part to this extraordinary monetary regime.

 

As noted above, a rate hike with a stroke ends this era. So:

 

If they don’t hike…
  • It’s an admission that Wall Street threatens to reverse the recovery on Main Street
  • It will lead to a short-term relief rally on Wall Street
  • It will be relatively positive for EM/commodities/resources, as it unwinds the higher US growth/rates/dollar narrative
  • It will be positive for higher-yielding assets
  • It will be positive for growth > value, as the Fed is confirming the deflationary recovery
  • In short, if the Fed’s failure to hike does not lead investors to completely abandon hope on growth and scurry into gold, cash & volatility, then look for the “barbell of 1999” to reemerge: Über-growth & Über-value were massive outperformers after the Asia crisis (Chart 9).

 

If they do hike…
  • Watch the long-end
  • If the long-end concurs with the Fed’s view of economic recovery, then banks, cyclicals and value stocks will receive a bid. Asset allocation toward “strong dollar” & “Fed tightening plays” will harden, with the exception that value will likely outperform growth
  • If the long-end rallies, signaling a policy mistake, then cash, volatility, gold & defensive growth will be the way to go.
Most importantly, if the long-end rallies, it's almost over and get ready to bail on any outperforming long-end position, as the reaction itself will signal the beginning of the end of the fiat regime.

>>> Carrefoursa re-IPO plan on hold as retailer focuses on small

Carrefoursa re-IPO plan on hold as retailer focuses on small targets - CEO
Carrefoursa [IST:CRFSA], the Turkish retailer, has put its re-IPO plan on hold as it focuses on absorbing acquisitions and growing organically and inorganically, according to CEO Mehmet Nane.

"Our advisers offered a re-IPO as an alternative to finance the TRY 429.6m (USD 166m) acquisition of Kiler Alisveris Hizmetleri [IST:KILER], but we decided to rule it out as our first option. We have a strong war chest to cover acquisitions," he said. "If there's a need, we'll choose long-term borrowing as an alternative."

However, a source familiar with the plan said the re-IPO option is still "on the cards" for the first quarter of next year. The timing of any share sale would be determined in accordance with market conditions, the source added.

Carrefoursa is a joint venture between diversified Turkish enttity Sabanci Holding [IST:SAHOL] and French retailer Carrefour [EPA:CA]. Sabanci holds 50.93% and Carrefour owns 46.19%; the remaining 2.05% is freefloat on the Borsa Istanbul.

An Istanbul-based analyst noted that a secondary offering would also allow Carrefour to reduce its holding and help the company access fresh capital.

The source said the offering’s size and structure have not been decided yet. "The share sale process could be similar to Kordsa Global [IST:KORDS], a fabric producer -- which is also a subsidiary of Sabanci Holding,” the source noted.

Sabanci ran an investor roadshow in April but postponed plans to place Kordsa shares because of market conditions. It completed the stake sale in late May, reducing its holding to 71.11% from 91.1%.

The analyst noted Sabanci had some TRY 800m (USD 272m) in cash, after the disposals of subsidiary Sasa [IST:SASA] and a 20% stake in Kordsa, and could back Carrefoursa’s acquisitions.

Carrefoursa, which runs 480 stores within Turkey, is focused on adapting newly bought stores from Kiler, acquired on 15 May. "Kiler’s acquisition will help to penetrate further in central Turkey," Nane said. The deal was closed on 30 June after approvals from the Competition Board. Through the acquisition, Carrefoursa added 190 supermarket stores to its portfolio.

The second quarter sales at Carrefoursa increased 12% year-on-year to TRY 861m (USD 304m) mainly through organic and inorganic store expansion. "New store openings temporarily burden Carrefoursa’s profitability. As those stores mature, their full potential will be reflected," a company report noted. The retailer plans to increase its store count to 750 and its revenue to TRY 5bn (USD 1.7b) next year. It posted revenue of TRY 3bn last year.

In March, Carrefoursa bought 29 supermarkets from Antalya-based hard discount retail chain 1e1 Market. “Carrefoursa and Migros [IST:MGROS] -- key players in the supermarket sector -- have started to focus more on proximity stores to penetrate the country in a more effective way,” Renaissance Capital analyst Mete Ozbek wrote in a research note.

“Hard discounters are losing their competitive advantage, as price differences between discounters and supermarkets are increasingly blurred and supermarkets focus on proximity stores,” Ozbek said.