UK on track but borrowing and tax to rise
Britain faces years of steeper public borrowing, slower debt reduction and higher taxes after the May election — whichever party is in power — despite the economic recovery remaining on track, according to the Financial Times’ annual survey of economists. The plunge in oil prices alongside rising incomes will continue to heal the wounds of the great recession, most of the economists surveyed believe. But in a blow to chancellor George Osborne, a large majority of the 95 respondents thought the next government was unlikely to stick to plans for deep spending cuts to reduce the deficit. After a solid year of growth, which was predicted by economists at the start of 2014, the nation’s leading forecasters expect the new year to be similar, with a "decent" recovery continuing even if expansion slows slightly. Dame Kate Barker, a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said the fall in the oil price would boost consumption in the first half of the year. But many economists believe that the uncertainties surrounding the May election risk undermining the momentum in the economy. Sir Howard Davies captured the nervousness felt by many economists that the lack of a majority government or strong coalition government after the vote could knock back the economic recovery. "A messy coalition could be negative. Major projects would be thrown into uncertainty, and there would be market doubts about the government’s ability to take needed tough decisions," he said. The majority of economists who expressed a view said they would cut their growth forecasts if the next government sought a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. Whatever the result of the general election, most economists were convinced that a new government was unlikely to follow the chancellor’s current austerity plans and would instead borrow more and tax more by the end of the next parliament. Such a move would mean avoiding spending cuts to unprotected departments that a large number of the economists thought both implausible to deliver and undesirable. The expectation was that austerity would be softened with slightly higher borrowing so that public sector debt fell a little slower as a share of national income than under the government’s current plans. Few expressed fears that such an outcome — similar to Labour’s plans for deficit reduction — would undermine the nation’s international credibility on its public finances. Kathrin Muehlbronner of Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said that while the political parties differed on the speed of planned deficit reduction, "what is important from our perspective is that all the main political parties appear to be committed to further fiscal consolidation". Amid a continued strong economic recovery in Britain, there is a nagging perception among economists, however, that the Bank of England is lagging in its response to faster growth and lower unemployment than it expected. Not a single economist out of 85 who expressed a view thought the bank would raise rates before the summer, while 25, including five former MPC members, thought rate increases should come sooner. A large majority of economists thought the BoE would keep interest rates on hold at least until November, but a majority who expressed a view thought the first rate rise should either already have happened or should happen by this summer.
Closing Market Summary: Stocks Slide to End 2014
The stock market ended the last session of 2014 on a lower note. The S&P 500 lost 1.0%, but that did not stop the benchmark index from gaining 11.4% over the course of 2014. Meanwhile, the tech-heavy Nasdaq ended the session (-0.9%) and the year (+13.4%) ahead of the S&P 500.
Before we delve into the details of today's trading day, it is important to note that trading volume at the NYSE was among the lowest of the year (650 million), suggesting few carbon-based life forms took part in the final affair of the year.
All ten sectors settled in the red with utilities (-1.9%) ending at the bottom of the leaderboard. In all likelihood, today's selling was a function of profit taking after the countercyclical sector led the 2014 market rally with a gain of 24.3%.
The remaining groups did not fare much better. The top-weighted technology sector (-1.2%) was among the early leaders, but began fading from its high not long before noon ET, dragging the broader market down with it. Apple (AAPL 110.38, -2.14) began the day with a slim gain, but found itself in the red within the first 45 minutes of the session. The largest sector component continued retreating throughout the day while other large cap tech names followed suit. Shares of Apple fell 1.9% today, but still soared nearly 38.0% in 2014. Chipmakers, meanwhile, outperformed with the PHLX Semiconductor Index losing 0.6%.
The outperformance of chipmakers helped the Nasdaq exhibit some relative strength, but the index also received a helping hand from biotechnology. The iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB 303.35, -1.27) shed 0.4% while the health care sector (-1.0%) could not stay out of the red, narrowing its 2014 advance to 23.3%.
Elsewhere among cyclical groups, financials (-1.2%) lagged while the energy sector lost 0.8% to widen its 2014 decline to 10.0% amid another volatile day in oil trading pits. WTI crude dipped below the $52.60/bbl mark ahead of the close, but rocketed back to its session high to end the day lower by 1.0% at $53.49/bbl.
Also of note, the consumer discretionary sector (-0.4%) ended ahead of other groups. Homebuilders and retailers were responsible for the outperformance as iShares Dow Jones US Home Construction (ITB 25.88, +0.20) gained 0.8% while SPDR S&P Retail ETF (XRT 96.01, -0.28) slipped 0.3%.
Treasuries capped a strong year with another rally. As a result, the benchmark 10-yr yield fell two basis points to 2.17%, finishing 87 basis points below its close from December 31, 2014. On a somewhat related note, the Dollar Index (90.27, +0.28) climbed 0.3% to end the year at its best level since early 2006.
Economic data included Initial Claims, Chicago PMI, and Pending Home Sales:
* The initial claims level increased to 298,000 for the week ending December 27 from an upwardly revised 281,000 (from 280,000) while the consensus expected an increase to 290,000
* The Department of Labor reported that there were no special factors driving the increase in unemployment insurance filings; however, it is possible that the Christmas holiday played at least a small part in the increase * The continuing claims level fell to 2.353 million from an upwardly revised 2.406 million (from 2.403 million) while the consensus expected a decline to 2.375 million
* After four consecutive months above 60, the Chicago PMI fell from 60.8 in November to 58.3 in December while the consensus expected a decline to 60.0 * Pending home sales for November rose 0.8%, which was in-line with the consensus
Friday's data will be limited to the ISM Index for December (consensus 57.5) and the November Construction Spending report (consensus 0.1%). Both reports will be released at 10:00 ET.
* Nasdaq Composite +13.4% YTD * S&P 500 +11.4% YTD * Dow Jones Industrial Average +7.5% YTD * Russell 2000 +3.6% YTD
Biological bad luck blamed in two-thirds of cancer cases
WASHINGTON, Jan 1 (Reuters) - Plain old bad luck plays a major role in determining who gets cancer and who does not, according to researchers who found that two-thirds of cancer incidence of various types can be blamed on random mutations and not heredity or risky habits like smoking.
The researchers said on Thursday random DNA mutations accumulating in various parts of the body during ordinary cell division are the prime culprits behind many cancer types.
They looked at 31 cancer types and found that 22 of them, including leukemia and pancreatic, bone, testicular, ovarian and brain cancer, could be explained largely by these random mutations - essentially biological bad luck.
The other nine types, including colorectal cancer, skin cancer known as basal cell carcinoma and smoking-related lung cancer, were more heavily influenced by heredity and environmental factors like risky behavior or exposure to carcinogens.
Overall, they attributed 65 percent of cancer incidence to random mutations in genes that can drive cancer growth.
"When someone gets cancer, immediately people want to know why," said oncologist Dr. Bert Vogelstein of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, who conducted the study published in the journal Science with Johns Hopkins biomathematician Cristian Tomasetti.
"They like to believe there's a reason. And the real reason in many cases is not because you didn't behave well or were exposed to some bad environmental influence, it's just because that person was unlucky. It's losing the lottery."
Tomasetti said harmful mutations occur for "no particular reason other than randomness" as the body's master cells, called stem cells, divide in various tissues.
Tomasetti said the study indicates that changing one's lifestyle and habits like smoking to avoid cancer risks may help prevent certain cancers, but may not be as effective for others.
"Thus, we should focus more research and resources on finding ways to detect such cancers at early, curable stages," Tomasetti added.
The researchers charted the cumulative number of lifetime divisions in the stem cells of a given tissue - for example, lungs or colon - and compared that to the lifetime cancer risk in that tissue.
Generally speaking, tissues that undergo more divisions - thus increasing the probability of random mutations - were more prone to tumors.
The study did not cover all cancer types. Breast and prostate cancer were excluded because the researchers were unable to ascertain reliable stem cell division rates.