Rosenberg Let His Clients Know He Thought the Sucker’s Rally Was Over

Reddit

Did you see the comments from retiring Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg last week? Writing just after the S&P hit 920, Rosenberg let his clients know that he thought the sucker’s rally was over. Indeed, some of our friends were suggesting that after all the short-covering money got in the market, it was setting up for at least a 5% or 10% correction from the recent surge. But Rosenberg went well beyond that.

“Risk is much higher now than it was 18 weeks ago,” Rosenberg wrote. ” The nine-week S&P 500 surge from 666 at the March lows to 920 as of yesterday has all but retraced the prior nine-week decline from the 2009 peak of 945 on January 6 to the lows on March 9. We believe it is appropriate to put the last nine weeks in the perspective of the previous nine weeks. To the casual observer, it really looks like nothing at all has happened this year, with the market relatively unchanged.”

“But something very big has happened because the risk in the market, in our view, is much higher than it was the last time we were close to current market prices back in early January, for the simple reason that we believe professional investors have covered their shorts, lifted their hedges and lowered their cash positions in favour of being long the market.”

“Employment, output, income, sales still in a downtrend. Considering what transpired from an economic standpoint, the decline in the first nine weeks of the year was rather appropriate in the midst of the worst three-quarter performance the economy has turned in roughly 70 years. The rally of the past nine weeks appears to be rooted in green shoots. While it may be the case that the pace of economic decline is no longer as negative as it was at the peak of the post-Lehman credit contraction, the reality is that employment, output, organic personal income and retail sales are still in a fundamental downtrend.”

So what does it all mean?

“Chances of a re-test of the March lows are non-trivial,” Rosenberg writes. “To reiterate, it seems to us likely that the risk in the market is actually higher today than it was back at the same price points in early January, and we say that with all deference to the stress tests (which given the less-than-dire economic scenarios, along with the changes to mark-to-market accounting, were destined to reveal healthy results). While the consensus seems gripped with the burden of trying to decide if there is too much risk to be out of the market, we actually still believe that the chances of a re-test of the March lows are non-trivial, especially if the widely touted second-half economic rebound fails to materialize.”

Which brings us to a conversation which may or may not have been overheard last night, somewhere in a quiet pub in St. Kilda.

“Hey. It’s good to see you down here at ground level, when you’re not riding your high horse,” our friend began.

“Thanks.”

“You know, I bet no one else is going to tell you this, but you’re an idiot. You should be embarrassed for yourself mate. But I know you have no shame.”

“Why do you say that?”

“It’s painful to watch. You’ve just worked yourself up over the last couple of days to accepting this rally in stocks and providing some kind of insane speculative rationale for participating in it. And the rally is over! And then you go off on some diatribe about taxes. You are such a moron!”

“Please explain.”

“Well look. You got a 57% crash on the S&P 500 in seventeen and a half months. It was a slow motion train wreck. It was a bigger peak to trough fall than the first part of the Depression Crash. But the Feds were fighting this one harder. They banned short selling. They pumped money into the bond market to force down yields and get people back into stocks. They stimulated. They legislated. And they orated. And like the Whitney woman explained, they rigged first quarter bank earnings so that bank tangible book values would improve by an accounting sleight of hand. Financial and retail stocks led the rally, but there was no substance to it.”

“She’s probably right. There’s a lot of positive momentum based on no fundamentals. She says the long-only money is going to get its head chopped off again and be pretty angry about it.”

“Good. We can agree on that. Now about you being a moron. Do you realise how big of a jerk you sounded like today?”

“What do you mean?”

“How can you write a big rant against progressive taxation and expect people to like you? You came off like an arrogant spoiled child and know-it-all American. You should indulge yourself less. Besides, should we just eat the poor or something? If the government doesn’t take care of the less fortunate, who is going to? Definitely not the market.”

“Well, it wasn’t a rant. I was only trying to make the point that the market is an institution for communicating prices and allocating scarce resources. When the government starts confiscating incomes it reduces capital formation, increases consumption, and ultimately makes the whole society poorer and more dependent on government.”

“Yeah that’s really tugging at my heart strings. So what? What about the people who need help? Who’s going to help them?”

“They’re not getting much from the government are they? Look, my point is that saying you’re for higher taxes to help the less fortunate is a moral and economic cop out. Economically, it’s easy to say when you aren’t paying the taxes. Morally, taxation is even worse than theft. It’s an effort to sub-contract the real obligations you have to help people. In fact I’d argue that when people try to foist off on the government the job of caring for the sick, the needy, and the less fortunate it actually makes people less empathetic and compassionate in their own lives.”

“You’re saying the Welfare State actually erodes the natural sense of personal obligation and empathy we have for one another? You can’t be serious. Have you been drinking?”

“That’s exactly what I’m saying. The market is a magnificent institution for conveying information. There are other institutions in life like family, Church, or community, or even government at a small local level that are there to deal with real human problems. If you want to talk personal ethics, we can do that. But believe me, I know the market isn’t perfect. When it works, more people have food, clean water, energy, and jobs. But for the other problems, I think people need to stop mailing checks to the government and start with what they can do themselves. But personal effort in your own life is much harder. It takes time, which is much more expensive than money. It’s easier to vote for a guy who tells you lies about what he’s going to do for your grandparents and the poor people you never have to see every day. People who support taxation as a way to solve society’s problems are morally lazy and ethically challenged.”

“Well why didn’t you just say that? That should really win you some new friends.”

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Dan Denning
Dan Denning examines the geopolitical and economic events that can affect your investments domestically. He raises the questions you need to answer, in order to survive financially in these turbulent times.
Reddit

Comments

  1. Dan,

    Rosenberg is not retired. He has is working for another firm. You can see that at: gluskinsheff.com

    Reply
  2. Dan, I agree with your rant up to a point but I don’t think it is the prevailing argument or that the base line of your view makes the crucial economic difference.

    We can debate that social safety net point and the level that it becomes debilitating to incentives to do something for yourself or disincentivise for the uber rich to throw dimes to the street people but we can’t agree until you participate in debating where that point might lie. You will have this same culturally embedded argument with most Australians. One of the US’s biggest problems is that it borrowed too much from its social security and health accruels to fund its operating deficits.

    In this asset bubble implosion and debt hangover there will in both cases be insufficient tax revenues to cover operating expenses for many many years to come no matter how hard we hit at the nanny state or how hard we try to divert incentive bias from the financial economy to the real economy.

    I am starting to warm to Obama. He seems to get it at least with his rhetoric. Of a politician that is the best we could hope for. Both Liberal and Labor in Australia are buried in the mire of not being able to confess their past misdeeds without losing the next election.

    We need a revolution in policy making in Australia too that savagely deals with the policy wonk generation that emerged in the 80’s and ran a merry party funded by the patronage of cronies and built there sand castles on unproductive urban asset inflation whooped up by an unsustainable foreign private debt and services economy expansionism. One where unaccountable and self satisfied public servants built their ever expanding dominions on the clipping govt consumption tax receipts and had the cronies provide for their public service after lives as institute lackeys and lobbyists or banking directors like never before .

    Reply
  3. The problem in essence is social and personal social acceptance by all. In near entirity the majority of the top 15% do not as they are the economic drivers – the next 40% + consider they near all belong to the said 15% – and cannot see how it all could be better for all if their status was accepted and their endevours acknowledged – whilst the remaing 40-50% think they are near happy but just need a better social assistance at all levels that only a 1st Division Lotto win will provide them?! However, the latter when it does happen, usually for very few will provide a sustained financial future. The sad fact of free enterprise and democracy has never provided to all an equal opportunity socially, financially or judicially. Nor will it without another word disruption of a scale similar to 1939 – 45, solve this unprecedented current global financial, social and medical disaster that is at present unraveling and will for some still?! A though without a successful past outcome – lets ask a politician, a merchant banker, those underpaid C.E.O’s. and ditto self serving company directors, as well as the free educated “Whitlam” professionals who now run themselves as a business identity – just a thought without any hope for our future!!!!!

    Reply
  4. Ross states there will be

    “insufficient tax revenues to cover operating expenses for many many years to come”

    Therefore operating expenses and standards of living will plunge in all debtor countries. As the the biggest operating expense for debtor countries is social security, those of you who are now under 55 should not expect much in the way of care if you should ever need a nursing home. And if you have superannuation in Australia it WILL be redistributed to assist those who have none. Believe me it will be taken from you in one way or another because the Government of the day will have no other options.

    The world keeps spinning and there are many bright and happy days to come. Happiness will be partly contingent on 1) having an “independent” retirement investment strategy 2) carefully managing the timing of your investment and lifestyle actions.

    Coffee Addict
    May 15, 2009
    Reply
  5. here here Dan.

    People blindly pay tribute to Government and then these citizen morons outsource their social conscience by assuming said authorities care about anything more than their own personal affairs. hah! It’s like buyinh tomatoes without looking or smelling and then resigning to the ‘fact’ that all tomatoes will make you sick.

    As for Ross` comment about Obama “He seems to get it at least with his rhetoric. Of a politician that is the best we could hope for.”

    So what you’re saying Ross is that he’s the best liar you’ve ever seen, and that warms your heart? Sounds like you have very low standards or you romanticise the criminal lifestyle.

    Reply
  6. @wasabu
    Getting the right rhetoric out there is important right now as policy making must find something better to aspire to. If you compare it with Clinton and Bush presidency rhetoric it has to be viewed as progress. Do i trust that the combination of Obama and the people around him will get at the hard decisions – no because the machine is busted. Fatalism maybe, and a little sympathy for anyone that would land where Obama has landed and be hamstrung by the system that only has him there with the support of industrial unionist and wall st crony patrons.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au