There is, of course, repetition, and a lot of it. One of the lines I'm hearing more and more is that this is "the most hated rally ever." I'm fairly sure I heard that line used following strong rallies in equity ETFs like the S&P 500 SPDRs SPY, -0.33% I don't know what evidence people have to make such a claim, but, wow, does it sound like a powerful statement and a reason for equities to keep pushing higher.
It’s hard to backtest such a statement with actual buys and sells, but viewers seem to love how it sounds. It makes us feel more bullish because the contrarian in us gets excited that markets are hated on the upside. After all, that means stocks have more room to run on the upside, right?
I find it curious that a rally is so hated after such a powerful move in broad indices. More likely, the real hatred comes from those parts of the marketplace that investors left for dead. Gold miners and material stocks more generally fit the bill there. Into this quarter, our top-quartile-ranked ATAC Beta Rotation FundBROTX, +0.31% will be overweighted the materials sector using ETFs like the Materials Select Sector SPDR ETF XLB, +0.21% based on our dynamic momentum weights and risk triggers. I'm excited for that on a personal basis, regardless of the fact that everything we do is quantitative. The contrarian in me believes that the commodity move is real and has legs.
You want a hated rally? It's the one going on in the Market Vectors Gold Miners ETFGDX, +1.97% which has had an immense rally thus far in 2016, but in the context of the last few years, looks like a blimp in positive returns (vertical axis shows price).
Does this continue? Your guess is as good as mine, but after so much real hate and bearishness toward commodities for a prolonged period of time, the contrarian in me says the bias remains higher for anything gold and materials related. The quant in me agrees.
China laid out measures to choke off bank credit to the heavily leveraged steel and coal industries, the latest attempt to tackle inefficiencies weighing on the economy.
A proposal circulated by the central bank and other agencies Thursday called on lenders to stop making loans to new steel or coal projects that don’t already have government approval, and slow or stop lending to unprofitable companies that can’t repay.
Since 2013, the federal reserve board has conducted a survey to “monitor the financial and economic status of American consumers.” Most of the data in the latest survey, frankly, are less than earth-shattering: 49 percent of part-time workers would prefer to work more hours at their current wage; 29 percent of Americans expect to earn a higher income in the coming year; 43 percent of homeowners who have owned their home for at least a year believe its value has increased. But the answer to one question was astonishing. The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?
Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.