BI - Credit Suisse is the
With valuations offering little upside and a myriad of risks offering plenty of downside, Credit Suisse thinks now's a good time to cut back on your portfolio's exposure to stocks.
"We reduce our weighting in equities to a small overweight, our most bearish strategic stance on the asset class in seven years," Credit Suisse's Andrew Garthwaite said in a new note to clients.
So if you're reducing exposure to US equities, where are you putting your money, Andrew? Hm? What else offers a higher rate of return? Or are you advocating high cash? Do you take one look at interest rates and think "gee, cash and bonds is the place to be right now"? Because everyone else is already there to the tune of trillions of dollars worldwide? Is that why you want to join them?
"Consequently, we reduce our mid-2016 target for the S&P 500 to 2,150 (from 2,200), and introduce a 2016 year-end target of 2,150," Garthwaite wrote.
You sure you're not just projecting 0% gain because that's all you've seen this year, and you think the trend will continue? Because you think a midcycle correction is the new normal?
"Our concerns are: increasing macro headwinds (deflation exported by China, the first Fed rate rise in 9.5 years);
God DAMN! China again? And you're really piddling your panties about a Fed rate hike, aren't you? I guess you'd rather have inflation? Is that what you want? Will that be better for your added weight to bonds & cash? Hm?
US equity valuations are now at fair value;
And earnings aren't going to grow? Or are you just hooked on the crack of investing in a market where P/E ratios were rising from a generational low, and because it's been 10 years of either a crash or this, you now have no clue how to invest in a normal market anymore? Are you that much of an idiot, or just a newbie? Aren't there any old greyhairs at CS who can teach you how to invest clients' money properly?
there are several warning signals (credit spreads widening, buybacks as a style underperforming, M&A activity reaching problematic levels, a decline in market breadth, earnings momentum at a 4-year low);
Um... is any one of those a real leading indicator of anything? Cos I can see at least two of those being nothing more than lagging indicators of a mid-cycle correction, you dumbshit.
the shift of power from capital to labour;
OK, and since "labour" is the US consumer, isn't that a good thing? Because you need consumers, don't you? Isn't that where US aggregate demand comes from? And don't you "strategist" types love to whine about low aggregate demand being the cause of low capital investment?
Or do you just hate the working class, you filthy bourgeois parasite?
Currently, the S&P 500 is trading at a P/E multiple of around 16.6, which is higher than average, but less than the 1.2 standard deviations away from the peak that we've seen historically.
And, dumbshit, in a secular bull market the S&P tends to trade at high valuations. Why? Do you not know why, Andy?