Nice_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-09-28

Nice

Morgan Stanley Dismisses Market's "Strong Rebound", Remains Bearish On Coming Earnings Disappointment<blockquote>摩根士丹利对市场“强劲反弹”不屑一顾，对即将到来的盈利令人失望仍然看跌</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":866278477,"tweetId":"866278477","gmtCreate":1632787887799,"gmtModify":1632797590986,"author":{"id":3574934794715748,"idStr":"3574934794715748","authorId":3574934794715748,"authorIdStr":"3574934794715748","name":"Medini13","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8c405cab753c37ca8069a09a8847ddc1","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":13,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Nice</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Nice</body></html>","text":"Nice","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/866278477","repostId":1166571782,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1166571782","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1632787589,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1166571782?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-09-28 08:06","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Morgan Stanley Dismisses Market's \"Strong Rebound\", Remains Bearish On Coming Earnings Disappointment<blockquote>摩根士丹利对市场“强劲反弹”不屑一顾，对即将到来的盈利令人失望仍然看跌</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1166571782","media":"zerohedge","summary":"For just a few hours last Monday, Morgan Stanley's chief economist felt vindicated: with stocks tumb","content":"For just a few hours last Monday, Morgan Stanley's chief economist felt vindicated: with stocks tumbling on Evergrande default fears, Wilson emerged from his faux-bull cocoon (havingraised his year-end S&amp;P price target from 3,900 to 4,000 in Augustin a note that reeked of disgust with what he was being told to do) and warned that an \"Ice is coming\", referring to a 20% drop in stocks as opposed to the more modest 10% correction envisioned in his \"fire\" scenario, saying that \"the \"ice\" scenario is starting to look more likely, and could result in a more destructive outcome – i.e. a 20%+ correction\", a drop he expects will take place some time this fall.<blockquote>上周一短短几个小时内，摩根士丹利首席经济学家就觉得自己是对的：随着股市因恒大违约担忧而暴跌，威尔逊从他的假牛茧中走了出来（他在奥古斯丁将标准普尔年终目标价从 3,900 美元上调至 4,000 美元），并警告说“冰即将来临”，指的是股市下跌 20%，而不是他在“火灾”情景中设想的更温和的 10% 调整，他说““冰”情景开始看起来更有可能，并可能导致更具破坏性的结果——即20%以上的修正”，他预计今年秋天的某个时候会出现下降。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d87b7fac22f1a1f5db68fec641fc7528\" tg-width=\"703\" tg-height=\"363\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Wilson also predicted that with earnings growth and PMIs set to drop, it would adversely impact forward PE multiples and by extension the S&amp;P.<blockquote>威尔逊还预测，随着盈利增长和采购经理人指数下降，这将对远期市盈率产生不利影响，进而对标准普尔产生不利影响。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/45afcf0068538b4f56bc85f42af9e52f\" tg-width=\"1233\" tg-height=\"431\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Well, what a difference 7 days makes: with Evergrande default fears now long forgotten with little to no offshore contagion,&nbsp;the S&amp;P is almost 150 points from its \"Evergrande Monday\" lows and once again pushing back toward all time highs (even if with a major rotation in the leadership as tech stocks are now sliding, having been replaced by value, cyclical and reopening names) in the process yet again foiling Wilson's bearish visions.<blockquote>好吧，7 天带来了多么大的不同：随着恒大违约担忧早已被遗忘，几乎没有离岸传染，标准普尔指数距离“恒大周一”低点近 150 点，并再次推回历史高点（即使随着科技股下滑，领导层出现重大轮换，已被价值、周期性和重新开放的名称所取代）在此过程中再次挫败了威尔逊的看跌愿景。</blockquote> So has the market's sharp post-opex bounce changed the mind of the chief strategist that this seemingly invincible market will never go down again more than just a token 5% move?<blockquote>那么，市场在运营支出后的大幅反弹是否改变了首席策略师的想法，即这个看似不可战胜的市场除了象征性的 5% 波动之外永远不会再次下跌？</blockquote> Today we got the answer in Wilson's latest weekly warm-up not, in which he makes it clear that his bearish outlook remains, and as he explains, \"our process tells us the risk-reward remains unattractive at the index level given slowing growth and rising rates. Meanwhile, price action can be interpreted bullishly or bearishly.&nbsp;With 3Q earnings season likely to bring a much more muted outcome, we remain defensive in our positioning.\"<blockquote>今天，我们在威尔逊最新的每周热身中得到了答案，他在热身中明确表示他的看跌前景仍然存在，正如他解释的那样，“我们的过程告诉我们，鉴于增长放缓和利率上升，风险回报在指数水平上仍然没有吸引力。与此同时，价格走势可以被解释为看涨或看跌。由于第三季度财报季可能会带来更加平淡的结果，我们在定位上保持防御性。\"</blockquote> We'll get to why in a second, but first Wilson - realizing that he would get a criticism for what many viewed as a premature victory lap - spends the first few paragraphs of his latest note going over the details of his analytical process. This is how he lays it out:<blockquote>我们稍后会明白为什么，但首先威尔逊——意识到他会因为许多人认为过早的胜利圈而受到批评——在他最新笔记的前几段中详细介绍了他的分析过程。他是这样说的：</blockquote> Our equity strategy process has several key components. Most importantly, we focus on the fundamentals of growth and valuation to determine whether the overall market is attractive and which sectors and stocks look the best/worst.The rate of change on growth is more important than the absolute level, and we use a market-based equity risk premium framework that works well as long as you apply the correct regime when using it. In that regard, we’re an avid student of market cycles and believe historical analogs can be helpful. For example, the mid cycle transition narrative that has worked so well this year is derived directly from our study of historical economic and market cycles. The final component we spend a lot of time on is price.While most would call this technical analysis, we’d like to think we do it a little bit differently. Markets aren’t always efficient, but we believe they are often very good leading indicators for the fundamentals—the ultimate driver of value. This is especially true if one looks at the internal movements and relative strength of individual securities. In short, we find these internals to be much more helpful than simply looking at the major averages. This year, we think the process has lived up to its promise quite well with the price action lining up nicely with the fundamental backdrop.In short, the large cap quality leadership since March is signaling what we believe is about to happen—i.e., decelerating growth and tightening financial conditions. The question for investors is whether the price action has fully discounted those outcomes. With that disclosure in hand, and with the clear understanding that at least in his view investors are not discounting any adverse outcomes at this point, Wilson proceeds to discuss the recent market action, noting that stocks\"sold off hard last Monday on concerns about the Evergrande bankruptcy\"and while he adds that it is the Morgan Stanley \"house view\" that it likely won’t lead to a major financial contagion, \"it will probably weigh on China growth for the next few quarters which means that the growth deceleration we are expecting could be a bit worse.\"<blockquote>我们的股权战略流程有几个关键组成部分。最重要的是，我们关注增长和估值的基本面，以确定整体市场是否有吸引力，以及哪些行业和股票看起来最好/最差。增长率的变化率比绝对水平更重要，我们使用基于市场的股票风险溢价框架，只要您在使用时应用正确的制度，该框架就能很好地工作。在这方面，我们热衷于研究市场周期，并相信历史类比会有所帮助。例如，今年非常有效的中周期转型叙事直接来自我们对历史经济和市场周期的研究。我们花费大量时间的最后一个组成部分是价格。虽然大多数人会看涨期权这种技术分析，但我们认为我们的做法略有不同。市场并不总是有效的，但我们相信，市场往往是基本面--价值的最终驱动力--非常好的领先指标。如果看看个别证券的内部变动和相对强度，情况尤其如此。简而言之，我们发现这些内部因素比简单地查看主要平均值更有帮助。今年，我们认为这一过程很好地兑现了其承诺，价格走势与基本面背景非常吻合。简而言之，自3月份以来的大盘股质量领先地位预示着我们认为即将发生的事情——即增长放缓和金融状况收紧。投资者面临的问题是价格走势是否完全打折了这些结果。有了这一披露，并且清楚地认识到，至少在他看来，投资者目前并没有忽视任何不利结果，威尔逊继续讨论最近的市场走势，并指出股票“上周一因担心恒大破产而大幅抛售”虽然他补充说，摩根士丹利的 “众议院观点 ”认为，这可能不会导致重大的金融传染，但 “这可能会拖累中国未来几个季度的经济增长，这意味着我们预期的经济增长放缓可能会更严重一些”。</blockquote> The other reason Wilson suggests was behind the market weakness early last week \"likely had to do with concern about the Fed articulating its plans to taper asset purchases later this year and perhaps even move up the timing of rate hikes to next year. On that score, the Fed did not disappoint as they pretty much told us to expect the taper to begin in December.The surprise was the speed in which they expect to be done tapering—by mid 2022.This is about a quarter sooner than the market had been anticipating and does move up the odds for a rate hike in 2022.\"<blockquote>威尔逊认为，上周早些时候市场疲软背后的另一个原因“可能与对美联储在今年晚些时候阐述其缩减资产购买计划的担忧有关，甚至可能将加息时间提前到明年。在这一点上，美联储没有让人失望，因为他们几乎告诉我们预计缩减规模将于12月开始。令人惊讶的是他们预计缩减规模的速度——到 2022 年中期。这比市场预期提前了约四分之一，确实增加了 2022 年加息的可能性。”</blockquote> Curiously last week's rally happened in the aftermath of the market's perplexing kneejerk response to the Fed meeting on Wednesday, when stocks rallied even as bonds sold off sharply, particularly at the back end. Real 10-year yields were up 11bps in 2 days and are now up 31bps in just 8 weeks (Exhibit 1). That according to Wilson is \"tightening of financial conditions for sure\" and should weigh on PEs overall but it also has big implications for what should work at the sector/style level (Exhibit 2).<blockquote>奇怪的是，上周的反弹发生在市场对周三美联储会议做出令人困惑的下意识反应之后，当时尽管债券大幅抛售，尤其是在后端，股市仍反弹。实际10年期国债收益率在2天内上升了11个基点，现在在短短8周内上升了31个基点（图表1）。根据威尔逊的说法，这“肯定是金融状况的收紧”，应该会对整体私募股权基金造成压力，但它也对行业/风格层面的表现产生了重大影响（图表2）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b6f0bb937e8d564694c06b7e1362bd81\" tg-width=\"1035\" tg-height=\"266\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> In short, Wilson digs in and claims that higher real rates should mean lower P/Es overall which likely means lower S&amp;P 500, thus validating his bearish view which still sees the S&amp;P dropping some 20% from its current perch to hit 4,000 by year end. However, he concedes, \"it may also mean value over growth and small caps over Nasdaq even as the overall equity market goes lower.\"<blockquote>简而言之，Wilson深入探讨并声称，较高的实际利率应该意味着整体市盈率较低，这可能意味着标普500较低，从而验证了他的看跌观点，即标准普尔指数仍将从目前的水平下跌约20%，到年底达到4000点。然而，他承认，“即使整体股市走低，这也可能意味着价值高于增长，小盘股高于纳斯达克。”</blockquote> Which brings us to the key question we spent quite some time discussing last week, namelywhy did stocks rally so much into the end of the weekon what Wilson says are odds that growth will decelerate more than expected from Evergrande and financial conditions may tighten faster?<blockquote>这就引出了我们上周花了相当多时间讨论的关键问题，即为什么股市在周末上涨如此之多威尔逊表示，恒大的增长放缓幅度将超过预期，财务状况可能会更快收紧？</blockquote> Here Wilson is at least honest - as he puts it - and says \"we’re not sure but we think this may be a time when the markets are playing tricks on investors and even setting a bit of a trap.\" Actually it's simpler than that and has to do with thegamma reversal and technical flows we pointed out last week, but one has to be a \"greek geek\" - like Nomura's Charlie McElligott - to get that.<blockquote>在这里，威尔逊至少是诚实的--正如他所说--他说：“我们不确定，但我们认为这可能是市场在捉弄投资者，甚至设置一点陷阱的时候。”实际上，它比这更简单，与我们上周指出的伽马反转和技术流程有关，但人们必须是一个“希腊极客”——比如野村证券的查理·麦切利戈特——才能理解这一点。</blockquote> The other explanation proposed by Wilson is \"that investors were somewhat positioned for bad news going into the Fed meeting and the actual event simply served as a relief that it didn’t lead lower prices. This price action drove many investors to chase on Thursday for fear of missing out.In short, don’t underestimate the power of price to determine how investors interpret the facts.Just like negative price action can get people to sell the lows, positive price action can force people to buy\", he concludes.<blockquote>威尔逊提出的另一种解释是：“投资者在美联储会议上对坏消息有所准备，而实际事件只是让人松了一口气，因为它没有导致价格下跌。这一价格走势促使许多投资者在周四追涨，生怕错过机会。简而言之，不要低估价格在决定投资者如何解读事实方面的力量。正如负价格行为可以让人们低价抛售一样，正价格行为也可以迫使人们买入”，他总结道。</blockquote> Whatever the reason for the initial bounce, it quickly accelerated and there was \"a lot of excitement last Thursday when stocks rallied sharply back above the 50 day moving average, a key barometer for many and a key level of support throughout this year for the S&amp;P 500.\" That this happened when the 50DMA was broken \"on near record levels of volume in both the cash and derivatives markets\" only punctuated the strength of the rebound. By Friday, that moving average had been reclaimed and closed above it for the week, an important technical win as even Wilson admits. However, he then adds, from his vantage point, \"the very well defined uptrend that has been established over the past year was broken and not reclaimed. Instead, it looks like the rally from Wednesday to Friday was simply \"filling the gap\" created from Monday's break.\"<blockquote>无论最初反弹的原因是什么，反弹很快就加速了，“上周四，当股市大幅反弹至 50 日移动平均线上方时，人们非常兴奋，这对许多人来说是一个关键晴雨表，也是标普500今年全年的一个关键支撑位。”当 50DMA 被突破“现金和衍生品市场的交易量均接近创纪录水平”时，这种情况就发生了，这只会削弱反弹的强度。到周五，移动平均线已被收复，并在本周收于该平均线之上，就连威尔逊也承认，这是一次重要的技术胜利。然而，他随后补充道，从他的有利位置来看，“过去一年建立的非常明确的上升趋势被打破了，并且没有重新夺回。相反，看起来周三到周五的反弹只是“填补”周一休息造成的缺口。”</blockquote> His conclusion on upcoming market action will hardly come as a surprise to those who have followed Wilson's progressive pessimism across 2021: pointing to the market's inability to recover its prior trendline, he says \"this leaves the technical picture very uncertain in our view and one can now break either way. With our fundamental view skewing poorly at the moment, we lean to the bearish outcome.\"<blockquote>对于那些在 2021 年关注威尔逊逐渐悲观情绪的人来说，他对即将到来的市场行动的结论几乎不会感到惊讶：他指出市场无法恢复之前的趋势线，他表示：“这使得我们认为技术面非常不确定，现在可以打破任何一方。由于我们的基本面观点目前严重扭曲，我们倾向于看跌结果。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/41fc56e35f140c96104f8d8aa0826fd3\" tg-width=\"1100\" tg-height=\"602\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Getting back to his process, Wilson then says that he has high conviction that \"earnings growth is likely to decelerate more than what the current consensus is forecasting.\" Furthermore, he thinks the market is starting to agree with that view and points to market breadth as a good leading indicator for earnings revision breadth where he says \"direction is clear\" and pointing to the newly shrinking market breadth, he reminds readers that earnings revision breadth is a good leading indicator for the overall market.<blockquote>回到他的流程，威尔逊随后表示，他坚信“盈利增长可能会比当前共识预测的放缓幅度更大”。此外，他认为市场开始同意这一观点，并指出市场广度是盈利修正广度的良好领先指标，他表示“方向很明确”，并指出新收缩的市场广度，他提醒读者盈利修正广度是整体市场的良好领先指标。</blockquote> It will therefore hardly come as a surprise that with Wilson still clearly bearish, his advice to clients is \"don’t get too caught up in last week’s strong rebound from Monday’s sharp sell off\"which he views as a clean break of the uptrend and a filling of the gap created from Monday's crack. And with the technical picture murky, \"that's a time to trust the fundamental and cycle analyses which suggest lower equity prices ahead\"and as growth decelerates and financial conditions tighten, valuations are likely to fall from their lofty levels.<blockquote>因此，威尔逊仍然明显看空，他给客户的建议是“不要被上周从周一的大幅抛售中强劲反弹所迷惑”他认为这是对上升趋势的彻底打破，也是对周一裂缝造成的缺口的填补。由于技术方面的情况不明朗，”现在是相信基本面和周期分析表明未来股价走低的时候了”随着经济增长放缓和金融状况收紧，估值可能会从高位回落。</blockquote> * * *<blockquote>***</blockquote> With all that in mind, Wilson goes back to his core fundamental thesis which is simple: after a blockbuster Q2 season, earnings are set to drop substantially as a result of the margin compression we discussed most recently over the weekend, to wit:<blockquote>考虑到所有这些，威尔逊回到了他的核心基本论点，这个论点很简单：在经历了一个轰动一时的第二季度之后，由于我们最近在周末讨论的利润率压缩，盈利将大幅下降，也就是说：</blockquote> Since the second quarter of 2020 earnings results have come in much higher than consensus forecasts. Earnings beats ranged from 14% - 22% over this period while the median beat rate since 2008 is only 5%...We do not think companies will continue to beat at such an unprecedented rate and believe 3Q could see a material change in the more recent trend as supply chain issues and labor shortages pose a risk to both top line and margins. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f5e643723cfa540ad52a1dcebcba24f3\" tg-width=\"722\" tg-height=\"433\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote>自 2020 年第二季度以来，盈利结果远高于市场普遍预期在此期间，盈利超出率在 14% 至 22% 之间，而自 2008 年以来的中值超出率仅为 5%……我们认为公司不会继续以如此前所未有的速度超出预期，并相信第三季度可能会出现重大变化近期趋势，因为供应链问题和劳动力短缺对营收和利润率都构成风险。</blockquote> We looked at how 3Q earnings estimate revisions have trended at the industry group and sector level. Significant cuts have occurred in insurance, capital goods and transportation. Consumer Durables is the only area that has seen significant positive revisions at the industry group level. 3Q S&amp;P 500 estimates have fallen by 77 bps over past 4 weeks. We expect more downside. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5496394c7a42ab136f68ba74c64cf83\" tg-width=\"705\" tg-height=\"451\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ef6beae58fd458a45024d160d45b4684\" tg-width=\"735\" tg-height=\"459\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote>我们研究了第三季度盈利预测修正在行业集团和行业层面的趋势。保险、资本货物和运输都出现了大幅削减。耐用消费品是行业集团层面唯一出现重大积极修正的领域。过去 4 周内，第三季度标普500预期下降了 77 个基点。我们预计会有更多的负面影响。</blockquote> No surprises there, as the margin compression story is a familiar one (\"Margins Crushed As Producer Prices Explode At Record Pace In July\"). To Wilson, however, this is the story and one which the market refuses to even consider:<blockquote>这并不奇怪，因为利润率压缩的故事是一个熟悉的故事（“随着 7 月份生产者价格以创纪录的速度爆炸，利润率被压缩”）。然而，对于威尔逊来说，这是一个故事，也是一个市场甚至拒绝考虑的故事：</blockquote> 2022 consensus margin estimates are historically lofty...we examine the risks to margins in coming quarters through two different top down approaches. The spread between GDP growth and wage growth correlates fairly closely with operating margins over time. Based on our economists' estimates, this spread should decelerate in coming quarters, which suggests margins should contract, not expand as bottom-up consensus expects.<blockquote>2022 年共识利润率估计处于历史高位……我们通过两种不同的自上而下的方法来研究未来几个季度的利润率风险。随着时间的推移，GDP增长和工资增长之间的利差与营业利润率密切相关。根据我们经济学家的估计这种利差应该会在未来几个季度放缓，这表明利润率应该会收缩，而不是像自下而上的共识预期那样扩大.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e80ec048b5856ebf2159d1d9d0151334\" tg-width=\"751\" tg-height=\"578\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Further, corporate transcript mentions of \"cost pressures\" and related terms are historically elevated. When this has happened in the past, margins have consolidated.<blockquote>此外，公司成绩单中对“成本压力”和相关术语的提及历来较高。当这种情况在过去发生时，利润率已经巩固。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/42c8fcfa4bb23d953d8c2079bc1a0ec5\" tg-width=\"773\" tg-height=\"540\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Wilson's final bearish point is that companies are reaching the limit on how much of rising input costs they can pass on to consumers. As he puts it, while \"many investors that we speak to are optimistic about corporates' ability to pass on cost through pricing and protect margins\" he would caution that \"prices in several consumer end markets are already at a level that is inhibiting demand. We think the risk of this dynamic (high prices leading to demand destruction) spreading to other areas of consumer demand is especially elevated because goods consumption is already so far above trend—in other words, high prices are that much more of a deterrent given households have already overconsumed in many areas.\"<blockquote>威尔逊的最后一个悲观观点是，企业已经达到了将不断上涨的投入成本转嫁给消费者的极限。正如他所说，虽然“我们采访的许多投资者对企业通过定价转嫁成本和保护利润率的能力持乐观态度”，但他会警告说，“几个消费终端市场的价格已经处于抑制需求的水平。我们认为，这种动态（高价格导致需求破坏）蔓延到其他消费需求领域的风险尤其高，因为商品消费已经远远高于趋势——换句话说，考虑到许多地区的家庭已经过度消费，高价格更具威慑力。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/216bbe5eae73445b35a9152e741dccef\" tg-width=\"1009\" tg-height=\"801\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Translation: absent another multi-trillion stimmy - and thanks to the chaos in the democratic party we know one is unlikely to come - Wilson's call for a 20% drop in stocks in the next few months remains intact.<blockquote>翻译：如果没有另一场数万亿的骚动——由于民主党内部的混乱，我们知道不太可能发生——威尔逊关于未来几个月股市下跌 20% 的看涨期权仍然完好无损。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Morgan Stanley Dismisses Market's \"Strong Rebound\", Remains Bearish On Coming Earnings Disappointment<blockquote>摩根士丹利对市场“强劲反弹”不屑一顾，对即将到来的盈利令人失望仍然看跌</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nMorgan Stanley Dismisses Market's \"Strong Rebound\", Remains Bearish On Coming Earnings Disappointment<blockquote>摩根士丹利对市场“强劲反弹”不屑一顾，对即将到来的盈利令人失望仍然看跌</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-09-28 08:06\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nFor just a few hours last Monday, Morgan Stanley's chief economist felt vindicated: with stocks tumbling on Evergrande default fears, Wilson emerged from his faux-bull cocoon (havingraised his year-end S&amp;P price target from 3,900 to 4,000 in Augustin a note that reeked of disgust with what he was being told to do) and warned that an \"Ice is coming\", referring to a 20% drop in stocks as opposed to the more modest 10% correction envisioned in his \"fire\" scenario, saying that \"the \"ice\" scenario is starting to look more likely, and could result in a more destructive outcome – i.e. a 20%+ correction\", a drop he expects will take place some time this fall.<blockquote>上周一短短几个小时内，摩根士丹利首席经济学家就觉得自己是对的：随着股市因恒大违约担忧而暴跌，威尔逊从他的假牛茧中走了出来（他在奥古斯丁将标准普尔年终目标价从 3,900 美元上调至 4,000 美元），并警告说“冰即将来临”，指的是股市下跌 20%，而不是他在“火灾”情景中设想的更温和的 10% 调整，他说““冰”情景开始看起来更有可能，并可能导致更具破坏性的结果——即20%以上的修正”，他预计今年秋天的某个时候会出现下降。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d87b7fac22f1a1f5db68fec641fc7528\" tg-width=\"703\" tg-height=\"363\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">Wilson also predicted that with earnings growth and PMIs set to drop, it would adversely impact forward PE multiples and by extension the S&amp;P.<blockquote>威尔逊还预测，随着盈利增长和采购经理人指数下降，这将对远期市盈率产生不利影响，进而对标准普尔产生不利影响。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/45afcf0068538b4f56bc85f42af9e52f\" tg-width=\"1233\" tg-height=\"431\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Well, what a difference 7 days makes: with Evergrande default fears now long forgotten with little to no offshore contagion,&nbsp;the S&amp;P is almost 150 points from its \"Evergrande Monday\" lows and once again pushing back toward all time highs (even if with a major rotation in the leadership as tech stocks are now sliding, having been replaced by value, cyclical and reopening names) in the process yet again foiling Wilson's bearish visions.<blockquote>好吧，7 天带来了多么大的不同：随着恒大违约担忧早已被遗忘，几乎没有离岸传染，标准普尔指数距离“恒大周一”低点近 150 点，并再次推回历史高点（即使随着科技股下滑，领导层出现重大轮换，已被价值、周期性和重新开放的名称所取代）在此过程中再次挫败了威尔逊的看跌愿景。</blockquote> So has the market's sharp post-opex bounce changed the mind of the chief strategist that this seemingly invincible market will never go down again more than just a token 5% move?<blockquote>那么，市场在运营支出后的大幅反弹是否改变了首席策略师的想法，即这个看似不可战胜的市场除了象征性的 5% 波动之外永远不会再次下跌？</blockquote> Today we got the answer in Wilson's latest weekly warm-up not, in which he makes it clear that his bearish outlook remains, and as he explains, \"our process tells us the risk-reward remains unattractive at the index level given slowing growth and rising rates. Meanwhile, price action can be interpreted bullishly or bearishly.&nbsp;With 3Q earnings season likely to bring a much more muted outcome, we remain defensive in our positioning.\"<blockquote>今天，我们在威尔逊最新的每周热身中得到了答案，他在热身中明确表示他的看跌前景仍然存在，正如他解释的那样，“我们的过程告诉我们，鉴于增长放缓和利率上升，风险回报在指数水平上仍然没有吸引力。与此同时，价格走势可以被解释为看涨或看跌。由于第三季度财报季可能会带来更加平淡的结果，我们在定位上保持防御性。\"</blockquote> We'll get to why in a second, but first Wilson - realizing that he would get a criticism for what many viewed as a premature victory lap - spends the first few paragraphs of his latest note going over the details of his analytical process. This is how he lays it out:<blockquote>我们稍后会明白为什么，但首先威尔逊——意识到他会因为许多人认为过早的胜利圈而受到批评——在他最新笔记的前几段中详细介绍了他的分析过程。他是这样说的：</blockquote> Our equity strategy process has several key components. Most importantly, we focus on the fundamentals of growth and valuation to determine whether the overall market is attractive and which sectors and stocks look the best/worst.The rate of change on growth is more important than the absolute level, and we use a market-based equity risk premium framework that works well as long as you apply the correct regime when using it. In that regard, we’re an avid student of market cycles and believe historical analogs can be helpful. For example, the mid cycle transition narrative that has worked so well this year is derived directly from our study of historical economic and market cycles. The final component we spend a lot of time on is price.While most would call this technical analysis, we’d like to think we do it a little bit differently. Markets aren’t always efficient, but we believe they are often very good leading indicators for the fundamentals—the ultimate driver of value. This is especially true if one looks at the internal movements and relative strength of individual securities. In short, we find these internals to be much more helpful than simply looking at the major averages. This year, we think the process has lived up to its promise quite well with the price action lining up nicely with the fundamental backdrop.In short, the large cap quality leadership since March is signaling what we believe is about to happen—i.e., decelerating growth and tightening financial conditions. The question for investors is whether the price action has fully discounted those outcomes. With that disclosure in hand, and with the clear understanding that at least in his view investors are not discounting any adverse outcomes at this point, Wilson proceeds to discuss the recent market action, noting that stocks\"sold off hard last Monday on concerns about the Evergrande bankruptcy\"and while he adds that it is the Morgan Stanley \"house view\" that it likely won’t lead to a major financial contagion, \"it will probably weigh on China growth for the next few quarters which means that the growth deceleration we are expecting could be a bit worse.\"<blockquote>我们的股权战略流程有几个关键组成部分。最重要的是，我们关注增长和估值的基本面，以确定整体市场是否有吸引力，以及哪些行业和股票看起来最好/最差。增长率的变化率比绝对水平更重要，我们使用基于市场的股票风险溢价框架，只要您在使用时应用正确的制度，该框架就能很好地工作。在这方面，我们热衷于研究市场周期，并相信历史类比会有所帮助。例如，今年非常有效的中周期转型叙事直接来自我们对历史经济和市场周期的研究。我们花费大量时间的最后一个组成部分是价格。虽然大多数人会看涨期权这种技术分析，但我们认为我们的做法略有不同。市场并不总是有效的，但我们相信，市场往往是基本面--价值的最终驱动力--非常好的领先指标。如果看看个别证券的内部变动和相对强度，情况尤其如此。简而言之，我们发现这些内部因素比简单地查看主要平均值更有帮助。今年，我们认为这一过程很好地兑现了其承诺，价格走势与基本面背景非常吻合。简而言之，自3月份以来的大盘股质量领先地位预示着我们认为即将发生的事情——即增长放缓和金融状况收紧。投资者面临的问题是价格走势是否完全打折了这些结果。有了这一披露，并且清楚地认识到，至少在他看来，投资者目前并没有忽视任何不利结果，威尔逊继续讨论最近的市场走势，并指出股票“上周一因担心恒大破产而大幅抛售”虽然他补充说，摩根士丹利的 “众议院观点 ”认为，这可能不会导致重大的金融传染，但 “这可能会拖累中国未来几个季度的经济增长，这意味着我们预期的经济增长放缓可能会更严重一些”。</blockquote> The other reason Wilson suggests was behind the market weakness early last week \"likely had to do with concern about the Fed articulating its plans to taper asset purchases later this year and perhaps even move up the timing of rate hikes to next year. On that score, the Fed did not disappoint as they pretty much told us to expect the taper to begin in December.The surprise was the speed in which they expect to be done tapering—by mid 2022.This is about a quarter sooner than the market had been anticipating and does move up the odds for a rate hike in 2022.\"<blockquote>威尔逊认为，上周早些时候市场疲软背后的另一个原因“可能与对美联储在今年晚些时候阐述其缩减资产购买计划的担忧有关，甚至可能将加息时间提前到明年。在这一点上，美联储没有让人失望，因为他们几乎告诉我们预计缩减规模将于12月开始。令人惊讶的是他们预计缩减规模的速度——到 2022 年中期。这比市场预期提前了约四分之一，确实增加了 2022 年加息的可能性。”</blockquote> Curiously last week's rally happened in the aftermath of the market's perplexing kneejerk response to the Fed meeting on Wednesday, when stocks rallied even as bonds sold off sharply, particularly at the back end. Real 10-year yields were up 11bps in 2 days and are now up 31bps in just 8 weeks (Exhibit 1). That according to Wilson is \"tightening of financial conditions for sure\" and should weigh on PEs overall but it also has big implications for what should work at the sector/style level (Exhibit 2).<blockquote>奇怪的是，上周的反弹发生在市场对周三美联储会议做出令人困惑的下意识反应之后，当时尽管债券大幅抛售，尤其是在后端，股市仍反弹。实际10年期国债收益率在2天内上升了11个基点，现在在短短8周内上升了31个基点（图表1）。根据威尔逊的说法，这“肯定是金融状况的收紧”，应该会对整体私募股权基金造成压力，但它也对行业/风格层面的表现产生了重大影响（图表2）。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b6f0bb937e8d564694c06b7e1362bd81\" tg-width=\"1035\" tg-height=\"266\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> In short, Wilson digs in and claims that higher real rates should mean lower P/Es overall which likely means lower S&amp;P 500, thus validating his bearish view which still sees the S&amp;P dropping some 20% from its current perch to hit 4,000 by year end. However, he concedes, \"it may also mean value over growth and small caps over Nasdaq even as the overall equity market goes lower.\"<blockquote>简而言之，Wilson深入探讨并声称，较高的实际利率应该意味着整体市盈率较低，这可能意味着标普500较低，从而验证了他的看跌观点，即标准普尔指数仍将从目前的水平下跌约20%，到年底达到4000点。然而，他承认，“即使整体股市走低，这也可能意味着价值高于增长，小盘股高于纳斯达克。”</blockquote> Which brings us to the key question we spent quite some time discussing last week, namelywhy did stocks rally so much into the end of the weekon what Wilson says are odds that growth will decelerate more than expected from Evergrande and financial conditions may tighten faster?<blockquote>这就引出了我们上周花了相当多时间讨论的关键问题，即为什么股市在周末上涨如此之多威尔逊表示，恒大的增长放缓幅度将超过预期，财务状况可能会更快收紧？</blockquote> Here Wilson is at least honest - as he puts it - and says \"we’re not sure but we think this may be a time when the markets are playing tricks on investors and even setting a bit of a trap.\" Actually it's simpler than that and has to do with thegamma reversal and technical flows we pointed out last week, but one has to be a \"greek geek\" - like Nomura's Charlie McElligott - to get that.<blockquote>在这里，威尔逊至少是诚实的--正如他所说--他说：“我们不确定，但我们认为这可能是市场在捉弄投资者，甚至设置一点陷阱的时候。”实际上，它比这更简单，与我们上周指出的伽马反转和技术流程有关，但人们必须是一个“希腊极客”——比如野村证券的查理·麦切利戈特——才能理解这一点。</blockquote> The other explanation proposed by Wilson is \"that investors were somewhat positioned for bad news going into the Fed meeting and the actual event simply served as a relief that it didn’t lead lower prices. This price action drove many investors to chase on Thursday for fear of missing out.In short, don’t underestimate the power of price to determine how investors interpret the facts.Just like negative price action can get people to sell the lows, positive price action can force people to buy\", he concludes.<blockquote>威尔逊提出的另一种解释是：“投资者在美联储会议上对坏消息有所准备，而实际事件只是让人松了一口气，因为它没有导致价格下跌。这一价格走势促使许多投资者在周四追涨，生怕错过机会。简而言之，不要低估价格在决定投资者如何解读事实方面的力量。正如负价格行为可以让人们低价抛售一样，正价格行为也可以迫使人们买入”，他总结道。</blockquote> Whatever the reason for the initial bounce, it quickly accelerated and there was \"a lot of excitement last Thursday when stocks rallied sharply back above the 50 day moving average, a key barometer for many and a key level of support throughout this year for the S&amp;P 500.\" That this happened when the 50DMA was broken \"on near record levels of volume in both the cash and derivatives markets\" only punctuated the strength of the rebound. By Friday, that moving average had been reclaimed and closed above it for the week, an important technical win as even Wilson admits. However, he then adds, from his vantage point, \"the very well defined uptrend that has been established over the past year was broken and not reclaimed. Instead, it looks like the rally from Wednesday to Friday was simply \"filling the gap\" created from Monday's break.\"<blockquote>无论最初反弹的原因是什么，反弹很快就加速了，“上周四，当股市大幅反弹至 50 日移动平均线上方时，人们非常兴奋，这对许多人来说是一个关键晴雨表，也是标普500今年全年的一个关键支撑位。”当 50DMA 被突破“现金和衍生品市场的交易量均接近创纪录水平”时，这种情况就发生了，这只会削弱反弹的强度。到周五，移动平均线已被收复，并在本周收于该平均线之上，就连威尔逊也承认，这是一次重要的技术胜利。然而，他随后补充道，从他的有利位置来看，“过去一年建立的非常明确的上升趋势被打破了，并且没有重新夺回。相反，看起来周三到周五的反弹只是“填补”周一休息造成的缺口。”</blockquote> His conclusion on upcoming market action will hardly come as a surprise to those who have followed Wilson's progressive pessimism across 2021: pointing to the market's inability to recover its prior trendline, he says \"this leaves the technical picture very uncertain in our view and one can now break either way. With our fundamental view skewing poorly at the moment, we lean to the bearish outcome.\"<blockquote>对于那些在 2021 年关注威尔逊逐渐悲观情绪的人来说，他对即将到来的市场行动的结论几乎不会感到惊讶：他指出市场无法恢复之前的趋势线，他表示：“这使得我们认为技术面非常不确定，现在可以打破任何一方。由于我们的基本面观点目前严重扭曲，我们倾向于看跌结果。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/41fc56e35f140c96104f8d8aa0826fd3\" tg-width=\"1100\" tg-height=\"602\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Getting back to his process, Wilson then says that he has high conviction that \"earnings growth is likely to decelerate more than what the current consensus is forecasting.\" Furthermore, he thinks the market is starting to agree with that view and points to market breadth as a good leading indicator for earnings revision breadth where he says \"direction is clear\" and pointing to the newly shrinking market breadth, he reminds readers that earnings revision breadth is a good leading indicator for the overall market.<blockquote>回到他的流程，威尔逊随后表示，他坚信“盈利增长可能会比当前共识预测的放缓幅度更大”。此外，他认为市场开始同意这一观点，并指出市场广度是盈利修正广度的良好领先指标，他表示“方向很明确”，并指出新收缩的市场广度，他提醒读者盈利修正广度是整体市场的良好领先指标。</blockquote> It will therefore hardly come as a surprise that with Wilson still clearly bearish, his advice to clients is \"don’t get too caught up in last week’s strong rebound from Monday’s sharp sell off\"which he views as a clean break of the uptrend and a filling of the gap created from Monday's crack. And with the technical picture murky, \"that's a time to trust the fundamental and cycle analyses which suggest lower equity prices ahead\"and as growth decelerates and financial conditions tighten, valuations are likely to fall from their lofty levels.<blockquote>因此，威尔逊仍然明显看空，他给客户的建议是“不要被上周从周一的大幅抛售中强劲反弹所迷惑”他认为这是对上升趋势的彻底打破，也是对周一裂缝造成的缺口的填补。由于技术方面的情况不明朗，”现在是相信基本面和周期分析表明未来股价走低的时候了”随着经济增长放缓和金融状况收紧，估值可能会从高位回落。</blockquote> * * *<blockquote>***</blockquote> With all that in mind, Wilson goes back to his core fundamental thesis which is simple: after a blockbuster Q2 season, earnings are set to drop substantially as a result of the margin compression we discussed most recently over the weekend, to wit:<blockquote>考虑到所有这些，威尔逊回到了他的核心基本论点，这个论点很简单：在经历了一个轰动一时的第二季度之后，由于我们最近在周末讨论的利润率压缩，盈利将大幅下降，也就是说：</blockquote> Since the second quarter of 2020 earnings results have come in much higher than consensus forecasts. Earnings beats ranged from 14% - 22% over this period while the median beat rate since 2008 is only 5%...We do not think companies will continue to beat at such an unprecedented rate and believe 3Q could see a material change in the more recent trend as supply chain issues and labor shortages pose a risk to both top line and margins. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f5e643723cfa540ad52a1dcebcba24f3\" tg-width=\"722\" tg-height=\"433\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote>自 2020 年第二季度以来，盈利结果远高于市场普遍预期在此期间，盈利超出率在 14% 至 22% 之间，而自 2008 年以来的中值超出率仅为 5%……我们认为公司不会继续以如此前所未有的速度超出预期，并相信第三季度可能会出现重大变化近期趋势，因为供应链问题和劳动力短缺对营收和利润率都构成风险。</blockquote> We looked at how 3Q earnings estimate revisions have trended at the industry group and sector level. Significant cuts have occurred in insurance, capital goods and transportation. Consumer Durables is the only area that has seen significant positive revisions at the industry group level. 3Q S&amp;P 500 estimates have fallen by 77 bps over past 4 weeks. We expect more downside. <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5496394c7a42ab136f68ba74c64cf83\" tg-width=\"705\" tg-height=\"451\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ef6beae58fd458a45024d160d45b4684\" tg-width=\"735\" tg-height=\"459\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote>我们研究了第三季度盈利预测修正在行业集团和行业层面的趋势。保险、资本货物和运输都出现了大幅削减。耐用消费品是行业集团层面唯一出现重大积极修正的领域。过去 4 周内，第三季度标普500预期下降了 77 个基点。我们预计会有更多的负面影响。</blockquote> No surprises there, as the margin compression story is a familiar one (\"Margins Crushed As Producer Prices Explode At Record Pace In July\"). To Wilson, however, this is the story and one which the market refuses to even consider:<blockquote>这并不奇怪，因为利润率压缩的故事是一个熟悉的故事（“随着 7 月份生产者价格以创纪录的速度爆炸，利润率被压缩”）。然而，对于威尔逊来说，这是一个故事，也是一个市场甚至拒绝考虑的故事：</blockquote> 2022 consensus margin estimates are historically lofty...we examine the risks to margins in coming quarters through two different top down approaches. The spread between GDP growth and wage growth correlates fairly closely with operating margins over time. Based on our economists' estimates, this spread should decelerate in coming quarters, which suggests margins should contract, not expand as bottom-up consensus expects.<blockquote>2022 年共识利润率估计处于历史高位……我们通过两种不同的自上而下的方法来研究未来几个季度的利润率风险。随着时间的推移，GDP增长和工资增长之间的利差与营业利润率密切相关。根据我们经济学家的估计这种利差应该会在未来几个季度放缓，这表明利润率应该会收缩，而不是像自下而上的共识预期那样扩大.</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e80ec048b5856ebf2159d1d9d0151334\" tg-width=\"751\" tg-height=\"578\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Further, corporate transcript mentions of \"cost pressures\" and related terms are historically elevated. When this has happened in the past, margins have consolidated.<blockquote>此外，公司成绩单中对“成本压力”和相关术语的提及历来较高。当这种情况在过去发生时，利润率已经巩固。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/42c8fcfa4bb23d953d8c2079bc1a0ec5\" tg-width=\"773\" tg-height=\"540\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Wilson's final bearish point is that companies are reaching the limit on how much of rising input costs they can pass on to consumers. As he puts it, while \"many investors that we speak to are optimistic about corporates' ability to pass on cost through pricing and protect margins\" he would caution that \"prices in several consumer end markets are already at a level that is inhibiting demand. We think the risk of this dynamic (high prices leading to demand destruction) spreading to other areas of consumer demand is especially elevated because goods consumption is already so far above trend—in other words, high prices are that much more of a deterrent given households have already overconsumed in many areas.\"<blockquote>威尔逊的最后一个悲观观点是，企业已经达到了将不断上涨的投入成本转嫁给消费者的极限。正如他所说，虽然“我们采访的许多投资者对企业通过定价转嫁成本和保护利润率的能力持乐观态度”，但他会警告说，“几个消费终端市场的价格已经处于抑制需求的水平。我们认为，这种动态（高价格导致需求破坏）蔓延到其他消费需求领域的风险尤其高，因为商品消费已经远远高于趋势——换句话说，考虑到许多地区的家庭已经过度消费，高价格更具威慑力。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/216bbe5eae73445b35a9152e741dccef\" tg-width=\"1009\" tg-height=\"801\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"><blockquote></blockquote> Translation: absent another multi-trillion stimmy - and thanks to the chaos in the democratic party we know one is unlikely to come - Wilson's call for a 20% drop in stocks in the next few months remains intact.<blockquote>翻译：如果没有另一场数万亿的骚动——由于民主党内部的混乱，我们知道不太可能发生——威尔逊关于未来几个月股市下跌 20% 的看涨期权仍然完好无损。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/morgan-stanley-dismisses-strong-rebound-remains-bearish-coming-earnings-disappointment\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","SPY":"标普500ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/morgan-stanley-dismisses-strong-rebound-remains-bearish-coming-earnings-disappointment","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1166571782","content_text":"For just a few hours last Monday, Morgan Stanley's chief economist felt vindicated: with stocks tumbling on Evergrande default fears, Wilson emerged from his faux-bull cocoon (havingraised his year-end S&P price target from 3,900 to 4,000 in Augustin a note that reeked of disgust with what he was being told to do) and warned that an \"Ice is coming\", referring to a 20% drop in stocks as opposed to the more modest 10% correction envisioned in his \"fire\" scenario, saying that \"the \"ice\" scenario is starting to look more likely, and could result in a more destructive outcome – i.e. a 20%+ correction\", a drop he expects will take place some time this fall.\nWilson also predicted that with earnings growth and PMIs set to drop, it would adversely impact forward PE multiples and by extension the S&P.\n\nWell, what a difference 7 days makes: with Evergrande default fears now long forgotten with little to no offshore contagion, the S&P is almost 150 points from its \"Evergrande Monday\" lows and once again pushing back toward all time highs (even if with a major rotation in the leadership as tech stocks are now sliding, having been replaced by value, cyclical and reopening names) in the process yet again foiling Wilson's bearish visions.\nSo has the market's sharp post-opex bounce changed the mind of the chief strategist that this seemingly invincible market will never go down again more than just a token 5% move?\nToday we got the answer in Wilson's latest weekly warm-up not, in which he makes it clear that his bearish outlook remains, and as he explains, \"our process tells us the risk-reward remains unattractive at the index level given slowing growth and rising rates. Meanwhile, price action can be interpreted bullishly or bearishly. With 3Q earnings season likely to bring a much more muted outcome, we remain defensive in our positioning.\"\nWe'll get to why in a second, but first Wilson - realizing that he would get a criticism for what many viewed as a premature victory lap - spends the first few paragraphs of his latest note going over the details of his analytical process. This is how he lays it out:\n\nOur equity strategy process has several key components. Most importantly, we focus on the fundamentals of growth and valuation to determine whether the overall market is attractive and which sectors and stocks look the best/worst.The rate of change on growth is more important than the absolute level, and we use a market-based equity risk premium framework that works well as long as you apply the correct regime when using it. In that regard, we’re an avid student of market cycles and believe historical analogs can be helpful. For example, the mid cycle transition narrative that has worked so well this year is derived directly from our study of historical economic and market cycles.\n\n\nThe final component we spend a lot of time on is price.While most would call this technical analysis, we’d like to think we do it a little bit differently. Markets aren’t always efficient, but we believe they are often very good leading indicators for the fundamentals—the ultimate driver of value. This is especially true if one looks at the internal movements and relative strength of individual securities. In short, \n we find these internals to be much more helpful than simply looking at the major averages.\n\n\nThis year, we think the process has lived up to its promise quite well with the price action lining up nicely with the fundamental backdrop.In short, the large cap quality leadership since March is signaling what we believe is about to happen—i.e., decelerating growth and tightening financial conditions. The question for investors is whether the price action has fully discounted those outcomes.\n\nWith that disclosure in hand, and with the clear understanding that at least in his view investors are not discounting any adverse outcomes at this point, Wilson proceeds to discuss the recent market action, noting that stocks\"sold off hard last Monday on concerns about the Evergrande bankruptcy\"and while he adds that it is the Morgan Stanley \"house view\" that it likely won’t lead to a major financial contagion, \"it will probably weigh on China growth for the next few quarters which means that the growth deceleration we are expecting could be a bit worse.\"\nThe other reason Wilson suggests was behind the market weakness early last week \"likely had to do with concern about the Fed articulating its plans to taper asset purchases later this year and perhaps even move up the timing of rate hikes to next year. On that score, the Fed did not disappoint as they pretty much told us to expect the taper to begin in December.The surprise was the speed in which they expect to be done tapering—by mid 2022.This is about a quarter sooner than the market had been anticipating and does move up the odds for a rate hike in 2022.\"\nCuriously last week's rally happened in the aftermath of the market's perplexing kneejerk response to the Fed meeting on Wednesday, when stocks rallied even as bonds sold off sharply, particularly at the back end. Real 10-year yields were up 11bps in 2 days and are now up 31bps in just 8 weeks (Exhibit 1). That according to Wilson is \"tightening of financial conditions for sure\" and should weigh on PEs overall but it also has big implications for what should work at the sector/style level (Exhibit 2).\n\nIn short, Wilson digs in and claims that higher real rates should mean lower P/Es overall which likely means lower S&P 500, thus validating his bearish view which still sees the S&P dropping some 20% from its current perch to hit 4,000 by year end. However, he concedes, \"it may also mean value over growth and small caps over Nasdaq even as the overall equity market goes lower.\"\nWhich brings us to the key question we spent quite some time discussing last week, namelywhy did stocks rally so much into the end of the weekon what Wilson says are odds that growth will decelerate more than expected from Evergrande and financial conditions may tighten faster?\nHere Wilson is at least honest - as he puts it - and says \"we’re not sure but we think this may be a time when the markets are playing tricks on investors and even setting a bit of a trap.\" Actually it's simpler than that and has to do with thegamma reversal and technical flows we pointed out last week, but one has to be a \"greek geek\" - like Nomura's Charlie McElligott - to get that.\nThe other explanation proposed by Wilson is \"that investors were somewhat positioned for bad news going into the Fed meeting and the actual event simply served as a relief that it didn’t lead lower prices. This price action drove many investors to chase on Thursday for fear of missing out.In short, don’t underestimate the power of price to determine how investors interpret the facts.Just like negative price action can get people to sell the lows, positive price action can force people to buy\", he concludes.\nWhatever the reason for the initial bounce, it quickly accelerated and there was \"a lot of excitement last Thursday when stocks rallied sharply back above the 50 day moving average, a key barometer for many and a key level of support throughout this year for the S&P 500.\" That this happened when the 50DMA was broken \"on near record levels of volume in both the cash and derivatives markets\" only punctuated the strength of the rebound. By Friday, that moving average had been reclaimed and closed above it for the week, an important technical win as even Wilson admits. However, he then adds, from his vantage point, \"the very well defined uptrend that has been established over the past year was broken and not reclaimed. Instead, it looks like the rally from Wednesday to Friday was simply \"filling the gap\" created from Monday's break.\"\nHis conclusion on upcoming market action will hardly come as a surprise to those who have followed Wilson's progressive pessimism across 2021: pointing to the market's inability to recover its prior trendline, he says \"this leaves the technical picture very uncertain in our view and one can now break either way. With our fundamental view skewing poorly at the moment, we lean to the bearish outcome.\"\n\nGetting back to his process, Wilson then says that he has high conviction that \"earnings growth is likely to decelerate more than what the current consensus is forecasting.\" Furthermore, he thinks the market is starting to agree with that view and points to market breadth as a good leading indicator for earnings revision breadth where he says \"direction is clear\" and pointing to the newly shrinking market breadth, he reminds readers that earnings revision breadth is a good leading indicator for the overall market.\nIt will therefore hardly come as a surprise that with Wilson still clearly bearish, his advice to clients is \"don’t get too caught up in last week’s strong rebound from Monday’s sharp sell off\"which he views as a clean break of the uptrend and a filling of the gap created from Monday's crack. And with the technical picture murky, \"that's a time to trust the fundamental and cycle analyses which suggest lower equity prices ahead\"and as growth decelerates and financial conditions tighten, valuations are likely to fall from their lofty levels.\n* * *\nWith all that in mind, Wilson goes back to his core fundamental thesis which is simple: after a blockbuster Q2 season, earnings are set to drop substantially as a result of the margin compression we discussed most recently over the weekend, to wit:\n\nSince the second quarter of 2020 earnings results have come in much higher than consensus forecasts. Earnings beats ranged from 14% - 22% over this period while the median beat rate since 2008 is only 5%...We do not think companies will continue to beat at such an unprecedented rate and believe 3Q could see a material change in the more recent trend as supply chain issues and labor shortages pose a risk to both top line and margins.\n\n\n\n We looked at how 3Q earnings estimate revisions have trended at the industry group and sector level. Significant cuts have occurred in insurance, capital goods and transportation. \n Consumer Durables is the only area that has seen significant positive revisions at the industry group level. 3Q S&P 500 estimates have fallen by 77 bps over past 4 weeks. We expect more downside.\n\n\nNo surprises there, as the margin compression story is a familiar one (\"Margins Crushed As Producer Prices Explode At Record Pace In July\"). To Wilson, however, this is the story and one which the market refuses to even consider:\n2022 consensus margin estimates are historically lofty...we examine the risks to margins in coming quarters through two different top down approaches. The spread between GDP growth and wage growth correlates fairly closely with operating margins over time. Based on our economists' estimates, this spread should decelerate in coming quarters, which suggests margins should contract, not expand as bottom-up consensus expects.\n\nFurther, corporate transcript mentions of \"cost pressures\" and related terms are historically elevated. When this has happened in the past, margins have consolidated.\n\nWilson's final bearish point is that companies are reaching the limit on how much of rising input costs they can pass on to consumers. As he puts it, while \"many investors that we speak to are optimistic about corporates' ability to pass on cost through pricing and protect margins\" he would caution that \"prices in several consumer end markets are already at a level that is inhibiting demand. We think the risk of this dynamic (high prices leading to demand destruction) spreading to other areas of consumer demand is especially elevated because goods consumption is already so far above trend—in other words, high prices are that much more of a deterrent given households have already overconsumed in many areas.\"\n\nTranslation: absent another multi-trillion stimmy - and thanks to the chaos in the democratic party we know one is unlikely to come - Wilson's call for a 20% drop in stocks in the next few months remains intact.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":4411,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":4,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/866278477"}