Challenging times...

Anxieties are rising as the market turmoil enters a new phase of uncertainty. The palpable market nervousness is understandable because, as blatantly observed in 2008, a sharp rise in volatility translates into a sharp rise in correlations which is the equivalent of modern portfolio theory's worst nightmare as it results in a breakdown of what would otherwise be a robust theory of how to ensure stable returns in an environment of controlled risk over the long term.

The keyword here is "long term" because, thankfully, volatility spikes tend to occur over relatively short periods of time and therefore, it is hoped, cancel out their negative impact over the longer term.

So how does the theory stack up in the real world? Our next newsletter will attempt to answer that question but, in the meantime, the intriguing graph above, known as a "radar" graph, summarizes our thoughts regarding the various asset classes. Reading it is relatively straight forward. Each point in this heptagonal shape refers to an asset class or a sub asset class. Each asset class is given a sentiment score of one to three with one being bearish, two, neutral, and three, bullish. An asset and/or sub asset class with a bearish outlook would be marked at the center of the heptagon whilst one with a bullish outlook would be marked at the outer boundary.

A pledge with teeth?

The element of surprise is what tends to move markets or break trends. Stocks, for example, move as part of market movements, the so called beta factor, but the largest movements occur when earnings results come out way above or below consensus, because the market is caught by surprise which means that the intrinsic value of the stock needs to be re-adjusted to take into consideration new information.
The European turmoil of the last couple of days illustrates well the effect of surprise. When it became clear that the half hearted rescue effort of Greece was not going to work, raising the risk of contagion by the day, the Euro zone members decided to shock the markets by pledging an astronomical 750 billion Euros on the table. This figure was so above expectations (it turns out to be even more than what the U.S. government pledged in 2008) that it had the intended effect of putting a firm stop to the hemorrhaging. The other surprising effect is that with this pledge, the member states effectively surrender a large portion of their independence, an independence that caused the crisis in the first place. So basically Europe is in unchartered waters so to speak, they are making history and it took a crisis to make it happen.
Irrespective of how the political structure is likely to evolve from here, it should be made clear that this mega rescue plan is not a fix but more like a temporary patch. A good analogy would be a deep sea diver running out of oxygen who suddenly stumbles across a discarded oxygen tank. The tank will buy the diver some precious time, but the real question should be: will the amount of additional time bought be enough for the diver to return safely back to surface?
Countries like Portugal and Spain desperately need the pledge in order to borrow at reasonable rates, with the hope being that the additional time provided will allow them to put their respective houses in order. Problem is that their houses are in such disarray that it is difficult to phantom how they will achieve this without enjoying total independence. Time will tell, but the Euro project is on shaky ground and as the rescue plan euphoria dies out and reality begins to sink in, we could be in for other and maybe more exotic surprises on the horizon.