Category: Market Action

It was a nice day to own bonds:

Treasuries surged, with benchmark 10-year yields falling the most since March 2009, as a decline in retail sales prompted traders to reduce wagers the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates in 2015.

Rates on federal fund futures show traders betting that the Fed will raise interest rates in December 2015, with chances of an increase in September fading to 32 percent from 46 percent yesterday and 67 percent two months ago, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The benchmark 10-year yield traded below 2 percent for the first time since June 2013 even as the Fed is forecast to end its quantitative easing this month. A market gauge of inflation expectations fell to the lowest in 15 months while crude oil tumbled in a bear market.
…
The benchmark 10-year yield fell 14 basis points, or 0.14 percentage points, to 2.06 percent as of 2:17 p.m. New York time and reached the lowest since May 2013. The 2.375 percent note due in August 2024 rose 1 1/4, or $12.50 per $1,000 face value, to 102 26/32. The yield fell as much as 34 basis points and reached 1.86 percent, the lowest level since May 2013.

The 30-year bond rose more than four points and the yield fell as much as 28 basis points to 2.67 percent, touching the lowest level since September 2012, before trading at 2.83 percent.
…
The 10-year break-even rate, derived from the difference between yields on Treasuries and inflation-linked debt of similar maturities, shrank to 1.86 percentage points, the least since June 2013.
…
Retail sales declined 0.3 percent after a 0.6 percent August gain that was the biggest in four months, Commerce Department figures showed. The median forecast of 81 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.1 percent decline.

Four bucks on long Treasuries! Wow! Equities weren’t quite so happy, but it it could have been worse:

An afternoon rebound helped the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index pare its biggest intraday plunge since 2011 amid speculation the selloff was overdone.

The S&P 500 lost 0.8 percent to 1,862.49 at 4 p.m. in New York, trimming an earlier plunge of as much as 3 percent. The index pared its gain for the year to less than 0.8 percent and has tumbled 7.4 percent since a record on Sept. 18. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 173.45 points, or 1.1 percent, to 16,141.74 after dropping as much as 460 points. The Russell 2000 Index of smaller companies jumped 1 percent.

It was a poor day for the Canadian preferred share market, however, as it took its cue from equities, with PerpetualDiscounts down 19bp, FixedResets losing 21bp and DeemedRetractibles off 6bp. Volatility was high and dominated by losers – the only winner was PVS.PR.D, which had a bogus bid yesterday and, if we look at actual trades, was actually down significantly on the day. Volume was low.

PerpetualDiscounts now yield 5.18%, equivalent to 6.73% interest at the standard equivalency factor of 1.3x. Long corporates now yield about 4.05% (maybe a hair more), so the pre-tax interest equivalent spread is now about 270bp, a significant widening from the 250bp reported October 8.

The Fed is very excited about a new extension to regulatory power:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation welcome the announcement today by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) of the agreement of a new resolution stay protocol.
…
This initiative is an important step toward mitigating the financial stability risks associated with the early termination of bilateral, OTC derivatives contracts triggered by the failure of a global banking firm with significant cross-border derivatives activities. Initially, 18 large banking organizations have agreed to sign onto the protocol. The protocol provides for temporary stays on certain default and early termination rights within standard ISDA derivatives contracts in the event one of the large banking organizations is subject to an insolvency or resolution proceeding in its home jurisdiction.

The resolution stay amendments of the protocol are intended to facilitate an orderly resolution of a major global banking firm and reduce the potential negative impact of the resolution on financial stability by giving the bankruptcy court or resolution authority the ability to prevent early termination of financial contracts of the firm’s global subsidiaries. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC are encouraged by this effort and look forward to the continuation of this important work.

ISDA adds:

The Protocol essentially enables adhering counterparties to opt into certain overseas resolution regimes via a change to their derivatives contracts. While many existing national resolution frameworks impose stays on early termination rights following the start of resolution proceedings, these stays might only apply to domestic counterparties trading under domestic law agreements, and so might not capture cross-border trades.

Regulators have committed to develop new regulations in their jurisdictions in 2015 that will promote broader adoption of the stay provisions beyond the G-18 banks. Banks have also committed through the Protocol to expand coverage once such regulations are enacted to include a stay that could be used when a US financial holding company becomes subject to proceedings under the US Bankruptcy Code. Those regulations will be made under the rule-making process in each jurisdiction.

The contractual approach is meant to support current statutory regimes and ensure wider, more consistent application. By adhering to the Protocol, the G-18 banks will extend the coverage of stays to more than 90% of their outstanding derivatives notional, and that proportion will increase as other firms sign the Protocol.

The backgrounder (available via a link on the ISDA release) gleefully celebrates the coming extension of regulatory power over investors:

Buy-side firms are not included in the first phase. These institutions are unable to voluntarily adopt the protocol due to fiduciary responsibilities to their clients. By voluntarily giving up advantageous contractual rights, they potentially leave themselves open to lawsuits. The FSB has recognised this issue, and FSB members have committed to encourage broader adoption of the protocol by imposing new regulations in their jurisdictions throughout 2015.

Hyperinflation has been rescheduled:

Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said weaker-than-expected global growth could prompt the U.S. central bank to slow the pace of eventual interest-rate increases.

“If foreign growth is weaker than anticipated, the consequences for the U.S. economy could lead the Fed to remove accommodation more slowly than otherwise,” Fischer said in speech today in Washington.

Fischer, 70, said the Fed won’t raise rates until the U.S. expansion “has advanced far enough,” and most emerging markets should be able to weather the increase.

Fischer’s remarks highlight growing concern among U.S. central bank officials about the impact of a global slowdown and a strengthening dollar. He spoke to central bankers and finance ministers gathered in Washington for the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

The Fed’s policy making body last month expressed concern that weak demand, particularly in Europe, could add to the dollar’s appreciation, hurting U.S. exporters and damping inflation, according to minutes released Oct. 8.

I’m a big fan of transparency at the top of central banks – even, or perhaps especially, when it gets ugly:

Mario Draghi and Jens Weidmann are clashing anew over how much more stimulus the ailing euro-area economy needs from the European Central Bank.

As Europe’s woes again proved the chief concern at weekend meetings of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, President Draghi repeated he’s ready to expand the ECB’s balance sheet by as much as 1 trillion euros ($1.3 trillion) to beat back the threat of deflation. Bundesbank head Weidmann responded by saying that a target value isn’t set in stone.

The differences at the heart of policy making risk leaving the ECB hamstrung as the region’s economy stalls and inflation fades further from the central bank’s target of just below 2 percent. History suggests Draghi will ultimately prevail over his German colleague.

The public nature of the dispute will force Draghi to disclose more of his thinking than might otherwise be the case – and this is a Good Thing.

But I’m wondering about the ‘set in stone’ metaphor. Is it mixed? You can carve something in stone, which means the same thing as casting it in iron, but can you actually set something in stone to make it permanent? You can set it in concrete, if you like, and you can set a stone in a ring or a driveway, for instance, but I’m not fully convinced that “set in stone” means much. The intending meaning doesn’t match any of the standard dictionary definitions of “set”, nor does this standard dictionary list “set in stone” as an idiom. It’s all very curious.

Anyway, there is considerable controversy regarding Germany’s approach:

In Washington, Mr. Schaeuble not only endured lectures from longtime critics such as Larry Summers, the former U.S. Treasury Secretary who in an unusually frank panel discussion accused Germany of leading Europe down a path of Japanese-style deflation with a misguided focus on budget consolidation.

He also had to listen to advice from traditional allies such as Finland’s Jyrki Katainen, a future vice president of the European Commission, who warned that Germany could not remain strong forever if it failed to invest more in its own infrastructure and education system.
…
In its lead editorial on Sunday, conservative newspaper Die Welt argued that a weakening German economy should force a policy rethink and warned that Schaeuble’s push to achieve a “schwarze Null” – a federal budget that is in the black – in 2015 should not turn into a mindless “fetish.”

The Sueddeutsche Zeitung suggested Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) risked turning into the “Tea Party of Europe” with their single-minded focus on deficit reduction.

Meanwhile, it appears that hyperinflation has been rescheduled again:

When it comes to spurring inflation in the U.S. economy, the bond market is becoming convinced that the Federal Reserve has almost no chance of achieving its 2 percent target before the end of the decade.

Inflation expectations have plummeted in the past three months, with yields of Treasuries (BUSY) implying consumer prices will rise an average 1.5 percent annually through the third quarter of 2019. In the past decade, those predictions have come within 0.1 percentage point of the actual rate of price increases in the following five years, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
…
Based on the gap between yields of government notes and TIPS, traders have scaled back estimates for average inflation through 2019 by a half-percentage point since June to 1.52 percent, Fed data compiled by Bloomberg show.

That decline has significance for policy makers because yields have historically been accurate in predicting the future pace of annual cost-of-living increases.

The market’s five-year forecast has understated actual inflation based on the U.S. consumer price index by a median of just 0.04 percentage point since the data began in 2003.

… and nominals had a good day:

Treasuries climbed, with two-year note yields dropping the most in more than a year, as signs of economic weakness in Germany fueled speculation that slowing global growth will delay Federal Reserve interest-rate increases.

Thirty-year bond yields dropped below 3 percent for the first time since May 2013 as reports showed U.K. inflation dropped to a five-year low in September and German investor confidence eroded. A gauge of inflation expectations measured by the difference between yields on 10-year notes and similar-maturity inflation-index debt traded close to the lowest in more than a year. Volatility reached the highest level since January.
…
The two-year note yield dropped five basis points, or 0.05 percentage point, to 0.38 percent at 3:02 p.m. New York time, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader prices. The 0.5 percent securities maturing in September 2016 added 3/32, or 94 cents per $1,000 face amount, to 100 7/32. The yield fell as much as six basis points, the largest decline since September 2013.

The 30-year (USGG30YR) bond fell five basis points to 2.96 percent and touched 2.94 percent, the lowest since May 3, 2013. The benchmark 10-year yield dropped seven basis points to 2.21 percent. It earlier reached 2.19 percent, a level not seen since June 2013.

And equities – particularly energies – got thumped:

U.S. stocks may have perked up today but the commodity-sensitive Toronto market slipped into correction mode.

Equities in Toronto moved into that zone this morning, though pulled back later, only to drop further again in the afternoon, closing down more than 190 points, or 1.3 per cent, at 14,036.68. That marked a drop of some 10 per cent from its peak in early September, thus meeting the definition of a correction.

But is it a plot?

The decline in oil prices may be depriving Russian President Vladimir Putin of his biggest ally.

Oil has been the key to Putin’s grip on power since he took over from Boris Yeltsin in 2000, fueling a booming economy that grew 7 percent on average from 2000 to 2008.
…
Brent crude is down more than 20 percent from its June high, cutting billions of dollars in tax revenue from Russia’s most valuable export. The budget will fall into deficit next year if oil is less than $104 a barrel, according to investment bank Sberbank CIB. At $90, close to the current level, Russia will have a shortfall of 1.2 percent of gross domestic product.
…
Top Kremlin officials said after the annexation of Crimea that they expected the U.S. to artificially push oil prices down in collaboration with Saudi Arabia in order to damage Russia, according to Khryshtanovskaya. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, didn’t respond to a request for comment on this issue, nor did he respond over four days of calls requesting comment about oil’s importance to Putin.

“Prices are being manipulated,” state-run Rosneft’s spokesman Mikhail Leontyev said Oct. 12 in an interview with Russkaya Sluzhba Novostei radio. “Saudi Arabia has started offering big discounts on oil. This is political manipulation, manipulation by Saudi Arabia, which can end badly for it.”

The reason Saudi Arabia cut its crude prices earlier this month was to boost margins for refinery clients and the move didn’t signal rising competition for market share, a person familiar with the nation’s oil policy said last week.

It was a mixed day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts gaining 9bp, FixedResets down 4bp and DeemedRetractibles off 3bp. Volatility was average, with some of the usual stupidity in recorded figures brought to you courtesy of the twerps at the Toronto Stock Exchange. Volume was extremely low.

CU Inc. has announced:

it will issue $200,000,000 of 4.094% Debentures maturing on October 19, 2054, at a price of $100.00 to yield 4.094%. This issue was sold by RBC Dominion Securities Inc., BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., TD Securities Inc., Scotia Capital Inc. and CIBC World Markets Inc. Proceeds from the issue will be used to finance capital expenditures, to repay existing indebtedness, and for other general corporate purposes of ATCO Electric Ltd. and ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd.

CIU.PR.A is trading in-line with the CU PerpetualDiscounts at about 5.12%, which is an interest-equivalent 6.66%, meaning that the Seniority Spread for CIU is about 256bp, in line with the index averages. Which is always nice to confirm on an individual company basis!

I think Parakeet Poloz has been told to stop providing forward guidance. He’s listed as the author of a BoC Discussion Paper, Integrating Uncertainty and Monetary Policy-Making: A Practitioner’s Perspective:

This paper discusses how central banking is evolving in light of recent experience, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of uncertainty into policy decision-making. The sort of post-crisis uncertainty that central banks are dealing with today is more profound than that which is typically subjected to rigorous analysis and does not lend itself easily to formal modelling. As a practical matter, the policy-maker is dependent on macro models to develop a coherent monetary policy plan, and this burden of coherence means that fundamental uncertainty must be incorporated explicitly into the policy formulation process. As suggested here, doing so transforms policy formulation from an exercise in reverse engineering to one of risk management, one consequence of which is to inject a little more realism about uncertainty into the policy narrative, while trusting markets to wrestle with the data flow and deliver two-way trading. The evolution is likely to be a long one—researchers are encouraged to keep focusing on developing a practical understanding of how the economy works, one that admits that rules around economic behaviour are not cast in stone, but are almost certainly subject to variation through time and events.
…
Helping people to appreciate the underlying reality and the limitations of our craft without invalidating our core value proposition is a challenging task. More importantly, the business of central banking is being reinvented in real time in reaction to these realities. At the Bank of Canada, some of the key manifestations of this evolution, as I have tried to motivate above, are:
(i) explicitly building forecast ranges or scenario modelling around key assumption variables, such as potential output, the neutral interest rate and the world price of oil, into our public policy dialogue;
(ii) pointing to key elements of fundamental uncertainty, analyzing the associated policy risks carefully and openly, and laying out complementary research as we learn more about those risks;
(iii) investing more in consultations with Canadian business people and financial market participants, both in the form of surveys and in frank, face-to-face conversations around alternative interpretations of the macroeconomic data;
(iv) bringing a more fulsome narrative to the policy decision-making process, based on a risk-management framework rather than the more conventional policy engineering model; and,
(v) bringing to the table more research on real-financial linkages and financial stability risks to generate a richer set of considerations that influence day-to-day policy thinking.

If the Parakeet and his masters want to emphasize the uncertainty of forecasting, they would be much better advised to appoint strong, independently minded people to the rate-setting committee, publicizing the dissenting votes with a brief rationale, and encouraging members of the committee to make speeches giving their views. Just like the FOMC. And, as I’ve noted before, I feel quite certain that a lot of these dissenting speeches are orchestrated … ‘Bob, I don’t think you’re right on this one, but you might be! Why not highlight that in a speech so the possibility gets some discussion?’

There were good Canadian jobs numbers:

Canada’s jobs numbers have followed a perfect pattern this year, with gains one month followed by losses the next.

September was no different. The country added a better-than-expected 74,100 jobs last month and – in a complete reversal of the prior month – most of the gains were in full-time positions, and in the private sector.

To put things in a longer-term perspective, employment has grown by a still-muted average of 13,000 jobs per month in the past year. But last month’s increase was an improvement in the jobs picture.

David Parkinson snipes in the Globe:

Statscan reports the “standard error” for the overall survey at 28,500. That means that statistically speaking, 68 per cent of the time the actual monthly job-change figure will be within a range of 28,500 plus or minus the figure Statscan reports; the other 32 per cent of the time, it will be a figure outside that range.

The standard error on the private-sector employment figure is 38,200, while for self-employment it’s 25,900.

What this means is that big numbers in the survey need to be taken with a grain of salt.

But anyway … jobs? Schmobs!:

Now, as longer-run inflation expectations erode in financial markets, the Federal Open Market Committee is shifting its focus toward prices after putting its main emphasis on jobs for months. Several officials worried that “inflation might persist below” the committee’s target for “quite some time,” minutes from the Sept. 16-17 meeting said.

Too-low inflation “is getting to be a real issue again,” said former Fed Governor Laurence Meyer. With inflation at 1.5 percent according to the Fed’s preferred index, Meyer said FOMC policy makers aren’t likely to raise interest rates, even if the economy approaches full employment, defined as a jobless rate of 5.2 percent to 5.5 percent. Unemployment was 5.9 percent last month.
…
Policy makers including regional Fed Presidents William Dudley of New York, Charles Evans of Chicago and Narayana Kocherlakota of Minneapolis have in recent days all mentioned below-target inflation as a risk that weighs against raising interest rates too soon.

And the stock market blew us another raspberry:

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) posted the biggest weekly drop in two years as concern about chipmaker earnings fueled a rout across the technology industry.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (INDU) erased gains for the year as Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Cisco Systems Inc. fell more than 3.5 percent. Microchip Technology Inc. tumbled 12 percent said quarterly revenue was crimped by a decline in China sales and warned of an industry correction. Juniper Networks Inc. sank 9.1 percent after reporting preliminary results that missed its own forecast.

The S&P 500 lost 1.2 percent to 1,906.09 as of 4 p.m. in New York. The index fell 3.1 percent for the week, the biggest drop since May 2012.
…
European Central Bank President Mario Draghi clashed with Germany’s finance minister yesterday over the steps needed to revive growth in the euro area, while Federal Reserve officials have said the U.S. economy may be at risk from a global slowdown.

The S&P 500 has fallen for the past three weeks, the longest run since January. It’s down 5.2 percent from a record on Sept. 18, trimming its gain for the year to 3 percent.

The Canadian preferred market declined today, with PerpetualDiscounts down 5bp, FixedResets losing 9bp and DeemedRetractibles off 3bp. Losing FixedResets dominated the Performance Highlights table. Volume was very low.

The equity jocks are off their meds:

After plunging 1.5 percent on Oct. 7 and rallying almost 1.8 percent yesterday, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped 2.1 percent at 4 p.m. in New York today, the biggest turnaround in almost three years. As investors weigh the prospect of slower economic growth overseas against the benefit of U.S. interest rates staying near zero, a measure of 10-day volatility has risen to the highest level since April, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The only phrase that generates more comments on this site than “real estate” is “trailer fees”. So it is with some glee that I report that the trailer fee wars are heating up:

“Trailer fees – the meteor is closer than you think” was the title of a recent note put out by Mr. Sedran and Mr. Holden [of CIBC]. The meteor in question is a ban on trailer fees.

“Regulators are studying the impact of these fees, with the results of those studies and a recommendation expected early 2015. A ban on trailer fees would follow a global trend and would address the regulators’ conflict of interest concerns. We think such a ban is coming, and sooner than many think.”

The story is marred by an inaccuracy:

The big knock against trailer fees is that despite the advisor having a fiduciary duty to put the client in the product that best serves their needs, there is a financial incentive for the advisor to sell the client the fund with the highest trailer fee – a glaring conflict of interest.

… but we may see a lot of “portfolio managers” without track records:

Mr. Sedran and Mr. Holden say the industry will likely transition to a model where advisors would be paid for managing a client’s entire portfolio, similar to how financial planners are paid today. Furthermore, under such a model, the advisor’s compensation would be tied to whether their client’s portfolio appreciates in value. The implication is that it will also be in the advisor’s interest to put clients into the funds they believe will perform the best over time.

The so-called implication is laughable – it will continue to be a lot easier for salesmen to get a fresh $1,000 into the account from the client than it is to outperform by 1% on a $100,000 portfolio. But people like to dream.

There’s a laugh line:

The bigger players, such as the Canadian banks who already have vast mutual fund sales forces in branches, should be able to manage the transition just fine, according to Mr. Sedran and Mr. Holden.

Well, of course. If it hurt the banks, their future employees at the regulatory agencies wouldn’t dream of the idea. I remain interested in the regulatory agencies views on new issue commissions and proxy solicitation fees – which are functionally equivalent to trailer fees – but the silence continues.

I have often remarked at the superiority of US institutions over their Canadian counterparts with respect to transparency. It is very useful to gain insight into the policy-setting process by reviewing the countervailing arguments within the various committees – but, of course, there are always some who would prefer a two-line press release:

Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank AG in New York, said officials risk sowing confusion.

“It’s hard to have a unifying message when you have this many people who feel it’s incumbent on them to tell you what the Fed is thinking,” he said.

“I wish the Fed would answer generalities with generalities,” he said. “When they try to quantify, that’s when the problems come up.”

There’s some more information from Pew Research regarding stagnant wages:

Following the better-than-expected September jobs report, several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of meaningful wage growth, even as tens of thousands of people head back to work. Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice workers their way.

But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

Cash money isn’t the only way workers are compensated, of course — health insurance, retirement-account contributions, education and transit subsidies and other benefits all can be part of the package. But wages and salaries are the biggest (about 70%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and most visible component of employee compensation.
…
But after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today.

A similar measure, “usual weekly earnings” of employed, full-time, wage and salary workers, tells much the same story, albeit over a shorter time period. In seasonally adjusted current dollars, median usual weekly earnings rose from $232 in the first quarter 0f 1979 (when the series began) to $782 in the second quarter of this year (the most recent data available). But in real terms, the median has barely budged over that period.

Click for Big

But amidst all the gloom and doom, there’s some good news:

Prince Edward Island has joined Ottawa’s move to create a national securities regulator, bringing the total to five provinces who have signed onto the plan.

The federal Finance Department said Thursday the province has signed a memorandum of agreement to join the Co-operative Capital Markets Regulatory System.

The addition of P.E.I. follows a decision in July by Saskatchewan and New Brunswick to join B.C., Ontario and the federal government in establishing a national regulator.

I have said for a long, long time that piecemeal cooperation is better than none and much more attainable than the single-regulator pipedream. Mind you, I think the commentary we occasionally see regarding the wonderfulness of a national-mostly regulator is highly overwrought. All that will happen is that some unnecessarily duplicated paperwork will be eliminated. But that’s good reason enough.

It was a poor day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts down 12bp, FixedResets losing 13bp and DeemedRetractibles off 8bp. Volatility was average and balanced, but comprised entirely of FixedResets. Volume was on the low side of average.

Russia is intervening in the currency markets:

Russia’s central bank sold $420 million of foreign currency in its third day of interventions this month to slow the ruble’s world-beating decline.

The monetary authority spent the funds on Oct. 6 to shore up the ruble, the latest data on its website showed today. The bank also said it shifted the upper boundary of the currency’s trading band by 5 kopeks yesterday. The exchange rate was little changed at 44.6979 versus the dollar-euro basket as of 10:12 a.m. in Moscow today.

Bank of Russia will probably need to spend as much as $30 billion by year-end to slow the decline in the ruble, which lost 14 percent against the dollar last quarter, according to UralSib Capital.
…
Demand for dollars and euros is growing among Russian companies as they contend with $54.7 billion of debt repayments in the next three months, according to central bank data.

A little bird asked me to comment on a paper by Pablo Fernandez of University of Navarra – IESE Business School titled CAPM: An Absurd Model:

The CAPM is an absurd (having no rational or orderly relationship to human life; contrary to all reason or common sense) model because its assumptions and its predictions/conclusions have no basis in the real world. The use of CAPM is also a source of litigation: many professors, lawyers… get nice fees because many professionals use CAPM instead of common sense to calculate the required return to equity. Users of the CAPM make many illogical errors valuing companies, accepting/rejecting investment projects, evaluating fund performance, pricing goods and services in regulated markets, calculating value creation…

According to the dictionary, a theory is “an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events”; and a model is “a set of ideas and numbers that describe the past, present, or future state of something”. With the vast amount of information and research that we have, it is quite clear that the CAPM is neither a theory nor a model because it does not “explain facts or events”, nor does it “describe the past, present, or future state of something”.

It is important to differentiate between a fact (something that truly exists or happens: something that has actual existence; a true piece of information) and an opinion (what someone thinks about a particular thing). The CAPM could be described as an uninformed opinion, and not as a sensible opinion.

We all should try to explain a portion of “the world as it is”, not of “the world according to a wrong theory” nor of “the world if men were not men”. Ricardo Yepes, professor of philosophy of my university, wrote: “Learning means being able to keep perceiving reality as it truly is: complex – and not trying to fit every new experience into a closed and pre-conceived notion or overall scheme”. We may find out an investor’s expected IBM beta and expected market risk premium (MRP) by asking him. However, it is impossible to determine the expected IBM beta and the expected MRP of the market (for the market as a whole), because these two parameters do not exist. Different investors have different cash flow expectations and use different expected (and required) returns to equity (different expected market risk premium and different expected beta). One could only talk of the beta and the market risk premium if all investors had the same expectations. But investors do not have homogeneous expectations.

Sections 11 and 12 show how to calculate required returns in a sensible way and how to use betas being a reasonable person.
…
Just an example: calculation of the beta of electrical companies done by a European Electricity Regulatory Commission. “We calculate the betas of all traded European companies. Leveraged betas were calculated using 2 years of weekly data. The Market Index chosen was the Dow Jones STOXX Total Market Index. There is a great dispersion (from -0.24 to 1.16) and some odd betas (negative and higher than one). We decided to maintain all betas… To unlever the betas, we assumed that the beta of the debt is zero for all companies. Then, the Commission calculates the average of the unlevered betas and relever it using an objective debt to equity ratio based on the average debt to equity ratio of comparable companies. The levered beta proposed by the Commission for the transport activity is 0.471870073”

The Commission acknowledges that calculated betas have a “great dispersion (from -0.24 to 1.16)” but calculates the average of all of them and finally provides betas with a precision of 9 figures after the decimal point!
…
According with the CAPM “the market” assigns a beta to every company and that beta may be calculated with a regression of historical data. Of course, every investor should use this “market beta”. As we have already mentioned, the first problem is that this “market beta” does not exist.

When we calculate betas using historical data we encounter several well-known problems:
1. They change considerably from one day to the next.
2. They depend very much on which stock index is used as the market reference.
3. They depend very much on the historical period (5 years, 3 years…) used.
4. They depend on what returns (monthly, yearly…) are used to calculate them.
5. Very often we do not know if the beta of one company is lower or higher than the beta of another.
6. Calculated betas have little correlation with stock returns.
7. β = 1 has a higher correlation with stock returns than calculated betas for many companies
8. The correlation coefficients of the regressions used to calculate the betas are very small.
9. The relative magnitude of betas often makes very little sense: companies with high risk often have lower calculated betas than companies with lower risk.

It was a mixed day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts gaining 1bp, FixedResets off 7bp and DeemedRetractibles down 8bp. Volatility was low (Floaters don’t count!). Volume was low.

PerpetualDiscounts now yield 5.16%, equivalent to 6.71% interest at the standard equivalency factor of 1.3x. Long corporates are now at about 4.2%, so the pre-tax interest-equivalent spread (in this context, the “Seniority Spread”) is now about 250bp, a widening from the 240bp reported September 10.

Europe isn’t looking very good:

U.K. 10-year government bonds rose with their German counterparts as a report showed factory orders in Europe’s largest economy plunged the most since 2009 in August, underlining risks to the euro area’s recovery.

Five-year gilts advanced for the fifth time in six days. The yield fell last week to the lowest level since February as reports signaled the U.K. economy was losing momentum, fueling speculation the Bank of England will delay interest-rate increases. The pound declined versus the euro as Business Secretary Vince Cable said Britain’s currency was still too strong and stifling exports.
…
U.K. house prices fell for the first time in almost a year and a half in September, Nationwide Building Society said on Sept. 30, while a Markit Economics report on Oct. 3 showed services growth cooled more than economists forecast, further signs that the recovery may be losing enough momentum for the Bank of England to refrain from increasing borrowing costs. That has fueled gains in government bonds and slowed the rally in the pound.

… and there are renewed deflation fears:

Inflation in the euro area has fallen yet again and now stands at 0.3 percent. Prices are already falling in several of the European Union’s weaker economies. Even so-called core inflation, which excludes temporary factors and reveals the underlying trend, stands at less than 1 percent, a full percentage point below the ECB’s target.

… which is causing some to criticize Draghi and the ECB:

European Central Bank President Mario Draghi has disappointed investors and economists by failing to detail the size of the expansion he’s seeking in the central bank’s balance sheet. This much is clear from today’s investment bank research reports. Parsing Draghi’s comments from yesterday, as his favorite inflation measure fell to a record today, raises the chilling prospect that it may already be too late to avert deflation in the euro region — and that he knows it.

For the first time, Draghi has abandoned the incantation he’s used for months against the perceived evils of falling prices: “Inflation expectations for the euro area over the medium to long term continue to be firmly anchored.” That’s how he put it in his opening remarks at the August monetary policy press conference, and then followed it up, at the question-and-answer session, with, “Long-term expectations remain anchored at 2 percent.”
…
Yesterday, in addition to dropping the mantra from his speech, Draghi also demurred when he was directly asked if he thought inflationary expectations were anchored:

Well, first of all, the inflation expectations — first of all, we don’t use — let me get this clear, because there has been a certain amount of misunderstanding in the last few weeks — we don’t use one single measure of inflation expectations. We use a broad range of indicators. And our inflation expectations measures have gone down especially on the short horizons and are now around 8 points below 2 percent on the five-year on five-year, and so we look at that with — definitely with great attention. I would say that the measures we’ve taken have been determined exactly because our medium-term outlook on inflation expectation has worsened and we see that the risks have increased.

Lena Komileva, the chief economist at G Plus Economics in London, a research company, interpreted the absence as a sign the ECB is aware that the euro region risks what she calls “Japanification.” Annual inflation was just 0.3 percent last month; it hasn’t touched 2 percent since January 2013.

All this gloom had an effect:

Stocks tumbled and bonds rallied, sending yields to the lowest since May 2013, as the International Monetary Fund cut its global outlook and German industrial production plunged. Oil slid to a 17-month low.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) fell 1.5 percent to 1,935.10 at 4 p.m. in New York, the lowest level since Aug. 12. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 1.6 percent, the most since July. The yield on 30-year Treasuries retreated 8 basis points to 3.05 percent as investors sought safety. Oil tumbled 1.7 percent to the lowest since April 2013, while gold futures climbed 0.4 percent. Volatility rose, with the VIX jumping to the highest since March.

The IMF cut its outlook for global growth in 2015 and warned about the risks of rising geopolitical tensions and a financial-market correction as stocks reach “frothy” levels. German industrial production dropped 4 percent in August in the biggest decline since 2009.

With Hallowe’en fast approaching, I would be remiss if I didn’t alert Assiduous Readers to the BEST PRANK EVER:

A lewd statue of the devil that seemingly popped up overnight in East Vancouver has been taken down by city officials after raising eyebrows — among other things.

The statue stood about eight to nine feet tall on a pedestal near the intersection of 4th Avenue and Clark Drive for several hours Tuesday.

It was removed by city crews at around 3:15 p.m.

The statue also appeared to sport a full erection, a detail that likely raised hell with some of the commuters who use the station.

Click for … um … big

It was a positive day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts winning 18bp, FixedResets gaining 1bp and DeemedRetractibles up 2bp. Volatility was minimal. Volume was low.

Nothing happened today, but there was a nice column from Megan McArdle of Bloomberg regarding the Intregity case before SCOTUS that I mentioned on October 3:

But the law is never simple and intuitive, in large part because case law is made by the difficulty of hard corner cases. The briefs run through some of this history. For example: Does your employer have to pay you for your commuting time? That doesn’t seem reasonable; employees could relocate to the far exurbs and get themselves time and a half for hours spent driving and singing along to “Free Fallin’.” Okay, but what if you work in an airport, and at the end of your commute is a lengthy trip through the Transportation Security Administration lines? Should you get paid for what is essentially a mandatory 15 minutes added to your commute? A court said no; the TSA line is not part of your primary duties. Okay, how about if you work in a nuclear power plant, where, for the sake of the neighbors, everyone is rigorously searched and subject to radiation screenings? I can see the workers’ argument there, but a court ruled against them.

The workers’ brief tries to distinguish those cases from the Amazon case. The TSA case seems pretty easy: The security screening is not there for the benefit of the employer; it’s there because it’s required by law. You can’t demand that your employer pay you for commuting just because they’re located in the middle of an extended 15-mph zone. The security checks at the Amazon warehouse, on the other hand, are exclusively for the benefit of the employer, who is trying to prevent theft.

It was a positive day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts winning 11bp, FixedResets gaining 3bp and DeemedRetractibles up 5bp. Volatility was minimal. Volume was very low.

Interestingly, due to microscopic pricing changes, the median YTW-Duration (the YTW-Duration is the duration of the Yield-to-Worst scenario) of the FixedReset subindex is now in the ‘perpetual’ range, for the first time since April, 2009. After recovering from the pricing slump that gave rise to that scenario, there followed a long period during which the bulk of the issues in the index were the huge-spread bank FixedResets, which reduced their expected term by one day every day. In May, 2012, new issuance started making things more interesting with a series in the range of four (median expectation was a call of a relatively new issue at the first opportunity), a series starting at eight and declining to about 6.5 (median expectation is the Deemed Maturity of a bank issue 2022-1-31) and a third, relatively recent series at about 8.5 (median expectation is the Deemed Maturity of an insurance issue, 2025-1-31). And today … continued low yields for the Government of Canada 5-year bond, massive issuance of relatively low-spread FixedResets and calls of the higher-spread issues have tipped the balance to perpetuity. Fun times! This median YTW-Duration figure will almost certainly be volatile for the next year or so.

Click for Big

For those who are obsessive about such things, the median issue is BAM.PF.F, which at its bid of 25.25, HIMIPref™ calculates as having a 4.32% yield to Call 2019-9-30 and (given a GOC-5 yield of 1.58%), has a yield to perpetuity of 4.31%. At its closing bid of 25.26 on Friday, its YTW scenario was the call 2019-9-30 to yield 4.30%; I was using 1.61% as the GOC-5 yield on Friday. I told you the changes were microscopic!

Jobs, jobs, jobs!

A surprisingly powerful surge in hiring pushed unemployment to a six-year low of 5.9 percent in September as the U.S. labor market showed renewed vigor.

The 248,000 gain in payrolls followed a 180,000 increase in August that was bigger than previously estimated, the Labor Department reported in Washington. Revisions boosted the job count by 69,000 over the previous two months. The jobless rate fell from 6.1 percent to the lowest level since July 2008.
…
Another report today showed the U.S. trade deficit shrank in August to the lowest level in seven months as exports edged up to a record. The gap decreased 0.5 percent to $40.1 billion, the smallest since January, from $40.3 billion in July, the Commerce Department reported.

The narrowing deficit prompted economists at Barclays PLC in New York to boost their tracking estimate of third-quarter gross domestic product to a 3.3 percent gain at an annualized rate from 2.7 percent.

Also today, another report showed service industries grew in September to cap the strongest quarter of expansion in more than 10 years. While the Institute for Supply Management’s non-manufacturing index fell to 58.6 from the prior month’s 59.6, the third-quarter average was the highest since the first three months of 2004, the Tempe, Arizona-based group said.

The quarterly average for the group’s factory index was the highest since early 2011, a report showed earlier this week.

Meanwhile, in Canada:

Canada swung to an unexpected merchandise trade deficit in August as imports surged to a record and exports fell for the first time in four months.

The C$610 million ($543 million) deficit followed a July surplus that was pared to C$2.20 billion from the initial C$2.58 billion estimate. None of the 14 economists in a Bloomberg survey predicted that Ottawa-based Statistics Canada would report a trade deficit today, and the median estimate was for a C$1.6 billion surplus.

The report is another setback in a week that saw Statistics Canada report the world’s 11th-largest economy stalled in July after a second-quarter expansion that was led by a jump in exports. Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz said last month he saw early signs of a needed rotation toward growth led by exports and business investment.

And problems in moving exportable goods don’t seem to be getting any better:

Even with a grain harvest falling below last year’s record, Western Canadian farmers can’t find enough rail cars in the right places to move their crops.

Wet, cool weather across parts of the Canadian prairies has reduced the amount of high quality grain available, helping to fuel another showdown between shippers and the nation’s largest railways. While the crop is 20 percent smaller than last year’s, it will be harder to find and move the right grades to match export sales.

Grain shippers said railways haven’t been supplying enough cars, and about 24,000 orders for transport on the prairies haven’t been filled. Canadian National Railway Co. (CNR), facing a fine for failing to meet its minimum weekly grain shipping target, said farmers haven’t been delivering enough grain to country elevators to comply with the government order.

People are borrowing for more than just houses:

If stock investors are any guide, the $1.3 trillion U.S. junk-bond market is being inflated by a growing amount of leverage being used by buyers.

Both stock and junk-bond managers tend to deploy more leverage when markets are booming, and more than ever is being used to purchase U.S. equities, based on levels of margin debt on the New York Stock Exchange, according to UBS AG (UBSN) analysts. That suggests junk-debt buyers are engaging in similar financing activities.

As investors use more borrowed cash, they increase the potential for bigger losses in a downturn. This trend adds to concern that six years of unprecedented Federal Reserve stimulus has produced a bubble in the junk-bond market — and one that will be all the more painful when it eventually pops.
…
Margin debt has surged to more than 2.5 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, about the highest level in data going back to the early 1990s, the UBS analysts [Stephen Caprio and Matthew Mish] wrote. The measure of leverage tends to be a leading indicator of relative yields on speculative-grade bonds, with a rising level of margin debt increasing the odds of future spread widening.

Investors are demanding 4.42 percentage points more than benchmark rates to own dollar-denominated high-yield bonds, compared with 5.9 percentage points on average over the past decade, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show.

… and Rob Carrick writes about Corporate bond ETFs: More than meets the eye:

Determined to avoid future catastrophes, the world’s regulators, central banks, investment strategists and money managers are asking questions and raising concerns about all kinds of investment trends and products. One of the latest to be scrutinized is a useful and seemingly innocuous category of exchange-traded fund that holds corporate bonds.

The concern starts with a lack of liquidity in the corporate bond market today. A liquid asset can be easily traded, without concern that you’ll have to pay a premium to acquire it or accept a discount when selling. Corporate bond liquidity has been negatively affected by a combination of a changing regulatory environment for the banks that dominate trading of these securities, and strong demand for these bonds from investors.

Today, the lack of liquidity means investors have to pay up to buy corporate bonds. When interest rates rise, it could mean they’ll take a hit if they sell. ETFs, which hold baskets of corporate bonds, complicate things. If investors dumped corporate bonds en masse, would these ETFs be able to efficiently sell their holdings as needed?

He then spoils this excellent question by allowing disingenuous salesmen to slip off the hook really easily:

If you did submit a sell order for your corporate bond ETF, it would be matched with a buy order from another investor. Even if corporate bonds turn toxic, there are investment dealers designated to maintain an orderly market in ETF trading. They’re supposed to put in a bid for the ETF units you’re selling, even if the price would reflect prevailing market conditions.

These dealers would have the option of exchanging the ETF units they’ve accumulated for the underlying securities. At BlackRock Canada, they say that’s not a problem. “You can’t make an ETF if you don’t have liquid underlying [investments],” said Noel Archard, the company’s head and managing director.

Alfred Lee, vice-president and portfolio manager at BMO Mutual Funds, said corporate bond ETFs give investors more liquidity than if they tried to sell an individual bond. “Given a liquidity event, liquidity is not going to be as good as in a normal environment. But we’re going to be owning the most liquid bonds out there.”

To sum up, problems in the corporate bond market will be reflected in the price of bond ETFs. However, ETF industry people say their funds will not exacerbate things.

(The article is also spoilt by the inclusion of the old nonsense about how risk and return are magically changed by putting the raw materials into a box.[ETF] Disadvantages: No maturity date, which means prices subject to interest rate trends. See Bond ETFs demystified for an explanation of what is really going on.)

Anyway, I hope that Noel Archard was misquoted, or quoted out of context, or severely shortened, or something, because his statement is nonsense. Synthetic ETFs can be a threat to financial stability; I’ll agree that there aren’t many of these in Canada, but we do have some, we could have more, and the underlying investments can be illiquid.

Alfred Lee also evades the question, by claiming that his firm (? Does this mean BMO ETFs? BMO Mutual Funds? BMO as principal?) will ‘be owning the most liquid bonds out there’. Who cares, in a crisis (and, I might ask, does he have a mandate to focus on liquidity?)? The issue is the price sensitivity of these bonds.

There are three main problems that I see:

• Firstly, in a crisis, people are going to want to get out faster than they got in; i.e., we could see one month’s redemptions equal to X month’s current purchases. This will pressure dealer inventories and hence prices.
• Secondly, we can expect risk aversion to increase in a crisis, which will increase the price sensitivity to this picked up selling, and
• Thirdly, there is the structural issue … ETFs are meant to increase the liquidity of an investment in their underlying. That’s their whole point! The implication is that you have investors in a particular asset class (e.g., the corporate bonds currently being discussed) whose holdings would be reduced, or non-existent, if they had to invest directly in the underlying (i.e., the liquidity provided by the ETF is a critical contributor to their decision to invest in the asset class). Therefore, on top of the increase in risk aversion due to the crisis, you’ve also got a structural increase in risk aversion.

It could be ugly, by which I mean a beautiful time to be trading.

There’s a strange story on US employment law:

On Oct. 8 the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether that time counts as work. In 2010 two former employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, a temp agency that supplies workers at many of Amazon’s U.S. warehouses, sued the company demanding back pay for the time they spent in security lines after clocking out at Amazon warehouses in Nevada. The security checks, the plaintiffs argued, were required by Integrity and therefore part of the job. (Amazon-employed workers go through the same checks.)

At issue is the scope of a 1947 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that says employers don’t have to pay for time spent on work-related activities like getting to or from the office. Nine years later, the Supreme Court established in a pair of rulings that the key is whether the activity in question is “integral and indispensable” to the principal activities workers are paid to do. Butchers at a meatpacking plant, the court found, had to be paid for time spent sharpening their knives, and workers at a battery plant deserved compensation for time spent showering after work to wash off traces of sulfuric acid and lead.

The question in the Integrity case is whether security checks are more like those showers or more like commuting. With screenings increasingly common, the case could have implications for a wide range of workplaces….

Integrity says it doesn’t owe the workers money because the screenings weren’t directly related to their jobs. “No court has ever held that ‘not breaking the law’ is a principal job activity for which compensation must be paid,” the company’s lawyers wrote in a brief last May.

To me, this is open and shut. Of course time spent going through a security check should be compensated, if the employer insists you do it. I can reduce my commute by living in a tent at the warehouse’s front door, but reducing the time spent proving I’m not a crook is beyond my power (unless I quit my job, which I would). But not only has this case made it to the Supreme Court, but the Comrade Peace Prize administration is supporting the employers!

The Departments of Justice and Labor also submitted on Integrity’s behalf. There is, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. wrote, “no clear-cut distinction—either in terms of purpose or effect—between petitioner’s screenings and those that are routine at countless government and private-sector buildings.”

Crazy world. The forces of fear have won.

As an aside, I went to hotair.com to see what this week’s official Republican talking points on the issue are, but couldn’t find a mention of the SCOTUS Integrity case. I did find this complaint about a subtraction algorithm in the Common Core, though; as I often am when reading HotAir, I was perplexed by the level of annoyance shown. I use this algorithm all the time when doing mental subtraction. What’s the big deal?

It was a mixed day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts gaining 5bp, FixedResets off 1bp and DeemedRetractibles down 4bp. Volatility was minimal. Volume was low.

Treasury trading is going electronic:

While investors traditionally negotiated prices for U.S. Treasuries by telephone, they’re increasingly turning to computer-based marketplaces for a range of price quotes from different dealers. A record 48 percent of trades in U.S. government debt have occurred on electronic platforms this year, up from 31 percent in 2012, according to a Greenwich Associates study released yesterday.

There’s a new pseudo-scandal:

A high-frequency trader was indicted for “spoofing,” the placing and immediate canceling of orders to manipulate commodities markets, in what the U.S. Justice Department says is the first criminal case of its kind.

Michael Coscia, 52, of Rumson, New Jersey, the principal of Panther Energy Trading LLC, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Chicago and charged with six counts of commodities fraud and six of spoofing. He’s accused of illegally reaping nearly $1.6 million as a result of orders placed through CME Group Inc. (CME) and European futures markets in 2011.

Matt Levine of Bloomberg is a superb journalist. He not only explains the allegations better than the news story did, he also adds some wise words of his own:

Basically, spoofing doesn’t hurt fundamental investors directly.11 Fundamental investors trade based on fundamental views of value, not order-book information, so they shouldn’t be thrown off by fake bids and offers. Also they probably trade too slowly to even notice this sort of spoofing. Spoofing only directly hurts market-makers, whose job is to buy and sell in reaction to changes in supply and demand. In most modern markets, that means primarily high-frequency traders. If the FBI is going after spoofing, that’s good for other high-frequency traders. The reason to crack down on spoofing is that high-frequency traders are socially valuable and need to be protected.

I wouldn’t object to exchange-initiated rules about order cancellation – say, a black-out period of one second, so an order can’t be cancelled until it has been live for a second. But anti-spoofing laws – with criminal penalties, yet! – aren’t just silly, they’re extremely difficult to enforce.

Canadian Utilities, proud issuer of , has been confirmed at Pfd-2(high) by DBRS:

DBRS has today confirmed the ratings of the Unsecured Debentures and Issuer Rating of Canadian Utilities Limited (CU or the Company) at “A,” along with confirming the Commercial Paper and Cum. Preferred Shares at R-1 (low) and Pfd-2 (high), respectively, all with Stable trends. The confirmation reflects (a) the low-risk regulated electric and gas business of its wholly owned subsidiary, CU Inc. (CUI; rated A (high) by DBRS), which accounts for approximately 65% of consolidated earnings, (b) the self-sustaining and minimal funding requirements for its non-regulated operations, and (c) the low level of debt at the holding company level ($200 million). The one-notch differential in the ratings of CU and CUI primarily reflects structural subordination at CU.

It was a poor day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts losing 10bp, FixedResets down 8bp and DeemedRetractibles off 1bp. Volatility, while modest, was comprised entirely of losing FixedResets. Volume was low.

PIMCo doesn’t love us any more:

Pacific Investment Management Co.’s Total Return ETF slashed its holdings of Canadian debt to 2.1 percent from 9.2 percent in the five days ending yesterday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

The $3 billion exchange-traded fund, which follows a similar investment strategy as Newport Beach, California-based Pimco’s flagship $222 billion mutual fund, was run by co-founder Bill Gross before his sudden departure on Sept. 26.

Pimco has less invested in Canada than benchmarks recommend, said Ed Devlin, who oversees $17 billion, including the Canadian portfolios, for Pimco. He said he prefers markets such as Mexico.

“We still think Canada is a relatively unattractive market when we look at rates around the world,” Devlin said at the Bloomberg Canadian Fixed-Income Conference in New York yesterday. “Other markets are much more attractive.”

Devlin noted the yield on the Canadian 10-year bond, at about 2.1 percent, is in line with inflation. “What’s fun about that? Not much,” he said.

Equities started the quarter on the wrong foot:

The Standard & Poor’s/TSX Composite Index (SPTSX) fell 155.07 points, or 1 percent, to 14,805.44 at 4 p.m. in Toronto, retreating for a third straight day. The index lost 4.3 percent in September, the most since May 2012, and fell 1.2 percent in the third quarter.

U.S. stocks tumbled today amid concern over economic growth in Europe and geopolitical turmoil as the Federal Reserve prepares to end its bond-buying program. The Russell 2000 Index (RTY) dropped more than 10 percent from a record reached in March, meeting the common definition of a correction.

Equities fell as Italy cut its growth forecast, German manufacturing shrank and euro-area factories lowered prices in September by the most in more than a year. The weakness underlined the mounting challenge facing policy makers before the European Central Bank meets tomorrow.

… but bonds were on fire!

Treasuries gained the most in more than eight months as yields higher relative to most Group of Seven nations increased demand from investors worldwide concerned global growth is stalling.

Benchmark 10-year notes yielded almost the most versus their German counterparts since 1999 after the dollar touched a two-year high versus the euro yesterday. The European Central Bank may detail its plan to buy asset-backed securities tomorrow amid slowdowns in Germany in France. Stocks tumbled, pushing the Russell 2000 Index into a correction, and bolstering the haven appeal of U.S. government securities.
…
The U.S. 10-year yield fell 10 basis points, or 0.10 percentage point, to 2.39 percent as of 5 p.m. in New York, according to Bloomberg Bond Trader data. It’s the biggest drop since Jan. 23. The 2.375 percent security rose 29/32, or $9.06 per $1,000 face amount, to 99 28/32.

U.S. 10-year notes yielded 1.48 percentage points more than their German counterparts after reaching 1.57 on Sept. 17, the most since June 1999. They were 1.85 percentage points higher than those of Japanese peers, up from 0.63 percentage point in May 2012.

Meanwhile, for you brokers out there worrying about clients leaving you after a not very exciting quarter … PIMCo feels your pain:

Pimco CEO Douglas Hodge said this week during a conference call that the firm is expecting and is ready for client redemptions. Pimco could see withdrawals of 10 percent to 30 percent, Sanford Bernstein said in a report. Pimco has not disclosed how much money has left the firm since Gross’s departure.

Investors yanked a record $446.5 million from Pimco’s $2.9 billion Total Return ETF after Gross’ departure from the firm on Sept. 26., before slowing redemptions to $98 million on Sept. 29 and $87 million yesterday. The exchange-traded fund follows a similar investment strategy as the Pimco Total Return mutual fund.

Pimco’s largest competitors had already been benefiting this year as investors have moved away from the firm’s Total Return into top-performing rivals as well as flexible funds that can protect from rising interest rates. Pimco’s Total Return Fund has lagged behind competitors this year, trailing 62 percent of its peers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

It was a mixed day for the Canadian preferred share market, with PerpetualDiscounts down 16bp, FixedResets gaining 1bp and DeemedRetractibles up 6bp. Volatility was minimal. Volume was low.