Welcome back to the stock market circus, where today’s main event is a tug-of-war featuring the Federal Reserve and every investor’s favorite frenemy, Uncertainty. The market’s mood swings are giving seasoned traders whiplash faster than you can say “economic forecast.”
 

On one end, we’ve got the Fed, pulling hard with their hawkish grip, hinting at more rate hikes. It’s like watching someone insist on keeping their winter coat on in June – it might make sense to them, but everyone else is sweating bullets. On the other end, investors are trying to stay optimistic, clutching at any data that promises a softer economic landing. They’re like hopeful kids who’ve heard a rumor that school might be canceled – maybe, just maybe, things will turn out fine.

Inflation’s still buzzing around like an annoying housefly, refusing to be swatted away despite the Fed’s best efforts. Meanwhile, the interest rates continue to play the part of the overzealous party guest who just won’t leave, overstaying their welcome and causing everyone else to eye the door.
 

Amidst all this, AI-driven sectors are enjoying their moment in the spotlight, like the new kid in school who suddenly becomes everyone’s best friend. The excitement is palpable, and even the traditionally staid value stocks are trying to bask in the AI glow, hoping to catch some of that sweet, sweet market enthusiasm.
 

Geographically, the gaze has shifted a bit from Japan to the broader Asia-Pacific region. It’s like everyone’s rediscovered an old favorite restaurant and can’t stop talking about the menu. Emerging markets are still in the mix, keeping things interesting with their promise of potential high returns – if you’ve got the stomach for a bit of risk.
 

So, as the market wavers between cautious optimism and mild panic, keep your eyes on the Fed’s next move, enjoy the AI buzz, and maybe keep a flyswatter handy for that pesky inflation.

Traders are defying the age-old Wall Street mantra, “never fight the Fed,” which might ignite a rally in overlooked stock market sectors.

Despite clear Federal Reserve signals and central banker comments indicating that interest rates will remain elevated longer than anticipated, with the median forecast predicting only one rate cut this year, traders are betting on stocks that thrive with lower borrowing costs. Data from EPFR Global and Bank of America shows a significant $2.1 billion inflow into the technology sector this week, the highest since March.

“The market isn’t convinced that inflation and labor market data will restrict the Fed from making multiple cuts this year,” said Keith Buchanan, senior portfolio manager at GLOBALT Investments. “This resistance is sustaining an environment that favors risk assets.”

The FED, the rates, and the market

Even with the Fed’s projections for fewer rate cuts and Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s seemingly hawkish remarks at his recent press conference, the S&P 500 Index surged past 5,400 for the first time ever on Wednesday and maintained that level through Friday. Since its October 2022 low, the benchmark has risen over 50%, recovering from a bear market sparked by the Fed’s aggressive interest rate hikes starting in March 2022 to combat soaring inflation.

Investors now ponder the market’s reaction when the Fed eventually decides to cut rates.

Historically, rate cuts have often signaled a turning point, leading to strong equity returns — provided they aren’t precipitated by a recession. This likely explains why Bank of America and EPFR Global’s latest data shows a shift into financials, materials, and utilities — sectors closely linked to the economy that typically benefit from rate cuts during periods of robust growth.

Economic growth is expected to remain solid, with the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model forecasting a rise in second-quarter real GDP growth to 3.1% annually, up from a 1.3% pace in the first quarter.

“There are minimal indicators suggesting a significant economic downturn,” said Carol Schleif, chief investment officer at BMO Family Office.

Tech Surge

Fund managers are increasing their stakes in tech stocks. The Nasdaq 100 Index has risen 17% in 2024. The top seven companies in the S&P 500 are trading at an average of 36 times projected profits, compared to a multiple of 22 for the overall index, based on Bloomberg data.

Aggregate equity positioning has reached its highest point since November 2021, when the Nasdaq 100 peaked, according to Deutsche Bank AG’s data through the week ended June 14.

This week’s rise was driven by rules-based and discretionary investors — those who use predefined criteria and algorithms to make decisions — with significant increases in tech and rate-sensitive sectors like utilities, staples, and real estate.

If the Fed adopts a more dovish stance, defensive market segments that offer steady dividends, such as consumer staples and real estate, will become more appealing, noted Terry Sandven, chief equity strategist at US Bank Wealth Management.

June typically brings a lull in market activity due to lower trading volumes leading into summer. However, next week might be an exception due to “triple witching,” where contracts tied to stocks and indexes expire on Friday, coinciding with the quarterly rebalancing of indexes. This convergence often results in a surge of volatility and trading volumes, potentially disrupting short-term positioning.

“Next week could be quite eventful for equities,” said Frank Monkam, senior portfolio manager at Antimo.

Ah, the stock market – a place where dreams are made and dashed faster than you can say “rate hike.” Currently, the sentiment seems to be like that of a cat contemplating a leap from a high perch: cautious, calculating, and not entirely sure if it’s worth the risk.
 

Investors are sporting a cautious optimism, which is basically a fancy way of saying they’re smiling through gritted teeth. Inflation is like that persistent mosquito you can’t quite swat away, and interest rates are doing their best impression of a stubborn mule – refusing to budge. The Federal Reserve? Think of them as the stern parent who keeps saying, “We’ll see,” while the market kids cross their fingers for a treat.

Meanwhile, everyone’s buzzing about AI-driven sectors like they’ve just discovered a new flavor of ice cream. Value stocks are the dependable, if somewhat boring, vanilla – steady, reliable, but lacking the pizazz of those AI sprinkles. And let’s not forget the short-term bonds, the ultimate safe haven for those who’ve decided that excitement is overrated.
 

Geographically, investors are eyeing Japan and emerging markets with the kind of hopeful curiosity usually reserved for blind dates – will it be a delightful surprise or an awkward evening? Only time will tell.
 

So, where does that leave us? Well, if the market were a person, it’d be that friend who insists everything is fine while nervously eyeing the nearest exit. In other words, proceed with cautious optimism, keep an eye on the Fed, and maybe consider a dabble in those AI sprinkles – just don’t forget the vanilla.

Index funds have become a popular investment choice due to their broad market exposure, maximum diversification, and minimal costs. The consensus is that everyone should invest in index funds.

This prevailing thought is supported by the fact that low-cost index funds typically outperform most active funds, where managers try to select the best stocks, over time.

However, if index funds are beneficial for individual investors, what happens when everyone starts investing in them? Does everyone benefit equally?

This brings us to a concept in logic known as the fallacy of composition. It’s a critical question for every investor, especially the general public.

Some argue that the surge in index fund popularity is contributing to one of Wall Street’s riskiest features: the massive overconcentration of the S&P 500, and the market at large, into a few megacap stocks like Apple (AAPL), Nvidia (NVDA), and Microsoft (MSFT).

The growth of index funds is staggering. In 1993, passive funds (i.e., index funds) invested in U.S. stocks managed $23 billion in assets, accounting for 3.7% of the combined assets managed by active and passive funds and 0.44% of the U.S. stock market. By 2021, passive assets had skyrocketed to $8.4 trillion, representing 53% of the combined assets and 16% of the stock market.

In 30 years, the percentage of mutual fund money in passive funds has jumped from 3.7% to 53%.

The real shift is even more significant because many remaining active U.S. mutual funds are becoming “closet indexers,” closely tracking the indexes. The growth of passive investing is estimated to be more than double when accounting for the increasing tendency of active funds and other investors to stay close to their benchmark indexes.

This trend is accelerating the dominance of “megacap” firms, particularly those that are likely overvalued or ambitiously priced.

“Flows into passive funds disproportionately raise the stock prices of the economy’s largest firms, especially those large firms that the market overvalues,” experts say. One reason is that it reduces the potential pool of active investors who can hold less than the market weighting in these stocks, as well as the pool who can short the stock.

Even if you don’t fully embrace this viewpoint, it’s clear that index funds must, by definition, invest the most dollars in the largest stocks in the index, which are typically the most popular.

Currently, the “Magnificent Six” alone account for about one-third of the entire S&P 500 by assets. If you invest $100 in an S&P 500 index fund, about $32 is concentrated in just six companies. How’s that for diversification?

This dynamic makes the S&P 500 more of a short-term trading game rather than a long-term investing strategy. As the S&P 500 rises, more people invest in index funds. The funds then invest more money into the largest stocks, pushing their prices higher. This cycle excites others, leading them to invest in index funds as well.

“High prices bring out the buyers,” notes the fund company Leuthold Group in its latest research. Leuthold observes that while U.S. consumer expectations for the economy are low, their expectations for stock market returns are extremely high. This, even as the S&P 500 trades at levels relative to various earnings measures that are associated with previous market peaks like those in 2021 and 2000.

This doesn’t necessarily mean you should sell your S&P 500 index fund, as timing the market is notoriously difficult. However, it does suggest that diversifying your portfolio with midcap and small-cap stock funds, such as those tracking the S&P 400 mid cap index and the S&P 600 small cap index, can be beneficial. Alternatively, you might consider funds that invest equally in each stock. Low-cost options include the Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP), which charges 0.2% annually, and the iShares MSCI U.S.A. Equal Weight ETF (EUSA), which charges 0.09%.

The current market sentiment among investors and institutional players is varied, reflecting both cautious optimism and underlying concerns. Several factors influence this sentiment, including inflation, interest rates, and economic growth.

Inflation and Interest Rates:

Inflation in developed markets is expected to ease further in 2024, nearing central banks’ targets. The Federal Reserve is likely to start cutting rates in the third quarter of 2024, gradually reducing rates by 25 basis points per meeting (J.P. Morgan | Official Website) (J.P. Morgan | Official Website).

The Bank of England and the European Central Bank are also anticipated to adjust their policies, with the BoE expected to cut rates by August (BlackRock) (BlackRock).

Equities and Bonds:

U.S. equities have shown strong performance, with a notable rally driven by sectors like technology and AI. However, the recent strong performance has left stocks overvalued, and there’s little room for error in 2024. Investors are advised to balance their portfolios by focusing on value stocks and sectors like financials, industrials, utilities, consumer staples, and healthcare (Morgan Stanley).

Fixed income remains attractive due to higher yields, particularly short-term bonds. Inflation-linked bonds are also favored as inflation is expected to stabilize around 2-2.5% by the end of 2024 (BlackRock) (Russell Investments).

Geographic Preferences:

Japan is highlighted as a favorable market due to solid corporate earnings and supportive monetary policy. Emerging markets like India and Mexico are also seen as beneficial due to their relative valuations and economic positioning.

Contrary Indicators and Financial Stress

Fear & Greed Index: The Fear & Greed Index shows the current market sentiment is skewed towards greed, indicating potential overvaluation and the possibility of a market correction. This index is useful for identifying extreme sentiments and adjusting investment strategies accordingly (Liberated Stock Trader).

Financial Stress Index: The Kansas City Financial Stress Index suggests that financial stress is below the historical average, indicating a generally stable market environment. However, spikes in this index can signal increased market risk and potential volatility (Liberated Stock Trader).

Conclusion

While there is a mix of cautious optimism and concern among investors, the overall sentiment suggests a balanced approach is warranted. Key themes include:

• A continued focus on sectors benefiting from AI and technology.

 

• Diversification into value stocks and sectors resilient to economic fluctuations.

 

• Strategic allocation to short-term and inflation-linked bonds.

 

• Geographic diversification, with a particular interest in Japan and select emerging markets.

 

Despite the optimistic outlook on inflation and potential interest rate cuts, it’s essential to remain vigilant about market valuations and sentiment indicators to navigate the potential risks ahead.

Ah, Wall Street – never a dull moment. The latest uproar? The meteoric rise of private credit. On one side of the ring, we have Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, sounding the alarm like a town crier. Dimon insists that private equity firms, money managers, and hedge funds are playing fast and loose, creating an unregulated wild west where risks go unchecked.

“I do expect there to be problems,” Dimon proclaimed at a Bernstein industry conference in late May, with the ominous addendum that “there could be hell to pay” if retail investors in these funds hit a rough patch.

Cue the rebuttal from the other corner: the titans of private credit themselves. Marc Rowan, Apollo’s CEO, didn’t hesitate to throw a counterpunch. “Every dollar that moves out of the banking industry and into the investment marketplace makes the system safer and more resilient and less leveraged,” Rowan retorted at the same Bernstein conference. Because, of course, nothing says safety like money managers playing with billions.

Private credit advocates argue their funds are as solid as a rock. No deposit runs, no reliance on fickle short-term funding – unlike some regional banks that crumbled under pressure last year. Instead, they claim they’re backed by institutional investors like pension funds and insurance companies that won’t be knocking on the door for their money anytime soon.

Jonathan Gray of Blackstone was quick to highlight the fate of First Republic, the San Francisco bank that imploded and landed in JPMorgan’s lap. “It had 20-year assets and 20-second deposits,” he quipped, undoubtedly to a chorus of chuckles.

And then there’s the rise of private credit itself. Traditional banks are stepping back from lending, spooked by the Federal Reserve’s high-interest rates and potential economic downturns. Meanwhile, the private credit market has swelled from a measly $41 billion in 2000 to a staggering $1.67 trillion as of last September. Sure, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the over $12 trillion in loans held by US banks, but who’s counting?

UBS chairman Colm Kelleher isn’t entirely convinced. He warned earlier this year that the private credit market might not be “particularly systemic,” but once the snowball starts rolling, it could turn into an avalanche.

Yet, for now, private credit seems to be doing just fine. According to Preqin, private credit has outperformed average investor returns over the past decade for five of the last six quarters. It’s even outshining private equity.

“Everybody can look quite good when it’s all going up to the right,” mused Goldman Sachs’ COO John Waldron, proving that even bankers can appreciate a good uphill ride.

Private credit’s assets are a smorgasbord – from corporate loans to consumer car loans and commercial mortgages. They’re a lifeline for midsize or below investment-grade borrowers in distress. Terms are flexible, interest rates adjustable, and while that might seem like a win, it’s also a potential minefield if interest rates drop.

Traditional bankers grumble that these money managers have an edge, unburdened by the same capital requirements. Regulators are cooking up new rules to tighten those screws even more. Dimon once quipped that private equity lenders were surely “dancing in the streets” when those stricter standards were proposed.

But hold your applause – Washington might soon be raining on that parade. The Financial Stability Oversight Council is eyeing a new framework to label firms as “systemically important,” which means more oversight from the Fed. Naturally, private funds argue they’re not banks and shouldn’t be treated as such.

The dance between banks and private asset lenders is as tangled as ever. They’re rivals, but banks also lend to these asset managers. Dimon himself admitted that many private lenders are “brilliant” – after all, JPMorgan does business with a lot of them.

“We’re just uniquely positioned to be in the middle of all of it and I think it’s going to continue to grow,” said Troy Rohrbaugh, co-CEO of JPM’s commercial and investment bank, at another recent conference. And so the private credit circus rolls on, with Dimon and the money managers jousting for the spotlight. Grab your popcorn – this show isn’t ending anytime soon.

Tesla (TSLA) shareholders have voted to reinstate Elon Musk’s compensation package, but skepticism remains among some investors and analysts. Ibrahim AlHusseini, an early Tesla investor, expressed his reservations to Yahoo Finance. “It’s a high-stakes game, and the shareholders gave in,” AlHusseini remarked. “The fear of losing motivated them, and Elon leveraged that to his advantage.” Despite his doubts, AlHusseini voted in favor of the $56 billion package, acknowledging Musk’s achievement of seemingly impossible milestones set in 2018.

Tesla’s stock has declined nearly 30% year to date and fell around 2.5% on Friday. AlHusseini expects the stock to remain steady until the next quarterly earnings report, predicting a drop due to missed delivery and margin targets.

Tesla reported that 77% of shareholders supported Musk’s pay package, with 1.76 billion shares voting in favor, 528.9 million against, and 20.6 million abstaining. Musk enthusiastically addressed the shareholders, saying, “I love you guys.” The package, initially valued at $56 billion, is now worth about $46 billion due to a decrease in Tesla’s market capitalization.

In January, Delaware Chancery Court Judge Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the original pay package, approved by 73% of voting shares in 2018, was not fairly negotiated. Although the recent vote supports reinstating the package, it does not resolve the legal challenge, which may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court and Delaware Chancery Court.

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, representing several pension funds owning about 3.4 million Tesla shares, criticized the approval as a mistake. Lander hopes Musk will focus on Tesla and develop clear growth plans but fears potential distractions from Musk’s other activities.

Vanguard, Tesla’s largest external institutional shareholder, played a crucial role in passing the deal. Vanguard, which holds 7% of Tesla stock, initially voted against the package in 2018 due to performance-related concerns. Longtime Tesla investor Ross Gerber questioned Vanguard’s change in stance, emphasizing the need for corporate governance.

Gerber, who co-founded Gerber Kawasaki and voted in favor of the package in 2018, advocated for a no vote this time. His firm holds 332,000 Tesla shares. Gerber criticized the package as excessive and Musk’s recent performance as poor, but he respects the shareholders’ decision.

Investors also approved a proposal to move Tesla’s incorporation from Delaware to Texas, a move Musk supported after his pay deal was voided by the judge. Lander criticized this decision, emphasizing Delaware’s shareholder-friendly laws.

Despite concerns, Lander sees a solid foundation for Tesla, giving Musk credit for the company’s success, though not justifying a $56 billion reward. Analysts view the reinstatement of Musk’s compensation package as a positive for investors.

George Gianarikas of Canaccord Genuity, who rates Tesla stock as a Buy, praised the vote of confidence in Musk’s leadership, highlighting Tesla’s leading position in developing full self-driving technology. Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, a longtime Tesla supporter, called the approval a “celebration moment,” noting it removes a significant overhang on shares. Ives believes Tesla’s valuation could exceed $1 trillion by 2025 if Musk focuses more on the automaker.

However, Dave Harden, chief investment officer of Summit Global, advised caution, warning of potential shareholder dilution and risks. Harden suggested waiting for clearer signs of growth before investing in Tesla shares or selling if already invested.