Morgan Stanley: “To Make Up For A 10% Drop In The S&P, Treasury Yields Would Need To Go… Negative”
BR>
By Tyler Durden
With both the S&P500 and Treasury prices hitting record highs as recently as one week ago, many have been confused (perhaps none more so than Goldman’s clients as we reported yesterday), although the conventional fallback explanation that has again emerged, is a reversion back to the “Fed Model” according to which the lower yields go, the highest equity multiples should (and may) rise.
As a bearish Goldman explained, “bullish investors argue that sustained low rates will support P/E multiples of 20x or more. The Fed Model relates the earnings yield (5.7%) to the Treasury yield (1.5%). The current 420 bp yield gap is near the 10-year average. Exhibit 2 shows the sensitivity of this model. Assuming a steady bond yield, reversion to the 35-year average gap of 250 bp implies a S&P 500 year-end level of 3075 while the 5-year average gap implies 1900.” For the record, Goldman is not a fan of a 3,000+ S&P target, and instead expects the market to drop in the coming months (details here).
But while at this point nobody really knows what happens to stock prices from here on out, mostly as a result of “helicopter money” now entering the inflation, bringing with it the spectre of runaway inflation and a decoupling of long-bond yields, which implies a sharp steepening of the yield curve, one bank that disagrees that one should buy both bonds and stocks in a perverse feedback loop is Morgan Stanley, which in its Sunday Start note writes that “over the last 17 years, 10yr government debt in the US, Germany, the UK and Japan has produced a better return than the local equity market, with lower volatility. Over the next 10 years, our long-term return models suggest something different. Based on our expected returns for both bonds and stocks, and using historical volatility, 10yr government debt will post worse Sharpe ratios than equities (or credit) over the next decade.“
Maybe, maybe not. Many have tried (and been carted out), trying to short global bonds only for these to hit record low after record low. There is a reason why shorting JGBs is called the widowmaker trade.
However, while MS may again be premature in calling a bottom to global bond yields – after all central banks around the globe are hardly done monetizing debt by a long shot – Morgan Stanley’s Andrew Sheets does bring up a valid point, namely that bonds are no longer a proper “diversifier” to an equity portfolio for the following reason:
We often think of bonds as natural shock absorbers, ‘zigging’ when the market ‘zags’. It’s important to remember this wasn’t always the case. How could this change? One way would be if yields simply don’t have enough room to fall further to offset equity market declines. Take a 60/40 portfolio constructed today from the S&P 500 and US Treasuries. To make up for a 10% decline in the equity market, Treasury yields would need to go… negative. Not impossible, but certainly a high …read more
Source: Morgan Stanley: “To Make Up For A 10% Drop In The S&P, Treasury Yields Would Need To Go… Negative”
100% Pure Garcinia Cambogia Extract – Appetite Suppressant – Carb Blocker Capsules – 2100 MG – 90 Caps
Looking for something special ? Find The Lowest Price HERE














