Delar med mig av en intressant artikel från Robeco i Nederländerna. Robeco lägger ut en hel del intressanta artiklar. David Blitz och Pim van Vliet på Robeco har även gjort några papers kring low-volatility faktorn o.s.v. Man behöver skriva in info för att få PDFen så det är för den som orkar läsa.
Det är givetvis enbart en outlook och inget att agera på, men oavsett välskriven och intressant… Lite skrivande om trender också som kan vara kul läsning.
Några utdrag ur artikeln
Playing second fiddle, central banks focus on their new role as facilitators of the fiscal experiment: keeping nominal rates close to the effective lower bound and monetizing fiscal deficits in order to ensure government debt service costs are low enough to facilitate government payouts and the stimulation of aggregate demand. We have been here before. For instance, after the Second World War, the Fed had a tacit commitment to the US Treasury to stabilize the latter’s cost of financing the war debt until 1951, when the Fed established its independence from the Treasury. At the end of our projection period, central banks reorient their strategy as they finally see a persistent satisfactory inflation level, and possibly even an overshoot of the target range.
Amerikanska aktier är dyra
While most developed equity markets are fairly or even cheaply valued, the US is quite expensive, as evidenced by valuation indicators popularized by three independent thinkers on financial markets. We therefore conclude that developed market equities are slightly expensive.
Femfaktormodellen har inte gått så bra 2010-2019. Kommer vi få se en vändning under 20-talet, likt andra decennier?
Om Svenska Riksbankens negativa räntenivåer
Why did Sweden’s Riksbank end its NIRP?
As said, Sweden’s Riksbank already introduced negative rates in 2009, and was the first to take its main repo rate — the rate at which commercial banks borrow money – negative in early 2015. However, the Riksbank ended its five-year experiment in December 2019, when it raised the rate by 0.25% back to zero. The move was rationalized by the changed inflation outlook. But in an indirect acknowledgment of reversal-rate concerns, the accompanying monetary policy report stated that if negative rates were “perceived as a more permanent state, the behavior of economic agents may change and negative effects may arise“. The Riksbank had already concluded earlier that due to the negative policy rate, bank loans to households in Sweden may have been more subdued than normal under an expansionary monetary policy. And that if the repo rate had been cut to below the trough of -0.5%, monetary policy might have become less expansionary. Another research paper6suggested that the move to negative might already have been counterproductive, finding that Swedish banks that rely more heavily on deposit funding cut back on lending relative to other banks once the repo rate turned negative.
We don’t expect much inflationary impact from the massive increase in money supply engineered by fiscal authorities and central banks, at least in the next few years. The disinflationary forces stemming from the disruption to demand will simply be too strong. Secular forces do not point to galloping inflation either. The odds of an inflationary uptick towards the end of the five-year horizon seem more pronounced, although importantly this would require the increase in money supply to be sustained and eventually associated with much stronger consumer and business spending, as “more money starts to chase fewer goods”.
Femårsutsikt för olika tillgångsslag
Väldigt få aktier av alla i universet som skapar något för oss investerare. Hur träffar man rätt?
Long-term investors might be surprised to find that a typical stocklisted in the US from 1926 to 2019 had a buy-and-hold return of -2.8% over its entire lifetime.1 In an international context, from 1990 to 2018 the typical buy-and-hold return of a stock was -14.9%.2This means that if an investor had picked a stock randomly, the most likely outcome would have been a loss of capital. The few winning stocks, on the other hand, have had enormous returns. That is a clear sign that the distribution of equity returns is skewed.3 Why is this discrepancy important for investors? It shows that indiscriminate stock picking has very little chance of success. Investors need to find ways to improve theirs odds of selecting those companies that are not typical and belong to the small group of winning stocks.
Skillnaden på techbolagen som står för mycket av värdeskapandet idag med sina "intangible assets"
Oavsett, stor artikel som var trevlig att skumma igenom.