15:25 Nikkei 225. Nuevo máximos de la "era Abenomics"
Ayer se superó el máximo de la onda B y las subidas tras la decisión del Banco de Japón, elevó al Nikkei a un nuevo máximo de la "era Abenomics", añadiendo presión a la resistencia del 261,8% de Fibonacci en 19.690. Si se supera este nivel se abriría la puerta a una extensión hacia el máximo del año 2000 en 20.833.
Soportes de corto plazo en 19.607, 19.435 y 18.928.
Entre el dólar y el oro
Miércoles, 8 de Abril del 2015 - 15:53:00
En el último año la moneda norteamericana se ha apreciado más del 20 % en promedio en los mercados de divisas. En el mismo periodo la caída de los precios del oro ha sido del 1.2%.
Naturalmente, un argumento detrás de la caída de los precios del oro es la subida del USD. Meramente empírico (aunque, como buen economista, siempre puedo encontrar argumentos que lo avalen).
Un descenso de los precios del USD, en esa línea, sería compatible con una subida de los precios del oro. Pero la historia también nos muestra que su impacto es asimétrico, menor en la subida del USD que en su caída (la mitad).
Dicho lo anterior, lo cierto es que yo sigo viendo un USD fuerte a corto plazo.
Tipos de interés USA a alza, USD al alza, menor demanda relativa para activos como el oro…¿no es está la relación histórica?.
Pero, por otro lado, lo cierto es que la demanda de oro desde USA es apenas el 10 % del total. Y más del 70 % desde países en desarrollado. ¿Dónde queda entonces la relación anterior? Salvo, siempre hay una argumentación, que la inestabilidad en los mercados provocada por el cambio de sesgo de la política monetaria USA perjudique a la demanda de oro. Aunque, ¿no se beneficia el oro de la inestabilidad? Casi siempre.
En el último Informe mensual del World Gold Council se analiza precisamente la relación entre los precios del oro y la moneda norteamericana. Aunque, como he dicho de forma implícita en los párrafos anteriores, es difícil obtener respuestas concluyente.
Los precios del oro ha recuperado en los últimos días niveles de 1220 $ onza. Pero, como dije también antes, es de esperar que vuelva a cuestionar la barrera de los 1200 $ si continua la apreciación del USD. Pero, ¿una caída sostenible en ese caso? Al final, el precio del oro no sólo viene condicionado por la moneda norteamericana o por la evolución de los tipos de interés USA. Es más, hay otras variables que sin duda pueden llegar a tener mucha más importancia en su comportamiento a medio y largo plazo: liquidez, inestabilidad, aversión al riesgo, riqueza en países emergentes, oferta de oro y también la inflación (o la deflación). Y todas ellas, especialmente las tres primeras, sin duda pueden seguir jugando una baza importante en la recuperación de los precios del oro en los próximos meses.
Seguimos pensando en niveles de referencia de 1350 $ onza como objetivo para los próximos meses. Luego, veremos.
José Luis Martínez Campuzano
Estratega de Citi en España
Miercoles 08/04/15 reporte de utilidades, Minutas Fed
Re: Miercoles 08/04/15 reporte de utilidades, Minutas Fed
por Fenix » Mié Abr 08, 2015 5:41 pm
- Fenix
- Mensajes: 16334
- Registrado: Vie Abr 23, 2010 2:36 am
Re: Miercoles 08/04/15 reporte de utilidades, Minutas Fed
por Fenix » Mié Abr 08, 2015 5:51 pm
Non-GAAP Gimmickry 101: How Alcoa Just Beat Consensus EPS
Tyler D.
04/08/2015
Some companies are notorious for buying back billions in stock in order to mask the decline in their earnings by reducing the number of shares outstanding. Alcoa, which still has a major debt overhang from the last financial crisis, is unable to do that as it simply does not have the free cash flow to dedicate to shareholder friendly activities. Instead, Klaus Kleinfeld's company is forced to resort to an even more primitive form of EPS fudging: massive quarterly EPS addbacks.
And while we noted over the weekend that companies are running out of accounting gimmicks with pro-forma EPS addbacks in Q4 rising to the highest since Lehman...
... Alcoa still is still not done. Not even close.
As the chart below shows, while Alcoa reported relatively clean non-GAAP number in 2011, and 2012, starting with 2013 it went full-tilt, and has raked up nearly $2.2 billion in restructuring charges in the past 2 years.
The problem is that its GAAP Net Income is nowhere close to this number.
Which brings us to Q1 earnings which beat consensus of $0.26 by 2 cents, even though revenues of $5.84 billion not only missed expectations of $5.94 billion materially, but the company saw an annual decline in its sales across three of its four core operating segments.
The problem is that of that $0.28 in "earnings", precisely 50% was in the form of, you guessed it, non-GAAP and proforma addbacks.
In other words, one half of Alcoa's "EPS" in the quarter was due to what management thought was another quarter of recurring "non-recurring", non-one time "one-time" charges.
What about for the past 12 months? Pretty much the same: Alcoa's GAAP Net Income for the LTM period ended March 31 was $641 million. The same Net Income but on a non-GAAP Basis: more than 100% higher, or $1.381 billion.
So while 2014 may have marked the highest contribution from non-GAAP "earnings" since Lehman, rising to 14% of total with GAAP EPS responsible for $102 of the $118 in non-GAAP EPS, for Alcoa this number, for yet another quarter, was a whopping 50% of the bottom line!
And that concludes today's lesson on hitting your non-GAAP bogey thanks to a year of record "restructuring" addbacks.
Euro Corporate Bond Market Is "Tenacious Bubble," UBS Says
Submitted by Tyler D.
04/08/2015
"We believe such a scenario would have the potential to 'burst the corporate bond bubble' as bond yields would rise with inflation, corporate confidence would run high and a releveraging/deterioration in credit metrics would materialise resulting in bond fund outflows. The lack of liquidity in corporate bond markets would make the process particularly painful," UBS says, reiterating the perilousness of a secondary market lacking ample liquidity amid voracious investor demand for new issuance.
Tyler D.
04/08/2015
Some companies are notorious for buying back billions in stock in order to mask the decline in their earnings by reducing the number of shares outstanding. Alcoa, which still has a major debt overhang from the last financial crisis, is unable to do that as it simply does not have the free cash flow to dedicate to shareholder friendly activities. Instead, Klaus Kleinfeld's company is forced to resort to an even more primitive form of EPS fudging: massive quarterly EPS addbacks.
And while we noted over the weekend that companies are running out of accounting gimmicks with pro-forma EPS addbacks in Q4 rising to the highest since Lehman...
... Alcoa still is still not done. Not even close.
As the chart below shows, while Alcoa reported relatively clean non-GAAP number in 2011, and 2012, starting with 2013 it went full-tilt, and has raked up nearly $2.2 billion in restructuring charges in the past 2 years.
The problem is that its GAAP Net Income is nowhere close to this number.
Which brings us to Q1 earnings which beat consensus of $0.26 by 2 cents, even though revenues of $5.84 billion not only missed expectations of $5.94 billion materially, but the company saw an annual decline in its sales across three of its four core operating segments.
The problem is that of that $0.28 in "earnings", precisely 50% was in the form of, you guessed it, non-GAAP and proforma addbacks.
In other words, one half of Alcoa's "EPS" in the quarter was due to what management thought was another quarter of recurring "non-recurring", non-one time "one-time" charges.
What about for the past 12 months? Pretty much the same: Alcoa's GAAP Net Income for the LTM period ended March 31 was $641 million. The same Net Income but on a non-GAAP Basis: more than 100% higher, or $1.381 billion.
So while 2014 may have marked the highest contribution from non-GAAP "earnings" since Lehman, rising to 14% of total with GAAP EPS responsible for $102 of the $118 in non-GAAP EPS, for Alcoa this number, for yet another quarter, was a whopping 50% of the bottom line!
And that concludes today's lesson on hitting your non-GAAP bogey thanks to a year of record "restructuring" addbacks.
Euro Corporate Bond Market Is "Tenacious Bubble," UBS Says
Submitted by Tyler D.
04/08/2015
"We believe such a scenario would have the potential to 'burst the corporate bond bubble' as bond yields would rise with inflation, corporate confidence would run high and a releveraging/deterioration in credit metrics would materialise resulting in bond fund outflows. The lack of liquidity in corporate bond markets would make the process particularly painful," UBS says, reiterating the perilousness of a secondary market lacking ample liquidity amid voracious investor demand for new issuance.
Última edición por Fenix el Mié Abr 08, 2015 6:00 pm, editado 1 vez en total
- Fenix
- Mensajes: 16334
- Registrado: Vie Abr 23, 2010 2:36 am
Re: Miercoles 08/04/15 reporte de utilidades, Minutas Fed
por Fenix » Mié Abr 08, 2015 5:59 pm
9 abril 2015: Twitter permitirá un comentario de hasta 116 caracteres cuando se cite otro tuit
* Hasta el momento, el texto del mensaje citado se restaba a los 140 caracteres disponibles inicialmente.
* Por ahora esta opción solo estará disponible para ordenadores y sistemas de Apple, aunque llegará a Android.
FOMC Minutes Expose World Weary, Un-Patient, Dow-Data-Dependent Fed
Tyler D.
04/08/2015
Following the surprise dovish FOMC dot-downgrade to counter hawkish 'patience removal', and this morning's admission by Dudley that The Fed is Dow-Data-Dependent; expectations for the FOMC Minutes offering any insights were low...
* *FED OFFICIALS FAVORING LIFTOFF LATER IN 2015 CITED DOLLAR, OIL, CHINA, GREECE
* *FED OFFICIALS WERE SPLIT ON JUNE RATE RISE, FOMC MINUTES SHOW
* *MOST OFFICIALS SAW RISKS TO OUTLOOK, JOB MKT NEARLY BALANCED
So "worried" about the world, "downside" risk to growth but reasons to be cheerful, unpatient and data-dependent liftoff... something for everyone.
Pre-FOMC Minutes: S&P 2079, 10Y 1.89%, EURUSD 1.0815, Gold $1206
* *A FEW FED OFFICIALS SAID USD MAY RISE MORE ON POLICIES OVERSEAS
* *FED OFFICIALS REPEATED THAT CHINA, GREECE WERE POTENTIAL RISKS
* *A FEW FED OFFICIALS SAID USD MAY RISE MORE ON POLICIES OVERSEAS
* *MINUTES SHOW ALMOST ALL FED OFFICIALS NOTED RISKS FROM OVERSEAS
* *SEVERAL FED OFFICIALS EXPECTED A FAIRLY GRADUAL TIGHTENING PACE
* *SEVERAL FED OFFICIALS SAW DOLLAR AS A DRAG ON EXPORTS, GROWTH
* *SEVERAL FED OFFICIALS JUDGED A JUNE LIFTOFF WOULD BE WARRANTED
* *FED MINUTES SHOW OTHER OFFICIALS FAVORED LIFTOFF LATER IN 2015
* * *
Some of the key sections.
On the great debate of a "liftoff" in June versus a delay to 2016:
Participants expressed a range of views about how they would assess the outlook for inflation and when they might deem it appropriate to begin removing policy accommodation. It was noted that there were no simple criteria for such a judgment, and, in particular, that, in a context of progress toward maximum employment and reasonable confidence that inflation will move back to 2 percent over the medium term, the normalization process could be initiated prior to seeing increases in core price inflation or wage inflation. Further improvement in the labor market, a stabilization of energy prices, and a leveling out of the foreign exchange value of the dollar were all seen as helpful in establishing confidence that inflation would turn up. Several participants judged that the economic data and outlook were likely to warrant beginning normalization at the June meeting. However, others anticipated that the effects of energy price declines and the dollar’s appreciation would continue to weigh on inflation in the near term, suggesting that conditions likely would not be appropriate to begin raising rates until later in the year, and a couple of participants suggested that the economic outlook likely would not call for liftoff until 2016.
On "exports", and the USD strength:
In their discussion of language for the postmeeting statement, the Committee agreed that the data received over the intermeeting period suggested that economic growth had moderated somewhat. One factor behind that moderation was a slowdown in the growth of exports, and members decided that the statement should explicitly note that factor.
On the strength of the dollar:
A number of participants cited the further appreciation of the dollar and recent weakness in spending and production data as reasons for their revision.
On the pace of normalization:
Some participants emphasized that the stance of policy would remain highly accommodative even after the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate, and several noted that they expected economic developments would call for a fairly gradual pace of normalization or that a data-dependent approach would not necessarily dictate increases in the target range at every meeting.
On "international" developments, and even Greece makes an appearance:
Participants pointed to a number of risks to the international economic outlook, including the slowdown in growth in China, fiscal and financial problems in Greece, and geopolitical tensions.
And the most important topic: why the Fed will never reduce its balance sheet:
Many participants mentioned that selling assets that will mature in a relatively short time could be considered at some stage, if necessary to reduce ON RRP usage. However, a number of participants noted that it could be difficult to communicate the reason for such sales to the public, and, in particular, that the announcement of such sales would risk an outsized market reaction, as the public could view the sales as a signal of a tighter overall stance of monetary policy than they had anticipated or as an indication that the Committee might be more willing than had been thought to sell longer-term assets.
Finally, it seems, the Minutes failed to include the real Fed Dot Plot once again...
* Hasta el momento, el texto del mensaje citado se restaba a los 140 caracteres disponibles inicialmente.
* Por ahora esta opción solo estará disponible para ordenadores y sistemas de Apple, aunque llegará a Android.
FOMC Minutes Expose World Weary, Un-Patient, Dow-Data-Dependent Fed
Tyler D.
04/08/2015
Following the surprise dovish FOMC dot-downgrade to counter hawkish 'patience removal', and this morning's admission by Dudley that The Fed is Dow-Data-Dependent; expectations for the FOMC Minutes offering any insights were low...
* *FED OFFICIALS FAVORING LIFTOFF LATER IN 2015 CITED DOLLAR, OIL, CHINA, GREECE
* *FED OFFICIALS WERE SPLIT ON JUNE RATE RISE, FOMC MINUTES SHOW
* *MOST OFFICIALS SAW RISKS TO OUTLOOK, JOB MKT NEARLY BALANCED
So "worried" about the world, "downside" risk to growth but reasons to be cheerful, unpatient and data-dependent liftoff... something for everyone.
Pre-FOMC Minutes: S&P 2079, 10Y 1.89%, EURUSD 1.0815, Gold $1206
* *A FEW FED OFFICIALS SAID USD MAY RISE MORE ON POLICIES OVERSEAS
* *FED OFFICIALS REPEATED THAT CHINA, GREECE WERE POTENTIAL RISKS
* *A FEW FED OFFICIALS SAID USD MAY RISE MORE ON POLICIES OVERSEAS
* *MINUTES SHOW ALMOST ALL FED OFFICIALS NOTED RISKS FROM OVERSEAS
* *SEVERAL FED OFFICIALS EXPECTED A FAIRLY GRADUAL TIGHTENING PACE
* *SEVERAL FED OFFICIALS SAW DOLLAR AS A DRAG ON EXPORTS, GROWTH
* *SEVERAL FED OFFICIALS JUDGED A JUNE LIFTOFF WOULD BE WARRANTED
* *FED MINUTES SHOW OTHER OFFICIALS FAVORED LIFTOFF LATER IN 2015
* * *
Some of the key sections.
On the great debate of a "liftoff" in June versus a delay to 2016:
Participants expressed a range of views about how they would assess the outlook for inflation and when they might deem it appropriate to begin removing policy accommodation. It was noted that there were no simple criteria for such a judgment, and, in particular, that, in a context of progress toward maximum employment and reasonable confidence that inflation will move back to 2 percent over the medium term, the normalization process could be initiated prior to seeing increases in core price inflation or wage inflation. Further improvement in the labor market, a stabilization of energy prices, and a leveling out of the foreign exchange value of the dollar were all seen as helpful in establishing confidence that inflation would turn up. Several participants judged that the economic data and outlook were likely to warrant beginning normalization at the June meeting. However, others anticipated that the effects of energy price declines and the dollar’s appreciation would continue to weigh on inflation in the near term, suggesting that conditions likely would not be appropriate to begin raising rates until later in the year, and a couple of participants suggested that the economic outlook likely would not call for liftoff until 2016.
On "exports", and the USD strength:
In their discussion of language for the postmeeting statement, the Committee agreed that the data received over the intermeeting period suggested that economic growth had moderated somewhat. One factor behind that moderation was a slowdown in the growth of exports, and members decided that the statement should explicitly note that factor.
On the strength of the dollar:
A number of participants cited the further appreciation of the dollar and recent weakness in spending and production data as reasons for their revision.
On the pace of normalization:
Some participants emphasized that the stance of policy would remain highly accommodative even after the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate, and several noted that they expected economic developments would call for a fairly gradual pace of normalization or that a data-dependent approach would not necessarily dictate increases in the target range at every meeting.
On "international" developments, and even Greece makes an appearance:
Participants pointed to a number of risks to the international economic outlook, including the slowdown in growth in China, fiscal and financial problems in Greece, and geopolitical tensions.
And the most important topic: why the Fed will never reduce its balance sheet:
Many participants mentioned that selling assets that will mature in a relatively short time could be considered at some stage, if necessary to reduce ON RRP usage. However, a number of participants noted that it could be difficult to communicate the reason for such sales to the public, and, in particular, that the announcement of such sales would risk an outsized market reaction, as the public could view the sales as a signal of a tighter overall stance of monetary policy than they had anticipated or as an indication that the Committee might be more willing than had been thought to sell longer-term assets.
Finally, it seems, the Minutes failed to include the real Fed Dot Plot once again...
- Fenix
- Mensajes: 16334
- Registrado: Vie Abr 23, 2010 2:36 am
Re: Miercoles 08/04/15 reporte de utilidades, Minutas Fed
por Fenix » Mié Abr 08, 2015 6:02 pm
Twitter ¿una compra posible por parte de Google?
Por
Natalia Ramírez ▪ Hace 4 horas
Google interesado en comprar Twitter
Se han desatado rumores acerca de la compra de Twitter por parte de Google debido al reciente aumento del 4% del valor de las acciones de la red social. Hasta el momento ninguna de las partes involucradas ha dado declaraciones, ni siquiera por parte de la compañía, Goldan Sachs la cual fue contratada por Twitter para que los asesorara en cuestiones monetarias y lo que sería una hipotética venta.
En algunos medios la noticia ha desencadenado muchas dudas, pero detengámonos a pensar ¿qué es lo que sucedería? Porque tenemos que estar conscientes que si el mayor buscador compra una de las redes sociales más importantes se experimentaría un cambio notable en el mundo de la tecnología. Google podría dar un gran paso, aunque si su objetivo es ser competencia para Facebook, la jugada no le resultará del todo, ya que ambas redes son diferentes. Lo que le sería de gran ayuda es la base de datos, ya que podría orientar mejor sus anuncios presentando publicidad que le interese a los usuarios.
Las grandes compañías planean sus estrategias cuidadosamente, el hecho de que Facebook el año pasado haya decidido comprar Whatsapp fue una decisión importante debido a que su aplicación de mensajería no tenía el mismo éxito que Whatsapp.
Hace algunos años Microsoft se vio muy interesado en comprar Yahoo, ya que estaba preocupado por el crecimiento de Google como buscador, ¿Cuál fue su estrategia?, intentar comprar al buscador número 2: Yahoo!, pero al no llegar a un acuerdo la empresa de Bill Gates decidió alejarse, a los pocos meses Yahoo! perdió más de la mitad del valor de sus acciones.
Regresando al tema, según la compañía de análisis financiero Briefing,Twitter actualmente vale 33,000 millones de dólares, por lo que Google tendría que pagar por lo menos $50,000 millones para hacerse con la red social del pajarillo azul.
No dudamos de que pueda pagarlos, cuenta con un capital líquido de $60.000 millones y tal vez sea un buen momento para realizar la compra, ya que Twitter va creciendo y probablemente más adelante sea complicado llegar a un acuerdo de venta.
¿Tú qué opinas? ¿Crees que sea bueno que Google compre Twitter?
Fuente: Briefing
Por
Natalia Ramírez ▪ Hace 4 horas
Google interesado en comprar Twitter
Se han desatado rumores acerca de la compra de Twitter por parte de Google debido al reciente aumento del 4% del valor de las acciones de la red social. Hasta el momento ninguna de las partes involucradas ha dado declaraciones, ni siquiera por parte de la compañía, Goldan Sachs la cual fue contratada por Twitter para que los asesorara en cuestiones monetarias y lo que sería una hipotética venta.
En algunos medios la noticia ha desencadenado muchas dudas, pero detengámonos a pensar ¿qué es lo que sucedería? Porque tenemos que estar conscientes que si el mayor buscador compra una de las redes sociales más importantes se experimentaría un cambio notable en el mundo de la tecnología. Google podría dar un gran paso, aunque si su objetivo es ser competencia para Facebook, la jugada no le resultará del todo, ya que ambas redes son diferentes. Lo que le sería de gran ayuda es la base de datos, ya que podría orientar mejor sus anuncios presentando publicidad que le interese a los usuarios.
Las grandes compañías planean sus estrategias cuidadosamente, el hecho de que Facebook el año pasado haya decidido comprar Whatsapp fue una decisión importante debido a que su aplicación de mensajería no tenía el mismo éxito que Whatsapp.
Hace algunos años Microsoft se vio muy interesado en comprar Yahoo, ya que estaba preocupado por el crecimiento de Google como buscador, ¿Cuál fue su estrategia?, intentar comprar al buscador número 2: Yahoo!, pero al no llegar a un acuerdo la empresa de Bill Gates decidió alejarse, a los pocos meses Yahoo! perdió más de la mitad del valor de sus acciones.
Regresando al tema, según la compañía de análisis financiero Briefing,Twitter actualmente vale 33,000 millones de dólares, por lo que Google tendría que pagar por lo menos $50,000 millones para hacerse con la red social del pajarillo azul.
No dudamos de que pueda pagarlos, cuenta con un capital líquido de $60.000 millones y tal vez sea un buen momento para realizar la compra, ya que Twitter va creciendo y probablemente más adelante sea complicado llegar a un acuerdo de venta.
¿Tú qué opinas? ¿Crees que sea bueno que Google compre Twitter?
Fuente: Briefing
- Fenix
- Mensajes: 16334
- Registrado: Vie Abr 23, 2010 2:36 am
¿Quién está conectado?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 177 invitados