Miércoles 17/02/16 Minutas del Fed

[Fenix]

Precio de dólar bajó al cierre ante menor demanda de inversionistas

El precio del dólar mostró una baja frente al sol al cierre de la sesión cambiaria de hoy, tras situarse en 3.504 soles, en línea con lo ocurrido en los mercados globales, ante una menor demanda de los inversionistas institucionales locales y extranjeros.

Efectivamente, el precio de venta del dólar interbancario (entre bancos) terminó en 3.504 soles, nivel inferior al de la jornada previa de 3.511 soles.

La cotización de venta del dólar en el mercado paralelo o casas de cambio se situó en 3.51 soles en horas de la tarde, mientras que en las ventanillas de los principales bancos se ubicó en 3.57 soles en promedio.

El Banco Central de Reserva (BCR) intervino directamente en el mercado cambiario vendiendo 58 millones de dólares.

Depreciación
En lo que va del 2016 el sol se ha depreciado 2.64 por ciento, teniendo en cuenta que el precio del dólar cerró hoy en 3.504 soles, luego de haber terminado el año pasado en 3.412 soles.

Según el ente emisor, el dólar mostró un nivel mínimo de 3.499 soles y máximo de 3.51 soles en la jornada de hoy, además de un precio promedio de 3.5039 soles. Andina



Publicado el Miércoles, 17 de Febrero del 2016
S&P Downgrades Saudi Arabia For Second Time In 4 Months, Also Cuts Oman, Bahrain
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 12:54 -0500

For the second time in four months, S&P has downgraded Saudi Arabia.

In late October, the ratings agency flagged sharply lower oil prices and the attendant fiscal deficit (16% in 2015) on the way to cutting the kingdom to A+ outlook negative.

At the time, S&P projected the deficit would amount to 10% of GDP in 2016. That turned out to be optimistic as the shortfall is now projected to be around 13% and that's assuming crude doesn't fall below $30 and stay there.

Riyadh has cut subsidies in an effort to shore up the books, but between the war in Yemen and defending the riyal peg, there's no stopping the red ink, especially not while the kingdom remains determined to wage a war of attrition with the US shale complex.

Moments ago, S&P downgraded Saudi Arabia again, to A-.

On the bright side, the outlook is now "stable" (chuckle).

* * *

From S&P

Oil prices have fallen further since our last review of Saudi Arabia in October 2015, and we have cut our oil price assumptions for 2016-2019 by about $20 per barrel. In our view, the decline in oil prices will have a marked and lasting impact on Saudi Arabia's fiscal and economic indicators given its high dependence on oil.

We now expect that Saudi Arabia's growth in real per capita GDP will fall below that of peers and project that the annual average increase in the government's debt burden could exceed 7% of GDP in 2016-2019.

We are therefore lowering our foreign- and local-currency sovereign creditratings on Saudi Arabia to 'A-/A-2' from 'A+/A-1'.

The stable outlook reflects our expectation that the Saudi Arabian authorities will take steps to prevent any further deterioration in the government's fiscal position beyond our current expectations.

RATING ACTION

On Feb. 17, 2016, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its unsolicited long- and short-term foreign- and local-currency sovereign credit ratings on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to 'A-/A-2' from 'A+/A-1'. The outlook is stable.

At the same time, we revised downward our transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment on Saudi Arabia to 'A' from 'AA-'.

We now anticipate a current account deficit, equivalent to 14% of Saudi GDP in 2016, compared with 6% of GDP in our October review.

* * *

Other Gulf oil producers got the knife as well as Oman and Bahrain were cut to BBB- and junk, respectively.

* S&P: OMAN CUT TO BBB-FROM BBB+; OUTLOOK TO STABLE FROM NEG
* BAHRAIN CUT TO JUNK BY S&P ON LOWER OIL PRICE ASSUMPTIONS

Here's the punchline from S&P: "We do not expect the agreement on Feb. 16 between oil ministers from Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela to freeze oil output."

We don't either.

Finally, we ask "who knew what yesterday?"
MXN Shorts Crushed After Mexican Central Bank Unexpectedly Hikes Rate By 50bps, Peso Soars
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 - 12:29
It was already a torrid day for commodity currencies, among which the MXN, or Mexican Peso, which were surging on today's latest crude short squeeze and then as if pulling a PBOC with just one intention - to crush the shorts - the Mexican Central Bank or Banxico, dealt a crushing blow on anyone short the MXN when it announced an unexpected 50 bps rate hike in the overnight rate to 3.75%.



Quant Fund Carnage: Are Market-Neutral Funds Facing Another August 2007?
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 13:05 -0500

For equity market-neutral funds, there is a phrase more chilling than "worst since Lehman" and that is the quant meltdown in "August 2007" that put many funds out of business. While the mainstream media remains focused elsewhere, the last two weeks have seen equity market-neutral funds 'crash' - and today it has gotten much worse - as momentum factors diverge and memories of the 2007 bloodbath come back as this forced unwind drives the current ramp.

As detailed at the time, during the week of August 6, 2007, a number of high-profile and highly successful quantitative long/short equity hedge funds experienced unprecedented losses.

The losses at the time were initiated by the rapid unwinding of one or more sizable quantitative equity market-neutral portfolios.

Given the speed and price impact with which this occurred, it was likely the result of a sudden liquidation by a multi-strategy fund or proprietary-trading desk, possibly due to margin calls or a risk reduction.


These initial losses then put pressure on a broader set of long/short and long-only equity portfolios, causing further losses on August 9th by triggering stop-loss and de-leveraging policies.

It appears more than one quant fund is aggressively deleveraging and/or unwinding...

Chart: Bloomberg

We have been explicitly focused on the HFRXEMN - hedge fund equity market-neutral fund index - since April 2009, warning at the time that the increasingly self-confirming equity trading community was, ultimately, an unsustainable and fragile condition...

As more and more quants focus on trading exclusively with themselves, and the slow and vanilla money piggy backs to low-vol market swings, the aberrations become self-fulfilling. What retail investors fail to acknowledge is that the quants close out a majority of their ultra-short term positions at the end of each trading day, meaning that the vanilla money is stuck as a hot potato bagholder to what can only be classified as an unprecedented ponzi scheme. As the overall market volume is substantially lower now than it has been in the recent past, this strategy has in fact been working and will likely continue to do so... until it fails and we witness a repeat of the August 2007 quant failure events... at which point the market, just like Madoff, will become the emperor revealing its utter lack of clothing.

While quant funds have many factors and many styles, one of the most popular in recent years has been 'Momentum'.

Momentum-trading is the magic-sauce that makes a genius out of every trader in a bull market. The last few years have seen 'strong' momentum stocks drastically outperform 'weak' momentum stocks. However, the last 5 weeks have seen the biggest unwind of this trade since records began... as it is clear that equity market-neutral funds models are blowing up and they are liquidating...

Chart: Bloomberg

And the last 3 days have ravaged it even more as the squeeze bounce has sent every Tom, Dick, and Day-trader piling into the worst of the worst momentum stocks:

Chart: Bloomberg

So while the ramp of the last few days feels great from a headline index perspective, not only is it a squeeze of the "most shorted" stocks but a forced liquidation unwind of Momentum Long/Short funds (i.e. buying back the weakest momo names) has exaggerated the rally. Sooner or later, if this continues, as in Aug 2007, the selling pressure (and liquidity suckout) will systemically weigh on all names.

[Fenix]

FOMC Minutes Show Fed Fears Global Financial, Economic Risks, Tight Financial Conditions, China
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 14:03 -0500

Since the January FOMC statement, Janet has spoken twice and what seems like every Fed speaker has hit the headlines to explain their decisions (only to confuse the market more) leaving bonds and gold outperforming amid their clear confusion. The Minutes appear to confirm that confusion:

* *FOMC MEMBERS AGREED DATA TOO UNCLEAR TO GAUGE RISKS TO OUTLOOK (confused)
* *FED OFFICIALS CONTINUED TO EXPECT GRADUAL POLICY TIGHTENING (hawkish)
* *MANY FED OFFICIALS AT JAN. FOMC SAW INCREASED DOWNSIDE RISKS (dovish)

So The Fed was unanimous in its decision to leave rates unchanged, downgraded the economic outlook, and was fearful of the global financial volatility - which in the last 3 days has all been solved.

Stocks just managed to get back into the green since the January FOMC statement but bonds and bullion lead...


Further headlines:

* *A NUMBER OF FED OFFICIALS CONCERNED BY DRAG ON U.S. FROM CHINA (but you said it was irrelevent)
* *FED: OIL, USD LIKELY TO HOLD DOWN INFLATION FOR LONGER
* *MOST FED OFFICIALS SAW MODERATE U.S. GROWTH
* *FED OFFICIALS CONTINUED TO EXPECT GRADUAL POLICY TIGHTENING
* *FED OFFICIALS STRESSED TIMING AND PACE WOULD DEPEND ON DATA

Here are the key sections. On uncertainty and downside risks:

The risks to the forecast for real GDP were seen as tilted to the downside, reflecting the staff’s as-sessment that neither monetary nor fiscal policy was well positioned to help the economy withstand substantial adverse shocks; the downside risks to the forecast of economic activity were seen as more pronounced than in December, mainly reflecting the greater uncertainty about global economic prospects and the financial mar-ket turbulence in the United States and abroad.

On employment:

Consistent with the downside risk to aggregate demand, the staff viewed the risks to its outlook for the unemploy-ment rate as skewed to the upside.

On wage pressures:

In their comments on labor market conditions, participants cited strong employment gains, low levels of unemployment in their Districts, reports of shortages of workers in var-ious industries, or firming in wage increases. Most an-ticipated that employment would expand at a solid rate over the year ahead, although several saw the prospect of some moderation in employment gains from the par-ticularly large increases in the fourth quarter of 2015.

On inflation:

The risks to the projection for inflation were seen as weighted to the downside, reflecting the possibility that longer-term inflation expectations may have edged down and that the foreign exchange value of the dollar could rise substantially fur-ther, which would put downward pressure on inflation.

On China, which if you will recall the Fed spent most of 2015 assuring anyone who listened would not be a risk factor:

Regarding the foreign economic outlook, it was noted that the slowdown in China’s industrial sector and the decline in global commodity prices could restrain eco-nomic activity in the EMEs and other commodity- producing countries for some time. Participants dis-cussed recent developments in China, including the pos-sibility that structural changes and financial imbalances in the Chinese economy might lead to a sharper deceler-ation in economic growth in that country than was gen-erally anticipated. Such a downshift, if it occurred, could increase the economic and financial stresses on other EMEs and on commodity producers, including Canada and Mexico. Moreover, global financial markets could continue to be affected by uncertainty about China’s ex-change rate regime. While the exposure of the United States to the Chinese economy through direct trade ties was limited, a number of participants were concerned about the potential drag on the U.S. economy from the broader effects of a greater-than-expected slowdown in China and other EMEs.

On financial conditions:

Domestic financial conditions tightened over the inter-meeting period, as turmoil in Chinese financial markets and lower oil prices contributed to concerns about prospects for global economic growth and a pullback from risky assets. The increased reluctance to hold risky assets was associated with a sharp decline in equity prices and a notable widening in risk spreads on corporate bonds. Treasury yields declined across maturities, reflecting a downward revision in the expected path of the federal funds rate and likely some increase in safe-haven de-mands amid the market turbulence. The dollar appreci-ated against most foreign currencies.

On markets:

Broad U.S. equity price indexes declined sharply over the intermeeting period, exhibiting a high correlation with movements in crude oil prices and foreign equity in-dexes. Domestic equity indexes were quite volatile in January, and one-month-ahead option-implied volatility on the S&P 500 index climbed to the upper end of its range of the past few years. Spreads on corporate bonds over comparable-maturity Treasury securities widened over the intermeeting period, reportedly reflecting in-creased concerns about corporate credit quality, particu-larly in the energy sector, and a decline in investors’ will-ingness to assume risk.

* * *

A quick take by Bloomberg,

Federal Reserve policy makers debating their outlook for interest rates last month expressed concern that the fall in commodity prices and the rout in financial markets increasingly posed risks to the U.S. economy.


“Participants judged that the overall implications of these developments for the outlook for domestic economic activity was unclear but they agreed that uncertainty had increased,” according to minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee’s Jan. 26-27 meeting released Wednesday in Washington. “Many saw these developments as increasing the downside risks to the outlook.”


Policy makers, who projected in December that they’d raise interest rates four times this year, are grappling with the fallout of market turbulence that has cast doubt over the economic outlook globally. Fed Chair Janet Yellen suggested in congressional testimony last week that the central bank could delay its plans for tighter policy to assess how the economy reacts to current headwinds.


The minutes go into more detail than the FOMC’s statement on policy makers’ concerns about the risks to the U.S. economy. While voting members “generally agreed” they couldn’t assess the balance of risks to the outlook in the statement, officials “observed that if the recent tightening of global financial conditions was sustained, it could be a factor amplifying downside risks,” according to the report.


Another part of the minutes indicated that a minority of policy makers judged that recent developments had “increased the level of downside risks or that the risks were no longer balanced.”

To sum it all up...

FOMC Minutes: The Fed didn't provide an economic assessment in January because they're as puzzled as all of you.

— Binyamin Appelbaum (@BCAppelbaum) February 17, 2016

Credit Suisse Asks "How Much Of This Rally Is Short Covering" And Answers
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 13:30 -0500

Yesterday, when summarizing the latest torrid move in stocks higher, we said that stocks surged 'on the biggest short-squeeze in 4 months."


Today, Credit Suisse picks up on this theme and asks "how much of this rally is short covering?" The bank's answer: "Looks like a lot based on this prime services data."

CS adds that: "today, several short baskets outperforming; Materials by 120 bps, energy by 80 bps, consumer discretionary by 50 bps, telcos by 37 bps, healthcare by 25 bps, info tech by 20 bps. Goldman most short rolling basket up 4%. Lot of the lower quality high levered names outperforming at the expense of the higher quality more widely owned names."


How much of this squeeze is spilling over into the market neutral quant fund world, and leading to one of the biggest dislocations and deleveragings observed since August 2007 as noted earlier?

It is unclear as of this moment, however once the dust settles we expect to see some rather prominent names getting badly hit on the last three days' move.


Here's The New Study The Fracking Industry Doesn't Want You to See
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 - 13:47

Though fracking industry proponents scoff at any intimation their so-called vital industry poses even scant risks to the public, a new study published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology just proved those critics right - fracking wastewater causes cancer.


18 Dead, At Least 61 Injured After Massive "Terrorist" Bombing In Turkish Capital
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 - 13:50

Update: Sure enough, AKP says this is being treated as "an act of terror"

Did Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan just get the excuse he needed to invade Syria? Expect this to be pinned on either ISIS or the PKK. If it's the latter, Ankara will once again claim that the group is working in concert with the YPG and that will be all the evidence Erdogan needs to march across the border.

[Fenix]

WSJ's Fed Whisperer Confirms - Fed Is Confused
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 - 14:13

Federal Reserve officials are split into two camps, according to Wall Street Journal's Jon Hilsenrath, those who believed that risks to the economy were materializing and those who wanted to wait and see. Either way, The Fed is confused and their 4-hikes in 2016 meme is disappearing fast.


SEC Suspends Deutsche Bank Research Analyst For "Not Meaning What He Said"
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 - 14:53

Over a decade ago, Henry Blodgett was barred from the securities industry for promoting dot com companies which he personally though were a "piece of crap." And while nothing has changed since then, and sellsiders dutifully pump companies which deserve to be dumped, but refuse to do so over fears of ruining relationships with management - as a reminder, the only function sellside research provides to the buyside community is arranging one on one meetings with CEOs during which material inside information is often disclosed - today for the first time in years, the SEC fined and suspended a now former Deutsche Bank analyst for "not meaning what he said."



As "Plan A" Fails, This Is What The Fed's "Plan B" Would Look Like
Submitted by Tyler D.
02/17/2016 14:55 -0500

As you might have noticed, the Fed made a policy mistake in December.

We could delve deeply into the specifics, but quite frankly it all boils down to this: Yellen hiked right into a recession.

There’s more to it than that obviously, including the fact that EM is circling the drain amid the global commodities rout, meaning excessive USD strength is especially damaging and the fact that the uncertainty swirling around the depth of the ongoing yuan devaluation has markets on edge from Shanghai to London to New York.

Put simply: nothing has gone as it should since liftoff. Stocks sold off dramatically in January signaling the Fed failed to convey a sense of confidence in the US economic recovery (which, if good news was indeed good news again should have triggered risk-on sentiment) and yields on the 10-year have plunged since the start of the year (Marc Faber has been exactly right so far).

Meanwhile, the monetary policy divergence between the Fed and the BoJ and ECB has only grown and we learned late last month that the US economy only managed to grow at a 0.69% pace in Q4 (we suppose the BEA are "fiction peddlers").

So with the pressure mounting, and with Janet Yellen having failed (miserably) to reassure the market with her testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this month, what’s in the cards for the Fed if the situation (both in financial markets and in the real economy) continues to deteriorate?

Here to explain “Plan B” (i.e. the steps the Fed will take “when push comes to shove”), is BofA.

* * *

From BofA

As they scramble to come up with a “plan B,” the Fed has been rather cagey about how they would respond to a serious weakening of the economy or financial conditions. There are two related paths for policy: measures designed to help market functioning, and macro policies designed to stimulate the economy and reverse a market meltdown. On the former, Dodd-Frank has limited the Fed’s room to maneuver; in particular, they can’t take actions that involve absorbing credit risk. However, we would expect them to adopt a variety of liquidity tools if market functioning becomes erratic. Vice Chair Fischer gave a speech last week detailing the options available to the Fed and noting that “broad-based facilities... could still be introduced under our new regulation if they were needed.” At the extreme there could be some easing of recent regulatory rules that have hurt liquidity in the bond market.

In terms of “macro” policy we would expect the following sequence:

1. Soft guidance: this is essentially where the Fed is now, underscoring data dependence and hinting that they are unlikely to hike in a turbulent environment.
2. On hold: the Fed is getting close to signaling an indefinite lag before its next policy move. This next step would also involve a more forceful statement of policy options (ie, they will tell us more about what steps 3, 4, 5 and 6 are).
3. Cut rates back to near-zero and strong guidance: if the equity market drops into a full bear market (or there is some other equivalent financial tightening) or if growth seems to be slowing to a sustained 1%, the Fed would likely cut and remain on hold until the financial/economic weakness reverses. They could introduce a nominal income growth target or price level target to signal an accommodative path for rates well into the future.
4. Operation twist two: actively manage the Fed’s portfolio to extend duration, similar to the 2012 Maturity Extension Program. With $408 bn in assets maturing over the next two years the Fed could do the twist by either reinvesting these assets at the long end or, if they want to be more aggressive, also selling short-dated assets before they mature.
5. QE4: begin buying Treasury assets at least at the $40bn per month pace of QE3. Could also buy agency-based debt and MBS if the housing market wobbled. (The Fed purchased $45bn per month of MBS during QE3.) Like QE3, purchases would be open-ended and would conclude once a sustained recovery in economic and/or financial conditions occurs.
6. Negative rates: if all else fails, they would move into the uncertain world of negative rates. If banks are under serious stress, such a move could be delayed or shelved.

It is hard to summarize all these actions into one statistic. The Fed could cut the funds rate by say 88 bp (from 38bp to -50 bp), although the net benefit of going negative may be quite low. But that is not all. US 10 year yields are about 150 bp higher than yields in Germany and Japan. Roughly speaking, we think the Fed has Fed funds-equivalent of about 150 to 200 bp of easing. That is small relative to the normal recession response, but much bigger than the normal response to financial stress or a “growth recession.”

* * *

Yes, 150 to 200 bps most certainly is "small" compared to the counter-cyclical maneuverability policy makers would have had before the world went Keynesian crazy, but thanks to eight years spent chasing down the Krugman rabbit hole, there's nothing left but NIRP.

If the abysmal pace of global growth and trade as well as the severity of the disinflationary impulse is any guide, Janet Yellen is going to need a bigger "Plan B."

[Fenix]

Stocks Have Taken Out Critical Support... Prepare Now!
Submitted by Phoenix Capital Research on 02/17/2016 08:21 -0500

One of the most critical lines to watch is the 12-month moving average for stocks.

Historically this line has served well as a proxy for determining if stocks were in a bull or bear market. When stocks rallied above this line, they were in a bull market. When they fell below this line, they were in a bear market.

As you can see, this line was a great metric for targeting when to enter or exit the markets.


The significance of this line was somewhat obscured by Fed policy post-2009. Put simply, anytime stocks broke below the critical 12-month moving average, the Fed unveiled a new monetary program to reignite the bull market.


However, starting in 2011, the Fed got its wish (a long-term bull market) by convincing enough investors that whenever stocks collapsed into dangerous territory, the Fed would stop in. From that point onward, stocks stayed above the 12-month moving average.


Until today.


The China Yuan devaluation in August 2015 triggered a sharp sell-off for stocks that took us below the 12-month moving average. The bulls tried desperately to reclaim this line in October-December but have failed.

On top of this, the Fed is now tightening rates. And with a US Presidential election only nine months away, the Fed’s hands are tied regarding another QE program (the fact the Fed’s policies have increased wealth inequality has become a campaign issue).


Which means… stocks have very likely just entered a bear market. Few investors have caught on to this yet, but when they do, there will be a selling panic, possibly even a CRASH.

Smart investors are preparing now.

We just published a 21-page investment report titled Stock Market Crash Survival Guide.

In it, we outline precisely how the crash will unfold as well as which investments will perform best during a stock market crash.

[admin]

Venezuela devalúa su moneda en un 37 pct a 10 bolívares por dólar

miércoles 17 de febrero de 2016 19:28 GYT
Imprimir
[-] Texto [+]
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela devaluó el miércoles el tipo de cambio más fuerte de su moneda en un 37 por ciento a 10 bolívares por dólar, dijo el presidente Nicolás Maduro.

Como parte de la reestructuración cambiaria, el mandatario socialista dijo que el país petrolero pasará a tener un sistema de cambio dual, desde los tres tipos de cambio actuales.

(Reporte de Eyanir Chinea y Corina Pons; Editado por Diego Oré)

[admin]

Segura viajó a Londres para evitar la reclasificación de la BVL

EFE.- Una delegación peruana liderada por el ministro de Economía y Finanzas (MEF), Alonso Segura, se reunirá en Londres con fondos de inversión para evitar que la clasificación de la Bolsa de Valores de Lima (BVL) sea rebajada de mercado emergente a mercado frontera, informaron hoy fuentes oficiales.

Follow @PortafolioECpe
Los delegados peruanos se reunirán este jueves y viernes con representantes de los fondos de inversión a los que la proveedora de índices Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) consultará para decidir si próximamente rebaja su índice otorgado a la BVL, indicó el MEF en un comunicado.

Alonso Segura expondrá en estas reuniones las fortalezas del mercado de valores peruano e informará acerca de los avances y medidas implementadas respecto a la estrategia para aumentar la liquidez.

Entre los argumentos que ofrecerá el titular del MEF está la exoneración al impuesto de la renta vigente desde enero para las ganancias de capital por enajenación de acciones y la mayor flexibilidad tributaria para las operaciones de los "market makers".

El ministerio recordó que coordina de manera directa las medidas orientadas a reducir los costos transaccionales y facilitar el soporte de las plataformas de negociación.

En ese trabajo coordinado participan la Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores (SMV), el Banco Central de Reserva del Perú (BCRP), la Superintendencia de Banca, Seguros y AFP (SBS), así como el sector privado, en el que se encuentra la Bolsa de Lima, los intermediarios, los emisores y los inversores institucionales.

El MEF resaltó que los inversores globales reconocen las fortalezas de la economía peruana y el potencial de crecimiento de su mercado de capitales.

"Al igual que otras plazas bursátiles, la BVL sufre el impacto del contexto internacional adverso con la desaceleración de la economía China, la caída del precio de las materias primas y el cambio de la política monetaria en Estados Unidos", añadió el comunicado.

Morgan Stanley mantuvo la clasificación de "mercado emergente" para la BVL en septiembre, pero la colocó "bajo revisión" hasta junio del 2016. La plaza limeña registró en el 2015 una pérdida del 33,43 % por el desplome de los precios internacionales de las materias primas y el enfriamiento de la economía local.