What staples stocks are telling us | 必要消费品的股票在告诉我们什么 - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

What staples stocks are telling us
必要消费品的股票在告诉我们什么

Plus tariffs and the oil price
再加上关税与油价的影响,必要消费品的股票究竟有什么隐含信息。
00:00

undefined

Good morning. The jobs report on Friday was not nearly as bad as investors feared. The US economy added 151,000 jobs in February, below most economists’ predictions but not by much. Unemployment increased, but only from 4.0 per cent to 4.1 per cent. This still suggests some weakness; we are probably below break-even jobs growth. But for now, the economic vibes shift remains mostly vibes. Email us: robert.armstrong@ft.com and aiden.reiter@ft.com. 

The staples/discretionary ratio

Stock market leadership has changed a lot this year with international equities overtaking US equities, low volatility stocks overtaking high vol, the average S&P 500 stock overtaking the Magnificent 7, and so on. One of the flip-flops that gets the most attention is consumer staples stocks overtaking consumer discretionary stocks — a classic signal that the market has become defensive and economic weakness is in the air. 

Here is the ratio of staples to defensives over the past five years, plotted against the performance of the S&P 500:

undefined

What happened in 2022 illustrates why the recent spike in the staples/discretionary ratio is making people jumpy. The rise in the ratio that year coincided with a miserable run for stocks (and bonds), as inflation proved sticky and the Federal Reserve increased its policy rate. Only when the ratio reversed did the equity rally recommence.

One should not read too much into the ratio. It is not a leading indicator. When people are nervous, they tend to buy staples, and when people are worried markets also tend to fall. The ratio is simply an indicator of investor sentiment. 

And it may be an imperfect one right now, because of the staggering run of the Magnificent 7. Amazon is now nearly 40 per cent of the discretionary index and Tesla is another 15 per cent. Those two stocks have fallen 12 per cent and 36 per cent, respectively, since January 6, when the staples/discretionary ratio began its rise. The remaining stocks in the discretionary index have only lost 1 per cent of their value over the period.

This observation urges two conclusions. First, the most important shift in market leadership remains the collapse of big tech. This change has received less attention than it deserves because it does not fit with the dominant market narratives about a slowing economy and tariff policy. Second, the investor sentiment signal from the staples/discretionary ratio is not quite as strong as it looks.  

It is, however, still a signal. Here are the ten largest positive contributors to the staples index since early January, sorted by change in market cap. They are all absolutely classic safety plays, from tobacco to soap to soda. Almost all of them are also up by double digits in percentage terms.

undefined

Investors are nervous, and defensive stocks are working. Fear is one element of what is happening in the market, just not the whole picture.

The oil price is in your hands, Mr President

Last week was chaotic. With so many headlines about tariffs — or the lack thereof — you would be forgiven if you missed that the oil price hit a three-year low on Wednesday:

undefined

After months of delays and debate, Opec+ finally pledged that it will lift its production cap in April. At the same time, the market is fretting over what looks like slowing US and global growth. Together, they could mean that more supply will hit the market just as global demand steps back. A global oil glut might be coming. 

There was a small rebound on Friday, after a Russian minister suggested that Opec+ could back off the production boost to protect prices, and after the US’ new energy secretary Chris Wright promised to buy $20bn of oil to fill up the US’ strategic reserve. But that was just a momentary reprieve. On balance, it looks like we are set for cheaper oil. Brent futures took a steeper fall last week, and are currently below the spot price (“backwardation”), suggesting a future fall-off in demand:

undefined

Opec+ is on path to boost production; even though they may walk things back, that they have taken this long to schedule the change and that it has come with so much internal discord suggests that the cartel could be slow to pivot again. Some analysts also believe that oil demand by China, forever the swing buyer in the global marketplace, has finally peaked — Chinese crude oil imports were down 5 per cent in the first two months of this year. That leaves tariffs as the potential deciding factor.

The Trump administration definitely wants cheap oil — Trump and his advisers have said so repeatedly. Before the inauguration, Unhedged and many other commentators pointed out that this is in conflict with the administration’s desire to boost oil output: if oil were to fall below $65 per barrel, the US average break-even price, the industry would step back. It seems to us that, with the mounting fears of stagflation, they are more likely to favour cheaper oil right now, rather than higher production.

But getting there during a tariff regime is not simple. Though the market’s recent movements suggest that higher tariffs will drag down oil prices by weakening global demand, there could actually be a short-run jump in prices. Twenty-three per cent of US oil consumption is oil from Canada; if/when Trump puts tariffs on Canada, it will take time for US-based refineries to shift away from heavier Canadian crude oil, driving up demand for lighter grades. Whether prices go up or down in the short to medium term will depend on how quickly oil markets can adjust, and how broad and severe tariffs are.

There is also complexity on the flow-through of oil prices to US growth. Though cheaper oil would be a boon to industry, it is not unabashedly good for US growth, as oil is now a big US export. Complicating things further, in recent years, oil and the dollar have become correlated, bucking their historical inverse relationship:

undefined

If oil prices and the dollar go down hand in hand, US exports will become more appealing to foreign buyers with stronger currencies. It is possible, then, that a boost to goods exports from a cheaper dollar could outweigh lower US oil exports from cheaper oil, making lower energy prices a net benefit to US growth. But that, too, will depend on how severe tariffs are, and how fast markets adjust. And a cheaper dollar is not a panacea in Trump’s world; he has repeatedly stated that he wants to see a strong greenback.

If Trump really wants cheap oil, high tariffs could help get him there by slowing US and global growth. But with fears of stagflation mounting and the complex interplay of oil, the dollar, and growth, the trade-offs could hurt. 

(Reiter)

One Good Read

Joseph Nye the soft power guy.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

企业能否利用特朗普关税的差异?

根据“原产地规则”,转移产品供应链的部分环节可能节省大量关税支出,但试图利用这一点也伴随着风险。

“市场的一次再平衡”:福克斯新闻如何报道特朗普的贸易战

作为美国保守派人士的首选新闻来源,福克斯新闻的主持人似乎在很大程度上淡化了特朗普关税造成的冲击。

美国关税威胁到全球企业近2万亿美元的投资承诺

供应链易受全面关税影响的企业一直希望通过谈判获得华盛顿方面的让步。

愤怒的加拿大人取消赴美旅行,美国度假胜地恐将迎来萧条

特朗普发出的吞并加拿大及加征关税的威胁,打击了美国的最大国际旅游市场。

非行行长:非洲“碳掠夺”取代了“土地掠夺”

非洲开发银行行长阿金武米•阿德西纳表示,外国公司为非洲碳截存支付的价格过低。

美国即将与刚果民主共和国达成关键矿产协议

特朗普的非洲顾问同意推动美国矿业投资的“前进道路”,齐塞克迪政府正在寻求巩固支持。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×