저자: Kevin · 외국인
요약 보기
5월 초 주식시장이 신고가 랠리 중이며 Q1 실적이 양호하다는 진단. 그러나 UBS는 3분기 바닥과 추가 하락(S&P500 약 13%/7% 하락 시나리오)을 전망하며 2026년 수익률은 5~6%로 제시. 진행자는 단기 랩 가능성은 인정하나 3분기 고통을 우려하고, 트레일링 스톱 전략으로 분산을 권장. 2027년은 긍정적으로 봄. 금은 디플레이션 가능성 때문에 동의하지 않음. 테슬라 CEO 교체 보도는 허위 해명이지만 일부 이사가 접촉했을 가능성을 추론.
다듬은 글
Well, so far selling May and go away is not working out quite well as markets are rallying to new highs, which comes around the same time as UBS has quite the bearish piece on what could happen in the third quarter of this year. We need to break it down. But first, it's worth knowing that Q1 earnings are doing really well.
Obviously, we just had Microsoft and Meta. Meta suggesting, hey, maybe a little bit of advertising hiccups in Asia and certain US export markets. But beyond that, we're going to spend more money on capex leading Nvidia to rally. Microsoft back to growth. Microsoft profit margins 69% on a gross profit basis.
These are incredible cash cows fueling this Q1 momentum. Tesla calls the board replacement thesis fake news. We'll talk more about that. uh FOMO buying momentum is back by the dip is fully back. The removal of tariff uh you know sort of threats uh are leading to more hope momentum and markets are pricing in more Fed pricing uh for cuts.
All this seems pretty bullish but is it? And that's what we got to look at the UBS piece for. After all, when we look at oil markets, WTI under 58.50 not looking too good for global growth perspectives. And that's remember something important as a leading indicator of uhoh, our market's starting to price in a little oopsy dupsies.
Unemployment claims jumped this morning and the PMIs we got this morning were contractionary, but are they enough to actually shake the stock market? Probably not in the near term. But that's where this UBS piece becomes really interesting because this UBS piece talks about the future. Not looking back at Q1 or, you know, some of the uncertainties that have now faded from April, but rather focusing on Q3.
And boy, there was a lot of highlighting in this piece because, well, take a look at it. It needed it. First, in both scenarios for the market, UBS believes a bottom hasn't actually been made. Even though we're up substantially, we've almost fully recovered on the index levels some of the pain that we've seen uh in uh the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ.
They think that while we're past tariff uncertainty, we will still see a material impact on earnings growth, which does not appear to be priced in. valuations are likely to also adjust downwards as US exceptionalism waines. And yesterday you had Kla Harris talking about how Donald Trump is leading the charge for the worst man-made recession ever.
Yeah. Now who who knows if that's going to be what we actually get. Jaime Diamond seems to be pricing in as a base case a recession this year which he privately told investors. And I personally think some of the banks are getting a little bit more freaky with compliance requirements, mostly because I think they probably got phone calls from their management staff going tighten the ship.
And what happens when banks start tightening? Lending slows down. And bearing in mind that 48% of jobs are created by small businesses. Maybe we're not so worried about what Microsoft and Meadow really forecast for the economy. We're more worried about those smaller businesses anyway. But take a look at this.
In this first scenario where current tears stay, the market goes 13% lower from April 21 in their opinion for creating a bottom. And in a second scenario where we reduce tariffs, they think markets can go 7% below what we saw on April 21st. Now they think that the bottom comes in early third quarter.
So Q3 that obviously begins July. They say it's not clear whether the US GDP will actually fall into recession this year as the collapse in imports will cushion the decline. In other words, as we get away from this front loading of, you know, building up ahead of tariffs, they actually think the GDP decline could be cushioned because we won't be importing as much.
Remember in the GDP equation, which is kind of important to look at, in a GDP equation, you actually have imports that are subtracted from GDP. So when you subtract imports from GDP, those are a negative. But when you import less or fewer products, you don't actually subtract as much and you end up supporting GDP numbers.
This could be why we've seen such a volatile move in the Atlanta Fed GDP numbers. First, jump in over here. GDP. Here's the calculation for that. Consumption, inventory, investment, government spending, plus exports minus imports. So, I just made an analogy here. If we usually export $50 and we import 100, then from this we would subtract $50 from GDP.
But if we then come in and say, hey, we're going to export 50 and import 50. So, in other words, we're balanced, then we subtract nothing from GDP. That's just a quick way for you to understand uh that GDP calc a little bit better. But also take a look at the Atlanta Fed GDP numbers. They were vastly negative all of Q1 and all of a sudden they get rid of their gold adjusted negative.7% GDP.
They get rid of their negative 2.4% GDP read and now for Q2 the Atlanta Fed is actually pricing in 2.4% GDP growth. Now, a lot of people think that's going to be because we're sort of going to get that opposite momentum of what we had with this rush and surge of imports leading to this collapse of GDP for Q1.
And they're actually pricing in optimism that we're back to growth for Q2, but maybe back into a hole for Q3. And that's I think where that UBS article is interesting because that's going to be what matters. And it's not clear when we start pricing that in. I think probably closer to June. So, I think we could actually have a really bullish May here.
And so, what I've been advocating in the alpha reports uh to course members is I've been advocating uh a a trailing stop strategy for stocks that you want to diversify away from. So, if you're like, "All right, maybe I've got a little too much Tesla in my life. I've got a lot, but I'm going to keep a lot, but maybe I've got a little too much.
Maybe I do want to diversify away a little bit." What you could do, what I'm seeing a lot of people do is they're setting trailing stops. So, a good to cancel let's say 10% decline on Tesla. So, that way if Tesla runs to 400 again and then goes down 10%, you're selling at about 360, right? That's just a quick example of how you could potentially play that.
I see a lot of people doing this and a lot of people are saying, "Hey, Kevin, you you y'all going to keep open that house hack fund raise uh you know to give us time for those trailing stops?" And so far, yes. The the answer is we we we don't have a plan to close this within like the next 30 or 60 days here.
This won't be open forever. you know, invest in Houseack, get the 5% yield, paid out on a monthly basis, diversify i, you get the idea what we do at Houseack, open to nonacredited investors. Uh, so, so I think there's time to play that strategy. And a lot of people are like, hey, if I could just get another bounce in the stock market, I've got more to diversify.
And that's actually exactly what I think is going to happen in May. That said though, UBSC's quote, "We expect a steeper decline than is median for a regular shallow recession, but they also expect a faster recovery." Now, I'm not really convinced that we could see the fastest recovery possible because you really need to wait for the Fed to capitulate and that could take a little longer for the Fed to be convinced where uh you know, true panic is and where the Fed really needs to step in.
After declines over the next three months, we see markets recovering ground in the second half of the year as valuations begin to recover. But if current levels of tariffs are still in place, the market is only likely to recover to levels around which it would presently see. Now, they say if we see a climb down in Chinese tariffs to 60%, we see the S&P 500 recovering to 5,500 by the end of the year.
I mean, we're we're kind of already there anyway, right? And above that. So, this idea uh that you know in May we're going to see it, I don't know. I kind of agree with their Q3 pain, but we'll see. Here's why. Or here's what else they say. They say post the recessions of the last 15 years, the market has seen strong V-shaped recoveries helped by very loose monetary and fiscal policies.
This time, the help from policy, especially fiscal, is likely to remain limited. In other words, we might get those tax cuts, but unless we get more than just a renewal of the existing tax cuts, unless we get substantially more, we don't really have that much of a fiscal tailwind. So, they think over the next 3 years, we have a pretty much flat fiscal exposure.
Uh, and they think that trade and capex expenditures will remain weak. Obviously, if we look at Microsoft and Meta, those are growing, but we've got to look at the aggregate, not just these companies. And the aggregate so far and forward expectations for capex is weakening and this could potentially continue to weaken.
So after a down 25 uh in a bottom in the second half, they actually think we might only see a 5 to 6% return in the S&P 500 for 2026. Uh and maybe back to double digits in 2027. I actually think 2027 will be a banger of a year. This is when we're really like you get past midterms, so you get stability with government.
Not only do you get stability with government, but you're going to be probably through the worst of whatever is going to happen. Maybe the worst is already over. I don't think so. Again, I think we rally for, you know, the next few weeks and then we potentially trailing stop out when true data starts rolling over, jobs data, you know, hard data, whatever.
That's when people are going to be begging the Fed for a bailout. But anyway, they say Q3 uh if funding markets begin to break liquidity and liquidity tightness becomes a problem for businesses and financial institutions, the Fed's early arrival would help markets. But in this case, markets which would have reached a level well lower than what we have penciled in for our forecast.
In other words, if we truly get to Fed panic, it means stocks go down way lower. And that's because high inflation or at least high inflation expectations are likely to make the Fed reactive and not proactive. and we expect they would only cut by September. Should inflation outcomes be such that the Fed didn't cut at all this year, the trajectory for markets could actually be even worse.
I actually kind of agree with that. So, uh, then we talk a little bit about the imports on GDP. We talk about valuations bottom before earnings do. So, they think that equity multiples will trough somewhere around 17 to 18 and that, you know, multiples of around 21 to 25 just won't be sustainable in the longer term.
So, in other words, take the bounce and, you know, maybe use that as an opportunity to take some money off the table with trailing. I like trailing stops because who says that the momentum is going to turn around tomorrow? I mean, look, yesterday the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ were down 2% and they literally recovered all of it by the end of the day.
That's a really incredible move. Really, really impressive. Uh, so I think you could see more of that again in the near term. And that's where those trailings become nice because now you know if you have a trailing stop set you're not you're not busted out at a 2% move. Uh but uh you know you can kind of follow the market up some more.
Despite Fed cuts, the cost of equity will remain high. Okay, what else do we have here? Gold remains the cleanest way to express dollars. I disagree with this. I actually think what happens is gold rises when you have stagflation and inflationary fears, but I really don't see companies having a lot of ability to pass every single dollar of price increases onto their customers.
Uh, and so I see much more of a likelihood that we end up with with deflation as the market really really hits its pain threshold in Q3, Q4. When the Fed realizes that we're more likely facing deflation, I think that's when you really get the Fed bailout pretty rapidly. They don't want deflation. It makes the fiscal situation, you know, with our US debt even worse.
You know, you want inflation, so you can inflate away the debt. At least the government does. Technically, consumers don't really want inflation, right? But that's the game that they're going to play. The fact that reciprocal tariffs were paused before they were even implemented says that the US administration does care about market pain like stock market pain and market you know broader uh pain.
Fed may address growth concerns blah blah blah. Okay. So then we get some charts. I don't actually think I have much else highlighted in this because the rest was pretty boring and disclosures and disclaimers. So uh that's a UBS take on hey bottom Q3. I don't necessarily disagree with that but I think we get a rally before we get that pain.
Now again fueled by not only FOMO but fueled by Q1 earnings and otherwise. Now what about Tesla this morning? So Tesla this morning as expected came and this is unpopular and it's why I put it at the end of the video but I I like to use logic uh and try to read between lines as pos as much as possible and it's not to be bearish.
I actually like I said in my video yesterday I think there are a lot of benefits that Tesla could face going into 2027. And I broke all of that out yesterday, but I thought it was really interesting that they wrote Tesla, you know, earlier today there was a media report erroneously claiming that the Tesla board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search.
Okay, remember we talked about this yesterday. We did a whole uh breakdown of this in like a 30inut video yesterday. Not mostly on this because we thought it was going to be fake news. We thought we would come out with a denial on this, but also because you would end up getting uh this this uh uh you know argument from Tesla that hey this is fake news uh that this is this is just the mainstream media doing their nonsense again.
You know, we're focused on growth. And then we talked about that growth. We were talked about Whimo and Zuks and we talked about Toyota and the partnerships and we talked about Model 2 versus Model 2 and a half and all of that in a 30-minute Tesla video yesterday. You should watch it if you haven't yet.
But what's very interesting is, and this I'm I'm putting this at the end of the video for those of you who appreciate logic and perspective. Listen to this. Earlier today, there was a media report erroneously claiming that the Tesla board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search at the company.
This is absolutely false and was communicated to the media before the report was published. The CEO of Tesla's Elon Musk and the board is highly confident in his ability to continue. So yesterday we predicted that, you know, after the earnings call, after Elon Musk saying, "Hey, we're going to come back.
I'm going to or I'm going to come back. I'm going to spend more time at uh uh at at Tesla, we expected they'd come out and argue that this is false." But I want you to think about something for a moment. Right. In this Twitter post, this ex post, they're suggesting the Tesla board didn't contact recruitment firms, but do you know who is on the board of Tesla?
Do you see the first name that's on the board of the Tesla directors? It's Elon Musk. So, duh, the entire board didn't contact uh, you know, uh, a recruitment firm. It's likely that, in my opinion, some board members or maybe even one board member reached out. In fact, if you look at the article, board members reached out to several executive search firms.
So, this sort of implies more than one. It implies like maybe two board members, but there are a bunch of board members. The board collectively didn't look for a new CEO. So, it's a true statement. Tesla can truly say it is true that the Tesla board did not contact recruitment firms. Correct? Because the entire board didn't.
But is it true that all board members did not? Maybe not. And that's not what Tesla's saying either. So, I think, you know, maybe that's nitpicking. But and again, I have some, you know, bullish thesis that we talked about yesterday on Tesla, and we expected Tesla to bounce on on an argument that there would be a post about fake news here.
But I do think when you when you logic this, it's like, oh, okay. So, both things could be true. Tesla board entirely didn't. And some board members did because they were starting to freak out. But the good news is Elon's back, so maybe it doesn't matter anyway. Supposedly back. So, uh, as far as the UBS piece, e hard data.
Uh, and remember, and we talked about this in the course member live this morning as well, watch unemployment claims. Really, you need them to spike over 300,000 for them to be concerning. Uh, you did get a little bit of a spike this morning along with challenger job cuts uh, bouncing without the inclusion of a lot of Doge.
like Doge had very little to do in the Challenger report this morning, but the Challenger job loss report really showed a ramp up in job losses and that's not great. So, keep that in mind that, you know, some of the hard data is beginning to weaken. The stock market is basically pricing in zero of that weakening right now.
Again, great for trailing stops in the near term. Probably not great for a setup going into the third quarter. .
Comments 0