// The Econ is not healthy if the price is below that range //
Some say that, but that is just an unsupported cliché ... (I assume you mean that if oil (commodities) are low that indicates softness in the economy.) Commodity prices have been manipulated for so long the talking shirts have no idea what the proper price for commodities should be... and many are still spewing the kool aid explanations used during the "manipulation" of the last decade. Though a weak economy would cause weaker commodity prices if commodities were properly priced in the first place, I wouldn't say changing commodity prices (at this point) mean anything about the economy.
Well, at least the gap at 38.77 is covered from yesterday. We'll see where things go.
As far as oil goes ... gee whiz, it's down ... if you want to be conservative, figure earnings going forward at $60 Brent. Those earnings are still good enough for a surprisingly higher stock price. When the market recognizes that is a guess.
Shale will come back at some price point. China has an estimated 500,000 bbl/day going to storage which is filling fast (subtract that from demand). Other countries have to pump to meet budgets, or cut and give up market share to shale.
// Large buybacks likely why pps up so much ... //
All airlines were up, even those not doing buybacks, though some others are doing buybacks. And AAL's buybacks are a factor, but it is not all one thing and not any of the other things. I feel there seems to be some stability showing up in the metrics that were considered unknowns a number of months ago. Such as, how far will prasm drop? How much capacity will be added? What kind of margins are we looking at? Where will fuel go? Where will the economy go? More airlines are reporting those metrics as stabilizing (at decent levels).
Have a good weekend.
I didn't like the repeal of Glass-Steagall either, but at the time European banks weren't hamstrung by a law like that and to be non political about it, we decided to be more like Europe instead of Europe becoming more like us. But probably more devastating was the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000 which deregulated derivatives ... (and for the same reasons of the repeal of Glass-Steagall ... to be more like Europe). Sure a republican congress, but this was pushed hard by Rubins and Summers within the WH.
I'm not against trying something new ... this just wasn't caught in time. Greenspan for years said derivatives seem to lessen risk in his testimonies. And for that matter in 2006 the WH did start investigating what was going on with commodities through the GAO, but results were inconclusive. Bush walked into office with terrorism increasing, deregulated derivatives, dotcom bust, and a recession ... his plate was full and not his doing. Sometimes changes are made and things go bad ... well, they did. TARP stabilized the financial system, but the damage was done.
// ... while Yellen is mainly concerned about the U.S. //
That's true, but there is an argument to be made that what is good for the world is also good for us. And there has been increased coordination among central bankers over the years. I'm surprised the market was so surprised about no rate hike. It was in July that the IMF and the EU made their plea to the Fed ... and it's not that economic metrics here are heating up quickly, so why not wait, especially after a request like that? Until more metrics change, lower rates are actually normal for conditions. (Financials would have liked a hike.)
If growth stays at 2-3% that is better than the last number of years and the economically sensitive airlines did very well for the last number of years.
// Yes, I've been flying domestically all month ... //
I was driving last week ... my "truck" indicator went off the charts. Granted it was near the intersection of two interstates, but I had to stop counting because I couldn't keep up and drive at the same time. 49 trucks in two miles ... and I was surrounded by trucks. There is definitely commerce going on. Sure it is probably not 24 hours a day and there are thin spots, but the thin spots are less, and busier during other times of the day than a year ago that is definitely for sure.
On the back of an envelope I think the incremental growth in the EU and US will counter the drop off in China's growth ... and elsewhere. In 2016 maybe the weak ones will get on track.
// Shares outstanding in Q3 were 672 million //
Guidance in the SEC filing today was that 681 million shares would be used for Q3 (fully diluted, which they use)
663 will be used for Q4 (until further guidance) and 692 will be used for full year 2015 ... but obviously less shares going into 2016.
There is a lot of focus on long term debt, and it is certainly good to be lower. However, compare AAL's net tangible assets to DAL's (after 8 years vs 2 years) ... DAL should have paid done debt, since it seemed they were financing their $8 billion more in goodwill (and more than $8 billion counting other intangibles). Both companies have about the same long term liabilities, granted DAL is less. But AAL with newer airplanes/equipment and DAL with goodwill and other intangibles ... Who has better assets?
AAL will get around to paying down debt ... I'll leave it as their call instead of getting bunched up over one item of the balance sheet without a discussion of the overall balance sheet.
// Parker will defend ... //
I know many see that $44+ area as support, and it could be, but this market and a ton of stocks have unfilled gaps, including AAL. And, at any point, it can be very normal for stocks to drop to their 20 dma, or 50 dma. And a 3-5%(+/- a few) can happen at anytime especially after a 4-5 week advance. So ...
Actually, I thought it was only down that low for about 6-7 minutes. If you went to get coffee, you missed it. Had to have orders already in ... say at the gap.
// What happens when rates rise 3 or 4 percent then what happens????? //
I get the feeling from "talking shirts" that those rates (3-4% short term) are "normal" historically and therefore that is where the Fed has to take rates ... ridiculous. What makes "historical" normal? Only if other economic factors return to historical levels will it justify "historical" interest rate levels.
// commitments of Traders //
Unc, That's not all there is ... the Commitment of Traders (COT) that is. Commodity swaps (energy being one area), and some other derivatives aren't reported yet, nor are there positions limits on them ... the dark world. And that market may "swamp" the size of the futures market. It's coming though ... and indications that it was coming started late last spring and early summer. Like the Fed concerning themselves with the requests from the IMF and EU about interest rates, the CFTC is going to do it in coordination with the EU, etc. ... well Basel III ... or at least closer Basel III's implementation of similar rules.
All commodities (energy, metals and most ags.), not just oil, started dropping late last spring and summer. All the other commodities came off 25-35%+, not sure if all had supply stories like oil.
cav ... never really addressed your January, 2015 prasm warning. You called it, and it certainly put my antenna up. There might have been some inklings about some prasm weakness, but your posts got me to pay attention. Thanks for that.
// Like it or not we can't stay at zero forever otherwise we will simply head into a deflationary tailspin. //
Scott ... low interest rates don't cause deflation. In general I understand what you are saying. I guess my point is more against everyone saying we have to "normalize". What is "normal" depends on other variables, and we still have conditions to make the current state "normal". Everyone acts like "normal" should be historical, or some average, or the level of interest rates in other cycles.
I think when conditions call for a hike we'll see it in long term rates, which is market controlled (though through QE and the Fed balance sheet they did stick their finger in the long term rate game). Anyway, that will give the Fed room raise short term rates and not flatten the yield curve. The Fed did say they expected that any increase in interest rates by them would be done in the context of being accommodative. I know that 25 basis points would not flatten the curve, but it wouldn't satisfy those that want the old normal either, and it would impact emerging market loans.
cav ... there probably should be more discussion about downside risks. This year has been full of many new "twists". Probably some concern about where the balls would land (prasm, capacity, oil, integration, weak parts of the world, etc.) I can see iahphx point from his post too ... there will always be something ... and, even with "the somethings", look at the margins. One of the concerns, the integration hurdles, will soon be dissipating ... then they can get everybody to redirect their focus on tuning things up.
// 25 basis points is nothing //
Scott ... True, and if a crisis hits lowering the Fed funds rate back to 0 won't help much too. You said a target should be 2-6% for the Fed fund rate. Well, long term rates are usually economic growth plus inflation. Right now they are hanging at 3%. The Fed wants to keep the yield curve steep to be accommodative. So, as long as the economy isn't over heating and inflation doesn't exceed the Fed's target, why would the Fed flatten or invert the yield curve and drive the economy into a recession?
Now if economic growth picks up (and/or, hopefully not, inflation), long term rates should reflect that ... they are market determined (generally). Having said that the Fed does have a balance sheet to reduce, and when they feel the economy and certain sectors can take it, they will start reducing their balance sheet (that too will be data dependent), and that will impact long term rates.
Anyway, we need an accommodative monetary policy ... can't see the Fed flattening the yield curve too much ... I'd call 2% a restrictive monetary policy, if long term rates stay where they are. Right now there is no need have restrictive monetary policy, and the Fed has said as much.
Right now fiscal policy is somewhat restrictive ... deficit is decreasing due to higher taxes over the last few years. Fed is fighting that too. So to those that say current monetary policy isn't working, they should look at other headwinds. Though one thing about low growth ... how far can you fall?