Todavía no se dan las condiciones para un rebote significativo.

Potencial bajista de la corrección y nuestra posición

La semana
De nuevo bajista, elevando al -6% la pérdida que acumula RV EUR (EuroStoxx) en el mes de abril. El IBEX 35 vuelve a liderar las caídas, arrastrado por el sector bancario y las constructoras (ACS y FCC pierden más de un 7% en la semana). La repreciación de riesgo soberano periférico y el profit warning de Nokia ha dejado sin apoyos a dos sectores clave en el rebote de 1T12: bancos y tecnología.


El análisis
El cambio de tendencia en la renta variable mundial ya es evidente, la subida lineal desde los mínimos de diciembre ha finalizado. Y como apuntamos en el informe diario del 7 de marzo es momento de establecer objetivos de corrección ante un entorno donde la renta variable deberá encontrar soporte en argumentos fundamentales, sin olvidarnos de las referencias técnicas. En este último punto, la RV Mundial tiene un potencial bajista mínimo del 6%, que llevaría a la curva de precios de nuestro índice a la media de 200 sesiones. En caso de perder esta guía (muy probable en nuestra opinión) el soporte clave de medio plazo está un 11% por debajo del cierre de hoy (ver gráfico).
Por fundamentales también vemos recorrido bajista. Los mercados de acciones en general, y el IBEX 35 en particular, no están cotizando un riesgo de recaída de ciclo que en algunas regiones está confirmado (esperamos un -2,3% en PIB España 2012). Los 7.300 puntos de hoy en IBEX 35 son compatibles con unas expectativas de crecimiento de los beneficios para los próximos tres años del -0,6% (media anual acumulada); en el suelo de 2009 las expectativas implícitas eran del -8%. Si el mercado retoma esta última referencia (-8%) el objetivo para el IBEX 35 está en 6.800 pts.


Recomendación
Seguimos con la protección activa (compra de PUT en febrero y marzo; y venta de futuros), y posiciones infraponderadas en RV a la espera de señales para desplazar peso desde liquidez hacia riesgo 

¿Está la Reserva Federal desesperada...

...o promoviendo el crecimiento?

Es la pregunta que se hace Hussman en la carta semanal (aquí)

Como siempre, una buena lectura para empezar la semana.

What we've observed in the employment figures is not recovery, but desperation. Having starved savers of interest income, and having repeatedly subjected investors to Fed-induced financial bubbles that create volatility without durable returns, the Fed has successfully provoked job growth of the obligatory, low-wage variety. Over the past year, the majority of this growth has been in the 55-and-over cohort, while growth has turned down among other workers. Meanwhile, overall labor force participation continues to fall as discouraged workers leave the labor force entirely, which is the primary reason the unemployment rate has declined. All of this reflects not health, but despair, and explains why real disposable income has grown by only 0.3% over the past year (...)

(...) Over the weekend, the New York Times published a good article (Some Dreary Forecasts from Recovery Skeptics) that summarized the concerns of a number of economic observers, placing Lakshman Achuthan of the ECRI and me into the classification of "perma-bears." Actually, with respect to the economy, I'm pleased to be in good company, and don't greatly object to the "perma-bear" label in that I continue to believe major underlying economic problems have merely been kicked down the road and remain unresolved (primarily an overhang of unserviceable debt, which continues to need restructuring, and which will leave the global economy prone to recurring crises until that happens).

I also periodically get the "perma-bear" label with respect to my views on the financial markets. While I do believe that stocks have been generally overvalued since the late-1990's (a view that is supported by the predictably dismal overall total returns on stocks since that time), I do think that some observers misclassify the 2009-early 2010 period as being a reflection of our standard investment strategy instead of what it was - a period when we suspended risk taking until we were confident that we had adequately stress-tested our methods against Depression-era data. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the difference is that for most periods since 2000, our present investment methods would do very little differently than we actually did in practice (though there are of course a few moderate differences due to various refinements and ongoing research). The 2009-early 2010 period is distinct in that it is not at all indicative of the hedge position that can be expected of our strategy in future market cycles, even under identical conditions and evidence. The fact that we removed about 70% of our hedges in 2002 (when our projection for 10-year S&P 500 total returns was not much more compelling than what it is today), should be some evidence of that.

Financial markets fluctuate, and prospective returns change. We will undoubtedly have ample opportunities to accept financial risk in expectation of reasonable returns, and if history is any guide, those opportunities will emerge well before our economic problems are behind us. What concerns me here is the refusal of investors to even recognize those problems; the army of hostile syndromes we observe in both financial and economic data; the blind faith that simply changing the mix of Treasury debt and bank reserves can produce growth and put a floor under speculative assets; the near-complete denial of ongoing debt strains; and heavily bullish sentiment that Investors Intelligence correctly notes is now in "territory associated with market tops."