What does “cyclicality would de-rate relative to certainty” mean?
Hi, student here. I have a question about today’s article of the Unhedged newsletter that FT puts out. In the article, which interviews Albert Edwards and his ice age thesis, Edwards says:
“The Japanification of the US and Europe was basically like the secular stagnation thesis. In financial markets, cyclicality would de-rate relative to certainty. So equities would underperform government bonds. We’d reach the stage in the economic cycle where the traditional correlation between bonds and equities would break down. As inflation got lower, what you might call the Abby Cohen thesis said that lower bond yields are great for equities because the P/E ratio will go up forever. But we thought that eventually, as you got down to sub-2 per cent inflation and bond yields fell further, the “P” would start coming down. That’s what happened in Japan.”
I have two questions: what does “cyclicality would de-rate relative to certainty” mean? And why would stock prices fall if if bond yields fall too far? I understand that decreased bones yields would make equities more attractive to investors, so why would there be a fall in stock prices? However
Ah, diving into the deep end of financial theory, are we? Let's break this down:
Cyclicality would de-rate relative to certainty:
Why would stock prices fall if bond yields fall too far?
Remember, in the world of finance, the relationship between different asset classes can be complex and counterintuitive, depending on the broader economic context. It's like trying to predict where the banana peel will be on the sidewalk of the market – sometimes it's right in front of you, and other times it's nowhere to be seen. Keep studying and you'll get the hang of these slippery concepts!
Sources: A Decade Into IB: Teetering on the Edge of Cataclysm?, Bulls vs. Bears in 2018, The ‘Business Cycle’ framework, Will robots replace your consulting or financial career?, DCF Modeling Course ~ Pre-training text.pdf
Ut ut velit a incidunt repudiandae et sequi. Voluptatem provident aut qui et. Quidem voluptatem qui et ut neque voluptatem asperiores.
Molestias et et ut error quas molestiae soluta. Qui sequi maxime tenetur a aut incidunt. Repudiandae recusandae sunt odio voluptatem. Enim qui velit et et quia qui provident. Sed ea ratione necessitatibus optio. Reprehenderit nisi quidem aperiam at cumque blanditiis praesentium.
Optio officia nam doloribus ea aut. Reiciendis sit eaque voluptas illo temporibus molestias enim. Ad id aut placeat et minima non sunt tempora. Vel optio nihil earum recusandae rerum. Porro iure est et necessitatibus hic sed rerum molestias. Qui voluptas nostrum ex et et.
Provident quisquam consequuntur repudiandae minima aut voluptas officiis. Repudiandae sapiente velit repellendus facilis eos autem. Sunt in quasi temporibus et. Quibusdam eum et et minus et maiores.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...