Hmmmm_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

2021-06-07

Hmmmm

"We Took Out The June 2007 Highs": Morgan Stanley's Sell Signal Just Hit An All Time High<blockquote>“我们打破了 2007 年 6 月的高点”：摩根士丹利的卖出信号刚刚创下历史新高</blockquote>

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":114146450,"tweetId":"114146450","gmtCreate":1623060636470,"gmtModify":1631893766858,"author":{"id":3567466731322784,"idStr":"3567466731322784","authorId":3567466731322784,"authorIdStr":"3567466731322784","name":"娜神宝宝","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":12,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":3,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body>Hmmmm</body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body>Hmmmm</body></html>","text":"Hmmmm","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/114146450","repostId":1194257742,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1194257742","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1623059574,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1194257742?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-06-07 17:52","market":"us","language":"en","title":"\"We Took Out The June 2007 Highs\": Morgan Stanley's Sell Signal Just Hit An All Time High<blockquote>“我们打破了 2007 年 6 月的高点”：摩根士丹利的卖出信号刚刚创下历史新高</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1194257742","media":"zerohedge","summary":"For the past several months, Morgan Stanley's fundamental analysts have been turning increasingly be","content":"For the past several months, Morgan Stanley's fundamental analysts have been turning increasingly bearish on stocks, with the pessimistic sentimentplateauing earlier this weekwhen chief equity strategist Michael Wilson said that there is far too much optimism in the market, and that while earnings are slowly rising, forward PE multiples are far too high and are set to slide, with \"the de-rating about 75% to go or an approximate 15% decline in P/Es from here.\" As a result, in Wilson's view - which is rapidly emerging as the most bearish on Wall Street - \"earnings revisions will not be able to offset that de-rating, leaving the overall market vulnerable to a 10-15 % correction over the next 6 months.\"<blockquote>在过去的几个月里，摩根士丹利的基本面分析师对股市的看法越来越悲观，本周早些时候，首席股票策略师迈克尔·威尔逊 (Michael Wilson) 表示，市场上有太多的乐观情绪，尽管盈利正在缓慢上升，但远期市盈率过高，注定会下滑，“评级下调约 75%，市盈率将下降约 15%。”因此，在威尔逊看来——这正迅速成为华尔街最悲观的人——“盈利修正将无法抵消评级下调，导致整个市场在未来 6 个月内容易受到 10-15% 的调整。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f72ac2b1254473a56a44d443d5b0af2e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"298\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">It now appears that Morgan Stanley's fundamental bearishness has spilled over into the bank's technical analyst team and as the bank's chief Euro equity Strategist Matthew Garman writes,for only the fifth time in over 30 years, each of Morgan Stanley's five market timing indicators are giving a sell signal at the same time.<blockquote>现在看来，摩根士丹利的基本面悲观情绪已经蔓延到该银行的技术分析师团队中，正如该银行首席欧元股票策略师马修·加曼所写，30多年来，摩根士丹利的五个市场择时指标中的每一个都同时发出卖出信号，这只是第五次。</blockquote> Not only that, but the bank's Combined Market Timing Indicator - which has been in sell territory since March - just hit a new all time high of 1.19, surpassing the previous record high seen in June-2007, right around the time of the first great quant crash and before the market collapsed.<blockquote>不仅如此，该银行的综合市场时机指标（自 3 月份以来一直处于卖出区域）刚刚创下 1.19 的历史新高，超过了 2007 年 6 月的历史新高，当时正值第一次量化大崩盘前后市场崩溃之前。</blockquote> According to Garman, the only time equities have risen after a \"Full House\" Sell Signal was in Feb 17, shortly after the Shanghai Accord kicked in to prevent a global recession. The other previous occasions where there was a \"Full House\" Sell Signal were Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07. According to MS,\"in the 6M post the initial Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe has fallen on average 6%.\"<blockquote>加曼表示，唯一一次在“满屋”抛售信号发出后股市上涨是在 2 月 17 日，即上海协议生效以防止全球经济衰退后不久。之前出现“满屋”卖出信号的其他场合是 1990 年 3 月、1992 年 5 月、2007 年 6 月。据MS称，“在最初发出完整房屋出售信号后的 600 万年里，MSCI 欧洲平均下跌了 6%.\"</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/840d972b24ae257679bd7334982d19d8\" tg-width=\"1130\" tg-height=\"415\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">So with every in house risk indicator screaming sell, does that mean that Morgan Stanley will have the balls to tell its clients to sell? Why of course not, because in this market where stuff like the AMC, GameStop and Bed Bath squeezes force analysts to admit they no longer have any idea what's going on...<blockquote>那么，随着每个内部风险指标都在尖叫卖出，这是否意味着摩根士丹利有胆量告诉其客户卖出？为什么不呢，因为在这个市场，AMC、游戏驿站和贝德巴斯等公司挤压迫使分析师承认他们不再知道发生了什么……</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/79e9d638925af010cddcb25105f8a4b0\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"471\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">... Morgan Stanley is keeping the hope and assuming that the current period will be similar to 2017 - the only other time when a massive sell signal did not result in a market plunge.<blockquote>...摩根士丹利仍然抱有希望，并假设当前时期将与 2017 年类似——这是唯一一次大规模卖出信号没有导致市场暴跌。</blockquote> Back in 2017, we remained constructive despite the signal given i) strong EPS growth, ii) an early cycle environment, iii) EU inflows, iv) low sentiment and v) a rise in M&amp;A. Sentiment metrics may look more elevated than in 2017, but many of those factors remain in place today. While we see a trickier risk-reward for equities globally, we maintain our view that there is a compelling case for Europe to outperform global peers. Yet even Morgan Stanley is forced to admit that while Defensives may just scrape by after a record sell signal, cyclicals are about to be hammered. The next chart shows the relative performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives after a Full House Sell Signal on. As MS notes, \"perhaps unsurprisingly, given the poor performance at the market level, Cyclicals have struggled. In the 6M post the four initial Full House Sell Signals, Cyclicals have underperformed Defensives on average 12%, and this drops to -15% looking at any day<blockquote>早在2017年，尽管有以下信号，我们仍然保持建设性：i) 每股收益强劲增长，ii) 早期周期环境，iii) 欧盟资金流入，iv) 情绪低迷，以及 v) 并购增加。情绪指标可能看起来比 2017 年更高，但其中许多因素今天仍然存在。虽然我们看到全球股市的风险回报更加棘手，但我们仍然认为欧洲有令人信服的理由跑赢全球同行。然而，即使是摩根士丹利也不得不承认，尽管防御性股票可能在创纪录的卖出信号后勉强维持，但周期性股票即将受到打击。下一张图表显示了在满屋卖出信号发出后，周期性股票与防御性股票的相对表现。正如微软指出的那样，“鉴于市场层面的糟糕表现，周期性股票一直举步维艰，这或许并不奇怪。在最初的四次全屋抛售信号之后，周期性股票的表现平均低于防御性股票12%，从任何一天来看，这一数字都会降至-15%</blockquote> when the MTIs have all said sell at the same time.\"<blockquote>当 MTI 都同时表示卖出时。”</blockquote> This was true even in 2017 when equity markets rose: \"we previously cited similarities with the 2017 Full House Sell Signal as reasons to not get overly cautious on equity markets in aggregate at this moment in time. After the February-2017 Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe continued to rise pretty consistently through the rest of the year. However, despite strong performance from the market in aggregate, the performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives was much poorer. Between February and June 2017 Cyclicals underperformed Defensives by 6%.\"<blockquote>即使在2017年股市上涨时，情况也是如此：“我们之前引用了与2017年全屋出售信号的相似之处，作为目前对整体股市不要过于谨慎的原因。在2017年2月发出全屋出售信号后，摩根士丹利资本国际欧洲在今年剩余时间里继续相当持续地上涨。然而，尽管市场整体表现强劲，但周期性股票相对于防御性股票的表现要差得多。2017 年 2 月至 6 月期间，周期性股票的表现逊于防御性股票 6%。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8dcf00cdefd33fef071981aa4a5547a7\" tg-width=\"1084\" tg-height=\"387\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">It's not just the bank's sell signal that is prompting concerns about the future returns of cyclicals: Borrowing a page from our own warnings (see \"China's Credit Impulse Just Turned Negative, Unleashing Global Deflationary Shockwave\"), Morgan Stanley looks at \"a number of China data points which are giving warning signs\" first and foremost the collapse in China's credit impulse, to wit:<blockquote>引发人们对周期性产品未来回报担忧的不仅仅是央行的卖出信号：借鉴我们自己的警告（参见“中国信贷冲动刚刚转负，引发全球通缩冲击波”），摩根士丹利着眼于“一些中国数据点发出警告信号”首先也是最重要的是中国信贷冲动的崩溃，也就是说：</blockquote> While credit tightening has been front-loaded in 1H21, as outlined here, our economists remain constructive on China's growth recovery. Having said that, a number of Chinese data points do suggest the Cyclical bounce looks overextended.China's credit impulse has just turned negative, and historically this has provided a lead indicator for the year-on-year performance of European Cyclicals (Exhibit 5).Similarly, the relative performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives has closely tracked moves in Chinese 10Y bond yields, which are now at their lowest levels since September 2020, standing in sharp contrast to the performance of Cyclicals.<blockquote>正如本文所述，尽管信贷紧缩在 2021 年上半年占据了主导地位，但我们的经济学家仍然对中国的增长复苏持建设性态度。话虽如此，一些中国数据确实表明周期性反弹看起来过度延长。中国的信贷冲动刚刚转负，从历史上看，这为欧洲周期性产品的同比表现提供了领先指标（图表5）。同样，周期性债券与防御性债券的相对表现密切跟踪了中国 10 年期债券收益率的走势，中国 10 年期债券收益率目前处于 2020 年 9 月以来的最低水平，与周期性债券的表现形成鲜明对比。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c85032415626480364933f91dda387bf\" tg-width=\"1065\" tg-height=\"409\"><blockquote></blockquote> Putting it all together, readers have to ask themselves if what is coming will be an analog of the one and only episode on history when the market did not plunge after all Morgan Stanley market timing indicators hit a sell (and were at an all time high), or will this case be similar to Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07 when the outcome was anything but a happy ending.<blockquote>综上所述，读者必须扪心自问，即将发生的事情是否会类似于历史上唯一一次在所有摩根士丹利市场择时指标都达到卖出（并处于历史高位）后市场没有暴跌的事件，或者这种情况是否会类似于1990年3月、1992年5月、2007年6月，当时的结果绝不是一个幸福的结局。</blockquote>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>\"We Took Out The June 2007 Highs\": Morgan Stanley's Sell Signal Just Hit An All Time High<blockquote>“我们打破了 2007 年 6 月的高点”：摩根士丹利的卖出信号刚刚创下历史新高</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\n\"We Took Out The June 2007 Highs\": Morgan Stanley's Sell Signal Just Hit An All Time High<blockquote>“我们打破了 2007 年 6 月的高点”：摩根士丹利的卖出信号刚刚创下历史新高</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\nzerohedge2021-06-07 17:52\n\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\nFor the past several months, Morgan Stanley's fundamental analysts have been turning increasingly bearish on stocks, with the pessimistic sentimentplateauing earlier this weekwhen chief equity strategist Michael Wilson said that there is far too much optimism in the market, and that while earnings are slowly rising, forward PE multiples are far too high and are set to slide, with \"the de-rating about 75% to go or an approximate 15% decline in P/Es from here.\" As a result, in Wilson's view - which is rapidly emerging as the most bearish on Wall Street - \"earnings revisions will not be able to offset that de-rating, leaving the overall market vulnerable to a 10-15 % correction over the next 6 months.\"<blockquote>在过去的几个月里，摩根士丹利的基本面分析师对股市的看法越来越悲观，本周早些时候，首席股票策略师迈克尔·威尔逊 (Michael Wilson) 表示，市场上有太多的乐观情绪，尽管盈利正在缓慢上升，但远期市盈率过高，注定会下滑，“评级下调约 75%，市盈率将下降约 15%。”因此，在威尔逊看来——这正迅速成为华尔街最悲观的人——“盈利修正将无法抵消评级下调，导致整个市场在未来 6 个月内容易受到 10-15% 的调整。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f72ac2b1254473a56a44d443d5b0af2e\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"298\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">It now appears that Morgan Stanley's fundamental bearishness has spilled over into the bank's technical analyst team and as the bank's chief Euro equity Strategist Matthew Garman writes,for only the fifth time in over 30 years, each of Morgan Stanley's five market timing indicators are giving a sell signal at the same time.<blockquote>现在看来，摩根士丹利的基本面悲观情绪已经蔓延到该银行的技术分析师团队中，正如该银行首席欧元股票策略师马修·加曼所写，30多年来，摩根士丹利的五个市场择时指标中的每一个都同时发出卖出信号，这只是第五次。</blockquote> Not only that, but the bank's Combined Market Timing Indicator - which has been in sell territory since March - just hit a new all time high of 1.19, surpassing the previous record high seen in June-2007, right around the time of the first great quant crash and before the market collapsed.<blockquote>不仅如此，该银行的综合市场时机指标（自 3 月份以来一直处于卖出区域）刚刚创下 1.19 的历史新高，超过了 2007 年 6 月的历史新高，当时正值第一次量化大崩盘前后市场崩溃之前。</blockquote> According to Garman, the only time equities have risen after a \"Full House\" Sell Signal was in Feb 17, shortly after the Shanghai Accord kicked in to prevent a global recession. The other previous occasions where there was a \"Full House\" Sell Signal were Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07. According to MS,\"in the 6M post the initial Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe has fallen on average 6%.\"<blockquote>加曼表示，唯一一次在“满屋”抛售信号发出后股市上涨是在 2 月 17 日，即上海协议生效以防止全球经济衰退后不久。之前出现“满屋”卖出信号的其他场合是 1990 年 3 月、1992 年 5 月、2007 年 6 月。据MS称，“在最初发出完整房屋出售信号后的 600 万年里，MSCI 欧洲平均下跌了 6%.\"</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/840d972b24ae257679bd7334982d19d8\" tg-width=\"1130\" tg-height=\"415\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">So with every in house risk indicator screaming sell, does that mean that Morgan Stanley will have the balls to tell its clients to sell? Why of course not, because in this market where stuff like the AMC, GameStop and Bed Bath squeezes force analysts to admit they no longer have any idea what's going on...<blockquote>那么，随着每个内部风险指标都在尖叫卖出，这是否意味着摩根士丹利有胆量告诉其客户卖出？为什么不呢，因为在这个市场，AMC、游戏驿站和贝德巴斯等公司挤压迫使分析师承认他们不再知道发生了什么……</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/79e9d638925af010cddcb25105f8a4b0\" tg-width=\"500\" tg-height=\"471\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">... Morgan Stanley is keeping the hope and assuming that the current period will be similar to 2017 - the only other time when a massive sell signal did not result in a market plunge.<blockquote>...摩根士丹利仍然抱有希望，并假设当前时期将与 2017 年类似——这是唯一一次大规模卖出信号没有导致市场暴跌。</blockquote> Back in 2017, we remained constructive despite the signal given i) strong EPS growth, ii) an early cycle environment, iii) EU inflows, iv) low sentiment and v) a rise in M&amp;A. Sentiment metrics may look more elevated than in 2017, but many of those factors remain in place today. While we see a trickier risk-reward for equities globally, we maintain our view that there is a compelling case for Europe to outperform global peers. Yet even Morgan Stanley is forced to admit that while Defensives may just scrape by after a record sell signal, cyclicals are about to be hammered. The next chart shows the relative performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives after a Full House Sell Signal on. As MS notes, \"perhaps unsurprisingly, given the poor performance at the market level, Cyclicals have struggled. In the 6M post the four initial Full House Sell Signals, Cyclicals have underperformed Defensives on average 12%, and this drops to -15% looking at any day<blockquote>早在2017年，尽管有以下信号，我们仍然保持建设性：i) 每股收益强劲增长，ii) 早期周期环境，iii) 欧盟资金流入，iv) 情绪低迷，以及 v) 并购增加。情绪指标可能看起来比 2017 年更高，但其中许多因素今天仍然存在。虽然我们看到全球股市的风险回报更加棘手，但我们仍然认为欧洲有令人信服的理由跑赢全球同行。然而，即使是摩根士丹利也不得不承认，尽管防御性股票可能在创纪录的卖出信号后勉强维持，但周期性股票即将受到打击。下一张图表显示了在满屋卖出信号发出后，周期性股票与防御性股票的相对表现。正如微软指出的那样，“鉴于市场层面的糟糕表现，周期性股票一直举步维艰，这或许并不奇怪。在最初的四次全屋抛售信号之后，周期性股票的表现平均低于防御性股票12%，从任何一天来看，这一数字都会降至-15%</blockquote> when the MTIs have all said sell at the same time.\"<blockquote>当 MTI 都同时表示卖出时。”</blockquote> This was true even in 2017 when equity markets rose: \"we previously cited similarities with the 2017 Full House Sell Signal as reasons to not get overly cautious on equity markets in aggregate at this moment in time. After the February-2017 Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe continued to rise pretty consistently through the rest of the year. However, despite strong performance from the market in aggregate, the performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives was much poorer. Between February and June 2017 Cyclicals underperformed Defensives by 6%.\"<blockquote>即使在2017年股市上涨时，情况也是如此：“我们之前引用了与2017年全屋出售信号的相似之处，作为目前对整体股市不要过于谨慎的原因。在2017年2月发出全屋出售信号后，摩根士丹利资本国际欧洲在今年剩余时间里继续相当持续地上涨。然而，尽管市场整体表现强劲，但周期性股票相对于防御性股票的表现要差得多。2017 年 2 月至 6 月期间，周期性股票的表现逊于防御性股票 6%。”</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8dcf00cdefd33fef071981aa4a5547a7\" tg-width=\"1084\" tg-height=\"387\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\">It's not just the bank's sell signal that is prompting concerns about the future returns of cyclicals: Borrowing a page from our own warnings (see \"China's Credit Impulse Just Turned Negative, Unleashing Global Deflationary Shockwave\"), Morgan Stanley looks at \"a number of China data points which are giving warning signs\" first and foremost the collapse in China's credit impulse, to wit:<blockquote>引发人们对周期性产品未来回报担忧的不仅仅是央行的卖出信号：借鉴我们自己的警告（参见“中国信贷冲动刚刚转负，引发全球通缩冲击波”），摩根士丹利着眼于“一些中国数据点发出警告信号”首先也是最重要的是中国信贷冲动的崩溃，也就是说：</blockquote> While credit tightening has been front-loaded in 1H21, as outlined here, our economists remain constructive on China's growth recovery. Having said that, a number of Chinese data points do suggest the Cyclical bounce looks overextended.China's credit impulse has just turned negative, and historically this has provided a lead indicator for the year-on-year performance of European Cyclicals (Exhibit 5).Similarly, the relative performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives has closely tracked moves in Chinese 10Y bond yields, which are now at their lowest levels since September 2020, standing in sharp contrast to the performance of Cyclicals.<blockquote>正如本文所述，尽管信贷紧缩在 2021 年上半年占据了主导地位，但我们的经济学家仍然对中国的增长复苏持建设性态度。话虽如此，一些中国数据确实表明周期性反弹看起来过度延长。中国的信贷冲动刚刚转负，从历史上看，这为欧洲周期性产品的同比表现提供了领先指标（图表5）。同样，周期性债券与防御性债券的相对表现密切跟踪了中国 10 年期债券收益率的走势，中国 10 年期债券收益率目前处于 2020 年 9 月以来的最低水平，与周期性债券的表现形成鲜明对比。</blockquote> <img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c85032415626480364933f91dda387bf\" tg-width=\"1065\" tg-height=\"409\"><blockquote></blockquote> Putting it all together, readers have to ask themselves if what is coming will be an analog of the one and only episode on history when the market did not plunge after all Morgan Stanley market timing indicators hit a sell (and were at an all time high), or will this case be similar to Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07 when the outcome was anything but a happy ending.<blockquote>综上所述，读者必须扪心自问，即将发生的事情是否会类似于历史上唯一一次在所有摩根士丹利市场择时指标都达到卖出（并处于历史高位）后市场没有暴跌的事件，或者这种情况是否会类似于1990年3月、1992年5月、2007年6月，当时的结果绝不是一个幸福的结局。</blockquote>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n 来源：<a href=\"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/we-took-out-june-2007-highs-morgan-stanleys-sell-signal-just-hit-all-time-high\">zerohedge</a>\n为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","SPY":"标普500ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/we-took-out-june-2007-highs-morgan-stanleys-sell-signal-just-hit-all-time-high","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1194257742","content_text":"For the past several months, Morgan Stanley's fundamental analysts have been turning increasingly bearish on stocks, with the pessimistic sentimentplateauing earlier this weekwhen chief equity strategist Michael Wilson said that there is far too much optimism in the market, and that while earnings are slowly rising, forward PE multiples are far too high and are set to slide, with \"the de-rating about 75% to go or an approximate 15% decline in P/Es from here.\" As a result, in Wilson's view - which is rapidly emerging as the most bearish on Wall Street - \"earnings revisions will not be able to offset that de-rating, leaving the overall market vulnerable to a 10-15 % correction over the next 6 months.\"\nIt now appears that Morgan Stanley's fundamental bearishness has spilled over into the bank's technical analyst team and as the bank's chief Euro equity Strategist Matthew Garman writes,for only the fifth time in over 30 years, each of Morgan Stanley's five market timing indicators are giving a sell signal at the same time.\nNot only that, but the bank's Combined Market Timing Indicator - which has been in sell territory since March - just hit a new all time high of 1.19, surpassing the previous record high seen in June-2007, right around the time of the first great quant crash and before the market collapsed.\nAccording to Garman, the only time equities have risen after a \"Full House\" Sell Signal was in Feb 17, shortly after the Shanghai Accord kicked in to prevent a global recession. The other previous occasions where there was a \"Full House\" Sell Signal were Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07. According to MS,\"in the 6M post the initial Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe has fallen on average 6%.\"\nSo with every in house risk indicator screaming sell, does that mean that Morgan Stanley will have the balls to tell its clients to sell? Why of course not, because in this market where stuff like the AMC, GameStop and Bed Bath squeezes force analysts to admit they no longer have any idea what's going on...\n... Morgan Stanley is keeping the hope and assuming that the current period will be similar to 2017 - the only other time when a massive sell signal did not result in a market plunge.\n\nBack in 2017, we remained constructive despite the signal given i) strong EPS growth, ii) an early cycle environment, iii) EU inflows, iv) low sentiment and v) a rise in M&A. Sentiment metrics may look more elevated than in 2017, but many of those factors remain in place today. While we see a trickier risk-reward for equities globally, we maintain our view that there is a compelling case for Europe to outperform global peers.\n\nYet even Morgan Stanley is forced to admit that while Defensives may just scrape by after a record sell signal, cyclicals are about to be hammered. The next chart shows the relative performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives after a Full House Sell Signal on. As MS notes, \"perhaps unsurprisingly, given the poor performance at the market level, Cyclicals have struggled. In the 6M post the four initial Full House Sell Signals, Cyclicals have underperformed Defensives on average 12%, and this drops to -15% looking at any day\nwhen the MTIs have all said sell at the same time.\"\nThis was true even in 2017 when equity markets rose: \"we previously cited similarities with the 2017 Full House Sell Signal as reasons to not get overly cautious on equity markets in aggregate at this moment in time. After the February-2017 Full House Sell Signal, MSCI Europe continued to rise pretty consistently through the rest of the year. However, despite strong performance from the market in aggregate, the performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives was much poorer. Between February and June 2017 Cyclicals underperformed Defensives by 6%.\"\nIt's not just the bank's sell signal that is prompting concerns about the future returns of cyclicals: Borrowing a page from our own warnings (see \"China's Credit Impulse Just Turned Negative, Unleashing Global Deflationary Shockwave\"), Morgan Stanley looks at \"a number of China data points which are giving warning signs\" first and foremost the collapse in China's credit impulse, to wit:\nWhile credit tightening has been front-loaded in 1H21, as outlined here, our economists remain constructive on China's growth recovery. Having said that, a number of Chinese data points do suggest the Cyclical bounce looks overextended.China's credit impulse has just turned negative, and historically this has provided a lead indicator for the year-on-year performance of European Cyclicals (Exhibit 5).Similarly, the relative performance of Cyclicals versus Defensives has closely tracked moves in Chinese 10Y bond yields, which are now at their lowest levels since September 2020, standing in sharp contrast to the performance of Cyclicals.\n\nPutting it all together, readers have to ask themselves if what is coming will be an analog of the one and only episode on history when the market did not plunge after all Morgan Stanley market timing indicators hit a sell (and were at an all time high), or will this case be similar to Mar-90, May-92, Jun-07 when the outcome was anything but a happy ending.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".IXIC":0.9,"SPY":0.9,".SPX":0.9,".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":919,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":5,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/114146450"}