Pullback Isn't Just `Financial'
尽管投资者的目光一直都锁定在花旗集团(Citigroup)和美国银行(Bank of America)股票的暴跌上，金融类股却不再是把股市拖向11年低点的罪魁祸首。相反，如今制造企业乃至生产基本消费品的企业成了拖累股市下挫的主力，这种转变让一些投资者颇为担心。Getty Images卡特彼勒今年迄今已累计下跌40.3%。图为该公司的产品之一。尽管眼下这轮熊市始于房屋和银行危机，它的危害却已经蔓延开来。金融类股缩水严重，尽管它们的不断下挫以百分比跌幅来说依然很大，但以美元跌幅来看却小得不足以对股指带来太大的撼动。如今，一批更加多样化的股票正在领跌股市。看看今年道琼斯工业股票平均价格指数的情况，就可以发现3M和宝洁(Procter & Gamble)此类股票的下跌对股指的冲击要超过花旗和美国运通(American Express)造成的冲击。纽约BNY Mellon Wealth Management首席投资长格罗霍夫斯基(Leo Grohowski)说，危机开始时是次级抵押贷款危机，然后演变成了美国信贷危机，之后又升级为美国的衰退，如今我们处在了彻头彻尾的历史性的全球严重衰退之中。他说，几乎没有哪个行业从收益下滑股价下挫中幸免。在这轮熊市最初的13个月中（从2007年10月开始），金融企业领跌道琼斯指数和标准普尔500指数。道琼斯指数成份股跌幅最大的6只股票中，有3只是金融股──尽管道琼斯指数30只成分股中只有5只金融股。这三家金融企业是美国国际集团（AIG，此后不再是道琼斯指数成份股)美国运通和花旗。另外三家非金融领跌企业为波音(Boeing)和卡特彼勒(Caterpillar)这两家工业企业，以及国际商业机器公司(IBM)。自1月初熊市在短暂的“休息”后再次加速以来，只有一家金融企业，也就是摩根大通(J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.)还有足够的规模影响股指，成为领跌道琼斯指数的6只股票之一。其他5只领跌股票分别为：卡特彼勒3M和联合技术公司(United Technologies)这3家制造企业石油企业雪佛龙公司(Chevron)，还有基本消费品生产商宝洁。正常情况下，生产清洁产品和尿不湿等基本消费品的企业都较为抗跌，原因是它们的销售相对稳定。不过这次它们的股票也跌了。从很多方面来看，此轮熊市都比2000-2002年由科技类股领跌的熊市要严重，尽管那次熊市的严重程度已经是非同寻常了。在那次的熊市期间，道琼斯指数30只成份股中有3只上涨。这次，只有一只股票沃尔玛(Wal-Mart Stores)在熊市中实现上涨，不过今年以来也开始下挫。道琼斯指数的另外一只成份股麦当劳(McDonald's)开始时表现不俗，但自1月2日以来的跌幅却比最初13个月的总跌幅高了一倍。这种超出金融类股之外的普遍下跌在标准普尔500指数上也可以看到。在2000-2002年的熊市期间，标准普尔500指数中有一整类股都实现了24%的涨幅，那就是日用消费品和食品行业。医疗业也只跌了7%。在这轮熊市中，标准普尔各类股全线覆灭。表现最好的医疗业也跌了29%。事实上，截至上周末，标准普尔500指数成份股中只有9只股票自2007年10月9日股市触顶以来实现了上涨，其中包括沃尔玛。标准普尔高级指数分析师西尔弗布拉特(Howard Silverblatt)说，金融类股在下跌中首当其冲，不过现在所有类别的股票也都在跟上来。在最近大幅下挫之后，股指实现短期反弹是意料之中的事。不过，若要实现更长期的复苏，就必须解决更深层的问题。道琼斯指数的计算方法与大部分股指不同，该指数的价值变化是基于成份股的价格。大部分其他股指都是基于成份股的总市值，也就是价格乘以总股数。不过尽管计算方法不同，但它们受到金融类股暴跌影响的方式却相似。由于大部分主要金融类股的价格和总市值都急剧缩水，金融类股对股指的冲击不如这轮熊市早些时候的影响大。Bloomberg News波音今年迄今下跌15%，图为波音梦想飞机787的组装线这轮熊市的范围之广令分析师担忧不已。在2000-2002年的熊市期间，美国消费者继续支出的“不朽”意愿是为数不多的几个亮点之一，最终帮助股市反弹。这次，美国金融业的麻烦也同样吞噬了消费者，这不是个好兆头。纽约研究公司Strategas的执行合伙人特伦内特(Jason Trennert)说，在过去的十来年中，消费者对国内生产总值(GDP)的贡献从66%增长到72%。根据特伦内特的计算，这意味着在几个月前消费支出达到顶点的时候，消费者每年的支出比历年平均值高出了约8,500亿美元。如果现在消费者把支出降到原来的水平，将会削减大量经济需求，阻碍复苏的进程。特伦内特说，人们真正担心的是消费支出衰退在四五个月前才刚刚开始；不幸的是，我认为我们尚处在衰退相对早期的阶段。E.S. Browning相关阅读美股市场陷入信任危机 2009-02-23美股再创危机新低 何处是底？ 2009-02-20金融股越挫越勇 2008-10-07
While eyes have been locked on the steep descent of Citigroup and Bank of America, financial stocks are no longer the main culprits in pulling the stock market toward 11-year lows.Instead, manufacturers and even makers of basic consumer goods are now the biggest drags, a shift that has some investors worried.Although the current bear market began as a housing and banking crisis, the damage has spread. Financial stocks have shrunk so much in value that their continuing declines, while still large in percentage terms, are too small in dollar terms to move the indexes as much.A more diverse group is leading the declines today. A look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average this year shows declines in stocks like 3M and Procter & Gamble have had more of an impact than the drop in Citigroup or American Express.'What started as a subprime mortgage crisis became a U.S. credit crisis, then a U.S. recession, and now we are in a full-fledged, globally synchronous recession of historic proportions,' says Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer BNY Mellon Wealth Management in New York. 'There are very few areas that have been insulated from the decline in earnings and in stock-price performance.'During the bear market's first 13 months, beginning in October 2007, financial companies led the declines in both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Of the six largest contributors to the drop in the Dow, three were financial stocks, even though there were just five financials among the 30 Dow companies.The three offenders were American International Group (since removed from the Dow), AmEx and Citigroup. The other three leading losers were two industrial companies, Boeing and Caterpillar, plus International Business Machines.Since the bear market began accelerating again early in January after a brief respite, just one financial company, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., has been big enough to be among the six largest contributors to the Dow's decline.It shares billing among the six top culprits with three manufacturing companies -- Caterpillar, 3M and United Technologies -- oil company Chevron and even a maker of basic consumer goods, Procter & Gamble.Normally, makers of consumer basics such as cleaning products and diapers are resistant to bear markets because their sales are relatively stable. This time, their shares are falling regardless. In many ways, this bear market is worse than the one led by technology stocks from 2000 through 2002, which itself was unusually severe.During the 2000-2002 bear market, three of the 30 Dow stocks turned in gains. This time, just one Dow stock, Wal-Mart Stores, shows a gain during the bear market, and it has begun falling this year.McDonald's, another Dow component that initially held up well this time, has fallen twice as much since Jan. 2 as it did in the bear market's first 13 months.The same contagion beyond the financial sector can be seen in the S&P 500. During the 2000-2002 bear market, an entire sector of the S&P 500, the consumer-staples sector, posted a 24% gain. The healthcare sector declined just 7%.In this bear market, no S&P sector is up. The best-performing group, healthcare, has lost 29% of its value. In fact, as of late last week, only nine of the S&P's 500 stocks were up since the market peaked on Oct. 9, 2007, including Wal-Mart.'Financials have taken the brunt of the declines,' says senior index analyst Howard Silverblatt at S&P, 'but now everything else is catching up.'After their sharp recent declines, it wouldn't be surprising for indexes to bounce back in the short run. A longer-term recovery, however, requires that the deeper problems be resolved.The Dow industrials are calculated differently than most stock indexes, with changes in the Dow's value based on the raw prices of its components. Most other indexes are based on the component stocks' total market value, which is price times total number of shares. But the different indexes have been affected in similar ways by the big declines in financial stocks.Since most major financial stocks' prices and total market values have both shrunk radically, the group doesn't have as much impact on the indexes as it did earlier in the bear market.The pervasiveness of the current bear market has analysts worried. During the 2000-2002 bear market, the undying willingness of American consumers to keep spending was one of the few bright spots, ultimately helping turn stocks around. This time, the U.S.'s financial troubles have engulfed consumers as well, and that bodes ill.In the past decade or so, the consumer's share of gross domestic product has grown to 72% from 66%, says Jason Trennert, managing partner of New York research firm Strategas. That means that at the peak of consumer spending a few months ago, consumers were paying out about $850 billion a year more than their past average, Mr. Trennert calculates. If consumers now cut spending back to where it was, it would remove a huge amount of demand from the economy, hobbling recovery.'What people really are worried about is that the consumer-spending recession only started four or five months ago,' Mr. Trennert says. 'Unfortunately, I think we are in the relatively early innings of that recession.'E.S. Browning
While eyes have been locked on the steep descent of Citigroup and Bank of America, financial stocks are no longer the main culprits in pulling the stock market toward 11-year lows.Instead, manufacturers and even makers of basic consumer goods are now the biggest drags, a shift that has some investors worried.Although the current bear market began as a housing and banking crisis, the damage has spread. Financial stocks have shrunk so much in value that their continuing declines, while still large in percentage terms, are too small in dollar terms to move the indexes as much.A more diverse group is leading the declines today. A look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average this year shows declines in stocks like 3M and Procter & Gamble have had more of an impact than the drop in Citigroup or American Express.'What started as a subprime mortgage crisis became a U.S. credit crisis, then a U.S. recession, and now we are in a full-fledged, globally synchronous recession of historic proportions,' says Leo Grohowski, chief investment officer BNY Mellon Wealth Management in New York. 'There are very few areas that have been insulated from the decline in earnings and in stock-price performance.'During the bear market's first 13 months, beginning in October 2007, financial companies led the declines in both the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. Of the six largest contributors to the drop in the Dow, three were financial stocks, even though there were just five financials among the 30 Dow companies.The three offenders were American International Group (since removed from the Dow), AmEx and Citigroup. The other three leading losers were two industrial companies, Boeing and Caterpillar, plus International Business Machines.Since the bear market began accelerating again early in January after a brief respite, just one financial company, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., has been big enough to be among the six largest contributors to the Dow's decline.It shares billing among the six top culprits with three manufacturing companies -- Caterpillar, 3M and United Technologies -- oil company Chevron and even a maker of basic consumer goods, Procter & Gamble.Normally, makers of consumer basics such as cleaning products and diapers are resistant to bear markets because their sales are relatively stable. This time, their shares are falling regardless. In many ways, this bear market is worse than the one led by technology stocks from 2000 through 2002, which itself was unusually severe.During the 2000-2002 bear market, three of the 30 Dow stocks turned in gains. This time, just one Dow stock, Wal-Mart Stores, shows a gain during the bear market, and it has begun falling this year.McDonald's, another Dow component that initially held up well this time, has fallen twice as much since Jan. 2 as it did in the bear market's first 13 months.The same contagion beyond the financial sector can be seen in the S&P 500. During the 2000-2002 bear market, an entire sector of the S&P 500, the consumer-staples sector, posted a 24% gain. The healthcare sector declined just 7%.In this bear market, no S&P sector is up. The best-performing group, healthcare, has lost 29% of its value. In fact, as of late last week, only nine of the S&P's 500 stocks were up since the market peaked on Oct. 9, 2007, including Wal-Mart.'Financials have taken the brunt of the declines,' says senior index analyst Howard Silverblatt at S&P, 'but now everything else is catching up.'After their sharp recent declines, it wouldn't be surprising for indexes to bounce back in the short run. A longer-term recovery, however, requires that the deeper problems be resolved.The Dow industrials are calculated differently than most stock indexes, with changes in the Dow's value based on the raw prices of its components. Most other indexes are based on the component stocks' total market value, which is price times total number of shares. But the different indexes have been affected in similar ways by the big declines in financial stocks.Since most major financial stocks' prices and total market values have both shrunk radically, the group doesn't have as much impact on the indexes as it did earlier in the bear market.The pervasiveness of the current bear market has analysts worried. During the 2000-2002 bear market, the undying willingness of American consumers to keep spending was one of the few bright spots, ultimately helping turn stocks around. This time, the U.S.'s financial troubles have engulfed consumers as well, and that bodes ill.In the past decade or so, the consumer's share of gross domestic product has grown to 72% from 66%, says Jason Trennert, managing partner of New York research firm Strategas. That means that at the peak of consumer spending a few months ago, consumers were paying out about $850 billion a year more than their past average, Mr. Trennert calculates. If consumers now cut spending back to where it was, it would remove a huge amount of demand from the economy, hobbling recovery.'What people really are worried about is that the consumer-spending recession only started four or five months ago,' Mr. Trennert says. 'Unfortunately, I think we are in the relatively early innings of that recession.'E.S. Browning