More stories

  • in

    Virgin Galactic launches first tourist flight to space

    Virgin Galactic flew its second commercial spaceflight Thursday.
    Called Galactic 02, the flight launched from Spaceport America in New Mexico.
    The three customers onboard Galactic 02 were British former Olympian Jon Goodwin and two passengers from the Caribbean, Keisha Schahaff and Anastatia Mayers.

    Virgin Galactic flew its second commercial spaceflight Thursday, its first carrying private-paying tourists.
    Called Galactic 02, the flight launched from Spaceport America in New Mexico. The company’s spacecraft was flown by a pair of pilots — CJ Sturckow and Kelly Latimer — and carried four other people, including Virgin Galactic chief astronaut instructor Beth Moses, to oversee the mission from inside the cabin, and a trio of passengers.

    The three customers onboard Galactic 02 were British former Olympian Jon Goodwin and two passengers from the Caribbean, Keisha Schahaff and Anastatia Mayers, who won seats through a charity fundraising drawing by nonprofit Space for Humanity.
    The flight takes customers past an altitude of 80 kilometers, or about 262,000 feet, which is what the U.S. recognizes as the boundary of space. The spacecraft returned to land at Spaceport America, completing the flight.
    The mission is Virgin Galactic’s seventh spaceflight to date and its third since May. The company aims to fly spacecraft VSS Unity at a rate of once a month and is developing a fleet of spacecraft called “Delta-class,” planned to debut in 2026, to fly at a weekly rate.

    Sign up here to receive weekly editions of CNBC’s Investing in Space newsletter.

    Virgin Galactic uses a two-step system known as “air launch” to fly its passengers on a suborbital spaceflight. 
    This type of spaceflight gives passengers a couple of minutes of weightlessness, unlike the much longer, more difficult and more expensive private orbital flights conducted by Elon Musk’s SpaceX. During Virgin Galactic’s second-quarter earnings call, CEO Michael Colglazier addressed concerns about extreme tourism experiences in the wake of the Titan submersible tragedy earlier this year.

    “We did not, in fact” see any fallout from Virgin Galactic customers, Colglazier said.
    The company completed its first commercial spaceflight, the Galactic 01 mission, in June carrying members of the Italian Air Force.
    Virgin Galactic has a backlog of about 800 passengers. Many of those tickets were sold at prices between $200,000 and $250,000 over a decade ago, but the company reopened ticket sales two years ago, with pricing beginning at $450,000 per seat. More

  • in

    Coach owner Tapestry to acquire Michael Kors, Jimmy Choo parent Capri Holdings for $8.5 billion

    Tapestry will acquire Capri Holdings for $8.5 billion, the companies announced.
    The deal would create an American fashion giant that brings Coach, Kate Spade, Stuart Weitzman, Versace, Jimmy Choo and Michael Kors under one house.
    Tapestry has pushed to elevate its brands and appeal to a new generation of shoppers.

    A man rides a bicycle past a Gianni Versace store in Beijing, China.
    Nelson Ching | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Tapestry, the fashion conglomerate behind Coach and Kate Spade, will acquire competitor Capri Holdings in a $8.5 billion deal announced on Thursday. 
    The deal will create an American fashion giant that — while still not quite as large as its European competitors — will be better positioned to compete in the luxury market. 

    It brings together six fashion brands: Tapestry’s Coach, Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman and Capri’s Versace, Jimmy Choo and Michael Kors. 
    Together, the company will have the size and scale to reach more customers across the globe and better compete in the luxury market, Tapestry CEO Joanne Crevoiserat said on a call Thursday morning. She said the combination pulls together “six iconic brands” that have a presence in over 75 countries and drive over $12 billion in annual revenue.
    Shares of Capri surged 58% in premarket trading to just under the per-share deal price, while shares of Tapestry fell roughly 6%.
    The deal comes as Tapestry and Capri have seen weaker business in North America. In quarterly reports in May, both companies spoke about American consumers becoming more cautious around spending.
    Capri, in particular, has been hit by slowing sales. Its shares hit a 52-week low in late May as it cut its forecast. On an earnings call, the company said it saw weaker sales not only of Michael Kors, but also of its luxury brands Versace and Jimmy Choo, particularly at department stores. The company’s CEO John Idol said at the time that the company expected that softness to continue through the summer.

    Tapestry, meanwhile, raised its full-year outlook in its most recently reported quarter.
    Tapestry has pushed to elevate its brands and appeal to a new generation of shoppers. At Coach, for example, it has collaborated with popular brands and celebrities like Disney and Kirsten Dunst and debuted handbags that have resonated with Gen Z customers who discover items on TikTok.
    Coach also narrowed the number of items it carries to the focus on best-sellers, keeping price points high by reducing markdowns. It’s started to run a similar playbook with Kate Spade.
    Tapestry has also looked other parts of the world to drive growth, such as chasing higher sales in China.
    “We’ve created a dynamic, data-driven consumer engagement platform that has fueled our success, fostering innovation, agility, and strong financial results,” Crevoiserat said in a statement. “From this position of strength, we are ready to leverage our competitive advantages across a broader portfolio of brands.”
    Capri CEO Idol said the deal will give the company “greater resources and capabilities” to expand its global reach. 
    “We are confident this combination will deliver immediate value to our shareholders. It will also provide new opportunities for our dedicated employees around the world as Capri becomes part of a larger and more diversified company,” said Idol. 
    The boards of both companies have unanimously approved the acquisition and shareholders will receive $57 per share, a 59% premium on the 30-day volume average of Capri’s value. 
    The deal is not subject to any financing conditions. It will be funded with bridge financing from Bank of America and Morgan Stanley in a combination of senior notes, term loans and cash, a portion of which will be used to pay some of Capri’s outstanding debt, the companies said.  More

  • in

    Stocks making the biggest moves premarket: Capri, Tapestry, AppLovin, Disney and more

    A shopper looking at Michael Kors handbags in Macy’s flagship store in New York.
    Scott Mlyn | CNBC

    Check out the companies making headlines before the bell:
    Capri, Tapestry — Capri soared more than 57%, while Tapestry slid 3.2% in premarket trading. The moves come after luxury company Tapestry, which is behind the brands Coach and Kate Spade, announced Thursday it would acquire Capri Holdings in a roughly $8.5 billion deal. Capri owns the Versace, Jimmy Choo and Michael Kors brands. 

    AppLovin — AppLovin shares popped 25.8% in early morning trading after the company posted strong second-quarter results and optimistic third-quarter revenue guidance. The game developer said it expects $780 million to $800 million in revenue for the third quarter, exceeding the $741 million expected by analysts. AppLovin reported earnings of 22 cents per share for the second quarter, while analysts expected 7 cents, according to Refinitiv.
    Sonos — Sonos popped 5% after beating analysts’ expectations in its latest quarterly results. The wireless speaker maker reported a loss of 18 cents per share on revenue of $373 million for its fiscal third quarter. Analysts polled by Refinitiv had expected a 20 cent loss per share on revenue of $334 million. Sonos also raised its full-year EBITDA guidance.
    Alibaba Group — The U.S. listed shares of Alibaba rose 3.8% after the Chinese tech company beat analysts’ expectations in its quarter ending June. It reported non-GAAP per-share diluted earnings of CNY17.37, more than the consensus estimate of CNY14.59, according to StreetAccount. It posted revenue of CNY234.16 billion, exceeding the CNY224.75 billion forecast. 
    Wynn Resorts — Wynn Resorts gained 2.2% after exceeding expectations for its second quarter on the top and bottom lines. The casino operator posted adjusted earnings of 91 cents per share on revenue of $1.6 billion. Analysts polled by Refinitiv had anticipated 59 cents on revenue of $1.54 billion.
    Walt Disney — Shares of the media giant gained about 2% in premarket trading after the company said it would raise the price on its ad-free streaming tier in October and that it would crack down on password sharing. Disney reported a 7.4% decline in subscriber count last quarter, however. It also recorded $2.65 billion in one-time charges and impairments, dragging the company to a rare quarterly net loss.

    Trade Desk — Shares of the advertising technology company moved up less than 1% after a second-quarter report that beat expectations on the top and bottom lines. Trade Desk generated 28 cents in adjusted earnings per share on $464 million of revenue. Analysts surveyed by Refinitiv were expecting 26 cents per share on $455 million of revenue. The company also said it expected revenue of at least $485 million in the third quarter, above the $480 million projected by analysts.
    Six Flags Entertainment — Shares slid 3% after Six Flags reported second-quarter earnings that missed estimates. The amusement park company reported earnings of 25 cents per share on revenue of $444.0 million. Analysts polled by Refinitiv had anticipated per-share earnings of 78 cents on revenue of $459.0 million.
    Illumina — Illumina dropped 4.6% after reporting weaker-than-expected guidance. The DNA sequencing company surpassed expectations for the second quarter, but expects some weakness in the second half of the year because of a slow recovery in China and a more cautious consumer. Illumina forecasts full-year revenue to rise 1% year over year, lower than the 7.1% rise analysts polled by Refinitiv were anticipating. 
    — CNBC’s Yun Li, Jesse Pound and Pia Singh contributed reporting More

  • in

    Retailers say organized theft is biting into profits, but internal issues may really be to blame

    Retailers who have blamed organized theft for lower profits could be overstating the crime’s impact to cover up internal flaws such as steep discounting and bloated inventories, experts told CNBC.
    Companies are quick to blame organized theft for shrink losses, but behind closed doors the parallel issues of employee theft and self checkout are their primary focus areas, experts say.
    Foot Locker pointed to organized retail crime in part for slimmer margins in May when the retailer reported dismal quarterly results.

    This is part two of a three-part series on organized retail crime. The stories will examine the claims retailers make about how theft is impacting their business and the actions companies and policymakers are taking in response to the issue. Read the first story here and stay tuned for part three.

    Plastic bags hang on a self checkout kiosk at a Target Corp. store in Chicago, Illinois.
    Daniel Acker | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Retailers who blame organized theft for lower profits could be overstating crime’s impact to cover up internal flaws or self-inflicted problems, CNBC has learned.

    During recent earnings calls, major companies have blamed disappointing bottom lines or shrinking margins in part on roving bands of organized gangs that ransack their shelves. The issue could come up again as a string of major retailers start to report second-quarter results next week.
    But behind closed doors, retailers are facing other issues they can better control, including theft by their own employees, that are contributing to losses, according to two sources who advise major retailers. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they’re not authorized to speak publicly about clients. 
    Many retailers have invested in technology to better understand what leads to shrink, or the gap between the inventory a company has and what it sells. Some companies have since identified theft from employees as a major contributor to losses, even as they blame external theft in public, said one of the sources.
    Losses from self-checkout theft have also become a major issue, the people said.
    While some retailers may be seeing higher rates of shrink because of poor hiring practices and self-checkout machines, others such as Target and Foot Locker could be using retail crime as a crutch to obscure internal challenges, experts told CNBC.

    “Shrink has been going up but sometimes it’s very difficult to unpack how much is down to theft and how much is down to internal retailer issues and stumbles,” Neil Saunders, a retail analyst and the managing director of GlobalData, told CNBC.
    “It is a problem, we know that, it does take money off margins, we know that, but there’s too much opacity in the way in which it’s reported and it is being partly used as an excuse for generally bad performance,” Saunders said. 

    Theft as an inside job and the curse of self checkout

    In the age before shoppers found deodorant and candy bars locked up in drugstores across America, employee theft largely drove shrink, said Patrick Tormey, an adjunct professor at the Lehman College School of Business, who spent more than 40 years in the retail industry. 
    The trend may not have changed much, despite what companies say in public, according to experts.
    “The theme that comes back the most right now is internal theft … they’re realizing that a lot of [losses] come from there,” said one of the sources who advises retailers. “If there’s an occurrence of external theft they would steal let’s say 10 bucks worth of merchandise, but if it’s internal theft, it’d be 40 bucks.” 

    There is no conclusive data to indicate that employees do steal more goods than outsiders, but retailers have gotten better at identifying internal theft, the person said.
    Retail workers have access to entire cases of merchandise in backrooms and it’s “relatively easy” to take large quantities of goods without anyone noticing, one of the sources said. The theft can also go undetected for a long period of time because it’s not as noticeable as a shoplifter who is in public view, the person said. 
    Internal theft also happens at warehouses and in aisles where online orders are prepared, one of the people said. In some cases, a worker may know the person receiving the goods and may add extra merchandise into a shipment, one of the people said.
    “It’s a little bit like organized crime in some way, but not like mafia-style, just a few people [working together],” said the person.
    Sonia Lapinsky, a partner and managing director with AlixPartners’ retail practice, told CNBC that retailers have struggled to properly staff stores over the last few years. They can’t always find the right workers, and some have also felt pressure to lower staffing levels to control costs, she said. 
    “Folks are notoriously working multiple jobs these days and just feeling the pressure and having to pick up jobs everywhere,” said Lapinsky. “If this is not something that they’re necessarily loyal to, or see as a long-term place, then there’s probably more risk of theft as well.” 
    David Johnston, the vice president of asset protection and retail operations at the National Retail Federation, said employee theft has long been the largest contributor to shrink and staff have at times been involved in organized theft rings. However, he thinks internal theft is now “second place” to external theft.
    Retailers have another self-made problem that can lead to more stolen goods. Self-checkout machines also increase the risk of theft, and they have become a major source of losses, the two company advisors told CNBC. 
    The machines come with increased costs. In some stores with high rates of theft, losses are outweighing the investments companies made in them, the people said.
    “You create a problem where there wasn’t one,” one of the people said.

    Shrink references reach a ‘fever pitch’

    Retailers started to blame organized theft for lower profits as the industry’s performance started to suffer.
    Janine Stichter, a retail analyst and managing director at BTIG, has been covering the retail industry since 2008. She didn’t really hear companies talk about shrink in their earnings calls until about a year and a half ago — right around the time the economy started to soften, she said. 
    “It’s really kind of hit a fever pitch,” said Stichter. 
    Home Depot, Best Buy and Walgreens were some of the first retailers to start speaking out about theft. Now a range of companies are saying it has reduced their margins, some for the first time in recent years.
    “I think there is a bit of bandwagoning at the moment,” said Saunders from GlobalData. “I think one of the things that happens is somebody mentions it and it then becomes a bit of a buzzword and then everyone pays attention to it and it suddenly starts getting called out.” 

    A Walgreens aisle with locked and unlocked areas
    Gabrielle Fonrouge | CNBC

    In May, Target rattled investors when it said it was on pace to lose $1 billion this year from inventory losses driven by stolen goods. Two days later, Foot Locker said “theft-related shrink” contributed to a 4 percentage point drop in its gross margin. 
    “This has been a multiyear dynamic in the industry. We are not immune to it. It’s increasing. You’ve heard Target talk about it and others. And so, it’s having an increased impact on Foot Locker,” CEO Mary Dillon said on a call with analysts. “We’ve seen a significant increase of theft from stores and usually through this lens of an organized retail crime type of action.”
    The reference came as Foot Locker reported dismal results for the quarter. It was the first time it called out shrink cutting into its profits in more than 14 years, according to records accessible on FactSet. 
    The retailer said its merchandise margins fell 2.5 percentage points because of “higher promotions” and the rise in theft-related shrink.
    Three analysts who cover Foot Locker told CNBC the vast majority of that drop likely came from promotions. At the time, the company was grappling with high inventory levels and soft sales, forcing it to rely on discounts to drive revenue.
    Foot Locker did not return repeated inquiries from CNBC about how much of its margin hit came from promotions and how much of it was due to shrink. 

    Foot Locker Inc. signage is displayed in the window of a store in New York, U.S.
    Michael Nagle | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    Tormey, the Lehman College professor, said retailers have thrown around the words shrink and theft so often, investors “chalk it off as a sign of the times,” which can allow companies to use it as a “crutch” for poor merchandising, store design and other internal flaws. 
    “It’s just a quick aspirin for the headache, so to speak,” said Tormey. “It’s a lot harder to pin down exact numbers so they can use it and people just kind of nod their head, ‘Oh, yeah, it’s a shame,’ without really [questioning], was it your employees stealing from you? Was it shoplifting? Was it vendor misconduct? You know, are you a sloppy retailer?” 
    Over the last two decades, Target had not mentioned shrink hitting its margins during earnings calls until August 2022, when the company and other retailers were buried in inventory they were having trouble unloading, according to FactSet.
    At the time, Target’s inventories had climbed 36% year over year and its profits had dropped nearly 90% in the quarter ended that July. The company had marked down items significantly to clear out excess merchandise that was no longer in demand. 
    When Target explained why its gross margin had fallen nearly 9 percentage points year over year, it blamed higher markdown rates, lower-than-expected discretionary sales and higher shrink. 
    By the following quarter, when inventories had begun to moderate but were still up 14%, Target mentioned organized retail theft during an earnings call for the first time in its modern history. It said shrink had contributed to profits plunging by about 50%. 
    “As [CEO Brian Cornell] mentioned, this is an industrywide problem that is often driven by criminal networks, and we are collaborating with multiple stakeholders to find industry-wide solutions,” Target’s finance chief Michael Fiddelke told analysts. “For example, because stolen goods are often sold online, Target strongly supports the passage of legislation to increase accountability and prevent criminals from selling stolen goods through online marketplaces.”
    While theft has hit Target’s bottom line, it also has to contend with high shrink from other parts of its business. Spoiled food from the retailer’s grocery aisles and its inventory practices can both weigh on profit.
    When companies deal with higher than usual inventories, more items can be lost or damaged. As Target grows its e-commerce business and pickup and delivery options, there’s more room for error as merchandise moves around. 
    “Target is not always the best at managing its own inventory. It does tend to have a lot of out of stocks at stores, it does tend to have a supply chain that’s quite fragmented and it’s very easy for things to be misallocated and mis-accounted for within that,” said Saunders. “I’m sure bundled in with their number there’s a lot of things where Target has just lost stuff, broken stuff, put stuff in the wrong stores, put it in the wrong location, can’t find it.”
    In response, Target said its shrink numbers vary widely by location and do not correlate with inventory levels. The retailer said it sees a relationship between levels of shrink and stores with higher safety and crime incidents, rather than overall levels of inventory in a store. More

  • in

    American stocks are at their most expensive in decades

    Try a little, and it is never too hard to argue that the stockmarket looks risky and a crash must be coming. But in the long run such arguments are usually best ignored. Since 1900 American shares have posted an average real return of 6.4% a year. Over three decades, that would transform the purchasing power of $1,000 into $6,400. Bonds, the main alternative, do not come close. With an average historical return of 1.7% a year, they would generate a measly $1,700. Cash would do worse still.The lesson for today’s investors, many of whom were caught out by this year’s bull market, might seem obvious. Forget about a downturn that may or may not materialise. Just buy and hold stocks, and wait for returns that will erase any number of brief dips. Unfortunately, there is a catch. What matters today is not historical returns but prospective ones. And on that measure, shares now look more expensive—and thus lower-yielding—when compared with bonds than they have in decades.Start with why stocks tend to outperform bonds. A share is a claim on a firm’s earnings stretching into the future, which makes returns inherently uncertain. A bond, meanwhile, is a vow to pay a fixed stream of interest payments and then return the principal. The borrower might go bust; changes to interest rates or inflation might alter the value of the cash flows. But the share is the riskier prospect, meaning it needs to offer a higher return. The gap between the two is the “equity risk premium”—the 4.7 percentage points a year that stocks have historically earned over bonds.What of the next few years? Estimating the return on a bond is easy: it is just its yield to maturity. Gauging stock returns is trickier, but a quick proxy is given by the “earnings yield” (or expected earnings for the coming year, divided by share price). Combine the two for ten-year Treasury bonds and the s&p 500, and you have a crude measure of the equity risk premium that looks forward rather than back. Over the past year, it has plummeted (see chart).Now consider the equity risk premium’s moving parts: earnings, Treasury yields and share prices. Both expected earnings and Treasury yields are roughly where they were in October, when share prices hit a trough. But since then shares have risen a lot, shrinking their earnings yield and bringing it closer to the “safe” Treasury yield. This might mean three things. Investors might believe earnings are about to start growing fast, perhaps because of an ai-fuelled productivity boom. They might think earnings have become less likely to disappoint, justifying a lower risk premium. Or they might fear that Treasuries—the benchmark against which stocks are measured—are now more risky.Sustained earnings growth is the dream scenario. The second option, though, is less rosy: that investors have let their revived animal spirits get ahead of them. Ed Cole of Man Group, an asset manager, argues the squeezed equity risk premium is a bet on a “soft landing”, in which central bankers quash inflation without a recession. This has become easier to envisage as price rises have cooled and most countries have so far avoided downturns. Yet surveys of manufacturers still point to recession in that sector, and the full dampening effect of rate rises may not yet have been felt. The third possibility is that, rather than cooing over stocks, investors are shunning the alternative. Last year was the worst for bonds in both America (where they lost 31% in real terms) and across developed markets (a 34% loss) in over a century.After that, says Sharon Bell of Goldman Sachs, a bank, it is unsurprising if some investors are wary of bonds and inclined to splurge on shares, especially if they believe inflation has moved structurally higher—something shares, as claims on nominal earnings, protect against, whereas bonds, deriving value from fixed coupons, do not. At the same time, governments are set to issue ever more debt to cover ageing populations, defence spending and cutting carbon emissions, while central banks have disappeared as buyers. Higher bond yields, and a mechanically lower equity risk premium, will be the result. This would imply a regime change, to one where the equity risk premium has shifted lower for the long term (rather than temporarily, to be corrected by a fall in share prices). Whatever the reason for the squeeze, investors have now placed their bets on rising profits. In a recent analysis, Duncan Lamont of Schroders, an investment firm, compared returns on the s&p 500 going back to 1871 with the yield gap against ten-year Treasuries. He found the relationship “has not been helpful in giving a steer on short-term market movements”. Over the longer term, though, there is a clear link. For stocks starting with a low yield gap to do well over ten years, “a near-condition has been real earnings growth”. Animal spirits can only take you so far before earnings must deliver. They would not have to slip far for even a long-term investor to conclude today’s market is too pricey. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

  • in

    In defence of credit-rating agencies

    Fifteen years ago, in August 2008, the world’s credit-rating agencies were in the midst of the worst period in their history. The global financial crisis was about to reach its zenith. It was already clear that the allegiances of rating agencies—beholden to both investors in and issuers of debt—had been stretched beyond a healthy limit. The survival of their business model looked uncertain.In a turn-up for the books, rating agencies have more than survived. Borrowers’ demands to have their homework marked have surged. During the market boom of 2021, Moody’s Investors Service, one of the “big three” agencies, made almost $4bn in revenues, compared with $1.8bn at its peak in 2007. The “issuer pays” business model, in which borrowers are on the hook for having their own bonds rated, creating a conflict of interest for the agencies, has limped on, too, despite endless demands for change. Yet even though they have gone largely unreformed, rating agencies have been on a good run in recent years.Ironically, rating agencies often spring into the limelight when they are least important. That is what happened on August 1st when Fitch, another of the big three, reduced the American government’s rating from aaa to aa+. After all, agencies do not offer superior expertise when it comes to the analysis of rich countries’ fiscal health. The economic data that they observe is widely watched by everyone else. In 2015 American money-market funds were liberated from having to use credit ratings as their only metric for deciding whether to invest in securities. Funds can now determine, for instance, that a security represents a “minimal credit risk”. This means that downgrades to the ratings of Treasuries matter even less than before.Companies that provide ratings nevertheless hold two important roles. First, they aggregate, sort and publish information about borrowers, which investors can analyse and use to compare them. Second, they act as a certification stamp on assets. Bank regulators use credit ratings to determine the capital requirements for lenders; funds use them to decide what they should and should not hold. Rating agencies have a difficult job: not attracting negative attention is about as good an outcome as they can reasonably expect. During the deep financial distress early in the covid-19 pandemic, they quietly managed just that, as the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, a panel of researchers from academia, banking and business, concluded when later assessing their performance. In 2020, 198 companies rated by s&p Global Ratings defaulted, the most since the global financial crisis. Whereas 11 investment-grade firms failed to repay their debts in 2009, all of the defaults in the first year of the pandemic happened among companies already labelled as riskier speculative grades. The firms did take flak during the demise of Silicon Valley Bank (svb) in March. Both Moody’s and s&p had given svb investment-grade ratings. But the bank’s collapse, which was facilitated by social media, instant messaging and digital-finance apps, was unusually rapid. And the ratings that were awarded to the bank—of a3 and bbb respectively—were far from the highest notches available. Indeed, a downgrade warning from Moody’s the week before svb’s collapse was one of the triggers that revealed the parlous state of the bank’s funding. Rating agencies can be criticised for having been asleep at the wheel, or for prompting the crisis, but hardly both.Research also demonstrates a continued role for agencies in rating emerging-market government debt. One paper by the Bank for International Settlements, a club of central banks, shows that rating changes still have a big impact on credit-default-swap markets in the emerging world, suggesting that investors retain respect for agencies’ judgments. Another, published by the World Bank, calculates that the effect of credit ratings may even have risen since the global financial crisis. A one-notch improvement in a developing economy’s credit rating in comparison with similar countries raised capital inflows by around 0.6% of gdp in 2009-17, about a third more than in the preceding decade.Rating agencies are a lightening rod for criticism. Firms that attempt to be the arbiters of risk are bound to get stuff wrong—or worse, play a causal role—during unexpected blow-ups. Even though problems exposed during the financial crisis remain unfixed, rating agencies are still crucial to the working of capital markets. Recently, they have even been doing a pretty good job.■Read more from Buttonwood, our columnist on financial markets:Meet America’s disguised property investors (Aug 3rd)Investors are seized by optimism. Can the bull market last? (Jul 25th)The dollar’s dip will not become a sustained decline (Jul 20th)Also: How the Buttonwood column got its name More

  • in

    Meme stocks are back from the dead

    Last year was tough for all investors, but ones that hang out on Reddit suffered more than most. The Roundhill Meme exchange-traded fund, which tracks meme stocks, fell from $70 a share to $25. Fellow travellers in the covid-19 bubble, including non-fungible tokens (which use blockchains to sell digital artefacts) and spacs (blank-cheque initial public offerings), also collapsed, leaving apes (retail investors) with few options but to hodl (hold on for dear life) or cut their losses. Proclamations of the death of meme investing may, however, have been hasty. Meme stocks are now shooting past the rest of the market, which has itself surged. The meme index is up by nearly 60% this year, outperforming the s&p 500 by 40 or so percentage points. Returns on individual holdings are more bonkers still, even if some stocks have risen from a low base. Shares in SoFi, a fintech firm, have doubled; the market capitalisation of Palantir, a software-maker, has nearly tripled; stocks in Carvana, a car retailer, are up by 800%. Apes are going all in, some with their entire 401k retirement plans. There is no clearer evidence of a bull market.Some of the rallies, at a stretch, even make sense. Redditors view good news as a burst of rocket fuel for share prices. Carvana, which was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, has averted a crisis by putting up more collateral in exchange for a debt cut. Palantir is riding the ai wave. A judge in Delaware recently rejected plans to further dilute shareholders in amc, a cinema chain and one of the early More

  • in

    Deflation and default haunt China’s economy

    It can sometimes be difficult to wrap one’s head around the world’s second biggest economy. But three headlines in the space of two days—August 8th and 9th—captured the predicament that China now faces. Exports fell by more than 14% in dollar terms. Country Garden, one of the country’s biggest property developers, missed two coupon payments on its dollar bonds. And annual consumer-price inflation turned negative. In sum: China’s export boom is long over. Its property slump is not. And, therefore, deflation beckons.Ever since China imposed its first brutally effective lockdown on Wuhan in early 2020, its economy has been out of sync with the rest of the world’s. When the country abandoned its ruinous zero-covid controls at the end of last year, many economists hoped that the exceptionalism would continue, and that China would stage a rapid recovery, even as other big economies courted recession. The expectation also raised a fear. Analysts worried that China’s renewed appetite for commodities and other goods would put upward pressure on global inflation, making the lives of central bankers elsewhere even harder. Neither the hopes for growth nor the fears of inflation have been realised.Instead, China is now struggling to meet the government’s modest growth target of 5% for 2023 (“modest” because last year provides such a low base for comparison). Far from becoming an inflationary force in the global economy, the country is now flirting with falling prices. According to the data released on August 9th, consumer prices dropped by 0.3% in July compared with a year earlier. Viewed in isolation, that is no great cause for alarm. A solitary month of mild deflation is not sufficient to turn China into the next Japan. Consumer inflation has been negative before—in 30 months this century, and as recently as 2021. Moreover, July’s figure says almost as much about pork’s past as it does about China’s economic future. Prices for the country’s favourite meat were unusually high in July last year. They have since fallen by a quarter, contributing to the negative headline number. But consumer prices are not the only ones in the trough. The prices charged by producers (at the proverbial “factory gate”) have now declined year-on-year for ten months in a row. Those fetched by China’s exports dropped by more than 10% in July, according to estimates by analysts at ubs, a bank. And the gdp deflator, a broad measure that covers all the goods and services produced in the country, fell by 1.4% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier. That is only its sixth decline this century and its steepest since 2009. Many economists foresaw the drop in pork and food prices. They assumed, however, that it would be offset by a faster increase in the cost of services, as China’s economy gathered steam. They also expected that the property market would stabilise, which would prop up demand for other goods, both upstream (in products such as steel and construction equipment) and down (in those such as furniture and household appliances).After a brief revival in the early months of the year, property sales are faltering again. Those in 30 big cities fell by 28% in July compared with the year before. Declines in rents and the prices of household appliances both contributed to the negative turn in consumer prices in July. Country Garden also blamed “a deterioration in sales”, among other things, for its failure to pay its bondholders on the expected date this month. The company has a 30-day grace period before it falls into default.China’s government is also now up against the clock. In recent weeks a rotating cast of committees, ministries and commissions has unveiled a variety of measures to improve the economy. A 31-point plan to encourage private enterprise announced that the government would remove barriers to entry and strengthen intellectual-property rights. A 20-point plan to expand consumption touted cheaper tickets for scenic spots, among other goodies. A 26-point plan to increase labour mobility promised to make it easier for rural migrants to settle in cities (and easier for foreign businesspeople to get visas).Yet if the property market does not improve, deflationary pressure will persist. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be to reverse. Thus a more forceful fiscal and monetary push is required. ubs calculates that the government’s deficit, broadly defined, shrank in the first half of this year, providing less support to the economy. Meanwhile, the central bank has barely cut interest rates, reducing its short-term policy rate from 2% to 1.9%. That is not enough to keep up with the decline in inflation, which means the real cost of borrowing is rising (see chart). In order to defeat deflation, the budget deficit will have to widen. And the central bank’s efforts will need to go beyond 0.1 point. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More