Asset Allocation Quarterly (Third Quarter 2018)

  • We expect that Fed policy will continue tightening through year-end, with as many as two additional increases in the fed funds rate in tandem with a measured reduction in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, but the prospect for a recession is not included in our cyclical forecast.
  • Our expectations are for continued GDP growth throughout the balance of this year and into 2019. Accordingly, equity exposures remain elevated across all strategies relative to our historic allocations, with a 60% growth style bias among U.S. equities.
  • The outlook for the U.S. dollar is path dependent upon the durability of both trade conflicts and Fed posture into and through next year.
  • We retain a modest allocation to gold given the combination of the potential for global political instability and its current price well below our estimate of fair value.

View the complete PDF

 

ECONOMIC VIEWPOINTS

Continued tightening by the Federal Reserve, with its two increases in the fed funds rate thus far this year, combined with the gradual reduction in its balance sheet and the gravitational pull of negative yields in much of the developed world have led to a flattening of the U.S. Treasury yield curve. While our view is for continued economic growth until nearing the end of our three-year forecast cycle, we remain wary of the potential for a misstep by the Fed that would lead to excessive tightening and increase the odds of a recession. Though an inverted yield curve is widely viewed as being indicative of an impending recession, a flattening curve is not necessarily a precursor to an inversion. What we have found to be an even more important metric to measuring Fed policy than either the spread between fed funds and the 10-year or the 2/10 segment of the curve is the spread of fed funds to the implied LIBOR rate advanced two years. As the accompanying chart indicates, implied LIBOR has increased since mid-2016 and remains comfortably in excess of fed funds. When this measure falls into negative territory, it is a signal from the financial markets that the Fed has overtightened policy. If or when this occurs, it will cause us to reassess the probability of a near-term recession. Until that point in time, we are consoled by the high levels of several sentiment indices, including the U.S. NFIB Business Optimism Index, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index and the University of Michigan’s Index of Consumer Sentiment. In addition, low unemployment and strong GDP figures compel us to retain equity exposures at their historically high levels for the portfolios until such time that potential risk outweighs expected return.  Finally, inflation expectations remain around the 2% level, which creates a stable backdrop for both bonds and equities. While we are cognizant that the mid-term elections in the U.S. may engender fiscal changes that could challenge the economic environment, we find it premature to factor any effects into our forecast.

The global economic environment, while still positive, faces a number of challenges. The imposition of tariffs by the U.S. and, as a result, several of its trading partners, holds the potential to develop into a full-scale trade war with obvious downward implications for global growth. Although Europe is still in expansion, the ECB has maintained a dovish stance on rates and has indicated it might forestall a reduction in its balance sheet until mid-2019, citing a moderation in growth in the first half of the year and concerns emanating from increased protectionism. The Japanese economy has similarly exhibited recent signs of difficulty. After eight straight quarters of GDP growth beginning in 2016, the economy shrank in the first quarter. Although it was a modest decline of -0.2%, it echoes the moderation in Europe and encourages the extension of the BOJ’s asset purchase program. Of even greater consequence to the global economic environment is China’s response to U.S. protectionism. We believe China has the will and determination to engage in a full-scale trade war with the U.S. In addition, China may employ any economic weakness accruing from a reduction in its trade to contain its debt growth, which is prominent in Chairman Xi’s economic construct.

Given the global dispersion of economic growth rates and central bank policies combined with the potential for protectionism to take hold, we find the value of the U.S. dollar versus other currencies to be on a knife’s edge. Continued U.S. economic expansion and weakness abroad are normally a recipe for U.S. dollar strength relative to other currencies. However, though the interest rate differentials support a strong U.S. dollar and a global trade war would lead investors to seek safety in the greenback, leading to the potential for the U.S. dollar to reach historically high valuations, a more localized trade dispute solely with China would limit the overall economic impact. In the event that the goal of the U.S. administration’s trade rhetoric is simply to improve America’s bargaining position, the U.S. dollar could be vulnerable to a pullback to its fair valuation. If the Trump administration openly opposes Fed policy tightening, then the dollar could be especially vulnerable.

STOCK MARKET OUTLOOK

Despite trade tensions and the potential for a misstep by the Fed, our views remain favorable on U.S. equities. Our assessment is that inflation should remain contained, the low level of unemployment will persist and GDP growth will be maintained. As expected, the level of share repurchases, M&A activity and repatriation of overseas assets have been elevated since the passage of the tax act at the end of last year. Current readings show no indication of these trends abating in the near-term. Although equity prices, as measured by the S&P 500, are in excess of the long-term trend, as shown in the accompanying chart, expectations of higher corporate earnings and solid economic data combined with high levels of consumer and business confidence encourage us to retain our historically high equity allocations in each of the strategies. In addition, due to the current stage of the economic cycle, we maintain the 60% tilt toward growth equities, yet without an overt overweight to any particular growth-oriented sector due to potential effects on the Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors from the upcoming introduction of the new Communications Services sector at the end of September. The overweight to the traditionally value-oriented sectors of Energy, Financials and Materials that have existed since the beginning of the year are supported by attractive valuations and are therefore retained.

Mid-cap and small cap exposures have an identical tilt to growth equities and are both overweight in our strategies that have growth as an objective. Outside the U.S., we retain most of the posture from last quarter. The factors discussed above regarding the U.S. dollar exchange rate will naturally create either a headwind or tailwind for returns on non-U.S. equities, but the attractive relative valuations advocate for their retention.

BOND MARKET OUTLOOK

The more hawkish composition of voting members of the Fed’s Board of Governors as compared to last year produces the expectation of continued tightening and balance sheet unwinding. Combined with a stable inflationary outlook, this leads to a forecast of an extremely flat yield curve over our three-year cyclical outlook. Though this bodes well for the longer rungs on the ladder, as well as the long-term Treasuries employed in the income-oriented strategies, such a flattening will impact the intermediate rungs of the ladder.  However, given our outlook for the full three-year cyclical period, any price pressure on the intermediate rungs will prove ephemeral as their roll toward maturity will find them comfortably recovering. While our view of the bond market is sanguine over the cyclical time frame, we harbor some level of trepidation in the speculative bond space. As the chart alludes, spreads are at post-recession tight levels. In addition, Moody’s estimates that $952 billion of high-yield bonds will be maturing between 2019 and 2022, most of which will be seeking refinancing. Coupled with the tax legislation limitation of interest deductibility to 30% of EBITDA by corporations, this may pressure spreads to widen. Accordingly, exposure to speculative grade bonds remains at the low end of our historic levels in the strategies.

OTHER MARKETS

We retain the allocation to real estate in the more income-oriented strategies given attractive and improving dividend yields. As a function of yield relative to potential risk, we view REITs more favorably than speculative bonds.

We also retain our allocation to gold, which was introduced last quarter. Owing to the fact that gold can serve as a safe haven during periods of heightened geopolitical and currency risks, and the knife’s edge of the U.S. dollar’s exchange value, we find the modest allocation to be helpful as a governor of risk. In addition, gold is currently trading well below its fair value price as suggested by our analysis.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (July 18, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Equity markets are quiet this morning; the biggest market moves are in currencies and commodities.  The dollar is up this morning in the aftermath of the Powell testimony, which is dragging commodities and emerging markets lower.  Here is what we are watching:

Google fined: Google (GOOG, 1198. 80) was hit with the largest fine ever levied by the EU, at €4.3 bn.  EU regulators accused the company of anti-competitive behavior in the distribution of its operating system.  This action is important on a macro level because government regulation may be the only threat to the market dominance of the major tech firms.  We do expect the company to appeal the decision but we would not expect the EU to reverse this verdict.

The Powell testimony: Although the testimony generally went according to script, there were two takeaways from the discussion that we see as important.  First, Powell continues to stress that the economy is robust and that economic strength justifies tighter policy.  Focusing on economic strength should inoculate the Fed from criticism from the White House.  Of course, any modest weakness might trigger a strong push from the White House for rate cuts.  Second, Powell signaled that the quarterly cycle of rate hikes will be ending at some point.  Powell appears uncomfortable with the notion of forward guidance and wants to inject some degree of uncertainty into monetary policy.  We agree with this position.  The move to holding press conferences after every meeting next year will give the Fed more flexibility to raise rates faster if necessary.  At the same time, it can introduce the potential for pauses in tightening as well.  We note that the implied three-month LIBOR rate from the two-year deferred Eurodollar futures did not change after the testimony; it still signals a terminal fed funds rate of 3% in two years.

May survives (again): U.K. PM Theresa May is becoming the Houdini of politics; this morning, she survived a vote[1] against the hard Brexit wing of the Tories by the pro-EU wing of her party.  The hard Brexit group appeared to be pushing May into a complete exit position which is opposed by a large group of her party.  The pro-EU faction forced a vote that could have brought down the government.  But, in the end, a group of Labour MPs[2] voted with the pro-EU Tories and so May lives on another day.

Putin:A Russian aircraft carrying President Putin violated Estonian airspace[3] yesterday, passing through the NATO nation without clearance.  This is a clear provocation after the recent events in Helsinki.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.ft.com/content/30f3900e-89c4-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340?emailId=5b4ecafa59397d0004ab9281&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/e8b1c98e-89df-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543?emailId=5b4ecafa59397d0004ab9281&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/world/europe/putin-summit-plane-estonia.html?emc=edit_mbe_20180718&nl=morning-briefing-europe&nlid=567726720180718&te=1

Daily Comment (July 17, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Tonight’s midsummer classic, the All-Star Game, is really the official midpoint of summer.  Markets are quiet this morning.  Here is what we are watching:

Did the president go too far?  Criticism of President Trump’s performance at the press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin was widespread.  Even Fox News, which is generally supportive of the White House, was remarkably critical.[1]  Our primary concern is always the impact of actions on the financial markets.  It’s too early for any reliable polling to tell us much and there was no significant movement in the prediction markets, either.  The history of populism does show that sometimes populist leaders, mostly due to inexperience, can overshoot their support.  If Trump’s approval wanes, it might not necessarily be bearish for financial markets because it may slow the trade conflict.  For now, we are treating yesterday’s Russia event as an item to watch.  However, we must say that the breadth of condemnation was rare.

Powell to the Hill: Chair Powell goes to the Senate this morning for his semiannual testimony on monetary policy.  Below we discuss a couple of charts worth noting.

First, we have updated our Mankiw model with four variations.  The Mankiw rule models attempt to determine the neutral rate for fed funds, which is a rate that is neither accommodative nor stimulative.  Mankiw’s model is a variation of the Taylor Rule.  The latter measures the neutral rate using core CPI and the difference between GDP and potential GDP, which is an estimate of slack in the economy.  Potential GDP cannot be directly observed, only estimated.  To overcome this problem, Mankiw used the unemployment rate as a proxy for economic slack.  We have created four versions of the rule, one that follows the original construction by using the unemployment rate as a measure of slack, a second using the employment/population ratio, a third using involuntary part-time workers as a percentage of the total labor force and a fourth using yearly wage growth for non-supervisory workers.

Using the unemployment rate, the neutral rate is now 4.02%, down from 4.14%, reflecting the rise in the unemployment rate.  Using the employment/population ratio, the neutral rate is 1.84%, up modestly from May’s 1.81%.  Using involuntary part-time employment, the neutral rate is 3.68%, up from the last calculation of 3.50%.  Using wage growth for non-supervisory workers, the neutral rate is 2.42%, roughly unchanged from the last report of 2.48%.  June’s employment data was mostly in line with May’s so the neutral rate calculations didn’t change a lot.  The only variation that is policy neutral is the one using the employment/population ratio.  Thus, given that the majority of the FOMC still holds to some sort of Phillips Curve model for monetary policy, the bias should be for additional rate hikes.

The second chart is our estimate of what the financial markets have discounted in terms of tightening.  The chart below compares the fed funds target to the implied three-month LIBOR rate, two-years deferred, which comes from the Eurodollar futures market.  Historically, the FOMC tends to tighten until the implied LIBOR rate equals the fed funds target.  In fact, when the target overshoots the implied rate, the odds of recession increase.  Currently, the implied LIBOR rate is near 3.00%, suggesting the Fed has four more hikes to go.  Clearly, the financial market’s estimate of the terminal rate is well below what the dots plot or the majority of the Mankiw rule estimates suggest for the terminal rates.  If the FOMC continues on its expected path, meaning two more hikes this year and perhaps more in 2019, the odds of recession will begin to rise.

We are already hearing discordant voices from the FOMC.  Minneapolis FRB President Kashkari[2] (not a current voter) is calling for a pause, citing the rapid narrowing of the yield curve.  We don’t expect anything from Powell other than “steady as she goes,” but concerns about monetary policy will likely rise by year’s end.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-host-calls-trump-presser-performance-disgusting-wrong?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top and https://www.thedailybeast.com/several-fox-news-hosts-bash-trumps-disgusting-putin-presser/?via=twitter_page&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top and https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1018996752064634880?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-kashkari/feds-kashkari-citing-yield-curve-wants-rate-hike-pause-idUSKBN1K62EE

Weekly Geopolitical Report – Reflections on Politics and Populism: Part I (July 16, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady

The rise of populism and the preference for unconventional leaders are upending the world order that the U.S. created after WWII.  Accordingly, across the West, we are seeing a steady rejection of centrist, establishment parties.  Here are some of the changes we have observed recently:

France: Emmanuel Macron was elected to the presidency last year without previous experience of holding an elected office.  He started a new party which now holds the majority in the French National Assembly.  His election and new party are clear rejections of the existing establishment parties.

Germany: Although Chancellor Merkel continues to hold power, her party, the CDU, had the weakest performance in last year’s election since 1949.  The SDU, the other party in the “grand coalition,” had its worst showing since WWII.  The Alternative for Germany (AfD), a populist right-wing party, was the first of its kind to win seats in the Bundestag in the postwar era and is the official opposition.

Italy: Voters rejected mainstream parties and elected a coalition consisting of the Five-Star Movement, a left-wing populist party, and the League, a right-wing populist party.

Mexico: Lopez Obrador, better known as AMLO, won the election held on July 1.  He is the first Mexican president since 1929 who doesn’t represent one of the mainstream parties.

United States: Donald Trump, who had never held elected office, won the presidency and has been mostly governing as a right-wing populist.

This list isn’t exhaustive.  Populists are currently governing in Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria and Poland.  It is quite possible that Brazil’s October presidential election will give the office to Jair Bolsonaro, who seems to be running as a right-wing populist strongman.  In addition, Brexit is a populist movement; if Theresa May’s government, which is teetering toward a no-confidence vote, fails, there is a good possibility that a populist left-wing government led by Jeremy Corbyn will emerge.

In the media, there is much consternation about a number of developments, including non-establishment candidates on both the left and right defeating experienced political figures.  This report is our attempt to put context around these developments.

In Part I of this report, we will define the terms that we use to describe the political landscape.  These definitions will be used to characterize the four major political coalitions and their basic policy positions.  Part II will begin with general observations about the effects of class and identity.  From there, we will discuss actual historical developments that describe how these four coalitions interact.  As always, we will conclude with market ramifications.

View the full report

Daily Comment (July 16, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Happy Monday!  The media is focused on the Trump/Putin meetings in Helsinki but financial markets are mostly ignoring the spectacle.  The biggest major market move is in oil, which we discuss below.  Here is what we are watching this morning:

China GDP: China’s Q2 GDP[1] rose 6.7% from last year, down from 6.8% in Q1.  In related news, industrial production rose 6.0% from last year compared to expectations of 6.5%.  Although China’s economy remains healthy, there is some slowing which has weighed on emerging markets.

Here’s the contribution to growth:

Although China continues to run a large trade surplus with the U.S., it is actually seeing negative net exports in the GDP data.  This would suggest that China has a bilateral issue with the U.S. but, unlike Germany, China’s overall dependence on exports has lessened over the years.

This chart shows China’s net exports as a percentage of GDP.  The data is only available on an annual basis but it would not be surprising to see this number in “the red” for 2018 given the current net exports.  China, like most successful developing nations in the postwar world, has used export promotion for development.  That explains why China’s net exports jumped above 2.5% after 1995 and reached nearly 8% in 2007.  Recent data would suggest that China is attempting to restructure its economy but the country is still dependent on the U.S. to absorb its excess output.  That’s why the trade war is a major threat to its economy.

Oil weakness: Last week’s U.S. inventory data showed a massive decline in stockpiles, putting us on a path toward high $80s for WTI by Labor Day.  But, prices are slumping this morning.  There are two reasons cited for the decline.  First, Saudi Arabia is offering additional supplies to Asia.[2]  Second, the U.S. and other Western nations are considering SPR releases if oil prices continue to rise.[3]  We suspect President Trump is worried that high gasoline prices will hurt his party’s chances in the November midterms.  Currently, gasoline prices are elevated but not yet at a level that would be considered critical.

This chart shows the average hourly wage for non-supervisory workers compared to the national average for retail gasoline prices.  Currently, the average worker needs to work an hour to buy 7.6 gallons of gasoline.  The long-term average is 8.5 gallons per hour, so the price is “hurting” but it’s not at a level where it would be considered a serious problem.  As a general rule, we pay attention when this ratio dips under 7.0 gallons for each working hour.

This news offsets two potentially bullish items.  First, there was significant unrest in the Basra region of Iraq over the weekend.  The protests appear local; anger over the lack of jobs and poor public services appear to be the driving force behind the anger.  But, this region accounts for 80% of Iraq’s oil reserves and 3.2 mbpd of exports.   Despite being local in nature, we would not be surprised to see Iranian operatives try to fan the unrest in a bid to restrict Iraqi exports and lift oil prices.  Second, the U.S. refused to grant any waivers to European firms doing business in Iran.[4]  This means that sanctions will weaken Iranian oil sales.  Iran is trying to send its oil to Asia[5] but, as we noted above, Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing.

The production shortfalls in Libya and Venezuela, the sanctions on Iran and the unrest in Iraq are all bullish factors for oil prices.  Even if Saudi Arabia responds by lifting output, the risk is that OPEC is rapidly depleting its excess reserves.  This means the world is approaching the “vertical” part of the global supply curve, which can result in large price spikes.  The SPR is designed to offset such events.  However, it’s been years since the SPR was “fired in anger”; one would have to go back to the First Gulf War and, even then, the drawdown was small (and was eventually unnecessary).  The risk to using the SPR is that it doesn’t work as planned and the oil can’t be tapped as quickly as the “specs” suggest.  If that becomes evident, there is no backstop and prices could move higher.  In reality, the SPR is probably a better threat than it is a real protector against supply disruption.

Bitcoin worries: Last week, the Mueller investigation indicted a number of Russians involved in an attempt to sway the U.S. presidential election.  One little detail caught our attention.  Apparently, some of the conspirators used bitcoin to pay for their nefarious actions.  Given the anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies, we would expect a crackdown to emerge from nation states as they discover the usefulness of cryptocurrencies for illegal activities.  

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.ft.com/content/f17e67e4-8646-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929?emailId=5b4c1d124cf1530004fccd78&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/saudis-said-to-offer-extra-oil-in-asia-as-opec-leader-pumps-more

[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-and-allies-consider-possible-oil-reserve-release-1531509351

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/6a16440a-8837-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543

[5] https://www.ft.com/content/e54129b4-85cc-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929?emailId=5b4c1d124cf1530004fccd78&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

Asset Allocation Weekly (July 13, 2018)

by Asset Allocation Committee

Earnings season is upon us.  We normally don’t report on earnings season since we discuss it every day and update the P/E chart weekly, but we are seeing significant growth in earnings which warrants some reflection.

The primary reason for the jump in earnings has been the decline in corporate tax rates.

The chart on the left shows corporate profits from the National Product and Income Accounts, the profits data calculated as part of GDP.  This chart shows the pre- and post-tax profits as a percentage of GDP and the lower line shows the spread between the two.  A narrower spread indicates fewer profits lost to taxes.  The chart on the right shows the spread with a forecast derived from the highest marginal corporate tax rate.  There are two important factors to note.  First, we are seeing the spread narrow as the forecast would have suggested, shown by the narrowing of the Q1 spread.  Second, the forecast signals that post-tax corporate profits over the rest of the year should approach 10% of GDP.

The consensus forecast for Q2 is $39.20 per share,[1] which is up 19.9% over last year.  In addition, companies are repatriating money from their overseas accounts.

This chart shows foreign earnings retained abroad on a flow basis.  In Q1, nonfinancial corporate businesses moved $632.7 bn back to the U.S.[2]  Note the last time this occurred was in 2005 when a tax holiday on foreign earnings was relaxed.  The hope of policymakers was that these inflows would be used for investment to boost growth and, eventually, employment.  However, at least one-third has been used by S&P companies to buy back stock.[3]  The hopes of policymakers were always questionable; a decade of low interest rates meant that the investing environment was already favorable.  It would be odd for a project to need the implementation of a tax cut with historically low interest rates already in place.

If buybacks remain elevated, the number of shares outstanding will contract which will tend to support multiple expansion.

This chart shows the S&P 500 Index divisor; it takes mergers, share buybacks and new issuance into account.  Since 2011, the divisor has been steadily declining due to mergers and share buybacks overwhelming new issuance.  Note the difference from the 1990s bull market which was characterized by a rising divisor.  During this period, rising equity prices led to an increase in stock issuance.  That has not been the case in this bull market.  It is also interesting that the divisor fell from 9000 to 8700 after the 2005 tax holiday, suggesting that the last episode likely led to share buybacks as well.

The combination of rising earnings and a falling divisor will lead to a contraction of the P/E multiple without higher equity prices.  Although trade issues are a serious concern, we remain bullish on equities due to earnings and falling share levels.  If the trade situation stabilizes, we should see equity values rise into autumn.

View the PDF


[1] This is a Thomson-Reuters calculated number.

[2] In reality, most of it was already in U.S. banks but were in foreign accounts denominated in dollars.

[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/stock-buybacks-are-booming-but-share-prices-arent-budging-1531054801

Daily Comment (July 13, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Equity markets are mixed this morning as investors balance expectations of stronger earnings and rising trade tensions.  The British pound fell due to political uncertainty and the dollar has strengthened against global currencies.  Below are the news stories we are following today:

No U.K.-U.S. trade deal? Yesterday, in an interview with the British tabloid The Sun, President Trump scolded PM Theresa May for attempting to negotiate a “soft” Brexit.  In the interview, he stated that the current deal being negotiated with the EU would likely undermine U.K. efforts to secure a bilateral deal with the U.S.  He went on to say that her possible challenger for the premiership, Boris Johnson, would be a great choice for prime minister.  President Trump’s criticism is likely to add to the political turmoil surrounding PM May as she struggles to maintain her government.  Although we still do not expect a leadership challenge in the immediate future, the chances of one happening are slightly elevated, which is the reason for the drop in the pound.  As we have mentioned, Tory Eurosceptics can launch a leadership challenge once every twelve months, therefore if they were to challenge and lose they would have less clout in Brexit negotiations as the deadline to secure a Brexit deal expires in eight months.  Currently, Tory Eurosceptics have enough support to start the process but still lack the support needed to oust PM May.  That being said, President Trump’s ultimatum to PM May on Brexit further supports the belief that he favors bilateral agreements over multilateral agreements, which is a break from prior administrations.  Prior to the publication of this report, President Trump in a joint press conference with PM May walked back the idea that the U.S. would not be willing to trade with the U.K. if it pushes for a “soft” Brexit.

Bipartisan tariff backlash: Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin testified before the House Financial Services Committee.  During his testimony, he was hit with a barrage of questions from Republicans and Democrats alike about the effects trade tariffs will have on the U.S. economy.  To date, the U.S. has imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Mexico, Canada, the European Union and China.  In addition, the president has hinted at imposing more tariffs in the future, possibly targeting cars.  The various countries have responded to the tariffs in kind.  There are growing concerns that trade tariffs are likely to hurt individual states.  In response to questions on this issue, Mnuchin stated that the U.S. is not in a trade war but rather in a trade dispute, and the administration is currently monitoring the effects that tariffs are having on the economy.

A letter from North Korea:Yesterday, President Trump sought to counter reports suggesting that little progress is being made on North Korean denuclearization by releasing a letter he received from North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un.  In the letter, Kim Jong-un expressed his appreciation for Trump’s efforts to improve relations between the two sides.  Despite this letter, recent negotiation have been a bit rocky.  Last week, North Korea accused the U.S. of acting “gangster-like” during negotiations and on Monday failed to show up to an agreed upon meeting site in the demilitarized zone.  The U.S. has accused China of being responsible for North Korea’s behavior as of late, while China has denied its involvement.  We continue to monitor this situation.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (July 12, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Equity markets have rebounded following signs that the U.S. and China will likely resume trade negotiations.  Oil prices have also stabilized following the bullish EIA report—yesterday oil prices fell 7% following reports that Libya would resume shipments.  Below are the stories we are following today:

NATO defense spending: Earlier today, President Trump announced that NATO members have agreed to increase defense spending, but warned that he is willing to “do his own thing” if spending doesn’t increase immediately.  This announcement came after an impromptu emergency meeting was called to discuss the president’s concerns on defense spending.  Yesterday, the president caused an uproar by demanding that NATO members increase their defense spending to 4% of GDP, which is double the target in the NATO agreement.  At this moment, it is unclear what the president means when he says “immediately” or how much each member would need to increase its defense spending.  The NATO guidelines stipulate that countries should increase their defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024.[1]

Afghanistan review: The White House is expected to undertake a review of its strategy in Afghanistan as President Trump is reportedly frustrated with the lack of progress being made.  Last year, on the advice of his advisors, President Trump agreed to deploy an additional 3,000 troops to Afghanistan in the hopes of forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table with the Kabul government.  After a year, it appears there has been no progress toward achieving this goal.  The president has never been in favor of the U.S. fighting international wars.  As a result, this review could be a forerunner to future withdrawal from the region.  We will continue to monitor this situation.

Russian arms talks: Yesterday, Reuters reported that during President Trump’s meeting with Russian President Putin they will likely discuss extending the “New Start” treaty.  The treaty allows Russia and the U.S. to monitor each other’s nuclear programs to ensure that neither country is expanding its nuclear weapons program.  The deal was put in place to avoid another arms race between the two countries.  In the past, President Trump and National Security Advisor John Bolton have criticized the deal as being a bad deal for the U.S.; Bolton went so far as to call it “unilateral disarmament.”  That being said, the fact that discussions might occur suggests that President Trump could be favoring an extension of the agreement, which expires in 2021.  The two will also likely discuss North Korea denuclearization and developments in Syria.

Energy recap: U.S. crude oil inventories fell a whopping 12.6 mb compared to market expectations of a 3.9 mb draw.

The above charts show current crude oil inventories, both over the long term and the last decade.  We have added the estimated level of lease stocks to maintain the consistency of the data.  As the chart shows, inventories remain historically high but are falling rapidly.  We would consider the overhang closed if stocks fall under 400 mb.

As the seasonal chart below shows, inventories are well into the seasonal withdrawal period.  This week’s decrease in stocks is normal, although the amount was a stunner.  If the usual seasonal pattern plays out, mid-September inventories will be 399 mb.  If this level is reached, we will have absorbed the inventory overhang.

(Source: DOE, CIM)

Based on inventories alone, oil prices are near the fair value price of $72.49.  Meanwhile, the EUR/WTI model generates a fair value of $61.22.  Together (which is a more sound methodology), fair value is $64.77, meaning that current prices are above fair value.  Currently, the oil market is dealing with divergent fundamental factors.  Falling oil inventories are fundamentally bullish but the stronger dollar is a bearish factor.  The action to suppress Iranian oil exports has boosted oil prices, but the rapid decline in oil inventories over the past week is very supportive for prices.  It should be noted that a 400 mb number by September would put the oil inventory/WTI model near $90 per barrel.  Although dollar strength could dampen that price action, oil prices should remain elevated.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm

Daily Comment (July 11, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Equity markets are lower due to concerns of global trade tensions. Below are the issues that we are paying close attention to today:

NATO summit: In the opening hours of the NATO summit, President Trump sparked controversy by criticizing Germany’s relationship with Russia and its unwillingness to increase spending on defense. In a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, President Trump accused Germany of being held captive by Russia due to its support of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline it is constructing with Russia. In the past, the construction of the pipeline was criticized as undermining U.S. efforts to punish Russia for its annexation of the Crimea as it would make it easier for Russia to cut off Ukraine’s gas supply by siphoning the gas that is bound for the EU. Germany has been pressed to secure the deal due to its strict renewable energy goals which prompted it to close its coal and nuclear plants despite criticisms that the country is putting its own national interests above the European alliance. Although the timing and manner of the president’s comments were a bit odd, they were not all that surprising. That being said, his comments will further feed speculation that he prefers closer ties with Russia over Europe.

Oil supply: During the NATO summit, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo set up meetings with NATO members to assist them in finding alternatives to Iranian oil. Last month, the U.S. requested that all countries stop purchasing Iranian oil before November 4 as a way to force Iran to end its nuclear program. Since the request has been made, countries have struggled to find alternative sources due to unrest in both Libya and Venezuela as well as OPEC’s inability to come to an agreement to significantly increase oil production. As a result, there is growing speculation that the U.S. may be forced to push back the deadline or offer sanction waivers to certain countries. Recent developments in Libya may ease some of those concerns but at this point it is unclear – today, ports in eastern Libya were able to resume shipments after the state energy producer regained control of the terminals. We will continue to monitor that situation.

Chinese Middle East Police: Yesterday, Chinese President Xi Jinping told members of the Arab League that China would like to “become the keeper of peace and stability” within the region. In addition, China pledged $25 billion in loans and aid to Middle Eastern countries as part of its Belt and Road infrastructure initiative. China’s push to boost economic and security ties is likely due to its desire to become less dependent on the West for its exports, increase its access to natural resources and build additional military bases throughout the world. Currently, the Belt and Road initiative covers two-thirds of the world’s population and involves three-quarters of its energy resources.[1]

New tariffs: Yesterday, President Trump initiated the process of imposing additional tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods. The response was over China’s decision to impose tariffs on $34 billion of American exports. The market reacted negatively to the news; as a result, Chinese equities and renminbi have fallen. According to the June Federal Reserve minutes, rising trade tensions have deterred businesses from making future investments. We will continue to monitor this situation.

(Source: Bloomberg)

View the complete PDF


[1] https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/how-development-finance-changing-geopolitics