Weekly Geopolitical Report – The Mid-Year Geopolitical Outlook (June 25, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady

(Due to the Independence Day holiday, the next report will be published July 9.)

As is our custom, we update our geopolitical outlook for the remainder of the year as the first half comes to a close.  This report is less a series of predictions as it is a list of potential geopolitical issues that we believe will dominate the international landscape for the rest of the year.  It is not designed to be exhaustive; instead, it focuses on the “big picture” conditions that we believe will affect policy and markets going forward.  They are listed in order of importance.

Issue #1: America’s Evolving Hegemony

Issue #2: Rising Western Populism

Issue #3: Rising Authoritarianism

View the full report

Daily Comment (June 25, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] It’s Monday.  This morning, it’s trade, Turkey and OPEC.  Here are the headlines:

Trade: The Trump administration is preparing to put capital controls against Chinese investment in a variety of U.S. industries deemed critical for security.  The industries are mostly in the technology sector.  The president is using emergency powers granted to him to protect national and economic security.[1]  In addition, the U.S. will begin implementing tariffs on China by July 6th unless some action is taken to delay the move.  And, the president is threatening even more trade sanctions on additional countries.[2]  It appears the Navarro/Lighthizer wing of Trump’s inner circle has overwhelmed the establishment Mnuchin/Kudlow wing.  Worries about an escalating trade war sent emerging markets lower.  Treasuries and the yen rose.  Equities, in general, are weaker as well, although the risk-off trade has weakened throughout the morning.

Turkey: As we noted last week, illegal polls in Turkey were suggesting that President Erdogan would win a first round victory.  Because polls are not supposed to be conducted 10 days before an election we were unsure if the surveys were accurate.  Turns out they were.  Although results are not official, opposition candidates have conceded and it appears Erdogan took 52.5% of the vote.[3]  In addition, combined with his coalition partner, the Nationalist Movement Party, Erdogan will enjoy a majority in parliament.  Recent changes to the constitution will give the incoming president very strong powers.  The lira initially rose on the news but has turned lower.

OPEC: On Friday, oil prices soared on the idea that OPEC would not increase oil supply as much as initially feared.  Over the weekend, Saudi Arabia suggested that supplies would rise enough to ensure ample supply, which probably means the kingdom could expand output to meet the 1.0 mbpd increase in quota even if it produces over its individual country quota.  The news led oil prices lower this morning.  Most likely, we are seeing an evolution to price stability.  OPEC doesn’t want a return to the low $50s for oil prices, but the Saudis are facing political pressure from the U.S. and Riyadh wants to improve relations with the Trump administration after the deterioration under President Obama.  One of the truisms of oil is that rapidly changing prices attract attention but the cartel can get away with high, but stable, prices.  That is mostly OPEC’s goal, which means we are probably heading to a period of very low oil price volatility.

PBOC: The Chinese central bank lowered reserve requirements by $100 bn in order to protect the economy from the negative effects of tariffs and other trade actions.[4]  What is important from this action is that it took the CNY lower.  Currency depreciation is one way China could counteract the Trump administration’s trade actions.  So far, President Trump remains opposed to weakening the dollar to address trade, so as long as this avenue is open we look for more nations to take advantage of this policy and use a weaker currency to offset trade restrictions.

Merkel’s problem:A weekend meeting[5] didn’t resolve the chancellor’s problems.  Merkel faces an internal rebellion in her coalition that wants to restrict acceptance of immigrants.  To quell the rebellion, Merkel wanted to send refugees back to the country where they initially entered the EU (the “Dublin Principle”), which is current policy.  Clearly, this policy adversely affects countries like Greece and Italy, where many of the refugees first land.  Italy decided against helping Chancellor Merkel, demanding the first landing policy be abandoned.[6]  If Merkel can’t come to some sort of compromise, her government is in trouble and we may see new elections in Germany before year’s end.  That outcome would probably be bearish for the euro.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/24/trump-china-export-controls-647091 ; https://www.ft.com/content/c002dadc-766b-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f?emailId=5b306e2f18cc4a00043573ad&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22 ; https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plans-new-curbs-on-chinese-investment-tech-exports-to-china-1529883988

[2] https://apnews.com/c5a7fdde33b84ca9b100a8862326d6d4/Trump-lobs-new-threats-against-countries-trading-with-the-US

[3] https://www.ft.com/content/9ab2404e-7786-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d?emailId=5b306e2f18cc4a00043573ad&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/ae641456-77c1-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d?emailId=5b306e2f18cc4a00043573ad&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/european-leaders-talk-migration-as-germanys-merkel-tries-to-save-political-future/2018/06/24/89a23266-764e-11e8-bda1-18e53a448a14_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bb30ec9ef264&wpisrc=nl_todayworld&wpmm=1

[6] https://www.ft.com/content/bc42c746-77c3-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d?segmentId=a7371401-027d-d8bf-8a7f-2a746e767d56 ; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/world/europe/eu-migration-dublin-regulation.html?emc=edit_mbe_20180625&nl=morning-briefing-europe&nlid=567726720180625&te=1

Asset Allocation Weekly (June 22, 2018)

by Asset Allocation Committee

Cycle studies are common in analyzing markets.  Such studies can be quite useful in some markets that are affected by seasonal factors, such as commodities.  We all know it gets cold in the winter and rains in the spring, and measuring the timing of when market participants discount these events can offer insights into market behavior.  In general, the more regular and reliable the factors are that cause the cyclicality, the more trustworthy the analysis.  Seasonal cycles tend to be consistent and thus are heavily used in commodity analysis.  Of course, once a pattern has been discovered, traders attempt to position in front of the expected price cycle.  Commodity analysts will note that price patterns still work but they often start sooner.

Human cycles tend to be much less reliable.  Usually, these cycles occur because of the structure of regulation; one example is tax selling, which sometimes weakens equity prices in late Q3.  It doesn’t always work because (a) tax laws change, or (b) sometimes investors don’t have a lot of losses to “harvest.”  Market research is full of examples that “used to work.”  Often, once analysts notice a cycle, there is a temptation to publish it, in part for reputational enhancement.  However, publishing makes the cycle better known and will often render it useless.

Elections in democracies create cycles with some degree of regularity.  In the U.S., elections are not called, as is common in a parliamentary system, but occur on schedule.  Policymakers are aware of elections and want to manipulate the economy in ways that improve their chances of re-election.  For example, presidents have an incentive to implement painful policies during the first two years of their term with the hopes of an economic rebound in the last two years.  That pattern usually means the mid-terms hurt the party of the president.  At the same time, a president is at the peak of his political capital at inauguration.  That capital erodes with time and thus if one is going to do something “big” the best chance is in the first 18 months of the presidency.  By around May of the second year, the initial political capital is mostly exhausted, meaning little new accomplishments are enacted.  In the third year, the president tries to implement policies that support growth to increase the chances of re-election and Congress often participates for the same reason.

To measure these effects, we created a database using the Friday close of the S&P 500, beginning in 1928.  We indexed each four-year cycle at the beginning of the election year.  Thus, we ended up with 22 cycles, excluding the current one, which began in 2016.  Here is what the patterns indicate:

The blue line on the chart shows the long-term average of all cycles.  The green line shows the pattern for a newly elected Republican president and the red line shows the current administration.  The pattern suggests that equities tend to favor the GOP, at least for the first 18 months of the cycle.  The two average lines converge by Q4 of the first full year.  The second full year tends to be the most disappointing for equities, on average, although a strong rally from the mid-terms into the year prior to the next election usually develops.

President Trump’s first term was closely tracking an average new Republican president until it became clear that the tax law changes were going to pass.  This led equities to rise sharply.  However, in the aftermath of the tax changes, equities have moved sideways, which is consistent with the second full-year pattern but, in this particular case, from a much higher level.  The usual pattern could be indicating one of two outcomes.  First, equities will likely struggle into Q4 and then stage their usual third-year rally.  Or, second, we have already had the “Trump bull market” and the rest of his first term will be “churn,” leaving us about where we would be without the tax-driven lift in markets.

Although either scenario is possible, we tend to expect the first is more likely.  There is little evidence that the economy is near recession, which is the primary cause of cyclical bear markets.  While earnings growth will likely slow next year, the tax law changes should keep the level of earnings elevated.  In fact, the recent weak performance in equities is due to multiple contraction, most likely due to fears surrounding trade conflicts.  If the administration can resolve these issues without serious incident, it would bolster the case for a rally next year.  On the other hand, if trade issues escalate, the second scenario is more likely, which would be no major pullback in equities but a long-term sideways market.

Clearly, other factors will play a role and these cyclical studies are not definitive.  Nevertheless, they do offer some insight into the normal policy cycle, which the current presidency was tracking until November.  For now, we consider a trade war the most near-term serious threat to equities.

View the PDF

Daily Comment (June 22, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] We made it to Friday!  Markets are rather quiet this morning as immigration has overshadowed trade concerns.  We are seeing a bit of “risk-on” today after a rather rough week.  Here is what we are watching this morning:

OPEC: We have a deal. The cartel agreed to a 1.0 mbpd increase in quotas but not in production.  Since many of the members lack excess capacity, the real increase is about 0.6 to 0.8 mbpd.  That is a bullish outcome.  We are still waiting to see the Russian reaction but our expectation is that Russia will increase production to take market share from the formal cartel.  But, overall, this is a bullish result relative to fears of a much larger rise in output.  At the same time, we think Saudi Arabia is trying to guide prices modestly lower (low $60s to high $50s) in response to President Trump’s persistent criticism of high oil prices.  The president wants lower oil (and gasoline) prices going into the mid-terms.  Thus, don’t be surprised to see bearish comments from the Saudis in a bid to cool today’s early price spike.

Turkish elections: Most recent polls show Erdogan’s party coming in at 51.6%; if accurate, he would win Sunday’s election outright.  On the other hand, if he fails to achieve 50%, he would face a run-off election.  It should be noted that the most recent polls are illegal; Turkish electoral law indicates that no polls should occur 10 days before the election.  Thus, the veracity of the most recent polls is questionable.  The last legal polls showed Erdogan with 45.8% support.  The second place party is the Kermalist CHP; the policy platform of this party isn’t remarkably different than Erdogan’s except that the CHP leadership is campaigning on the goal of improving global relations.  We expect a close election and wouldn’t be surprised by a run-off.  But, in the end, we expect Erdogan to eke out a narrow victory.

Greek deal: After eight years, the Greek bailout is finally complete.[1]  Greece did not get a debt write-off but it did receive a 10-year extension of the loan terms and a decade deferral on interest and amortization.  Although this buffer will likely give Greece enough financial space to be able to tap the financial markets for loans, its government debt/GDP ratio remains at 180% and terms of the deal require austerity to remain in place.  In our opinion, this is another “can kicking” solution but, given that Greece has essentially more than a decade to build cash reserves, we shouldn’t see Greece affecting financial markets for a while.  Greece will be making mere token payments on its debt unit 2030.

German/French EU reform hits opposition: France and Germany reached an agreement on EU reforms.  The agreement was not all that ambitious but it is facing rather strong opposition from a number of EU nations, including the Netherlands, Finland and Austria, which are questioning the need for any Eurozone fiscal capacity.[2]  The economic theory of currency unions usually requires some sort of fiscal unity to address growth divergences within the union.  The Eurozone lacks this feature; instead, the Germans tried to use strict fiscal spending limits to address this problem.  What has developed instead is wide growth divergences.  The natural split in the Eurozone is between the north and south.  The opposition to France’s plan is mostly coming from the north.  Thus, we have doubts that anything of substance will come from Germany and France’s plan.

European immigration problems: The U.S. isn’t the only part of the world with immigration turmoil.  Chancellor Merkel is facing a breakup of one of the most durable coalitions in European political history, the CSU/CDU union.  Differences on immigration policy are threatening this long-standing arrangement.  The CSU, based solely in Bavaria, wants to block refugees from entering Germany.  Since Bavaria sits on Germany’s southern border, this action is essentially a national policy.  Merkel opposes this policy.  She is trying to work out a compromise but Italy scuttled her plans by rejecting a proposal that would have allowed refugees in Germany to be returned to their nation of entry which, in most cases, is Italy for migrants coming from Africa.[3]  It is possible that the Merkel government could fall over this issue.  German media is reporting that the other party in Merkel’s grand coalition, the SPD, is planning for snap elections.[4]  New elections would likely boost the AfD and lead Germany in a more populist direction, which would likely be bearish for the EUR.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.ft.com/content/b1cba7c4-75a2-11e8-a8c4-408cfba4327c

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/19eba02a-75fd-11e8-b326-75a27d27ea5f

[3] https://www.ft.com/content/6d2a2c3c-7564-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601?segmentId=a7371401-027d-d8bf-8a7f-2a746e767d56

[4] https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/germanys-spd-is-said-to-prepare-for-new-elections-report-20180622

Daily Comment (June 21, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Happy Summer Solstice!  Here is what we are watching this morning:

Trade and the dollar: India joined other nations by applying tariffs against the U.S.[1]  EU officials are worried that U.S. trade policy will upend its longstanding Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is a system of subsidies critical to maintaining EU unity.  Earlier this month, the U.S. applied trade restrictions to Spanish olives but the fear is that the action will broaden.  It is interesting to note that French President Macron criticized CAP,[2] but we don’t see this as a commonly held position among European leaders.  Essentially, nearly all nations offer some degree of support for agriculture.  Food security is simply too important politically and countries want control over the food supply.  This leads to preferential treatment for farmers in all sorts of ways.  CAP, a system of farm subsidies, is how the EU maintains a free trade zone, essentially preventing overt trade restrictions within the EU.  However, these restrictions reduce foreign imports of agricultural products.  This is what the U.S. is attacking.  But, if the CAP system devolves, the EU could very easily fall apart, too.  Nations within the EU would almost certainly put up internal barriers to agricultural trade to protect their domestic farmers and ranchers, and once internal barriers for one product are implemented it would not be a surprise to see other industries ask for protection.  It’s important to remember that the EU began as a free trade zone and has morphed into a much larger entity.

We are starting to see the trade actions causing secondary effects.  Daimler (DAI, EUR 58.20) warned today that tariffs could adversely impact its profits.[3]  This is the first time we have seen trade offered as a reason for lower earnings.  This news led European automaker shares lower.  And, in what has to be a most bizarre situation, the Commerce Department is reportedly “probing steel profiteering after tariffs.”[4]  Often, the left is criticized for implementing regulations and then being surprised that prices rise.  A GOP administration being “shocked” that steel prices rose and companies are making more money after the government takes steps to restrict foreign supply is really surprising.  Meanwhile, U.S. agriculture is being roiled by retaliatory tariffs.[5]

The bottom line is that global trade impediments are a reversal of nearly 90 years of steadily falling tariff barriers.  This trend only occurred because of U.S. leadership; the U.S. essentially traded access to the U.S. consumer in return for cooperation on global security.  For example, Japan and Germany gained access to the U.S. market and we got to place military bases on their territories.  That system worked great during the Cold War but in its aftermath we haven’t created a rationale for continuing it.  Although Trump is catching the blame for disruption, the reality is that domestic political support for free trade has been under pressure for a long time.  Trade impediments act like a restriction on the dollar supply and thus, all else held equal, the wider the “trade war” goes the greater the bullish impact for the dollar.

BOE: The Bank of England left policy unchanged as expected, but the vote was 6-3, indicating rising opposition to current policy.  The dissenters wanted to raise rates.  The idea that rates could rise in the near future boosted the GBP.

OPEC: Oil prices reversed yesterday’s gains on bullish inventory data (see below) due to fears that OPEC would boost output significantly.  There are reports that Iran is softening its opposition to raising production.  Russia has been pressing for an increase of 1.5 mbpd.  We believe Saudi Arabia is supportive of that level of increase (since it will provide most of it), but the kingdom wants to keep peace within the cartel, which means a compromise.  We have been in the compromise camp, expecting a token increase of 0.4 to 0.6 mbpd.  The latest suggests that Saudi Arabia is more in the 1.0 mbpd camp.[6]  This level of increase may not add all that much to world supply as disruptions in Libya and Venezuela will offset some of this proposed increase.  However, it is a bearish surprise for the market.  In addition, U.S. output, which has been rising at a surprising clip, is about to stall because of the lack of pipeline capacity in the Permian Basin.  Reports indicate “DUCs” are rising rapidly, which will reduce current supplies but represents future production.[7]  As we note below, a strengthening dollar is a bearish factor for oil; rising supply probably caps current prices.  On the other hand, there doesn’t appear to be enough oil on global markets to cause a major bear market to develop.

Energy recap: U.S. crude oil inventories fell 5.9 mb compared to market expectations of a 1.0 mb draw.

This chart shows 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 have declined significantly since March 2017.  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 rather large decline is consistent with that pattern.  If anything, the draw was stronger than normal.  If the usual seasonal pattern plays out, mid-September inventories will be 418 mb.

(Source: DOE, CIM)

Based on inventories alone, oil prices are near the fair value price of $65.51.  Meanwhile, the EUR/WTI model generates a fair value of $60.96.  Together (which is a more sound methodology), fair value is $62.05, 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.  And, as we noted above, if OPEC increases output the rising trend in oil prices will probably stall.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/business-news/india-raises-import-duties-on-agri-steel-products-to-protest-us-tariff-hike/story-fung5wX88UshIfORNCwPBK.html

[2] https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1009530411591065600

[3] https://www.ft.com/content/aae48d3a-7521-11e8-b6ad-3823e4384287

[4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-steel/u-s-commerce-department-investigating-steel-price-hikes-after-tariffs-ross-idUSKBN1JG22W

[5] https://www.ft.com/content/bdbc9e3a-73d6-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601 and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-hog-margins/trade-woes-shrink-u-s-pork-packer-margins-to-three-year-low-idUSKBN1JG2LW and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-tariffs/double-whammy-u-s-pork-fruit-producers-brace-for-second-wave-of-chinese-tariffs-idUSKBN1JH0KZ

[6] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/21/opec-kingpin-saudi-arabia-just-threw-down-the-gauntlet-in-its-push-to-ramp-up-production.html

[7] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-21/unfracked-oil-wells-growing-as-permian-pipeline-scarcity-worsens

Daily Comment (June 20, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] It’s Wednesday!  Financial markets are moving steadily higher this morning, mostly on the lack of new trade pronouncements.  Here is what we are watching today:

Trade: The EU unveiled €2.8 bn of tariffs on U.S. goods[1] in retaliation to American tariffs.  About a third of the tariffs (which will be a 25% levy) are applied to agricultural goods (e.g., peanut butter, bourbon), with the rest on a variety of consumer goods.  The size of this action isn’t all that large, but it does show that the EU is willing to meet each U.S. action with a response.  The general consensus in the financial media appears to be that China will eventually “blink.”  The president is said to believe this as well.[2]  On its face, this position makes sense.  As a general rule, the trade deficit nation faces an inflation problem from trade impediments, while the trade surplus nation suffers unemployment.[3]  The general belief is that China cannot tolerate rising unemployment and will cave as a result.  However, this position has two potential flaws.  First, Chairman Xi, unlike his predecessors, has amassed significant power.  Like his predecessors, he is at risk to a weakening economy, but Xi has the power now to keep the middle class satisfied by taxing the wealthy.  Second, one of the narratives around China’s rise is retribution against the West for the humiliation that began with the Opium Wars.  Backing down to Trump may be more costly to Xi than the economic damage that a trade war would cause, at least in the short run.

Wars often begin because of an underestimation of the costs and overestimation of the benefits by the parties involved.  Trade wars are no different.  Foreign nations will target politically sensitive areas in the U.S.  The EU choosing to tax bourbon isn’t an accident; it’s a key product of the home state of the Senate majority leader.  China is considering targeting energy, which would affect states that have been solidly “red.”[4]  It is true the U.S. will probably be less adversely affected than the current account surplus nations, but that doesn’t mean the negative effects on the U.S. are not significant.

Brexit: A key bargaining position for PM May is that she could walk away from an adverse deal from the EU and simply withdraw without a treaty arrangement.  That outcome could harm the EU and thus gives the U.K. some leverage.  However, the House of Lords and the House of Commons are taking steps to take that position away from May, leaving her with the unenviable choice of perhaps being forced to take whatever the EU wants to give her.  Essentially, the bill before Commons would give the legislature a “meaningful vote” on the final position of Brexit.[5]  How this outcome would affect the markets is binary.  On the one hand, passing this law would likely lead to a “soft” Brexit that would almost look like the U.K. is still part of the EU.  That outcome would be bullish for British financial assets.  On the other hand, a loss on this bill could generate a no-confidence vote and an election that could bring Labour’s Corbyn to power, which would be a majorly bearish event for British financial assets, including the exchange rate.  Consequently, increasing volatility is likely.

Merkel and Macron make a deal: The leaders of France and Germany have agreed to an outline[6] for greater European integration.  Merkel agreed to a formula that could create an EU budget, allowing some degree of fiscal integration.  This may include an EU finance minister.  It doesn’t appear the budget would be very large, but Macron probably hopes that the creation of an EU budget will be the “camel’s nose under the tent” for fiscal integration.  Merkel also agreed to plans for an EU rapid reaction military force; her change of heart may be tied to uncertainty surrounding America’s defense support.

Chinese market support: The PBOC unexpectedly injected funds into China’s money markets[7] and is considering lowering reserve ratios[8] in a bid to support the economy through the trade row with the U.S.  These steps show that China does have some resources to deal with an economic slowdown due to the trade situation.

OPEC:The cartel meets Friday amid growing acrimony.  The Iranian oil minister[9] is adamant in opposing any quota increases as new sanctions will probably limit its ability to increase exports and thus the resulting lower prices would merely reduce revenue.  The Saudis find themselves in a delicate position.  They do have excess capacity and could raise output.  The kingdom is getting pressure from the U.S. to boost production and it appears highly probable that Russia will increase output, ending its cooperation with OPEC.  We still expect a token increase in output quotas but Saudi Arabia appears to have little support for anything significant.  If the meeting breaks without a clear settlement of these issues, the markets will likely assume that output will rise.  This would be bearish for oil prices.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=245248,245245,245239,
245249,245254,245221,
245244,245235,245238,245240&
CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=3&FullTextHash=371857150&
HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=False&
HasSpanishRecord=False&utm_source=
POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=
26f0a4be3a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_13_03_59
&utm_
medium=email
&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-2
6f0a4be3a-189779881&utm_so
urce=
POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=ad89547d8d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_20_10_50
&
utm_medium=email
&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-ad89547d8d-190334489

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/business/china-trade-war-peter-navarro.html?hp&
action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[3] This is partly why the U.S. economy was so hard hit by the Great Depression.  We were the China of that era.

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/6fc23bbe-735d-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601

[5] https://www.ft.com/content/fb95acd6-7464-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601

[6] https://www.politico.eu/article/angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron-bridge-differences-on-eu-reform-france-germany/
?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=eb2b04c690-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_20_04_40&
utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_
10959edeb5-eb2b04c690-190334489
  and https://www.ft.com/content/89c1b706-73df-11e8-b6ad-3823e4384287?emailId=5b29da5f
89494e0004fe5169&segmentId=22011ee7-896a-8c4c-22a0-7603348b7f22

[7] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/18/chinas-pboc-makes-cash-injection-amid-us-china-trade-spat.html?__twitter_impression=true

[8] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-pboc/china-central-bank-says-bank-reserve-ratios-should-be-cut-fuels-easing-talk-idUSKBN1JF0TP

[9] https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-oil-minister-doesnt-expect-opec-deal-on-production-increase-1529440714

Daily Comment (June 19, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] It’s looking like a “tough Tuesday.”  Risk-off is clearly evident—Treasuries, the yen and the dollar are higher, while gold is flat and equities, especially emerging markets, are under pressure.  Oil and commodities are lower as well.  Here’s the story:

Trade: President Trump has threatened[1] an additional $200 bn in tariffs on Chinese imports; China has vowed to retaliate in kind.  At the same time, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reinstate the penalties on the Chinese tech company ZTE (SHE: 000063, CNY 20.54).

What makes analyzing this brewing trade war so difficult is that we really haven’t had anything like this since the 1930s.  Under U.S. leadership, tariffs have been steadily declining since the end of WWII.  Even though there has been the occasional trade spat, such as the “voluntary” auto export restrictions in the late 1980s, a broad-based trade war is something that probably no living analysts remember.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs were passed in 1930.  A 30-year-old analyst at that time would be about 118 years old.  Accordingly, there probably isn’t anyone out there with actual adult experience of rapidly rising tariffs.

So, if this continues to escalate, what happens?  In our opinion, the most likely development is higher inflation.  The steady decline in inflation that began in the early 1980s was mostly due to supply-side reforms.  Globalization and deregulation led the way to improving efficiencies and reducing labor costs.  Although the latter remains in place, a trade war will obviously undermine globalization.  That development would lead to less efficiency and higher prices.  However, other than the trend, significant uncertainties still remain.  First, if markets remain deregulated, meaning the new introduction of technology will continue unabated, then rising labor costs will be partially blunted by increasing automation.  Second, the Federal Reserve can keep inflation expectations anchored by proving its independence and raising rates high enough to maintain low inflation expectations, even at the risk of recession.  If these two factors remain in place, inflation probably remains relatively tame.

Market behavior suggests investors believe these two factors will remain in place.  If investors believed otherwise, we would be seeing a rise in long-duration yields.  In fact, the opposite is occurring; bond yields are falling, suggesting the financial markets believe the risk of recession is higher than the risk of reflation.  Interestingly enough, there is nothing in the data to suggest a recession is on the horizon.  For example, the Atlanta FRB’s running estimate of Q2 GDP is now +4.8%.

Here is the evolution of the data by estimated contribution to growth.

Virtually all sectors are additive to growth, including net exports, which is surprising given how U.S. growth is outpacing most of our trading partners.  As one would expect, consumption is robust, accounting for more than half of the growth estimate.  There is nothing in this data to suggest an imminent slowing.

The dollar’s strength is a drag on equities, especially large caps and foreign equities.  The dollar’s rally is based on two trends.  First, the divergence on monetary policy is dollar supportive.  Historically, the record on interest rate differentials is decidedly mixed but, for now, the tightening Fed is bullish for the greenback.  Second, assuming the dollar remains the preferred reserve currency, restrictions on imports, the primary way the world acquires dollars, act as a reduction on the global dollar supply.  As a result, tariffs are dollar bullish until nations decide to use another currency for reserves.  At present, there is no real alternative to the dollar so we should assume the threat of tariffs will be dollar bullish.  A tariff-driven dollar bull market would be unprecedented in post-WWII history.

The other key issue to watch is the Fed’s independence.  If the economy begins to weaken, the White House will likely put pressure on Chair Powell to lower rates quickly.  We note the two-year deferred Eurodollar futures implied yield is holding around 3.00%, suggesting the market does not expect more than four more rate hikes.  If there were serious inflation fears, we would expect that implied rate to move higher.  That hasn’t happened, which is further evidence that the financial markets don’t expect this recent growth spurt to last.  The consensus also expects the FOMC to keep inflation expectations anchored.

The other factor that makes this situation so fluid and difficult is that the White House doesn’t appear to have a clearly detailed plan in place.  In other words, it’s hard to know what would constitute a victory.  There have been a parade of comments in the financial media suggesting these announcements are mere posturing and that a trade war isn’t likely.  Perhaps that is the case.  However, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin seems to have disappeared and the president seems to have taken over trade policy.  If victory requires foreign nations to admit they were wrong and simply accept tariffs, then that probably isn’t going to happen.  Although the EU, Canada or Mexico might eventually offer the president a symbolic win, we can’t see China doing that.

There remain numerous positive factors.  As noted above, economic growth remains strong.  Earnings are great.  Consumer and business sentiment remain elevated.  Household cash is rising, which could fuel equity buying.  Simply put, there are clear positive factors that could fuel an equity rally.  But, the high uncertainty surrounding a trade war is offsetting these bullish factors.  If these bullish factors begin to fade, increasing financial stress is likely.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.ft.com/content/acd48414-7360-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601?segmentId=a7371401-027d-d8bf-8a7f-2a746e767d56

Weekly Geopolitical Report – China’s Foreign Reserves: Part III (June 18, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady

This week, we will conclude our study on China’s foreign reserves.  In Part I, we discussed the evolution of foreign reserves from gold to the dollar, with a historical focus.  In Part II, we used the macroeconomic saving identity to analyze the economic relationship between China and the U.S.  This week, using this analysis, we will discuss the likelihood that China will “dump” its Treasuries and the potential repercussions if it were to do so.  From there, we will examine the impact of such a decision by China to reallocate its reserves.  Finally, we will conclude with market ramifications.

What if China decides to dump its reserves?
So, finally, we come to the issue at hand.  Are China’s foreign reserves a real threat to the U.S. economy?  Are the reserves a viable financial weapon?  China occasionally suggests they are.[1]  However, a weapon is only credible if the blowback isn’t significant.  It appears that the costs to China of dumping its U.S. Treasury bond positions would be considerable.

What would happen to the value of China’s reserves?  A common problem with holding concentrated positions is retaining value while exiting the position.  If China began aggressively selling its position, the value of its reserves would decline as well.  If yields rose by 100 bps, to 4%, we estimate the yearly return would drop by approximately 7.9%.[2]  China’s total foreign reserves are around $3.2 trillion; as mentioned in Part II, it’s a state secret as to the allocation but if we assume Treasuries represent 70% then a 7.9% decline would cause a capital loss of $152 bn.  Obviously, a 10-year T-note rate of 4% would likely trigger a U.S. recession but the costs to China would be significant as well.  It is also important to note that this calculation doesn’t take into account the impact on the dollar’s exchange rate.  But, mostly certainly, the dollar would depreciate, causing even greater losses to China’s dollar foreign reserve holdings.

View the full report


[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2813630/China-threatens-nuclear-option-of-dollar-sales.html

[2] This is calculated with a regression of total return on the 10-year T-note against the (a) yearly change in 10-year yields, and (b) the level of interest rates on the 10-year T-note.

Daily Comment (June 18, 2018)

by Bill O’Grady and Thomas Wash

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Happy Monday!  It’s a risk-off day so far this morning.  Here is what we are following:

Tariffs and trade: While there wasn’t any major news on this issue over the weekend, financial markets are discounting the potential outcome of a trade war.  Although there are legitimate concerns about the long-run impact of a breakdown of the global trade system, the short-run benefits to the administration are clear—talk of tariffs is boosting the president’s popularity.

The chart on the right overlays the president’s average approval ratings with the Google Trends tracking of the work “tariff.”  The low point in approval occurred as the tax law was being enacted last December.  Soon after, the president’s policy emphasis shifted from taxes to trade and his approval ratings rose.  Although the tax cuts are clearly popular with the right-wing establishment, the right-wing populists were not all that impressed.  However, the prospect of tariffs has clearly boosted sentiment.  The chart on the left shows a scatterplot of the series on the right.  The conclusion to be drawn by the White House is that trade impediments are resonating.

Equity markets, however, are not impressed with trade impediment rhetoric.

This chart shows the data from Google Trends on the word “tariffs” and the S&P 500 weekly close.  Since trade impediment talk has heightened, equities have declined from their highs and moved sideways.  It’s interesting to note that equities recovered when the rhetoric eased a bit recently.  As talk of trade impediments has escalated, equities have started to stall again.

A common remark we hear is that, “The president won’t want a weak equity market going into midterms.”  This data would suggest that the president probably isn’t all that concerned as recent equity market weakness hasn’t dented his approval ratings.

OPEC: Last week there were great fears that OPEC was planning to boost production by 1.0 to 1.5 mbpd.  Current comments suggest a much less increase of only 0.3 to 0.6 mbpd.  Russia is pushing for a bigger increase and we suspect Russia will simply cheat if it doesn’t get it.  The nations within OPEC that lack excess capacity, mostly Venezuela, Iraq and Iran but others within the cartel as well, are reluctant to boost output.  Saudi Arabia is in a tough spot.  President Trump has deployed social media to criticize OPEC for keeping prices too high and the Saudis are sensitive to those comments.  However, the kingdom also has an IPO to price at some point and wants higher oil prices to boost the value of the sale.  Thus, it looks like we are getting a compromise which, given recent price weakness, is bullish.

On the topic of oil, we have seen the Brent/WTI spread widen out, in part due to the lack of American capacity to move oil into the export market.  We are hearing reports that China is considering targeting oil and other energy products (perhaps even coal) for the second round of tariffs.  In theory, which assumes a frictionless world, the loss of exports to China would be offset by exports to other places.  And, over time, that would happen.  But, in the short run, where “friction” exists, the China threat is bearish for WTI.

Merkel wins: Last week, we noted the refugee spat between Chancellor Merkel and CSU leader and interior minister Horst Seehofer.  Seehofer had threatened to block refugees coming into Germany who mostly enter through Bavaria, where the CSU dominates.  This morning, it appears a compromise has been achieved where any new policies would be introduced gradually.  Merkel is trying to build an EU-wide policy on refugees; we think she is probably going to fail on this effort as rising populism will thwart her efforts.  But, for now, Merkel has fended off this threat.

Egypt implements fuel price increases:In a bid to introduce austerity measures as part of an IMF agreement, Egypt has increased fuel costs, boosting transportation costs by at least 20%.[1]  Historically, when governments take steps to introduce austerity and raise subsidized prices, civil unrest often follows.

View the complete PDF


[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/world/middleeast/egypt-imposes-steep-fuel-price-increases.html