Daily Comment (July 22, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] The GOP convention wrapped up last night; the Democrats hold theirs next week.  Financial markets are very quiet this morning, typical of the “dog days” of summer.  There were two items of note.  First, the flash PMI data from the U.K. was quite weak, with the July composite index tumbling to 47.7 from 52.4 in June.  This is the first major economic report since Brexit and it paints a weak picture.  In fact, the data suggest a recession could be underway.  The GBP dipped on the news as the weak data will tend to prompt the BOE to ease credit.

The second item of interest comes from the WSJ, which reports growing discord between General Secretary Xi and Premier Li over reforms to the Chinese State-Owned Enterprises (SOE).  On July 4th, Xi called for “stronger, bigger, better” SOEs with the CPC playing a central role in their management.  Li’s comments, issued about the same time, called on the SOEs to “slim down” and “follow market rules” in their restructuring.  Although we have been hearing reports of rising discord between the two leaders, these conflicting comments are perhaps the clearest evidence that Li and Xi are not on the same page.

Xi has systematically undermined Li’s authority and influence.  Xi is the president of China, the General Secretary of the CPC and commander in chief.  Li, as Premier, heads the cabinet within the Politburo and, at least traditionally, was in charge of economic policy.  However, Xi has created a set of ad hoc committees that answer only to him that have taken over many of the cabinet’s roles.  Xi’s supporters argue that corruption is so endemic that the president must take direct control.  Xi’s detractors suggest he is power-hungry and has taken on more tasks than he can effectively manage.

The tensions between Xi and Li are part of a deeper divide within the CPC. Xi is a “princeling” whose family lineage includes important founding revolutionaries.  Li comes from a more humble background, rising from the other source of power, the Communist Youth League (CYL).  The CYL is how those from the countryside rise to levels of influence.  Princelings tend to support economic growth at the expense of equality; CYL leaders tend to focus on growth in the interior of the country and equality.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (July 21, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] The JPY rose strongly overnight after media reports quoted BOJ Governor Kuroda as saying that helicopter money was not being considered and would never be implemented.  This comment came as a surprise as the financial markets have been steadily discounting some sort of action from the Japanese central bank.  We have seen the JPY retreat after it was discovered that the comments are about a month old.  Still, there are reports carried by both Reuters and Bloomberg raising concerns from BOJ officials that the BOJ may be reaching the point where its unconventional policies are no longer able to boost growth.  The BOJ holds its official meeting on July 29.

On the fiscal side, Japan’s PM Abe is hinting at a ¥20 trillion ($108 bn) package, which is massive.  However, the actual fiscal thrust could be much less, closer to ¥3 trillion ($28 bn).  How does this work?  Much of the package isn’t direct spending but special loans offered to the private sector for special projects.  Given that the Japanese financial system has ample liquidity, it isn’t obvious that these loans are even necessary.  It should be noted that many of these projects are multi-year in nature, which dilutes the impact in the short run.

We still believe that direct financing of fiscal spending will eventually occur and will most likely occur in Japan first.  However, it may not happen this summer.  If Abe and Kuroda disappoint, the recent rally seen in Japanese equities and the weakness in the JPY may not be sustained.

ECB President Mario Draghi is holding his press conference after the bank made no changes to policy.  The markets initially took the bank’s action as modestly hawkish as the EUR rallied before and early on Draghi’s comments.  Draghi has hinted that a stimulus boost might be considered in September.  This comment reversed gains in the EUR, leaving it unchanged as the U.S. equity markets open.

The GOP is holding its convention.  Unlike conventions in recent years, this one is clearly not tightly managed.  Although the chattering classes are uncomfortable with the surprises and the lack of control, we suspect this issue isn’t a big deal for the public.  In fact, the lack of a followed script makes it more interesting to watch and may be boosting ratings.  After all, we don’t expect any surprises when the other party meets so there is little reason to watch.  In today’s NYT, Donald Trump suggested that, under his administration, the U.S. may not move automatically on an Article 5 event, the part that says that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.  It is known as the “collective security” article.  In NATO’s own documents, it is considered a “cornerstone of the Alliance.”[1]  Instead, Trump suggested that U.S. support may be contingent on how much a member contributes to NATO defense.  In other words, he is offering a warning that “free riding” the U.S. may be very costly.

If this stance were to become the policy of the next government, it would raise significant fears among NATO members.  After all, an important part of Europe’s recovery from WWII was the ability to steer away from defense spending toward social spending because the former became less important due to U.S. defense spending.  Trump is signaling that the behavior of the superpower will change significantly if he becomes president.  We would note that this position would probably be endorsed by Sen. Sanders if he did not know the author of the statement.

The U.S. crude oil inventories fell a bit more than forecast, dipping 2.3 mb versus estimates of a 1.3 mb decline.

This chart shows current crude oil inventories, both over the long term and the last decade.  We are starting to see inventories decline, but normal levels would be below 400 mb, some 130 mb lower than now.

Inventories remain elevated.  Inventories have been lagging the usual seasonal pattern.  We are in a period of the year when crude oil stockpiles tend to fall at an increasing pace.  The pace of declines will slow in the coming weeks as we are halfway through the summer driving season.

It is important to remember that the dollar is playing a bigger role in determining oil prices.

Based on inventories alone, oil prices are profoundly overvalued, with a fair value price of $36.62.  Meanwhile, the EUR/WTI model generates a fair value of $46.33.  Together (which is a more sound methodology), fair value is $40.85, meaning that current prices are a bit rich.

View the complete PDF

___________________________

[1] http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

Keller Quarterly (July 2016)

Letter to Investors

In my travels around the country this year, meeting with clients and advisors, I’ve been struck by the high level of political passion (both optimistic and pessimistic), similar to what we see both in the political arena and in the media. Inevitably, I’m asked what I think about it all. “Who do you think would make the better president?” My answer usually disappoints: “It doesn’t matter what I think.” And I really mean that. In fact, it’s to your advantage that I and our investment thinkers suppress our political views as much as possible. Why is that? Simply because we don’t get to manage investments in the world we wish we had, we only get to manage investments in the world we have.

Investors who get caught up in the euphoria of the world they wish they had, or who become depressed by the world they dread, often make poor decisions in the world that is. The 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume described this dichotomy as the “is-ought problem.” People regularly discuss both current events and future events in a prescriptive way (that is, saying what ought to happen), but in their minds they understand their words to be descriptive (that is, they think they’re saying the way things really are). This is an error and the consequences can be great. We try earnestly to avoid thinking about politics in a prescriptive way and instead try to be as descriptive as we can be. In other words, we are interested in what is, not what ought to be.

How does this work out in practice? In regard to politics, we work hard to understand what politicians and policymakers are actually likely to do if they get power, not what they ought to do. Then we try to accurately analyze what citizens are likely to do when they vote, not what they should do. If we conduct these analyses correctly, we arrive at possible outcomes to which we can assign probabilities. Often those outcomes are not consequential for investments, even if they are of great consequence politically and culturally, but sometimes they can have a very real impact on the economy and investments. Those possible outcomes get our attention.

Bill O’Grady, our chief market strategist, and I often give talks which require analysis of the political situation. As Bill recently said, “I take it as a measure of success if my audience can’t determine my political views.” I feel the same way, because if our views (what ought to happen) are suppressed, then our analysis (what is) is more likely to be correct.

There is much going on in the world today that can raise our emotional temperature, not just U.S. politics, but instability in the European Union, terrorist attacks worldwide, governmental regimes falling, and economic uncertainty around the world. If our investment decision-makers are “stuck in the mud” of what ought to be done, instead of reaching decisions based on what is actually unfolding, they will make bad choices, which would not be good for you. We work hard to stay on the right side of the is-ought dichotomy.

We appreciate your confidence in us.

 

Gratefully,

Mark A. Keller, CFA
CEO and Chief Investment Officer

View the PDF

Daily Comment (July 20, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Market commentary is starting to suggest that the FOMC may be heading toward a rate hike later this year.  Since the Brexit event is now behind us and the U.S. economy has stabilized, if the Fed wants to return to a tightening mode, it could.  However, the markets themselves don’t believe it is going to occur.  The fed funds futures market doesn’t signal a greater than 50% probability of a rate increase until the March 2017 meeting and, even then, the odds are only 53.1%.  By next June, the odds reach 64.3%.  If the FOMC moves more quickly, this would come as a surprise to the financial markets.  If sentiment toward tightening increases, we would expect some weakness to emerge in equities.  Fixed income would likely experience a flattening yield curve and the dollar would probably rally, which would be bearish for commodities.  We doubt the FOMC moves rates this year.  The level of political turmoil is high, the economy isn’t robust and inflation remains contained.  However, the lack of policy consensus on the FOMC does suggest that a return to a more hawkish rhetoric from the U.S. central bank would not be a shock.

Reuters is reporting that a survey of Chinese sales managers confirms the economy is growing but suggests the growth rate is only about 50% of the official rate.  The Sales Manager Index for July came in at 51.7, up from 51.6; the group that conducts the survey, World Economics, suggests that China is growing around 3.3% based on its data.

The WSJ is reporting that Saudi Arabia is drawing down inventories in order to meet domestic demand.  The kingdom estimates its maximum production capacity at 12.5 mbpd and current production is pegged at 10.3 mbpd.  There is some controversy surrounding the capacity number.  This level is not verified by outside sources so there is some doubt the kingdom can actually achieve this level of production.  In addition, there is some question as to why Saudi Arabia doesn’t just raise output to meet domestic demand and maintain export levels.  Reports suggest it would need to raise output by 0.3 mbpd to meet domestic demand, but it is possible the kingdom fears that an increase of that magnitude would signal a renewed market share war and send prices lower.  Another possibility is that the marginal production is more expensive than the cost of the oil in storage, thus it’s a decision based on relative costs.  It should be noted that Saudi Arabian oil inventories are 289 mb, down from 324 mb from last October.  There is still ample oil in storage, so there is little chance that the Saudis will allow global supplies to tighten due to the lack of storage.  Overall, we still believe the guiding principle of Saudi oil policy is market share and the decision to boost output or use inventories is probably more a function of relative cost.  On the other hand, the behavior suggests the kingdom is comfortable with current prices.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (July 19, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Financial and commodity markets are very quiet this morning as the summer doldrums are starting to become evident.  However, three news items did catch our attention and are worthy of comment:

GOP Platform calls for a return to Glass-Steagall: The Glass-Steagall Act separated commercial from investment banking, preventing the creation of universal banks that can perform both services.[1]  Although political platforms have become rather inconsequential in recent years, this addition is something of a shocker.  Breaking up the banks’ commercial and investment banking operations would significantly change the landscape of the current industry.  Acquisitions of broker-dealers would become more difficult without the large balance sheets of the commercial banks.  Although most universal banks have struggled with the cross-selling concept, it remains a significant goal and potentially lucrative source of revenue.  We suspect this is a ploy by the GOP to capture the Sanders voters, who tend to believe that Clinton supports the large banks in their current form.  Simply put, if the GOP is on the side of attacking the large banks, it’s hard to see where they will find support.

The Bundesbank drops a bombshell: The Bundesbank, usually the stanch supporter of creditor interests, recently proposed reforms to improve Europe’s response to future fiscal crises.  First, the German central bank wants to broaden the European Stability Mechanism’s (ESM) mandate to a Eurozone fiscal authority, a role currently being met by the European Commission, the IMF and the ECB (otherwise known as the “troika”).  Currently, the ESM acts as a Eurozone IMF, helping countries with fiscal problems with liquidity.  The Bundesbank wants the ESM to become this fiscal monitoring body which would assess economic prospects, debt sustainability and the financial needs of nations with fiscal problems.  The ESM would also oversee aid programs, replacing the troika.  The second part is the surprise.  The Bundesbank wants newly issued sovereigns to contain clauses that would automatically extend maturities once a nation accepts ESM assistance without triggering a credit event.  This proposal has serious ramifications if adopted.  First, it renders credit default swaps (CDS) worthless, as extending maturities is a remedy for default.  By allowing that to occur without a credit event, which is the trigger for a CDS, investors would have no protection from a credit event.  Second, this action would be a forced “bail-in” by a nation’s creditors.  Third, the risk profile of Eurozone government debt would change dramatically; suddenly, a two-year note could become a 10-year one by a keystroke.  Investors would, assuming rationality, start shunning sovereigns issued by weaker nations, driving up their yields.  It is also quite possible that the ECB might avoid buying them in QE operations…or, it might not avoid them, which would support the bailout.  The creditworthiness of the G-7, or perhaps most of the G-20, sovereign debt is generally not called into question; the Bundesbank’s proposal may be the slippery slope to a form of built-in debt repudiation.  The fact that this is even being considered shows how strange conditions have become.

China’s newest export: One of the concerns we have about China is its debt capacity, which is broadly defined as the ability of an entity to issue debt relative to the growth the new debt generates.  There is ample evidence to suggest that the effectiveness of Chinese debt is waning; it appears that ever higher levels of new debt are necessary to bring smaller increments of growth.  That situation is a concern.  The other concern is that, with debt effectiveness waning, how will China be able to sell new debt without resorting to steadily higher interest rates?  The answer appears to be by selling debt to overseas buyers.  Bloomberg reports that debt from Special Purpose Vehicles, which are bonds used to fund municipal and provincial building projects, is finding its way into overseas portfolios.  It is unclear what currency this paper is denominated in; we suspect CNY, although we can’t always be sure.  In a yield-starved world, this paper is yielding 4.9%; one can imagine the sales pitch, “muni paper from China…they won’t default…stable currency, see the long-term chart…nice yield!”  If China decides to tap the international markets, it can likely expand its debt even further, even if the economic effects are small.  After all, if the economic impact is modestly positive and the default risk resides with foreigners, the political risks are small.  Caveat emptor!

View the complete PDF

_________________________

[1] The Glass-Steagall Act did not necessarily restrict interstate branch banking.  These laws were covered by the 1927 McFadden Act and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act.  Restrictions on branch and interstate banking were completely repealed by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994.  Interstate banking dramatically increases the ability of banks to grow, and limiting geographic scope would be the next step toward reducing bank power.

Asset Allocation Quarterly (Third Quarter 2016)

  • The U.S. economy is likely to remain in its low-growth trend and we don’t foresee a recession, given that the Fed has become less inclined to raise rates.
  • Brexit should be largely transitory for Britain, but may reveal a variety of weaknesses within the European Union.
  • The U.S. presidential elections reveal a myriad of changing views within the population. Changing policies in Washington will be important to monitor.
  • Domestic equities, diversified across capitalization sizes, maintain the lion’s share of stock allocations. Our view toward equities remains generally positive, although we expect moderate returns, absent easy policy from the Fed. Our style bias remains in favor of growth at 60/40.
  • We believe slow economic growth and low inflation, along with low global interest rates and high geopolitical risk, will keep U.S. interest rates near current levels.
  • We introduce a commodity allocation this quarter, utilizing gold. We believe gold can help address risks related to global central bank policies.

ECONOMIC VIEWPOINTS

Although U.S economic growth remains far below its long-term average, the economy continues to move forward in one of the longest expansions in modern history. The stability of the economy, more so than inflation or the strength of the labor markets, compelled the Fed to begin raising rates last December. However, with domestic economic data indicating potential pockets of instability, along with Britain’s decision to exit the European Union (Brexit), the Fed has recognized there is enough uncertainty to put further rate hikes on hold. We believe this decision is a good one, and absent future Fed policy errors we do not foresee a recession at this point in time.

Equity and bond markets around the world were shocked with the British vote to leave the EU. Equities became volatile, while bond yields in developed countries continued to decline. In our view, Brexit may create some near-term uncertainty for the British economy, but we expect the problems to be mostly transitory. The British economy will benefit from rising exports as a result of the weak British pound. Furthermore, the Bank of England has telegraphed its intention to help address uncertainty in the country’s financial system. For these reasons, we believe Britain will work its way through its departure from the EU.

However, for the rest of the EU, Brexit opens a Pandora’s Box of potential problems. On the immediate horizon, the uncertainty is likely to slow already low levels of economic growth. Germany is particularly dependent upon exports, including those to Britain. Perhaps more important is the weakness of the Italian banking system. Like many other peripheral EU countries, Italy has yet to address the billions of euros of bad loans dating back to the 2008 financial crisis. Policies thus far have generally been Band-Aids that only defer problems rather than fix them. Brexit may bring these problems to the forefront, along with the EU’s limited political cohesion and inability to address conditions in a consistent manner. Accordingly, one of the longer term risks we see from Brexit is the potential for the EU to begin unravelling.

We have long held an overwhelming domestic bias in our portfolios, recognizing weak foreign growth and elevated levels of geopolitical risk. This posture has helped insulate portfolios from risks like Brexit; however, we recognize that global markets and economies have become increasingly interconnected. If Britain or the EU were to dip into recession, this could cause the U.S. economy to grow even slower. Still, we believe the U.S. economy is likely to prove itself as the strongest one standing among developed countries.

Of course, it is a presidential election year and it’s important to acknowledge the changes taking place in Washington. For investors, it’s important to remember that Fed Chair Yellen is likely to have a much more immediate impact on portfolios than either Clinton or Trump. Still, the political forces at work reveal changing views within the country. Many of the same issues that elevated Trump also buoyed Sanders. So, whether our next president is Trump or Clinton, the issues themselves will remain. These include policy changes related to trade, taxation, immigration and income inequality, to name a few. Policy changes take time to work through the political process but, as Washington adjusts, we will carefully monitor the trends, which will affect our views toward issues including inflation, productivity, growth and valuations.

STOCK MARKET OUTLOOK

We find it ironic that even as the Fed has embarked on a policy to raise short-term interest rates, the result has actually been lower long-term rates. One could argue that the Fed’s recent policies have been an amalgamation of unintended consequences. Nevertheless, one fairly consistent outcome of Fed policy over the past few years has been the relationship between easier monetary policy and rising equity valuations. We saw a pretty clear relationship during the three rounds of Quantitative Easing (2009-2014), and we have seen it again this year in February and June, when the Fed clarified a slowing path for raising rates. For equity investors, this indicates higher potential return when the Fed chooses a path of easy monetary policy, which is a possibility going forward. Absent help from the Fed, we believe equity returns are likely to be moderate. Earnings growth remains low, while valuations are somewhat elevated. This profile isn’t necessarily negative, but we believe equity investors should temper their expectations for returns over the next several quarters.

Except for a relatively small allocation in our most aggressive portfolio, our equity allocations remain entirely domestic. Our economic viewpoint toward Europe reflects a much weaker growth environment than that of the U.S. In addition, we believe Japan is likely to struggle, and perhaps enter recession, as the yen strengthens and harms Japanese exports. Within the U.S. equity allocations, we remain diversified across capitalization sizes. For large cap allocations, we are overweight technology, energy and consumer discretionary. We have a particular emphasis in energy that adds exposure to crude oil prices, which have the potential to increase as U.S. production declines and global geopolitical risks remains elevated. We are underweight financials, healthcare, utilities and telecom. Our style bias remains in favor of growth over value (60/40).

BOND MARKET OUTLOOK

Interest rates around the world remain historically low and rates are actually negative across a wide range of maturities in many countries. Low and negative rates reflect a variety of factors, including weak global economies, disinflation, aggressive central bank policies, enormous liquidity and investor risk aversion. So, even as U.S. rates are also historically low, domestic bond yields are actually pretty high relative to many other developed countries.

We continue to include a range of different maturities in our bond allocations. One important benefit that bonds have provided over the past several quarters is diversification. Oftentimes when equity markets decline, bond prices surge, particularly for longer maturity Treasuries. The inclusion of longer maturities has benefited portfolios and we continue to include them. Our allocations include corporate bonds as well as U.S. Treasuries.

OTHER MARKETS

We continue to believe real estate can play a constructive role in portfolios, particularly where income is an objective. Although this asset class has become increasingly similar to equities, and its diversification benefits are now more limited, we believe strong fundamentals can continue to benefit investors. Valuations are high for certain industries, but we believe an attractive return/risk tradeoff is available when factoring in low interest rates and strong foreign capital flows.

This quarter we introduce a commodity allocation, which is something we have avoided for many quarters. After several years of poor performance, commodities have provided some of the highest returns this year. We have concerns that low or declining global growth may cause commodity prices to turn lower; however, we believe gold provides ballast to the risks central bankers are creating with negative interest rate policies. Gold can also provide a safe haven during periods of elevated geopolitical and currency risks.

View the complete PDF

Weekly Geopolitical Report – Meet Theresa May (July 18, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady

On Monday, July 11, U.K. Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom withdrew from the race for prime minister.  The Tories decided to end the leadership contest with Leadsom’s exit, giving the PM job to Theresa May.  She officially took over the role on Wednesday, July 13.

In this report, we will begin with a discussion of how she won.  We will offer a short biography of May, focusing on her accomplishments, temperament and leadership style.  We will also discuss her mandate and the odds of early elections.  As always, we will conclude with the potential impact on markets.

View the full report

Daily Comment (July 18, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] The big weekend news was the failed coup in Turkey.  Late Friday, news began to emerge of unusual troop movements within the country.  By evening, it was clear that a full-blown coup attempt was underway.  President Erdogan issued a statement to his followers via FaceTime to resist the coup plotters.  Although the gesture seemed rather pathetic at the time, the action does appear to have turned the tide against the coup.  By nightfall in the West, it had become apparent that the coup plotters had failed, although bloodshed continued for several hours.  Once Erdogan flew to Istanbul, the government was in control of the situation.

These charts show the reaction within the Turkish financial markets.

(Source: Bloomberg)

This chart shows the TRY/USD exchange rate on an inverted scale.  Note that the Turkish lira plunged on the news but has regained about half of its losses.

Turkish equities show a similar pattern.

(Source: Bloomberg)

This is a six-month daily candlestick chart.  Note that equities had been rallying into the event.  They have sold off hard today and are trading near the lows.  Even though the coup failed, it is unclear how far Erdogan will go in reaction to the coup.  This will be a topic of an upcoming WGR.  Nevertheless, the point is that the dragnet appears unusually wide; in fact, if the conspiracy was as wide as the arrests indicate, it is unfathomable how operational secrecy was maintained.  It appears that Erdogan is going to use this event to eliminate as many opponents as possible.  If a widespread purge follows the coup, it won’t be good for Turkish financial assets.

The other quiet event that occurred in the wake of the Turkish coup was that the PBOC used the cover of events to further depreciate the CNY.

(Source: Bloomberg)

This chart shows the CNY/USD exchange rate, inverted, over the past year.  After last August’s devaluation, China has been following a “stair step” approach to depreciate its currency, with periods of pushing the rate lower followed by consolidation.  It is becoming clear that China is trying to use a weaker currency to stimulate its economy.  This action will tend to export deflation to the rest of the world and is supportive of further declines in long-term interest rates.

Overall, the failed coup’s broader market impact appears rather modest but it does highlight the underlying risks of emerging market investing.  The bigger market impact may be felt in the aftermath of the coup as the purge has the potential to turn Turkey into an authoritarian regime.  Its relationship with NATO and its role in stabilizing the Middle East are now under question.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (July 15, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] There were two major news items overnight, the Nice terrorist attack and China’s GDP.  News reports indicate that there were 84 deaths from a terrorist attack in Nice, France.  The attacker, identified as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, a French passport holder of Tunisian descent, used a 19 tonne truck to drive into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day on the French Riviera.  Not too much is known about the assailant; he appears to be a petty criminal but was not on any terrorist watch lists.  There have been reports that IS has been actively recruiting criminals of Middle Eastern origin living in Europe.  These recruits are often not overtly religious but seem attracted to the violent nature of IS.[1]  Neighbors of Bouhlel report that he did not appear religious.  He was married with three children but, according to reports, his marriage was estranged.  President Hollande asked the French legislature to extend the state of emergency for three more months; it was due to expire.

Terror attacks such as these are nearly impossible to stop.  Normal reasoning would look for patterns, trying to create a profile that might inform when the next attack may be coming.  However, that doesn’t seem to work; after all, if small-time criminals can suddenly turn into terrorists, there is no clear way to figure out the difference.  The longer this goes on the more likely it is that the public will demand protection, which may mean that anyone with a certain religious background with a criminal record will come under increased scrutiny and surveillance, at a minimum.  The increase in fear will almost certainly have a political effect; we will be watching closely to see if Le Pen’s National Front poll numbers improve in the coming weeks.  On the other hand, the financial markets have become so inured to these events that there is scant evidence of an effect on todays’ trade.

China’s Q2 GDP rose 6.7% from last year, a bit better than the 6.6% expected.  The data is (not surprisingly) in line with government growth targets.  The rise in credit has lifted GDP at the risk of increasing non-performing loans in the future.

(Source: Bloomberg)

This chart shows that private investment continues to fall; essentially, the government was able to meet its goals by boosting public investment.  Property investment is up 6.1% YTD compared to the same period last year.  It is unclear if another rise in real estate activity is a good long-term plan.  The good news of the data is that the Chinese economy isn’t in imminent danger.  The bad news is that it is likely creating future debt problems that could be serious in order to avoid problems now.

With the release of CPI data, we can tentatively update our versions of the Mankiw rule model.  This model attempts 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 with potential GDP, Mankiw used the unemployment rate as a proxy for economic slack.  We have created three versions of the rule, one that follows the original construction by using the unemployment rate as a measure of slack, a second that uses the employment/population ratio and a third using involuntary part-time workers as a percentage of the total labor force.

Using the unemployment rate, the neutral rate is now up to 3.93%, suggesting the FOMC is well behind the curve.  Using the employment/population ratio, the neutral rate is 1.31%, indicating that, even using the most dovish variation, the FOMC needs a rate hike of at least 75 to 100 bps to achieve neutral policy.  Finally, using involuntary part-time employment, the neutral rate is 2.54%.  Currently, fed funds futures place the odds of a September hike at 21%.  A probability in excess of 50% isn’t seen until June 2017.  We had three Fed speakers yesterday; none suggested a rate was required in the near term.  With the immediate impact of Brexit mostly out of the way and no policy tightening on the horizon, there is clear evidence of improving investor confidence.  The next two events of consequence are the Italian referendum on government reform in October and the November U.S. elections.  In the wake of Brexit, we would expect EU officials to give some ground to Italy; we note that the new head of Italy’s largest bank, UniCredit (UCG, €2.18), called for a “more lenient stance” on bank support from the EU.  Although the risk of a President Trump is, in our opinion, probably higher than polls suggest, it is still nothing more than a coin flip.  Essentially, the biggest risk we identified in our 2016 outlook, a policy mistake by the FOMC, is becoming less likely, at least in terms of tightening too much and too often.  On the other hand, we may be facing the other risk, which is that stable policy triggers financial market exuberance.

View the complete PDF

___________________________

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-isis-recruits-have-deep-criminal-roots/2016/03/23/89b2e590-f12e-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html