Daily Comment (April 11, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] German 10-year sovereign yields are down to 11 bps this morning.  Falling German yields are translating into low U.S. Treasury yields.

(Source: Bloomberg)

Since mid-2013, when Chairman Bernanke unveiled tapering, the two yields have been closely linked.  Interestingly enough, the spread between these rates has been rather closely linked to the EUR/USD exchange rate.

Based on the long-duration sovereign spread, the EUR/USD exchange rate is about in line with fundamentals.  For a weaker EUR, assuming all else remains constant, the long-duration spread would need to widen.  It is hard to see how much further German yields could fall as they are close to negative levels.  That isn’t to say German yields could not fall below zero, but falling much below zero probably isn’t likely.  Thus, a stronger EUR/USD will likely come with rising long-dated Treasury rates.  As long as inflation expectations remain anchored and the Fed policy rate moves slowly, a major rise in Treasury yields is unlikely.  Overall, we would expect a mostly steady EUR/USD into Q2.

An interesting NYT article caught our attention over the weekend reporting that there has been an upswing in intergenerational housing.[1]

(Source: Pew Research)

One of the effects of Social Security was to allow the elderly to stay in their own homes until they either required nursing care or passed away.  This was a major change from housing habits prior to the Great Depression.  However, we have seen a steady rise in the number of Americans living in multigenerational housing, particularly since 1990.  We suspect the insecurity of incomes for younger Americans and the need to attach to older Americans’ steadier income (due to regular Social Security) has led to this development.  In other words, economic factors are leading American families into arrangements where incomes are being pooled, a response to low income growth.  The NYT article noted that home builders have taken notice of this trend and are building new homes with accommodations for multiple generations.  This social development, coupled with older Americans remaining attached to the labor force, is part of the adaptations being made due to slower family income growth.

View the complete PDF

______________________

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/your-money/multigenerational-homes-that-fit-just-right.html

Asset Allocation Weekly (April 8, 2016)

by Asset Allocation Committee

One of our key investment decisions in terms of asset allocation has been to avoid emerging markets.   There are primarily two reasons for this call.

First, as the U.S. pulls back from its superpower position, the emerging world, which tends to be more dependent on exports for economic development, faces two significant risks.

  1. Their geopolitical position becomes more tenuous because the U.S. is less likely to “keep the peace” in the world.
  2. The American role of providing the reserve currency and acting as a consumer of last resort for emerging economy exports is at risk. Since the end of WWII, export promotion has been the most successful economic development model.  This model only works if there is an importer of last resort.  By providing the reserve currency, the U.S. has played that role.  If America stops acting as the primary purchaser of exports, the export promotion model collapses.

Second, a stronger dollar weighs on the relative performance of emerging markets to a dollar-based investor.  Again, there are two reasons for this outcome.

  1. Many emerging market economies are commodity producers and a strong dollar tends to dampen demand for commodities because they are priced in dollars. A stronger dollar raises the price of commodities for all non-dollar consumers, thus lowering total demand.
  2. Emerging economies often borrow in dollars because the interest rate is lower. As long as the dollar doesn’t appreciate, the debt service cost on these dollar loans is lower.  However, a stronger dollar will tend to lift debt service costs which hurt emerging economy growth and raise the risk of financial problems.

The dollar has been strengthening since 2014 due to the divergence of monetary policy between the Federal Reserve (Fed) and other central banks.  The Fed was very aggressive in easing after the 2008-09 recession, not only keeping rates at zero but implementing three rounds of quantitative easing.  The other major central banks tended to lag U.S. efforts.  However, in late 2013, the Fed began to taper its additions to the balance sheet and last December the FOMC raised rates for the first time since 2006.  This change in policy, coincident with other central banks becoming more aggressive in their policy accommodation, led to a stronger dollar.

This chart shows the relative index performance of the S&P and the MSCI Emerging Market Index.  When the blue line on the chart is rising, the S&P 500 is outperforming emerging markets and vice versa.  The JPM dollar index is directly correlated with the relative performance of these equity indices at the 86% level.  As we noted above, a stronger dollar tends to weigh on emerging market equity performance.

Interestingly, the dollar fell sharply last month.  There is growing evidence that Fed Chairwoman Yellen is keeping policy easier than the Phillips Curve would justify; one of the factors she seems to be targeting is the dollar.  It is clear that the strong dollar has weighed on net exports and the industrial sector, pressuring U.S. economic growth lower.  If the Fed decides to guide the dollar lower, emerging markets will look more attractive.

The key issue for our investment committee is whether these trends are durable enough for a cyclical allocation.  The longer term outlook for emerging markets is still problematic if America’s foreign policy trends remain in place.  That will be part of our decision process in upcoming allocation meetings.

View the PDF

Daily Comment (April 8, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] The WTO released its global trade data for 2015 yesterday along with its forecasts for this year and next.  The sum of imports and exports rose 2.8% last year and is expected to rise at the same pace this year, rising to 3.6% in 2017.  The WTO noted that the past five years have been the slowest trade expansion in the postwar world.  Although trade volumes rose 2.8%, the value of trade plunged 13% due to the dollar’s strength.  Container shipping volumes were flat last year.

(Source: WTO)

This chart shows container traffic on a volume basis.  This indicator peaked in mid-2014 and recovered to its old highs at the end of last year.

(Source: WTO)

This table shows the world’s largest importers and exporters.  Note the growth declines seen across the board.  On the export side, only Vietnam showed positive growth and none of the 30 largest importers increased last year.  The world’s largest exporter remains China, with a 13.8% share of total exports; its exports fell 2.9% last year.  The U.S. is the second largest (a cautionary note for the political class, which is becoming increasingly protectionist), but U.S. exports fell over 7% last year.  Germany, the world’s third largest exporter, saw the value of its exports decline by 11.0%.  Also note that oil exporters suffered massive declines, with Saudi Arabia falling 41.1% and Russia off 31.6%.  On the import side, the U.S. remains the world’s largest importer, with a 13.8% share; the value of U.S. imports fell 4.3%.

The drop in trade is partially due to the strong dollar but that isn’t the whole story.  We suspect two factors are at work.  First, slow U.S. economic growth is dampening global trade.  Because of America’s reserve currency status, the U.S. is the global importer of last resort.  Deleveraging and weak economic activity is reducing America’s ability to fulfill that role, leading to weaker trade.  Second, without American leadership on trade, the world is slipping into mercantilism and “beggar thy neighbor” trade policies.  This development not only weakens global economic growth, but it makes the world a more dangerous place.  Nations that trade can still go to war with each other (the world was quite integrated before WWI), but trade does make the idea of conflict between trading powers more costly.  Falling trade leads to a scramble to capture aggregate demand from other nations and fosters protectionism.

In that light, the Japanese finance minister warned that the JPY is strengthening too quickly and fear of intervention has eased some of the currency’s strength today.  We are leaning toward the idea that Chairwoman Yellen is using the dollar as a policy indicator, which is really bad news for the ECB and BOJ.  This is a development we will be monitoring in the coming weeks (and which we discussed at length in yesterday’s comment).

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (April 7, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] Yesterday’s FOMC minutes generally confirmed what we have been hearing from committee members over the past few weeks, namely, that international concerns are worrying members and keeping policy steady.  Of the 17 members on the committee, eight viewed the risks to be shifting toward slower growth, while six saw the risks as balanced between slower growth and inflation.  Eleven members expected inflation to trend lower.  These numbers suggest a dovish bias, so it seems unlikely that the Fed will move to raise rates this month.  This chart actually captures two of the risks mentioned by Fed members recently, international developments and the weakness in market inflation projections.

This chart shows the five-year forward inflation expectations from the TIPS spread and the JPM dollar index (on an inverted scale).  Since early 2008, the correlation between these two series is 77.8%; essentially, the dollar appears to be driving inflation expectations.  Although we would never expect the Fed to openly target the dollar for policy purposes, in fact, weakening the dollar is probably the best remaining tool in the Fed’s policy toolbox.  Unfortunately for the FOMC, there are two problems with this policy.  First, the exchange rate is not its policy mandate; the Treasury is in charge of exchange rate policy even though it has no tools to affect the exchange rate.  Thus, targeting the dollar is not part of the Fed’s Congressional mandate and could create legal trouble if it becomes an official policy goal.[1]  Second, an open policy to weaken the dollar could trigger a currency war reminiscent of the 1930s.  Still, if the Fed is successful in weakening the dollar (see below for more on this topic), it will reduce policy stimulus for the rest of the world, especially in Europe and developed Asia.

The JPY has strengthened considerably in recent weeks despite the BOJ’s foray into negative interest rates (NIRP).  The impotence of BOJ policy suggests that Fed policy is the primary driver of exchange rates in the current environment.  First, a look at the JPY/USD exchange rate:

(Source: Bloomberg)

This shows the exchange rate in JPY per USD on an inverted scale.  PM Abe took office in late 2012 and began Abenomics, which was a set of policies designed to boost Japanese economic growth and inflation.  One of the primary tools was currency weakness.  The JPY weakened in two phases, falling initially from 78 ¥/$ to over 100 ¥/$, and then, after additional stimulus, the currency took another leg down in 2014.  The latter drop was more likely due to a strengthening U.S. economy and expectations of the end of Fed monetary accommodation.  In January of this year, when the BOJ announced NIRP, the currency weakened (see arrow) but that drop failed to hold.  Since then, the JPY has steadily strengthened.  This is profoundly bad news for the Japanese economy.  The forex markets are going to force some sort of reaction from the Abe government but its most effective tool, intervention, will be very controversial given that we believe the FOMC is deliberately trying to weaken the dollar.  What makes it even worse is that such a move would become political fodder for the U.S. presidential primary candidates who are leaning against globalization.

Overall, the JPY could have a lot further to strengthen.

This chart shows a purchasing power parity valuation mode of the JPY/USD, which uses the ratio of inflation rates to value the exchange rate.  The theory suggests the economy with lower inflation should have a stronger exchange rate.  Because Japan is deflating, the parity rate is much stronger than the current exchange rate; in fact, at current rates, the JPY is a full standard error weaker than forecast.  Although we don’t expect the Abe government to allow the JPY to continue to strengthen without a fight, the general undervalued nature of the JPY may make it difficult to prevent the strengthening trend from continuing unless the Fed moves to tighten soon.

We had a surprise draw in crude oil stocks yesterday which was clearly bullish for crude oil.  A decline this time of year is unusual and may portend a lower seasonal peak.  However, Bloomberg is reporting that there are pipeline problems affecting Canadian exports to the U.S. which led to the unexpected draw in stockpiles.  If the problems are fixed this week, we will likely see a surge in imports next week to make up for this week’s draw.  This is probably why oil prices have not been able to follow through this morning.

China’s forex reserves rose $10 bn in March, rising to $3.213 bn.  Although this is a positive number on its face as it suggests that capital fight might be easing, the market reaction has been rather modest.  We will probably need to see a couple of months of reserve stability before we can declare that the PBOC has successfully contained the seeming panic of capital outflows.

Finally, the ripple effects from the Panama Wikileaks disclosures continue to mount.  Iceland’s government has been rocked by the revelations, with the PM resigning and the finance minister coming under fire.  Britain’s PM is catching flack for his family’s use of offshore accounts and the U.S. Treasury is apparently looking into whether the account violates sanctions against Russia.  President Putin apparently has it figured out—the leaks are a Western plot to undermine the Russian state.  On the topic of Russia, the FT is reporting that Putin is forming a National Guard that will be completely under his control.  The belief is that this body will be mostly for civil order, suggesting Putin is becoming worried about rising protests against his regime as the economy stumbles.

View the complete PDF

______________________

[1] It should be noted that other central banks do have a forex mandate.  The ECB is given the task of currency stability (although to date that hasn’t been defined), and the Hong Kong monetary authority’s only real job is to maintain the USD/HKD peg.

Daily Comment (April 6, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] It was another quiet overnight session.  Oil prices jumped on reports from the American Petroleum Institute’s (API) weekly oil storage data, which showed an unexpected draw in stockpiles.  The API data can diverge from the official DOE data, which we receive at 10:30 EDT today.  A draw this time of year is unusual and, if confirmed by the government data, would be bullish for oil.  We are approaching the end of the inventory build season (more on this tomorrow); once seasonal stock draws begin, some of the pressure on oil prices will start to abate.  The other factor that has slipped under the radar screen on oil is that the dollar has weakened considerably in the past few weeks and the relationship of the dollar and oil has been virtually as tight as the one with inventory…so much so that they are statistically collinear.  If the dollar continues to weaken, oil prices (and, high yield bonds) will be a significant beneficiary.

The dollar has weakened because the Federal Reserve has backed away from its tightening path for this year.  Policy divergence has been a key element behind the dollar’s rally; as the Fed was tightening, the ECB and the BOJ have been easing.  Interestingly enough, we really never knew for sure which was more important—the relative hawkishness of the Fed or the dovishness of the ECB and BOJ.  Recent behavior seems to suggest that the most important factor is the Fed.  Today, the minutes of the most recent meeting will be released.  We would generally expect to see a report that is somewhat more hawkish than what the statement and press conference indicated.  This is because there is a constituency on the committee that adheres to the Phillips Curve and thus wants to see tightening accelerate.  Even dovish Boston FRB President Rosengren was quoted earlier this week warning that the markets have become too complacent about policy accommodation.  Thus, we would not be surprised to see a somewhat bearish surprise with the release.

One of the variables we closely monitor is the level of retail money market funds.  In general, rising levels of cash tend to be bearish for equity markets.

This chart shows the level of retail money market funds along with the S&P 500.  It appears that as investors liquidate equity positions, the funds are held in money markets, at least initially.  Equity market weakness in Q1 is reflected in the jump in money market funds held.  Note that we are starting to see money market fund levels decline and equities recover.  If the preferred level of funds is around $900 bn, there is a chance that equities will surprise to the upside.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (April 5, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] We are seeing weaker equity markets this morning with little news flow.  The Treasury has announced new inversion rules that will likely discourage some of the merger activity.  The Panama papers are also sowing fear in the financial markets.  However, the most likely reason for the weakness is that equity markets are getting a bit frothy.

For several years we have noted that the S&P 500 has mostly tracked the size of the Fed’s balance sheet.  Whether this relationship is spurious isn’t completely clear, although we note that the balance sheet also tracks the Shiller CAPE since the bull market began in 2009.

Since 2009, the correlation of the CAPE and the Fed’s balance sheet is nearly 90%.  This would suggest that one of the positive factors from unconventional monetary policy was to lift investor sentiment.  Secular trends in stocks are usually measured around P/Es.  Secular bears usually have flat P/Es while secular bulls have rising P/Es.  The rise in P/Es has led some analysts to declare that a new secular bull began in 2009.  It might be true.  However, we disagree with this assessment because it seems that the expansion in P/Es hasn’t occurred because investors believe their world has improved markedly.  Instead, investors have gotten on board because they feel the FOMC has “got their back.”  Thus, to argue this is a new secular bull market means one believes that monetary policy will always be accommodative.  Simply put, the real test will be how P/Es behave when the balance sheet begins to contract.

So, let’s return to the model chart.  The model uses the Fed’s balance sheet and the St. Louis FRB financial stress index.  Currently, equity markets are “rich” to the model, running one standard error above forecast.  Fair value is 1990.51 based on current values for the balance sheet and financial stress (which is declining).  Overall, this suggests that the equity markets have gotten a bit ahead of themselves and, at a minimum, we should see a period of consolidation.

As equity markets have turned lower, the JPY has been on a tear.  The strength in the Japanese currency has led to a sharp drop in the Nikkei.  If the currency continues to appreciate, Abenomics will be in grave danger of failing (not that it has been a rousing success anyway).  Although BOJ Governor Kuroda has been downplaying the likelihood of further stimulus, the need is becoming rather obvious.  Thus, further negative rates might be possible.  However, the real goal is a weaker JPY; intervention may be the only effective tool left to the BOJ, but intervening in the current political environment in the U.S. could prompt a very negative reaction from the Obama government and will surely be a topic for future candidate debates.

Finally, the FT is reporting that Saudi Arabia is using its clout in the oil shipping business to disrupt Iran’s bid to boost oil exports.  Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have banned Iranian tankers from using their ports or traversing their territorial waters.  The Saudis, who are also part-owners of holding tanks in Egyptian ports, have denied Iranian vessel access.  These moves have slowed Iran’s return to global markets and are bound to increase tensions between the two nations.

View the complete PDF

Weekly Geopolitical Report – The Archetypes of American Foreign Policy: A Reprise (April 4, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady

We are currently experiencing one of the most contentious primary election seasons in at least 35 years.  Candidates have made numerous incendiary statements about foreign policy that offer insights into their thinking.  However, without a paradigm, it can be difficult for investors to determine what foreign policy decisions a candidate is likely to make.  By using these archetypes of American foreign policy, one can more easily anticipate how a candidate today might act if they were to occupy the Oval Office.  For this reason, I decided that our readers would benefit from a “refresh” of this study.

In 2012, we published a report titled “The Archetypes of American Foreign Policy.”  In that article, I borrowed heavily from Walter Russell Mead in his 2002 book, Special Providence.[1]  Mead took a unique approach in describing policy positions, using historical figures instead of abstract models.  Other policy analysts have used terms like “realists” or “idealists.”  Unfortunately, these broad generalizations fail to fully express the subtleties of American foreign policy.

Mead named four archetypes: Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian.  Each one of these archetypes has specific characteristics that describe the viewpoints and behavior of a policymaker of that certain type.  Mead does admit that other archetypes have existed throughout American history.  For example, the Davisonian was an archetype named after the President of the Confederate States of America.  Its goal was the preservation and expansion of slavery, and Davisonian foreign policy would be designed to support that institution.  Of course, this archetype ceased to exist after the South lost the Civil War.

By using a real historical figure as a representative of that archetype, it helps the reader to envision the position of that particular “school.”  As with all archetypes, these are considered model specimens for that particular type.  In real life, even these historical figures probably don’t fully capture the image that Mead projects for each type.  Actual policymakers tend to be a mix of these four types; rarely will a policymaker be of pure form.  However, the archetypes do offer a construct for an analyst to examine and predict the foreign policy behavior of elected officials.

In this report, we will briefly describe and discuss the four archetypes of American foreign policy.[2]  With presidential elections less than eight months away, I hope that this discussion will assist readers in examining the candidates and their potential foreign policy positions, using these archetypes as a guide.  This report will conclude with my characterization of the current leading candidates.

View the full report

____________________

[1] Mead, W. R. (2002). Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World. New York, NY: Routledge.

[2] However, readers are urged to read Mead’s aforementioned book so as to better understand his position on the four major types of foreign policy.  My short report does not fully do justice to a 340-page book.

Daily Comment (April 4, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady and Kaisa Stucke

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT] There wasn’t too much market news overnight as several Asian markets were closed for holiday.  However, there were several major news splashes from WikiLeaks, one of which published a massive database from the offshore law firm Mossack Fonseca.  A German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung, obtained the data from anonymous sources and shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).  The firm was involved in creating offshore tax shields; its base of operations is in Panama (which is why you are seeing these referred to as the “Panama Papers”), but it has 600 employees working in 42 countries.  The client list is quite impressive and includes the current president of Argentina, the PM of Iceland (who is facing a no-confidence vote due to the revelations), the King and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the president of Ukraine, among others.  The list revealed that family members and friends of various leaders also used the firm’s services.  Azerbaijan’s first family were clients, as were some childhood friends of Vladmir Putin; even U.K. PM Cameron’s dad used the firm.[1]  This leak will cause some consternation in a number of countries and could undermine some governments.  The aforementioned Iceland appears to the first on the list but others are likely.

The other interesting WikiLeaks report is that it appears the IMF is putting strong pressure on Eurozone governments to give debt relief to Greece.  According to several reports, the IMF is pressing for a Greek default and is threatening to withdraw from negotiations.  Germany has insisted on IMF participation in part to offer an international imprimatur for enforcing austerity on Greece.  The negotiations on the last bailout are not complete and this news has raised anger in Athens that the IMF may use brinkmanship to force the EU to give Greece debt concessions.  The risk is that the EU refuses and Greece is faced with another financial crisis.  Given that Greece is the front line for the refugee crisis as well, the country is feeling a bit abandoned by the EU.  This leak won’t help.

With China’s growth peaking, one of the questions we are asked occasionally is, “Who is the next China?”  In the late 1980s, we were asked who the “next Japan” would be; it turned out to be, in fact, China.  Business Insider reports that India is likely the next low cost/high growth manufacturing giant on the horizon.  In terms of oil, India is now the third largest consumer, surpassing Japan recently (trailing the U.S. and China).   India has been frustrating to watch; shackled by the post-WWII British Labor Party socialist model, regulations have slowed development.  There was great hope that PM Modi would be the Thatcher/Reagan of India.  So far, he has been the Modi of India.  However, even without a “big bang” there has been steady improvement.  With India’s oil demand rising, the country is considering the creation of a strategic reserve, which would boost global demand and offer some support for prices.  According to reports, India is considering a 90 mb reserve.  It has also changed foreign investment rules to streamline investment into India’s energy sector.   Given the current low oil price environment, it would make good sense for India to consider building inventory capacity.  Although this decision, by itself, won’t fix the global oversupply problem, it is a good sign that demand is starting to react to low prices.

View the complete PDF

_______________________

[1]https://panamapapers.icij.org/the_power_players/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2AMideast%20Brief

Asset Allocation Weekly (April 1, 2016)

by Asset Allocation Committee

In the most recent GDP report, corporate profits plunged.

The overall decline in profits was $153 bn in Q4, although some of this drop was due to an $83 bn settlement that BP had with the government over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  We have been noting for some time that profit margins have been eroding.  This data tends to confirm that concern.

In our earnings forecast, we use a similar number from the National Income and Products Accounts (NIPA) that is similar to the above profits report except that it includes corporate taxes as well.

This chart shows the relationship between S&P 500 earnings as a percentage of GDP and the NIPA corporate profits after tax, depreciation and inventory adjustment.  We include this variable in a larger model that we use to project S&P earnings compared to GDP.  For the most part, the two series tend to track each other rather closely.  Periods when S&P earnings greatly exceed the NIPA numbers tend to signal that such divergences are not sustainable and they are resolved by a drop in S&P earnings.  Such divergences are evident in 1980, 2000 and 2007.  Fortunately, the two readings are not currently diverging.

Using the NIPA profits and GDP forecasts from the Philadelphia FRB, the relationship suggests that profits will recover in 2016.  In our latest update to our 2016 outlook, we reduced our earnings for the year mostly due to margin contraction.[1]  The most recent GDP data generally confirms this trend.  Overall, we are looking for a mostly flat year for the equity markets due to sluggish economic growth and mostly flat margins.  At the same time, we do not expect a recession this year, which should prevent a major pullback in equities.

View the PDF

_____________________

[1] See 2016: An Update.