Asset Allocation Weekly (March 13, 2020)

by Asset Allocation Committee

Our baseline position has been that the COVID-19 virus would have a significant impact in terms of magnitude but be of limited duration and thus would probably not put the economy into recession.  Over the past week, two events have occurred which put this position into question.  The first is the oil market collapse triggered by a market share war between Russia and Saudi Arabia.[1]  The second issue is that the financial system is exhibiting symptoms of liquidity problems.

We have noted a sudden decline in financial conditions as measured by the Bloomberg Financial Conditions Index for the U.S.

Our data uses the Friday closes for the index.  The index is composed of eight variables[2] which are standardized and totaled.  The more negative the reading, the greater the level of financial stress.  The index was positive until the last week of February.  The current level of stress is about on par with March 2008 during the collapse of Bear Stearns.

This data suggests a serious level of financial problems in the financial system.  We have noted difficulties in the funding markets since September.  Although the Fed has consistently claimed there was nothing systemic in the rise of repo rates, the persistence of the funding shortages despite the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet by $400 billion argues otherwise.

What is the nature of the financial stress?  Its roots most likely lay with interest rates being too low for too long; investors had to extend their portfolio risk to find attractive yields.  The financial services industry took steps to provide financial products with more attractive yields.  Some of this product creation went to the non-bank financing system which funds itself in the repo markets.  If repo markets are disrupted, they can no longer service the debt they used to own the higher yielding assets and liquidations occur.  If no liquid market exists for these products, the owners may be forced to sell other assets (gold, Treasuries, equities, investment grade bonds) to find necessary liquidity.  Recent weakness in “risk off” assets would tend to confirm rising levels of financial stress.  A contributing factor is the plunge in oil prices, which raises default risk among energy companies.

The Federal Reserve should be able to corral this problem if it moves aggressively enough to force liquidity into the financial system.  Unfortunately, as we saw in 2008, it may be difficult to pinpoint exactly where the funding problems lie.  But, the key lesson from 2008 is that enforcing moral hazard is a bad idea; we doubt such a policy will be executed in this event.  Although a few of our economic indicators have moved to signal recession, the preponderance have not.  On the other hand, the yield curve did invert last year, and we have been on “recession watch” for some time.[3]

How does all this affect equity markets?  The chart below can offer some guidance.  This chart shows the weekly close of the S&P 500 going back to late 1927.  We log-transform the index and regress a time trend through the data.  The parallel lines represent various standard error levels from trend; the gray bars show recessions.  It is obvious that, with the exception of 1945, every recession has led to some degree of stock market weakness.

To compare recessions, we measured the high reached before the recession to the low in the index during the downturn in terms of movements in standard errors.  Here is a table of the events.

Range represents the change in standard error from high to low.  So, the Great Depression saw the market fall nearly six standard errors, a true “six-sigma” event.  The current decline is consistent with a normal recession, so if policymakers can secure the financial system and absorb the quarantine effect of COVID-19, then equity markets should stabilize soon.  A deep recession (but not including the Great Depression) would put the S&P 500 around 1640, a much more profound decline.

The postwar experience doesn’t support two consecutive deep recessions, which is why we have argued that another 2008 is unlikely.  Of course, we did have consecutive deep recessions in the 1930s: the 1936-37 recession was caused by profoundly inept policy when the Roosevelt administration tightened fiscal policy while the Federal Reserve raised rates.  The odds of a similar event occurring in the current situation is improbable; both fiscal and monetary policy are accommodative and will almost certainly become more so.  About the only way we have a deep recession is if the policy response is strikingly underwhelming.  Although possible, that is a low probability outcome.

So, the bottom line is that we will likely see a few weeks of churning and perhaps a decline toward 2300, but the worst of this downturn is probably over.  Liquidity injections and the natural waning of COVID-19 should improve sentiment over time.  We are probably very close to the low in terms of price but not in terms of time.  It will probably take a few weeks of basing before a durable recovery can develop. 

View the PDF


[1] We discussed this issue in our most recent Weekly Energy Update.

[2] TED spread, LIBOR/OIS spread, commercial paper/T-bill spread, Baa/10-year T-Note spread, Muni/10-year T-Note spread, swap volatility, the S&P 500 and the VIX.  There are other similar indices with a larger set of variables, but the Bloomberg variation is calculated daily, whereas the others are calculated weekly or monthly.

[3] Hence the title of our outlook for 2020, “Storm Watch.”

Weekly Energy Update (March 12, 2020)

by Bill O’Grady, Thomas Wash, and Patrick Fearon-Hernandez, CFA

Crude oil inventories rose 7.7 mb compared to the forecast rise of 1.7 mb.

In the details, U.S. crude oil production fell 0.1 mbpd to 13.0 mbpd.  Exports fell 0.7 mbpd, while imports rose 0.2 mbpd.  The inventory build was more than forecast due to falling exports and rising imports.

(Sources: DOE, CIM)

This chart shows the annual seasonal pattern for crude oil inventories.  This week’s report rose to seasonal norms.  Inventories will be expected to rise steady into late May.  We will be watching the above chart closely in the coming weeks for signs that inventories are rising abnormally due to the market share war described below.

Based on our oil inventory/price model, fair value is $56.46; using the euro/price model, fair value is $53.22.  The combined model, a broader analysis of the oil price, generates a fair value of $53.57.  The model has lifted its fair value calculations due to dollar weakness; however, under current circumstances, the model output is less relevant unless Russia and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) come to an agreement on supply.

The big news in oil is the market share war that has emerged from the recent OPEC+Russia meeting.  The KSA was unable to convince Russia to contribute to supply restrictions and Riyadh has announced an all-out supply war.  Prices plunged this week in response.

The following two charts show the KSA’s thinking.  The Saudis have, in their history, had one market they keyed on where they wanted either to be the largest or second largest supplier.  In the 1970s through the 1990s, that market was the U.S.  There were two reasons for this.  The U.S. was the largest importer of crude oil and provided security for the KSA.  Thus, the kingdom did not want to lose share in the U.S. because (a) it was the most important market in the world, and (b) it feared the U.S. would view providing security as less critical if the KSA was seen as less important.  During two previous market share wars, in 1986 and 1997-99, the loss of share was a triggering event.  The chart below shows WTI along with the Saudi rank as foreign supplier to the U.S. market.  The gray bars are designated as market share wars.

Until 1986, the KSA acted as “swing producer” for OPEC.[1]  This led to a near-catastrophic loss of market share in the U.S.  In December 1985, the KSA signaled it was abandoning the swing producer role and would retake market share.  Oil prices fell from the low $30s to near $10 per barrel before the rest of OPEC capitulated and agreed to output cuts.  In the mid-to-late 1990s, the KSA was losing market share in the U.S. to Venezuela, which had invited foreign company oil investment in order to boost output capacity.  The KSA retaliated with supply increases into the Asian Financial Crisis.  Prices fell from the mid-$20s to near $10.  The war ended when Venezuelan President-elect Hugo Chavez signaled an end to the supply war, eventually ending the policy of using foreign investment to lift capacity.  Prices rapidly recovered.

This time around, the U.S. is not the target of the KSA.  The U.S. has made it clear that it is reducing its security footprint in the Middle East and, with the onset of shale production and a “captured” Canadian oil market,[2] the KSA can’t really defend its U.S. share.  Instead, it has staked its future on rising Chinese oil demand, and likely hopes that, at some point, it will be able to receive security support from China as well.[3]  Therefore, the KSA is committed to be the preeminent oil supplier to Beijing.  Russia is threatening that position.

This chart shows the share of China’s oil imports from the KSA, Russia and Iran.  From 2006 to 2012, the KSA held a dominant share.  But, since 2014 (when the KSA reversed its policy on trying to drive down shale oil production via lower prices), Russia’s share has been competing with the KSA.

So, given this background, how do we expect this to play out?  Most OPEC nations are rentier states; they use revenue from oil to support government spending.  In addition, these nations tend to suffer from the “Dutch disease,” a condition where a commodity export tends to boost exchange rates, making domestic industries less competitive.  This process tends to lift imports and consumers become used to low-priced goods from abroad.  As a result, currency depreciation tends to be politically unpopular.  When the KSA fought for market share in the past, its competitors tended to avoid currency depreciation, which is an effective buffer to the costs of the market share war.  In other words, a foreign oil company sells its product for dollars but pays its workers in local currency.  If the currency depreciates, then its production costs compared to output prices decline.  Russia has shown a tendency to depreciate the RUB when oil prices decline.  The next chart shows that tendency.

This chart shows Brent crude oil prices and the RUB/USD exchange rate (inverted scale).  Note that as oil prices decline, the RUB falls with it.  If Russia engages in similar behavior, it will give it more “staying power” in the share war.

How much will this event affect employment?  In the oil patch, it will be signficant.

Assuming we see $25 WTI, we will likely see nearly 40k jobs lost in oil and gas extraction.  But, as the chart shows, it will take about 18 months to occur.

The bottom line is that this share war will likely get rather ugly.  The KSA is pushing supply into the world market and it has no place to go.  The U.S. oil industry will suffer greatly, but production probably won’t start to decline until autumn, when price hedges will likely roll off.  Iran will also be crushed by this move; the little oil it is selling will fall dramatically in price.  We look for prices to fall into the low $20s in the coming months.

View the PDF


[1] A swing producer adjusts output to fix a price.

[2] Canada’s pipeline system is limited, so most of its output ends up in the U.S. market.  This means, at least in terms of the oil market, that Canadian production can be thought of as U.S. supply.

[3] This is a bit of a pipedream.  Although China’s military is growing rapidly, it is still years away from being able to project power beyond its borders.

Weekly Geopolitical Report – On Pandemics (March 9, 2020)

by Bill O’Grady

Since January, the world has been dealing with the COVID-19 virus, a new coronavirus that has been spreading around the world.  Because this situation is still evolving, it is too early to determine the overall impact of this specific virus.  We update our views on COVID-19 regularly in our Daily Comment report.

In this report, we will examine the general geopolitical consequences of pandemics.  We will start with a broad description of pandemics.  From there, we will discuss the key problem facing policymakers, how to create the proper response to such events.  An analysis of the impact on social and economic conditions will follow. As always, we will conclude with market ramifications.

What is a Pandemic?
To define a pandemic, it makes sense to define the stages before a disease reaches that category.

  1. Sporadic: This is a disease that occurs infrequently and irregularly. An occasional case of polio or measles that doesn’t spread would fall into this category.  It usually doesn’t require a policy response.
  2. Endemic: This is a disease that is constant or has usual prevalence within a specific geographic area. Annual influenza would be an example.
  3. Epidemic: This is a disease that shows a sudden and large increase in infections within a specific area.
  4. Pandemic: This is an epidemic disease that spreads to a wider geographic area.

View the full report

Asset Allocation Weekly (March 6, 2020)

by Asset Allocation Committee

In the turmoil caused by COVID-19, fixed income has performed remarkably well.  Ten-year T-note yields have declined to record lows and, as we will show below, there is no evidence of severe stress in the credit markets.

First, here is what we are seeing in Treasuries.

This chart shows our 10-year T-note model.  It uses fed funds, the 15-year average of inflation,[1] the yen/dollar exchange rate, oil prices, German bund yields and fiscal deficits as a percentage of GDP.  At the end of last year, the fair value was around 2.40%; as the above chart shows, it has declined sharply to 1.94%.  Of course, that yield remains well above current yields.  The implied three-month LIBOR rate from the two-year deferred Eurodollar futures suggests the financial markets expect another 50 bps of rate cuts over the next two years.  Even assuming a 0.75% fed funds target only lowers the fair value to 1.84%.  Assuming those rate cuts at a German bund yield of -3.60% (a decline of 300 bps from current levels) would get the model to current yields.  A negative yield to that level would be unprecedented.  The most likely justification for current yields would be a sharp drop in inflation expectations.  If inflation expectations decline to 1% per year along with the assumption of 100 bps of rate cuts, that would justify current yields.  This analysis suggests that long-duration Treasuries are richly valued at current levels, and if our base case that COVID-19 won’t trigger a recession is accurate, then a back-up in these yields would be expected.

What is perhaps most interesting is that there has not been a strong reaction in credit.  Comparing the 10-year to Baa yields shows that spreads have not moved significantly, only around 30 bps.

In high yield, spreads have widened as well, but the increase is not notable so far.

Yields have increased by 80 bps but remain 120 bps below average.

The lack of pressure in the credit markets, at least to this point, suggests the current situation probably won’t evolve into deep financial crisis or a recession.  We will continue to monitor the credit markets closely in the coming weeks, but financial stress appears quite manageable for now.

View the PDF


[1] Which is a proxy for inflation expectations.

Weekly Energy Update (March 5, 2020)

by Bill O’Grady, Thomas Wash, and Patrick Fearon-Hernandez, CFA

Crude oil inventories rose 0.8 mb compared to the forecast rise of 3.0 mb.

In the details, U.S. crude oil production rose 0.1 mbpd to a new record of 13.1 mbpd.  Exports rose 0.5 mbpd, while imports were unchanged.  The inventory build was less than forecast due to rising exports and steady imports.

(Sources: DOE, CIM)

This chart shows the annual seasonal pattern for crude oil inventories.  This week’s report was less than the usual seasonal patterns, and the gap between the normal pace of inventory accumulation and the actual widened modestly.

Based on our oil inventory/price model, fair value is $59.19; using the euro/price model, fair value is $46.44.  The combined model, a broader analysis of the oil price, generates a fair value of $50.08.  Oil prices have stabilized this week.  OPEC has reportedly agreed to a 1.5 mbpd production cut; it is unclear if Russia is participating.  This decision comes not a moment too soon as we are hearing reports that tankers are being used for floating storage, a clear sign of oversupply.

View the PDF

Weekly Geopolitical Report – Investment Implications of Changing Demographics: Part III (March 2, 2020)

by Patrick Fearon-Hernandez, CFA

In Part I of this report, we looked at current key global population trends.  The report discussed how plunging birth rates have been weighing on population growth and boosting average ages all over the world, with a potentially huge impact on the distribution of geopolitical power, economic prospects and future investment returns.  In Part II, we showed how these demographic trends are playing out for the world’s sole superpower and most important economy: the United States.

This week, in the final segment of this report, we’ll dive deeper into the economic implications of slowing population growth and an aging population.  Our analysis will show that these demographic trends are likely to weigh heavily on future economic growth and inflation.  The trends may well impact standards of living and constrain monetary and fiscal policy in important ways.  We’ll conclude with a discussion of the long-term ramifications for investors, although it’s important to remember that many other forces can have a greater impact on investment returns in the short term.

View the full report

Asset Allocation Weekly (February 28, 2020)

by Asset Allocation Committee

Since the end of the Financial Crisis, there has been a steady deterioration in investment-grade credit quality.

This chart shows the percentage of investment-grade bonds rated at BBB.  Since late 2018, this portion has represented half of outstanding investment-grade credit.  This rating is the lowest end of investment-grade credit, so the dominance of this segment raises questions about the stability of these corporate bonds under deteriorating financial conditions.

History tends to show that monetary policy has the most significant impact on the percentage of BBB debt.

A rising policy rate between 2004 into 2006 coincided with a sizeable decline in the percentage of BBB-rated debt in the investment-grade category.  Low rates since 2008 led to a steady rise in the percentage of BBB-rated debt.  Most notably, the policy tightening from 2016 into last year did not slow the rise, suggesting investors did not believe that monetary policy would lead to concerns about credit quality.

This data suggests a couple of issues.  First, the current high level of low-rated debt in investment-grade is a concern if the economy weakens or policymakers overtighten.  Second, investors appear confident that neither outcome is likely in the short run and, if anything, the FOMC will react quickly to protect the economy from trouble.  The risk, of course, is that either this confidence is misplaced or a circumstance will develop to which no amount of policy stimulus can prevent credit deterioration.

In response to this deterioration of credit quality, we have reduced our overall exposure to investment-grade credit in our allocations to fixed income.  However, we remain overweight to investment-grade, in part, due to expectations that a recession or a credit event isn’t imminent.

View the PDF

Business Cycle Report (February 27, 2020)

by Thomas Wash

The business cycle has a major impact on financial markets; recessions usually accompany bear markets in equities.  We have created this report to keep our readers apprised of the potential for recession, which we plan to update on a monthly basis.  Although it isn’t the final word on our views about recession, it is part of our process in signaling the potential for a downturn.

January saw broad improvement in the economic data. The signing of the “Phase One” trade deal offered reassurance that the impact of the trade war would be limited in 2020. Several sentiment indicators surged, likely in response to the development. The NFIB Small Business Optimism Index, Chicago National Activity Index, Philly Manufacturing Outlook and Consumer Confidence, which is featured in the diffusion index, all improved during the month. In addition, financial markets offered mixed signals about the resiliency of the economic expansion due to growing uncertainty about the global economy. Conflict between the U.S. and Iran following the death of Qassem Soleimani and the COVID-19 outbreak in China reignited fears of the U.S. economy’s exposure to geopolitical risks. As a result, there was a slight deterioration in the gains made in equities and flattening along certain areas of the yield curve. Nevertheless, positive gains in employment and improvement in manufacturing activity suggests the economy remains strong. Our diffusion index has improved from the previous month with nine out of 11 indicators in expansion territory. The reading for January rose to +0.636 from +0.576.

The chart above shows the Confluence Diffusion Index. It uses a three-month moving average of 11 leading indicators to track the state of the business cycle. The red line signals when the business cycle is headed toward a contraction, while the blue line signals when the business cycle is headed toward a recovery. On average, the diffusion index is currently providing about six months of lead time for a contraction and five months of lead time for a recovery. Continue reading for a more in-depth understanding of how the indicators are performing and refer to our Glossary of Charts at the back of this report for a description of each chart and what it measures. A chart title listed in red indicates that indicator is signaling recession.

View the complete PDF