Asset Allocation Weekly (June 26, 2020)

by Asset Allocation Committee

(N.B.  Due to the Independence Day holiday, the next report will be issued on July 10, 2020.)

Since 2008, some central banks have implemented negative policy interest rates.  Standard economics suggests that negative nominal rates on deposits are impossible because holders could simply liquidate the deposit and “put the money under the mattress.”  We have observed that there are costs to holding cash in large amounts, so banks can implement a negative rate (perhaps best thought of as a fee) on holding cash.  Although there are limits to how low negative rates can go (at some point, the cost of providing safekeeping exceeds the benefits), we note the Swiss National Bank has had a policy rate of -0.75% since December 2014.

Why would a central bank consider implementing a negative policy rate?  If economic conditions warranted easing and inflation was low,[1] it may be impossible to use low but positive interest rates as a policy tool.  In that case, negative interest rates or some other unconventional monetary policy may be necessary.

Are conditions similar in the U.S.?  Our analysis of the policy rate, using the Mankiw Rule, a variation on the Taylor Rule, suggests that the FOMC could consider negative policy rates.  The Taylor Rule is designed to calculate the neutral policy rate given core inflation and the measure of slack in the economy.  John Taylor measured slack using the difference between actual GDP and potential GDP.  The Taylor Rule assumes that the Fed should have an inflation target in its policy and should try to generate enough economic activity to maintain an economy near full utilization.  The rule will generate an estimate of the neutral policy rate; in theory, if the current fed funds target is below the calculated rate, the central bank should raise rates.  Greg Mankiw, a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisors in the Bush White House and current Harvard professor, developed a similar measure that substitutes the unemployment rate for the difficult-to-observe potential GDP measure.  We have taken the original Mankiw Rule and created three other variations.  Specifically, our models use core CPI and either the unemployment rate, the employment/population ratio, involuntary part-time employment or yearly wage growth for non-supervisory workers.  In this report, we are not using the wage growth variation because it is yielding a sharply positive policy rate; wages have increased because lower paid workers have been laid off in greater numbers than higher paid workers.

As the recession developed, the unemployment rate jumped, the employment/population ratio fell, and the number of involuntary part-time workers rose.  Complicating matters further, inflation declined.  All these factors pointed to the need for policy stimulus.  In fact, in the worst case, the employment/ population ratio variation, the nominal rate should be as low as -5.65%.

In 2008 through most of 2011, these variations of the Mankiw Rule suggested the policy rate should have been below zero.  That is the case today.  So far, the FOMC has rejected a negative policy rate and instead relies on expanding the balance sheet and forward guidance.  The current program of balance sheet expansion is historically unique; for the first time, we are seeing the Fed buy an assortment of financial assets that expose it to credit risk.  These include corporate and high yield bonds.  As we noted last week, the current QE is reducing credit spreads, but, like forward guidance, the actual stimulative impact is uncertain.

So, why is the FOMC opposed to negative interest rates?  The most likely reason is the structure of the U.S. financial system.  The U.S. system has an extensive non-bank financial system; unlike banks, this system isn’t funded by deposits but by repo and money markets.  The non-bank financial system, also known as the “shadow banking system,” finances large swaths of the U.S. economy.  Although it is difficult to estimate the size, there are reports it may be as large as $1.2 trillion.  The fear is that negative deposit rates would likely cause the money market funds to “break the buck” to account for the below-zero yield.  That could lead to difficult-to-determine outcomes, but it is plausible that the non-bank financial system may find itself without a source of funding.  Since there is no Fed backstop to the non-bank financial system, there could be a run on the loan providers.  Other nations have much smaller non-bank systems and thus can manage negative policy rates.  The U.S. probably can’t.

And so, additional policy stimulus, if necessary, will come from further expansion of the balance sheet and forward guidance.  Another possibility would be yield curve control, which was implemented during WWII into the early 1950s.  In this policy, the Fed will set the desired rate of some or all of the Treasury curve, absorbing all the Treasury borrowing that the market won’t buy, thus fixing the interest rate.  The Bank of Japan and Reserve Bank of Australia are currently running such policies.  Although the FOMC hasn’t taken this step yet, it is being considered by Fed policymakers.  The conclusion—monetary policy will likely remain historically accommodative well into 2021.

View the PDF


[1] For example, Switzerland’s May CPI was -1.3% from last year.

Business Cycle Report (June 25, 2020)

by Thomas Wash

The business cycle has a major impact on financial markets; recessions usually accompany bear markets in equities.  The intention of this report is to keep our readers apprised of the potential for recession, updated 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.

In May, the diffusion index fell deeper into recession territory as improvements in several indicators could not outweigh the negative impact of the previous two months. Last month, states started reopening their economies which resulted in a rise in economic conditions. The financial market continued to show signs of improvement as the Federal Reserve offered reassurances that it would continue to intervene in markets when needed. Additionally, increased economic activity led to a sharp rise in equities. Meanwhile, a reduction in lockdown restrictions allowed firms to hire workers in record numbers. However, the impact of the pandemic continued to weigh heavily on both investor and consumer confidence as concerns persist surrounding economic outlook. As a result, six out of the 11 indicators are in contraction territory. The reading for this month fell to -0.152 from +0.030 in April, well below the recession signal of +0.250.

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

Daily Comment (June 25, 2020)

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

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT]

The 13th episode of the Confluence of Ideas podcast is available; it is our first in a series of reports on the November elections.

Good morning, all.  Lots going on today.  For the second consecutive day, we are starting with weaker equity markets.  In fact, almost everything is red this morning except Treasuries.  In equities, there are worries that institutional managers may try to capture Q2’s surge in equities with an aggressive rebalance and that would be bearish for stocks in the very short run.  We update the pandemic news; it appears another surge in cases is upon us, although we are noting some differences compared to the initial rise.  We update China news this morning, noting a real cold war is emerging on the India/China frontier and there is some divergence in policy direction between the White House and Congress.  The economic news includes the IMF’s downgrade of global GDP.  Poland is open to U.S. troops.  We are noting some flooding issues and there was an earthquake yesterday in Mexico; we also follow up on the arctic heatwave.  The Weekly Energy Update is available.  Here are the details:

COVID-19: The number of reported cases is 9,440,535 with 483,207 deaths and 4,754,755 recoveries.  In the U.S., there are 2,381,369 confirmed cases with 121,979 deaths and 656,161 recoveries.  For those who like to keep score at home, the FT has created a nifty interactive chart that allows one to compare cases across nations using similar scaling metrics.  The Axios U.S. state map has been updated.

Virology:

  • The WSJ details the rise in new cases; although increased testing is a factor, it does look like we are seeing increased spreading.
  • One factor we are seeing is fewer deaths per the number of cases.
(Sources: Johns Hopkins, CIM)

This chart looks at the rolling seven-day change in new cases and fatalities.  We are seeing a clear upswing in cases, but fatalities are continuing to decline.  It is possible that there is a lag between cases and fatalities.  In fact, the above chart suggests there is about a 10-day lag, so some increase in fatalities wouldn’t be a surprise.  But, at the same time, we are well into that 10-day window and, so far, fatalities haven’t jumped yet.  We suspect two changes have occurred that may slow the rate of deaths; first, the medical system has probably gotten better at treatment.  We know ventilator use has slowed as less invasive techniques have proven to be more effective.  Second, it is probably the case that vulnerable populations (the elderly, chronic conditions, etc.) are being more careful in public and those contracting the disease are younger and healthier.  That doesn’t mean this group can’t die from the disease, but the chances are lower.

  • Therefore, we may be seeing a slow transition from avoiding the disease at all costs to learning to live with it. It is apparent that lockdowns do work in slowing the rate of infections, but the economic cost is horrific.  Being more selective in who stays home, taking other measures (distancing in social situations, mask wearing) and working on mitigation therapies are all probably in our future until widespread vaccination develops.
  • Disney (DIS, 112.07) may be forced to delay reopening its theme parks as workers push back against the company’s plans. Other companies and industries are facing similar concerns.  Several states are reconsidering their plans to reopen as well.
  • India is facing a massive problem in its medical system due to the pandemic.
  • Genetic researchers in the U.K. have identified 68 genes associated with the risks surrounding COVID-19. One of the mysteries of the virus is the wide variation in symptoms.  Some people who are infected exhibit no symptoms, while others are seriously affected.  Their research suggests that COVID-19 is not just a respiratory illness but a cardiovascular one as well.  It has also been found that Type A blood groups are at higher risk of serious complications, while Type O groups are not.  If specific markers can be determined, genetic testing could indicate who is vulnerable and who is not and thus allow low-risk groups to reengage in social and economic activities (which could have much less attractive aspects as well).

China news: 

  • As the powers between Congress and the executive branch have evolved over time, the president generally has a greater say in foreign policy. That doesn’t mean Congress has no impact, but, in the day-to-day operation of foreign policy, the White House is in charge.  Still, for better or worse, Congress reflects the broader populous and thus has exhibited swings in sentiment over various policy issues.  Accordingly, in terms of foreign policy, Congress can push for sanctions and other policy measures that the president may be reluctant to implement as they might undermine other policy goals.  This is a situation that has been part of American political history since Washington (our first president had to fend off congressional desires to join France against England in French Revolutionary Wars).
    • Currently, Congress is pushing for numerous measures to punish China over various issues. Regarding Hong Kong, the White House is trying to prevent Congress from passing mandatory sanctions.
    • Congress is pressing to ease restrictions that would allow Americans to sue China over pandemic costs.
    • There are divisions within the executive branch as well. The Pentagon has published a list of 20 Chinese companies with ties to the Chinese military; it is presumed this list was created to reduce these companies’ ability to tap U.S. financial markets and perhaps sanction trade.  The Senate is pushing for greater transparency for foreign firms listing on U.S. exchanges.  It appears the goal of the bill is to force Chinese firms to give up their ties to the security state for access to U.S. financial markets.  National Security Advisor O’Brien recently gave a speech that was sharply critical of the CPC.
    • It is often the case that a president doesn’t necessarily oppose measures brought by Congress or other members of the executive branch; what presidents oppose are measures that restrict their ability to enjoy policy flexibility.
  • Although direct hostilities appear to have eased in the India/China frontier, it does appear both sides are digging in for potential future conflicts. India has blocked the importation of various Chinese goods in retaliation for the recent attacks.
  • There are increasing worries about military conflicts between China and the U.S.

Trade policy news:

Foreign news:

Economic news:

Weather news:

View the complete PDF

Weekly Energy Update (June 25, 2020)

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

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

Here is an updated crude oil price chart.  The oil market has stabilized at higher levels after April’s historic collapse.

(Source: Barchart.com)

Crude oil inventories rose less than market expectations, with stockpiles rising 1.4 mb compared to forecasts of a +2.0 mb build.  The SPR added 2.0 mb this week.

In the details, U.S. crude oil production rose 0.5 mbpd to 11.0 mbpd.  Exports rose 0.7 mbpd, while imports fell 0.1 mbpd.  Refining activity rose 0.8%, modestly higher than expected.  After major declines for the past several weeks, the level of unaccounted-for crude oil recovered sharply this week.

Unaccounted-for crude oil is a balancing item in the weekly energy balance sheet.  To make the data balance, this line item is a plug figure, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.  This week’s number is -53 kbpd.  This is a very small number and suggests the DOE is getting the data fixed.  The rise in production suggests that the unaccounted-for crude oil data was being affected more by crude oil stored in areas unreported, although falling output addressed some of this figure as well.

We have been seeing oil flow into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in recent weeks.  The government is offering storage in the SPR to relieve inventory constraints.  The chart below shows the history of the level of inventory in the SPR by party holding the White House.

Although President Carter was an exception, in general, Republicans have tended to build the SPR, while Democrats have held it mostly steady.  This may be due, in part, to the fact that the GOP tends to favor the energy industry.  President Trump has not followed that pattern until recently.  We do expect these injections to be temporary as the rise is due to aiding the industry and not a deliberate policy to increase the stockpile.  But, since mid-April, 18.8 mb have gone into the SPR, easing bearish price pressures.

(Sources: DOE, CIM)

The above chart shows the annual seasonal pattern for crude oil inventories.  This week’s data showed another modest rise in crude oil stockpiles.  We are in the beginning of the seasonal draw for crude oil.  The continued rise in inventories is bearish for prices.

Based on our oil inventory/price model, fair value is $26.85; using the euro/price model, fair value is $52.56.  The combined model, a broader analysis of the oil price, generates a fair value of $39.99.  We are starting to see a wide divergence between the EUR and oil inventory models.  The weakness we are seeing in the dollar, which we believe may have “legs,” is bullish for crude oil and may overcome the bearish oil inventory overhang.

Gasoline consumption remains below average, but the recovery is unmistakable.

(Sources: DOE, CIM)

Still, the refining industry is continuing to struggle, and without improvement in this sector the demand for crude oil could stall in the coming weeks.

View the PDF

Daily Comment (June 24, 2020)

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

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT]

Good morning!  The 13th episode of the Confluence of Ideas podcast is available; the topic is the first in a series of episodes on the November elections.

Equity futures are lower this morning; market talk suggests it’s due to rising COVID-19 infections, but a good, old-fashioned “pause to refresh” is just as likely.  Poland’s President Duda visits the White House today just before elections in his country.  The Segway is done.  We update the news from China.  We offer some thoughts on reports that the administration is considering additional stimulus and other measures.  There is growing concern about commercial real estate.  Tech leaders are opposed to immigration restriction measures.  Our usual commentary on COVID-19 is available.  Here are the details:

China news: 

  • It appears that India and China are reducing recent border tensions. This is the usual pattern; we have seen a cycle of rising tensions followed by steps to prevent a broader war.  The risk is, of course, that the border tensions, at some juncture, do lead to something worse.  One area of concern is that PM Modi has less ability to control public opinion in India, compared to Chairman Xi; it is not inconceivable that an Indian PM at some point in the future may not be able to contain the groundswell and may be forced into a conflict.  In an upcoming WGR, we will look at the history of this issue.
  • For the past few days, we have been commenting on the recent EU/China videoconference. In the aftermath, it is clear that EU leaders are unhappy with China’s behavior, but are also reluctant to press too hard on Beijing for fear of hurting trade and investment relations.  The recent row over comments from Peter Navarro suggests similar sentiment exists in the U.S. as well.  The closest historical parallel, in our view, to China’s relations with the U.S., or the EU too, was between the U.K. and Germany from 1870 to 1914.  There was a growing geopolitical rivalry, but deep economic ties as well.

Economic and policy news:

Foreign news:

  • The EU is considering banning U.S. travelers from the bloc due to concerns about COVID-19. Interestingly enough, the ban would not exclude China.
  • North Korea has engaged in a number of provocative acts recently. It appears that Kim Jong Un may be dialing back some of the tensions.  To some extent, what we have seen recently is consistent with North Korea’s behavior.  Pyongyang often takes aggressive actions and raises tensions, then promises to behave better if it gets sanctions relief, or aid.  What might be different this time is that this news may signal a reengagement of Kim Jong Un; there has been some evidence to suggest he has been sidelined and his sister, Kim Yo Jong, has been driving policy.  She appears to be much more hawkish than her brother.  Knowing what is happening in North Korea is always a challenge, but it is possible we are seeing a divided leadership.
  • Russia is holding its military parades today that it usually holds on May 9. These parades were delayed due to the pandemic.  Tomorrow, Russians vote to extend Putin’s rule; we expect him to win.
  • British landlords and tenants are facing an end to support, reflecting similar worries in the U.S.

Tech news:

COVID-19:  The number of reported cases is 9,273,773 with 478,160 deaths and 4,645,628 recoveries.  In the U.S., there are 2,347,102 confirmed cases with 121,225 deaths and 647,548 recoveries.  For those who like to keep score at home, the FT has created a nifty interactive chart that allows one to compare cases across nations using similar scaling metrics.

Virology:

Finally, there are reports of soaring temperatures in Siberia.  Although it hasn’t been verified, the city of Verkhoyansk reported a high temperature of just 100o Fahrenheit on Saturday.  The Russian Arctic is also seeing higher temperatures, with temperatures rising about 0.69o every decade, compared to world temperatures rising about 0.18o every decade.  The rise in temperatures is thawing permafrost and contributed to a recent diesel fuel spill, as weakening permafrost damaged a storage tank.  One way this change affects U.S. weather is that it weakens the jet stream and can leave weather systems “parked” over parts of the U.S., leading to extended heat waves, or rainfall and flooding.

View the complete PDF

Daily Comment (June 23, 2020)

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

[Posted: 9:30 AM EDT]

Good morning!  The 13th episode of the Confluence of Ideas podcast is available; the topic is the first in a series of episodes on the November elections.  U.S. equity futures are higher again this morning, with the rest of the world rising as well.  In other markets, gold is at a seven-month high, WTI is over $40 per barrel and the dollar is lower.  We did see some volatility overnight after Peter Navarro seemed to indicate that the trade agreement with China is “over.”  S&P futures quickly dropped about 50 points.  The White House moved in short order to clarify Navarro’s comments, confirming that the Phase One arrangement is still intact.  We update China and economic news.  We also cover domestic policy and foreign news.  Our usual commentary on COVID-19 is available.  Here are the details:

China news: 

Economic news:

  • The WSJ notes that there has been a surge in household savings in the U.S. Much of this jump was due to the influx of fiscal support coupled with the lockdown that reduced spending.  If the savings persists, it will have an impact on economic growth.  However, it is quite possible that as the lockdowns ease, spending will accelerate, and the level of savings will decline.  What is unknown is if there will be higher levels of savings in the aftermath of the pandemic.  If there is, government dissaving, business dissaving or a smaller trade deficit will result.  Our expectation, if the change is permanent, is that the fiscal deficit will absorb most of the savings.

Policy news:

Foreign news:

COVID-19:  The number of reported cases is 9,115,878 with 472,541 deaths and 4,544,196 recoveries.  In the U.S., there are 2,312,302 confirmed cases with 120,402 deaths and 640,198 recoveries.  For those who like to keep score at home, the FT has created a nifty interactive chart that allows one to compare cases across nations using similar scaling metrics.  We are seeing a surge in the R0 data, suggesting a rising pace of infections in the U.S.  Here is the state-by-state data.

Virology:

Finally, some good news—honeybee populations saw a lower than normal winter die-off this year, after suffering a larger loss last year.  Honeybees are critical to numerous U.S. crops, so the recovery is positive.

View the complete PDF

Weekly Geopolitical Report – The Geopolitics of the 2020 Election: Part V (June 22, 2020)

by Bill O’Grady | PDF

This is the final report in our five-part series on the geopolitics of the 2020 election, which was divided into nine sections.  This week, we conclude the report by covering the eighth and ninth sections, the base cases for a Trump or Biden win and market ramifications.

Read the full report