Asset Allocation Weekly (January 24, 2020)

by Asset Allocation Committee

One of the risks we noted in the 2020 Outlook: Storm Watch was the potential for a “melt-up.”  On the one hand, seeing a parabolic rise in equities seems like a positive.  On the other, a rise of significant magnitude only occurs because of a surge of late buyers; these latecomers usually suffer large losses and become something of a cautionary tale for future investors.  The decline in equities that follows a melt-up is usually large too, more than it would have been had the rally not occurred.

The idea of the melt-up is due to the fact that equities have been rising with little evidence of strong retail participation.

This chart shows weekly flows into mutual funds and equity ETFs.  We have added a 12-week average through the data.  On average, flows into equities have been negative since May 2018.  A similar calculation for bond funds shows strong inflows since last January.

On a longer-term basis, the recent divergence between retail flows into equities and the S&P 500 is notable.

On this chart, we overlay the S&P 500 along with monthly flows into equities from retail mutual funds and ETFs.  We have generated a trend line in the data to show the underlying behavior of this series.  The divergence became an outlier in late 2017 and, since then, the index has continued to rise with falling retail flows.  Why is this happening?  The continued rise in equities is clearly coming from institutional buyers.  Some of the lift might be due to a falling level of equities themselves.  The S&P 500 divisor, which takes into account buybacks, mergers and new entrants into the index, has been declining since 2010.  With fewer stocks available, the same level of liquidity can lead to higher prices.  Still, even buybacks cannot fully account for this divergence.

Our fear is that if retail investors decide that missing out is too painful, the influx of liquidity could send prices up strongly.  At this point, there is little evidence to suggest this is happening.  Not only are flows depressed but retail liquidity remains elevated.

Retail money market levels are similar to where they were during the Great Financial Crisis.  When the equity markets began to recover in 2009, the levels of money markets declined, helping fuel the recovery.  Although this level of liquidity may exist as a hedge against uncertainty, if confidence rises, there are ample resources for a strong rally in stocks.  Again, as we said earlier, there has been little evidence that sentiment is becoming bullish, but, if it does, the melt-up we discussed in our Outlook is more probable.

View the PDF

Asset Allocation Quarterly (First Quarter 2020)

  • The U.S. election season and the more dovish composition of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors should ensure policy accommodation continues in the near-term.
  • The recent resolution of trade policies with China and the prospect for finalization of USMCA produces an environment where corporate capital can be deployed with less uncertainty.
  • Although we hold a somewhat sanguine view of the U.S. economy over our three-year cyclical forecast period, we recognize there is the increased potential for a policy mistake that could lead to economic difficulty.
  • Each strategy reflects a neutral posture, with all risk assets continuing to reside in the U.S. and an equity style exposure of 60% value/40% growth, with an emphasis on larger market capitalizations.
  • The potential for elevated volatility in global equity markets encourages an allocation to long-term U.S. Treasuries and gold.

View the complete PDF

 

ECONOMIC VIEWPOINTS

The recently signed initial trade deal with China, as well as the expectation for enactment of the new North American Trade Pact [USMCA], have helped propel U.S. equities to all-time highs. The trade resolutions hold the potential to encourage businesses to deploy capital toward long-term projects. As evidence, the recently released Q4 2019 Duke University CFO Global Business Outlook finds 12-month capital spending expectations increasing to 4.7% from 0.6% last quarter and R&D spending increasing to 2.7% from 0.6% the prior quarter.[1] Among consumers, the University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment has similarly ratcheted up from 95.5 at the beginning of last quarter to its recent level of 99.1.[2] The business outlook and consumer sentiment figures have also been influenced by the accommodative posture of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The anticipation of two dovish nominees to the Fed’s Board of Governors encourages the expectation of continued accommodation through the U.S. election season. The relationship of the fed funds rate versus the implied LIBOR rate two years out underscores the notion that the Fed has reduced rates and stretched its balance sheet to the degree necessary to accommodate favorable economic conditions.

Despite the current rosy economic backdrop, there remain several lingering concerns. The first concern regards corporate profitability. Although broad indices have been propelled higher, corporate earnings have trended lower as the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018 roll off, making year-to-year comparisons more challenging. As this chart indicates, prior to taxes, inventory valuation adjustments [IVA] and depreciation, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have been declining.

A second concern involves the rally in equities to spur hitherto reluctant retail investors to experience the fear of missing out [FOMO] and lead to performance chasing. While investors pulled $600 billion out of U.S. equity funds and separately managed accounts in 2019, over the past month the trend has reversed and flows have turned markedly positive, according to Morningstar’s asset flow data. Should this be the first salvo in a rush to invest, a true melt-up in equity markets could occur. If history is any guide, FOMO is notorious for leading to self-destructive investor tendencies. The third concern is that the Fed, in conjunction with the U.S. Treasury, begins to use exchange rates as a policy tool. Although this would make future tariff threats more potent, adjustments in terms of trade have deleterious ramifications for corporate and investor behavior.

Although these factors of concern are present, they do not reflect our base case for continued economic health and extension of the record economic expansion. Rather, they are intended to underscore the importance of continually monitoring data to ascertain whether our asset allocations are appropriate or in need of adjustment. While diversification among asset classes is a hallmark of modern portfolio theory, allocations based upon stagnant assumptions may yield spurious results. Accordingly, expected returns, risk, and yields require regular updates to provide proper diversification among asset classes, which is the crux of our asset allocation process.


[1] https://www.cfosurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-Q4-US-Key-Numbers.pdf

[2] http://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/

STOCK MARKET OUTLOOK

While we hold a favorable view of the equity markets near-term, we recognize that beyond the next 12 months pressures may continue to mount in terms of corporate earnings growth. In addition, should the potential for investors to yield to FOMO be realized, a market melt-up could ensue. In such an event, valuations would become extremely stretched, leading to the potential for a subsequent significant retrenchment in equity prices. Finally, a politicized Fed in conjunction with the U.S. Treasury to incorporate exchange rates as a policy tool would have serious implications for corporate and investor behavior. Although we have a neutral allocation to U.S. equities, our concentration in each of the strategies is on large capitalization, higher quality segments of U.S. stocks. Within large cap sectors, we established an overweight to Communication Services and retain the overweights to Technology and Health Care.

 

The concentration on higher quality also leads to a continuation of the skew to value relative to growth, as well as the retention of a quality factor geared toward companies that meet the required criteria of profitability, quality of earnings, and low leverage. The particular elements of the quality factor include return on equity, as a measure of profitability, changes to net operating assets over the past two years as a criterion for earnings quality, and the ratio of debt-to-book value of equity to determine financial leverage.

Beyond the U.S., despite attractive valuations and solid fundamentals among many non-U.S. companies, the weighting remains void until a durable catalyst for U.S. dollar weakness is recognized. As that occurs, tailwinds associated with a decline in the U.S. dollar will be extremely beneficial for U.S.-based investors.

BOND MARKET OUTLOOK

The Fed’s increasingly accommodative posture combined with the global appetite for yield will likely lead to a continuation of a normally sloped and range-bound yield curve over the course of the next several quarters. Over our three-year forecast period, we regard long-term Treasuries as relatively attractive given the global yield appetite and the potential for gravitational pull exerted by the sheer amount of global bonds outstanding with negative yields. Additionally, should we experience more volatile markets for global equities, longer term U.S. Treasuries should prove resilient. Although nearly $5 trillion of corporate debt will be maturing before 2023, according to Moody’s, our caution is directed toward speculative grade, or high yield, corporate bonds where we expect spread widening to occur.

The duration of bond holdings in the strategies remains relatively long, stemming from our forecast for an accommodative Fed, a lack of inflationary pressure, and global demand for bonds. In the strategies with income objectives we retain the laddered structure as the core beyond the short-term segment in these strategies.

OTHER MARKETS

The combination of our forecast for rates, the lack of excesses in the real estate segment, and the more diversified pool of REIT enterprises leads to our constructive view on the segment. As a result, REITs are included across the array of the strategies.

The prior elevated allocation to gold is retained given its ability to offer a hedge against geopolitical risks combined with the safe haven it can afford during an uncertain climate for both equities and the U.S. dollar.

View the complete PDF

Asset Allocation Weekly (January 17, 2020)

by Asset Allocation Committee

The December employment data showed three interesting developments that are worth discussing.  They are wage growth, hours worked and the level of “out of the workforce.”

Wage growth:  For most of last year, production and non-supervisory wage growth was outpacing that of overall workers.  This development suggested that ordinary workers were finally benefiting from the long expansion.  However, it was uncertain if the growth was due more to changes in state and local minimum wage laws or due to tight labor markets.  It appears we have our answer.  Many of the changes to local and state minimum wage laws occurred after the 2018 midterm elections.  December’s data would be 13 months after many of these new laws came into effect, so if legislation was the primary cause of the rise in ordinary worker pay then we should have seen a drop in December’s wage growth.

In fact, that’s exactly what we saw.  In November, wage growth for this class of worker rose 3.4%; it fell 40 bps to 3.0% in December.  Thus, the divergence between total private wages and production and non-supervisory worker wages appears to be solely a function of minimum wage laws.  Without additional measures, it seems unlikely that the divergence will continue.

Hours worked:  The growth rate of hours worked by production and non-supervisory workers fell to its lowest level since June 2010.

The combination of fewer hours and falling wage growth will tend to further dampen available liquidity for the majority of households.  The weekly hours data isn’t recessionary, but it is headed in that direction.

Out of the workforce:  When the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the labor force, it includes those working and looking for work.  Some citizens purposely decide to stay out of the labor force for a myriad of reasons, with age being the most likely.  In other words, as the number of citizens reaching retirement age increases, the percentage of the population that can continue to work will tend to decline as will the potential labor force.  Nevertheless, as the expansion continues, the potential pool of those out of the labor force tends to decrease until a point is reached where it becomes nearly impossible to draw down this group any further.  At that point, wage growth is expected to rise; at the same time, the unemployment rate can’t decline any further because potential new workers become increasingly difficult to find.

The economy may be nearing that point.

The blue line shows the percentage of those not in the labor force relative to the non-institutional population over the age of 16.  The red line is the percentage of the total U.S. population older than 65, with Census Bureau forecasts.  The area in yellow represents the baby boom generation.  The start of this area is when the last baby boomer turned 16, and the end is when the first baby boomer hit the age of 65.  In the yellow area, the percentage not in the labor force fell and stabilized.  As baby boomers headed into retirement age the percentage not in the labor force began to climb.  However, this percentage has recently stalled, mostly due to the extended economic expansion.  This trend will be difficult to sustain as the 65+ population continues to rise.  Although we are seeing workers delay retirement, the recent trend should reverse over time.  That factor will tend to keep the unemployment rate lower than it has been historically.

What is important about these three trends is that two of them are suggesting some softening in the labor market, whereas the last one might mask that weakness by showing a low unemployment rate.  In other words, older workers, facing a weaker labor market, may simply opt for retirement and leave the labor force entirely.  That will reduce the labor force and keep the unemployment rate low, suggesting the labor market is tighter than it really is.  That factor could increase the potential for a policy error.

View the PDF

Weekly Geopolitical Report – After Soleimani (January 13, 2020)

by Bill O’Grady

(Due to the Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday, our next report will be published on January 27.)

On January 3rd, the U.S. launched a missile strike that killed Major General Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).  As a high-profile commander, his death rocked the region and raised fears of a broader confrontation.

Although the situation remains fluid, Iran and the U.S. appear to have come to a point of stasis; in other words, the odds of further immediate escalation have declined.  In this report, we will discuss recent events and examine the context surrounding these events.  As always, we will conclude with market ramifications.

View the full report

Asset Allocation Weekly (January 10, 2020)

by Asset Allocation Committee

In our 2020 Outlook, we discussed three risks to the forecast, with one of them being a “melt-up” or a dramatic rise in stock prices.  One of the key factors that could bolster higher prices for risk assets would be the idea that the FOMC has engineered a soft landing, which is best defined as a tightening cycle that doesn’t result in a recession.

In December 2015, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25 bps, lifting the rate from 0.125% to 0.375%.  The conventional policy models, mostly based on the Taylor Rule, suggested that a series of rate hikes was likely.

This chart shows four variations of the Mankiw Rule, which is different from the Taylor Rule in how it measures slack in the economy.  The former used the unemployment rate, while the latter uses the difference between actual and potential GDP.  We prefer the Mankiw Rule because labor market measures are easily observable, whereas potential GDP is not.  We have created four variations of the Mankiw Rule using various measures of the labor market.  In the chart above, the area highlighted in yellow shows that all the Mankiw variations were suggesting the policy rate was too low and the Fed needed to raise rates aggressively.  The financial markets feared tighter monetary policy but, as the chart shows, after an initial hike the Yellen Fed paused for a year before raising rates again.

Why did this pause occur?  A contributing factor appears to be fragility in the financial markets.

This chart shows the 12-week average of the VIX index of S&P 500 volatility and the fed funds target.  Note that the VIX rose above 20 with the rate hike in December 2015.  It is possible the FOMC worried about triggering broader financial problems by raising rates and thus paused to allow financial markets to “calm down” before raising rates further.

In the recent tightening cycle, the Powell Fed raised rates until the VIX broke 20; soon after, the Fed lowered rates even though the Mankiw Rules would suggest further tightening was in order.  The Fed would be loath for the financial markets to conclude there is a “Fed put,” but, given how sensitive consumption has become to asset values, avoiding a recession may require guiding policy to prevent volatility from rising.

So, if this is what the Fed is doing, what does it mean for equities?  We indexed the S&P 500 to early February 2016, when it became clear that Yellen would keep policy on hold, and January 2019, when Powell signaled at least a pause in tightening.  The idea is that equities should benefit if the Fed avoids a “hard landing.”

The two periods are generally tracking each other; if this pattern continues, the current S&P 500 would end up at 3532.56 by late November.  This analysis is clearly not foolproof as one episode of a soft landing won’t necessarily generate a repeat performance.  Nevertheless, we are tracking relatively closely so further gains in stocks are possible if a recession is avoided.  The trick is avoiding recession; accommodative monetary policy is probably a necessary, but not completely sufficient, condition for avoiding a downturn.

View the PDF

Asset Allocation Weekly (December 20, 2019)

by Asset Allocation Committee

(N.B.  This is our last Asset Allocation Weekly for 2019.  The next edition will be published January 10, 2020.)

Did the Fed engineer a soft landing?  That is the critical question for 2020.  If the Fed, through its rate cuts last year,[1] has rescued the economy, it would be one of the most remarkable episodes of deft central bank practice.

This chart shows fed funds along with recession indicators from the New York and Atlanta Federal Reserve Banks.  The former uses the yield curve in its forecast and the latter uses GDP.  The New York indicator gives a 12-month forward read on the economy.  Since 1970, any reading over 30 for the New York indicator has led to an eventual recession.  Nevertheless, even though its track record is impressive, we like to wait for confirmation from the Atlanta indicator before declaring a downturn.  The chart shows that risks of recession are elevated.

What if recession is avoided?  Because retail money market levels are elevated, we could see a strong rally in equities.

This chart looks at retail money market funds (RMMK) compared to the S&P 500.  When RMMK fell from 2008 into 2011, the equity index more than doubled.  The high level of RMMK may not necessarily all flow to equities, but avoiding recession (and a reduction in trade conflicts) could lead to this liquidity finding its way into asset markets.

In conclusion, the odds of recession are elevated but we don’t see a downturn as imminent.  The FOMC has moved aggressively to cut the policy rate and is at a level we would consider neutral.  If a recession is avoided, risk assets could appreciate significantly in 2020.  However, the risks of a downturn are probably high enough to keep asset prices contained at least for the first few months of the new year.

View the PDF


[1] And the expansion of the balance sheet as well.

2020 Outlook: Storm Watch (December 19, 2019)

by Bill O’Grady & Mark Keller | PDF

Summary – The Base Case:

  1. Economy grows at 1.5%; consumption has become the primary driver of growth.
  2. Expansion continues to set new records for duration; no recession is our base case in 2020, although there are increasing risks of a downturn.
  3. Core inflation max is 2.5% next year.
  4. Dollar weakens, although the direction is mostly dependent on administration trade policy. We expect preparations for the 2020 elections will lead to a less aggressive trade policy.
  5. S&P 500 earnings for 2020 will be $174.91 on a Thomson/Reuters basis (6.00% of GDP).
  6. Assuming a P/E of 19.3x, using the S&P earnings projection, our expectation for the S&P 500 is 3375.76.
  7. We expect some improvement in the lower capitalization areas of the equity markets, tempered by slower economic growth.
  8. Growth has greatly outperformed value in recent years, a trend that has been mostly driven by multiple expansion. While we are expecting only a modest multiple expansion next year, continued outperformance by growth stocks is probable.  This long period of outperformance, however, is likely nearing its end.  Given the difficulty of timing such a transition, we recommend a balanced position in value/growth.
  9. International will benefit if our assumption that the dollar weakens is correct.
  10. We expect mostly steady monetary policy next year.
  11. We expect the 10-year yield to peak at 2.25% next year, with a range of 1.70% to 2.25%.
  12. Investment-grade bond spreads should stabilize; we believe high-yield bonds are overvalued and no more than a benchmark weighting is justified.
  13. Despite a weaker dollar, commodities will likely struggle due to slow global growth.

Risks to the Forecast:

  1. Primary risk – Recession: The Federal Reserve has lowered rates recently and this action may bring us a soft landing. However, recession risks are elevated.  We provide market risk parameters below should a recession occur.
  2. Secondary risk – Election: Election years add an element of uncertainty to investment. This year’s election is fraught with potential risk.
  3. Secondary risk – Melt-up: Ample liquidity, accommodative monetary policy and fairly valued equity markets could trigger a sharp rise in equity prices, especially if the markets become comfortable with the idea that the Fed has engineered a soft landing. Under this scenario, we provide possible upside parameters below.

Read the full report