Asset Allocation Weekly (August 5, 2016)

by Asset Allocation Committee

Last week’s GDP data for Q2 came in below expectations, rising 1.2%.  Consumption was robust, accounting for 2.8% of GDP growth, but investment reduced growth by 1.7% and government peeled 0.2% from output.  Net exports added 0.2% to GDP, but we would not be surprised to see the sector revised downward due to the strength of consumption.  The drop in investment was mostly due to falling inventories, accounting for 1.2% of the 1.7% investment report.  Still, investment remains very disappointing.

This chart shows the three-year average of the contribution to GDP from the four major components of the report.  Government and net exports have been mostly a wash.  Consumption is finally improving, although it still remains well below levels seen in previous expansions.  However, the drop in investment is becoming alarming.  As we have shown in the past, businesses are reducing their savings but are spending the funds on mergers, dividends and share buybacks.  New investment has been rare.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the report is the growing evidence that the economy “has fallen and can’t get up.”

This chart shows the yearly change in annual real GDP averaged over a decade.  The original data begins in 1901.  About 72% of the time, the trend in GDP growth ranges between 2.0% and 4.5%.  The current period of eight consecutive years of sub-2.0% growth is matched in duration only by the Great Depression.  Although the drop in growth in the 1930s was clearly deeper, the rebound was much stronger as well.  Currently, GDP is weak and showing no signs of improvement.

This chart, though simple, makes a strong case that the economy is in a state of secular stagnation.  Thankfully, the economy isn’t suffering from the terrible policy mistakes of the 1930s.  The Federal government’s fiscal stance isn’t nearly as tight and the FOMC has been much more accommodative than in the Depression years.

First, monetary policy has been more accommodative and reacted quicker to the downturn.

This chart shows three-month T-bill rates during the Depression.  Note that interest rates rose sharply in 1931 and 1933.  Even in 1936-37, the Fed allowed for a modest increase in rates that were part of an “echo” recession from the Great Depression.

Second, the path of fiscal policy was significantly different during the 1930s.

The Obama administration’s fiscal package in 2008-10 was larger than the Hoover-Roosevelt budget deficits.  It is widely held that Roosevelt’s decision to balance the fiscal budget after winning reelection in 1936 triggered the 1937-38 recession.  So far, we haven’t seen such dramatic fiscal retrenchment, and, given the tone of the current election campaign, we would not expect austerity in the future.

However, a key difference to the recovery after the Great Depression was the massive fiscal spending related to the war effort.  It is unknown whether the economy would have been able to return to the 2.0% to 4.0% growth range without the war spending.  It may be the case that a major boost in fiscal spending could be the cure for current slow growth.  However, it should also be acknowledged that (a) it is highly unlikely that a peacetime fiscal spending package could be as large as what was seen in the 1940s, and (b) the war, by design, deglobalized world trade.  A massive fiscal expansion in a globalized world would see much of the potential growth siphoned off to imports.  Only if all the G-20 nations agreed to similar packages could that problem be avoided, and that degree of cooperation is unlikely.

Thus, we expect growth to remain slow and policy accommodation to remain in place.  It makes little sense to normalize monetary or fiscal policy in such a slow growth regime.

View the PDF

Weekly Geopolitical Report – The Turkish Coup, Part II (August 1, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady

Last week, we began a three-part series on the attempted Turkish coup that started on Friday, July 15.  In Part I, we examined Turkey’s history to frame the historical conditions that affected the failed coup.  As promised, this week’s report will discuss the actual coup.

The Coup
Around 7:30 p.m. Eastern European Standard Time (EEST), there were reports that key bridges that cross the Bosporus had been closed by soldiers.  About 20 minutes later, military jets and helicopters were flying over Ankara and Istanbul.  Gunshots were also reported in the capital.  At 8:00 p.m., Prime Minister Binali Yildirim announced a coup was underway and called for calm.  He indicated that a group within the military was behind the coup and noted that loyal security forces were being mobilized.  At 8:25 p.m., the rebels issued a statement indicating that the military was taking over to “protect the democratic order.”  The same statement indicated that Turkey’s existing foreign relations would be maintained.

View the full report

Asset Allocation Weekly (July 29, 2016)

by Asset Allocation Committee

In the most recent rebalance of our Asset Allocation portfolios, we maintained an allocation to emerging market equities in the Aggressive Growth portfolio.  As we have noted in the past, there is a positive relationship between the dollar’s exchange rate and the relative performance of developed market equities and emerging market equities.

This chart shows the relative performance of the S&P 500 and the MSCI emerging market index (denominated in dollars).  A rising blue line on the chart signals stronger S&P performance relative to emerging markets and vice versa.  Using the JPM dollar index, we note the dollar bottomed in late 2011.  As the dollar appreciated, the S&P began to consistently outperform emerging markets.

The most important factor boosting the dollar was monetary policy divergence.  The Federal Reserve ended its balance sheet expansion in December 2014.  It raised its policy rate in December 2015.  This tightening occurred while the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BOJ) both continued to implement aggressively accommodative policies.  The dollar’s strength clearly accelerated in the 2014-15 period, although the rally has stalled this year.  We believe the stall has occurred because of uncertainty surrounding U.S. monetary policy.  Initially, the FOMC signaled four rate hikes this year.  Currently, fed funds futures are suggesting no rate hikes this year and perhaps only one hike next year.  If this does become the path of policy, the dollar bull market may be coming to a close unless the ECB and BOJ become even more aggressive in policy easing.  If we are reaching the point where further accommodation isn’t possible, a stronger dollar is less likely and thus, emerging market equities become attractive given their recent relative weakness.

However, due to the uncertainty over the direction of policy, as noted above, the asset allocation committee has judged emerging market equities as only appropriate for aggressive investors.  If the FOMC tightens policy sooner or to a greater degree than expected, developed markets could begin to sharply outperform emerging markets again.  Given that market expectations are leaning heavily toward steady Fed policy, there is the potential for a bearish surprise for the emerging equity sector.  Thus, in our judgement, only the most risk tolerant investors should be considering emerging market equities at this time.

View the PDF

Weekly Geopolitical Report – The Turkish Coup, Part I (July 25, 2016)

by Bill O’Grady

On Friday, July 15, reports out of Turkey indicated that unusual troop activity was underway which suggested a coup was in progress.  In the U.S., as afternoon turned toward early evening, it was abundantly clear that elements of the Turkish security services were attempting to oust President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  As the hours wore on, a countercoup was launched by supporters of President Erdogan and the tide turned.  By the next day, it became obvious that the coup had failed.

There has been a great deal of speculation surrounding the failed coup, including that President Erdogan had engineered a “false flag”[1] operation.  Supporters of Erdogan blamed the shadowy cleric Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish Islamist leader from Turkey who lives in self-imposed exile in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania.  Some have also accused the U.S. of fostering the coup.  In the aftermath of the dramatic events on the 15th, the Erdogan government is engaging in a massive purge of the military, the judiciary and education.

In light of the coup and the potential changes that may be occurring for a key U.S. ally in a volatile region of the world, we believe a detailed examination of this event is in order.  Thus, we are publishing a three-part report on the coup.  This week’s edition will examine the failed coup within the historical context of Turkey.  Next week, we will discuss the coup and the countercoup.  Part three will examine the post-coup purge and its impact on Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy.  We will analyze market effects at the conclusion of the third report.

View the full report

_______________________

[1] A covert operation executed in such a fashion as to assign blame for the actions to parties other than the ones who actually planned them.

Asset Allocation Weekly (July 22, 2016)

by Asset Allocation Committee

In the most recent rebalance of our Asset Allocation portfolios, we introduced positions in gold.  Although the yellow metal is classified as a commodity, we view it more as a currency, admittedly one that is not backed by liabilities.  National fiat currencies are generally created in the credit process and are backed by the trust imbedded in the nation’s debt.  Currencies have three roles: medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value.  Gold does not act as a medium of exchange in a modern economy.  But, it can be used as a unit of account and it mostly excels as a store of value.

Because it isn’t liability backed, the opportunity cost of holding gold is essentially equivalent to inflation-adjusted interest rates.  If one holds gold in lieu of short-term debt, the lost opportunity is the interest earned after inflation.  History does suggest that there is an inverse correlation between real interest rates and gold.

This chart shows real T-bill rates and the price of gold.  Note that gold prices have increased as real rates have become persistently negative.

The other factor that affects gold is the dollar.  Since gold is priced in dollars, a rising greenback makes gold prices more expensive to foreign buyers.  Since a stronger dollar is often associated with rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger dollar tends to be bearish for gold.

This chart shows gold prices and the JPM real effective dollar index.  Note that since 2000, the dollar’s swings have affected gold prices.  In fact, since 2000, the correlation is -87%.

Since inflation, interest rates and exchange rates affect gold prices, we have created a model of the relationship.

The model uses the EUR/USD exchange rate, inflation adjusted two-year T-note yields and the balance sheets of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Federal Reserve.  Including the latter two variables generally accounts for investor expectations of future inflation and interest rates.  The current fair value for gold, based on this model, is $1,489.26, suggesting that current prices, though elevated, are not overvalued.

Finally, investors have been putting money into gold through exchange-traded products.

This chart looks at the metric tons of gold held by ETFs, ETNs and grantor trusts compared to the price of gold.  As one would expect, the two are closely linked, correlating at nearly 95%.  Since the beginning of the year, investors have been increasing their exposure to gold through these products.  With the FOMC on hold and additional policy stimulus expected due to Brexit, investors are seeking the safety of gold.

Due to our view that gold is attractively valued and that conditions should favor the yellow metal, as noted above, we added gold to our allocations this quarter.  We expect that conditions should favor gold in the upcoming quarters.

View the PDF

Keller Quarterly (July 2016)

Letter to Investors

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

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

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

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

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

We appreciate your confidence in us.

 

Gratefully,

Mark A. Keller, CFA
CEO and Chief Investment Officer

View the PDF

Asset Allocation Quarterly (Third Quarter 2016)

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

ECONOMIC VIEWPOINTS

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

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

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

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

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

STOCK MARKET OUTLOOK

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

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

BOND MARKET OUTLOOK

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

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

OTHER MARKETS

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

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

View the complete PDF

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

by Bill O’Grady

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

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

View the full report

Asset Allocation Weekly (July 15, 2016)

by Asset Allocation Committee

Since the recovery began, we have consistently favored duration in fixed income.  Our position has been that growth would remain sluggish in the developed world and global overcapacity would keep inflation contained.  The consensus of strategists and economists didn’t support our position.

This chart shows the path of the 10-year T-note yield along with the forecast at the beginning of each year from the Philadelphia FRB Professional Forecasters Survey.  The open boxes indicate when the forecasts were incorrect; the solid circles indicate correct forecasts.  We are on the 17th forecast; so far, 10 have been wrong and, barring a strong jump in yields similar to 2012, the forecasters will be incorrect this year as well.

In general, the persistently incorrect forecasts are likely due to the consensus opinion that the economy, inflation and markets will normalize over some time frame.  Instead, since the turn of the century, inflation has steadily declined and, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, economic growth has been persistently low.  Accordingly, financial markets and global economies have been operating in a “new normal” rather than a return to the 1990s normal.

Although our position on fixed income has been correct, we are watchful for conditions that would reverse this long-term downtrend in yields.  Inflation trends often have a political element.  One of the key tradeoffs society makes is between equality and efficiency.[1]  When society is leaning toward the latter, bonds will tend to do well because inflation will be controlled.  If equality is demanded, the risk levels of bonds rise.  Thus, we are carefully watching Brexit, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  These are all manifestations of a potential trend toward equality that would likely be expressed by re-regulation and deglobalization of the economy.  If these trends, and others, gain traction, the potential for rising inflation and interest rates would increase.  For now, we continue to favor long duration assets.  Given the high level of binary risks looming (the process of the U.K. leaving the EU, November U.S. elections, the Italian referendum on government reform and its banking problems), long duration Treasuries offer some protection against bearish events, as the Brexit situation showed.  But, we are closely monitoring economic and political conditions for a change in the secular trend in bonds.

View the PDF

_________________________

[1] For a discussion on efficiency and equality cycles, see our recent WGR: Post-Brexit (7/11/16).