Posts tagged Current Market Trends
In our commentary last week we made brief mention of the surprising strength of foreign currencies versus the US dollar in the year to date. This week served up yet another helping of greenback weakness, and it is worth a closer look. Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the dollar’s stumble is how broad based it is, across national economies with very different characteristics. Consider the chart below, which shows the value of two developed market currencies (Eurozone and United Kingdom) and two emerging markets (Brazil and India) versus the dollar.
Brevity of the Trump Trade
As the above chart shows, all four currencies (and just about all others not pictured here) fell sharply against the dollar in the immediate aftermath of the US presidential election last November. Recall that asset markets broadly and quickly coalesced around the notion of a “reflation-infrastructure trade,” premised on the belief that swift implementation of deep tax cuts and a torrent of infrastructure spending would spark inflation in the US and send interest rates sharply higher. Even today, there is no shortage of lazy punditry in the financial media reflexively blurting “Trump trade” every time the stock market turns higher.
But the currency markets long ago signaled the non-existence of the reflation pony in the back yard. In most cases, the foreign currencies’ upward trajectory began late last year or in the first month of 2017. Despite some localized setbacks (e.g. the latest shoe to drop in Brazil’s ongoing political scandal back in May), that upward momentum has continued and gained strength. Even in Great Britain, the negative sentiment surrounding the woeful state of Brexit negotiations has been outweighed by even stronger negative sentiment against the dollar.
Many Stories, One Sentiment
So what is behind this singular sentiment that seems to pervade all continents and economies in various stages of growth or disarray? How long is it likely to last? One of the most popular themes, certainly for much of the summer, has been the perception of stronger growth in the Eurozone. ECB Chair Mario Draghi’s comments on the better than expected growth trend back in late June immediately catalyzed another leg up against the dollar, not just for the euro but for other, seemingly unrelated, currencies. A new consensus set in that the ECB would begin tapering its bond purchases sooner than planned, and Eurozone rates would trend up accordingly.
That’s fine as far as it goes, but there would appear to be more to the story. First of all, the Eurozone may be growing slightly faster than expected, but it is hardly going gangbusters. In fact, the real GDP growth rates of the US, Eurozone and Japan are curiously symbiotic. Inflation in all three regions remains well below the 2 percent target of their respective central banks. And then there is the curious case of the euro’s recent strength even while bond yields have once again subsided. The chart below shows the YTD performance of the euro and yields on 10-year benchmark Eurozone bonds.
The spike in intermediate bond yields that followed from Draghi’s June comments has almost completely subsided back to where it was before that. Part of this, we imagine, is due to a more muted ECB posture recently, both at the Jackson Hole summit a couple weeks ago and in comments following the bank’s policy meeting this past week. The falling yields also have to do with a slightly more cautious tone that has crept into risk asset markets as investors take stock of geopolitical disturbances and the disruptive effects of the hurricanes that continue to make headlines in the southern US and Caribbean islands.
None of this would indicate to us that going bearish on the dollar is some kind of “fat pitch” trade, there for the obvious taking. In a world of relatively low growth, the US remains an economic leader in many key sectors from technology to financial services. It would only take a couple readings of higher inflation to bring back expectations for a third rate hike by the Fed and renewed commitment to balance sheet reduction. Recoveries elsewhere in the world are likewise not immune from setbacks that could necessitate a redoubling of stimulus.
That said, national currencies do, to some degree over time, reflect general sentiment towards the prospects of the home nation. Right now, it would be fair to say that those views are mixed, and not necessarily trending in the right direction, as concerns the US. Whether that leads to further dollar weakness or not is by no means certain, but it is increasingly a trend that cannot be ignored.
Talk of endurance is all the rage these days. Fall race season looms for runners and triathletes contemplating their next attempt at 26.2 or 140 or whatever mileage benchmarks await the end of the arduous training programs through which they (we!) have been slogging all these humid summer months. In markets, too, endurance is the word of the moment, and not just in stocks. Sure, we’re into the ninth year of the equity bull market that began in March 2009, which counts by most calculations as the second-longest running bull on record. But that pales in comparison to the granddaddy of all distance runners. The bond market produced yields in the stratospheric heights of 20-odd percent in 1981, then rallied as the Fed broke the back of double-digit inflation. We’ve been in a bond bull ever since.
New Challengers Emerge
Alongside these elite harriers we have a couple other asset classes looking to break through more modest distance goals. The long-beleaguered euro limbered up back in January and started to chase its longstanding nemesis, the US dollar. The euro is up around 16 percent versus the dollar year-to-date, a surprising turn of events for those caught up in the hype of the so-called “Trump trade” that followed the election last November. In commodity-land, copper and other industrial metals have gained more than 20 percent. While the China demand-fueled “supercycle” for commodities is deemed long dead, the future for a select group of metals, including copper, may well be bright if forecasts about the demand for lithium ion batteries (key components of electricity-operated vehicles) prove to be accurate. For the moment, non-US currencies and industrial metals are still microtrends, unproven at longer distances, but it will be worth keeping an eye on their progress.
A Flat & Forgiving Course
Distance runners tend to do their best work on predictable, smooth courses with a minimum of steep hills or unexpectedly rough, slippery terrain. Which brings us back to stocks and the nine-year bull. There really haven’t been too many Heartbreak Hills since the summer of 2011, when the simmering Eurozone crisis and the US debt ceiling fiasco took stocks into a vortex that stopped just short of a bear-level pullback of 20 percent. The tailwinds have come courtesy of the central banks and their monetary stimulus programs, along with an economy that has delivered steady, if modest, growth, an improved labor market and muted inflation. Corporate earnings have done well in this environment, so that even if stocks are expensive by most valuation standards (they are), they remain well below the bubble levels of the late dot-com era.
Now, anything can disrupt the equilibrium at any time. There are always risk factors lurking under the surface that, if actualized, would create havoc in asset markets. Think back to the longest bull on record: that of 1982-2000. Technicians would dispute our labeling this entire period a bull market, as it was punctured by the sudden cataclysm of Black Monday 1987, when the Dow and other major US indexes fell more than 20 percent in one day. We don’t think of the 1987 pullback as a bear market in the classic sense, though, because (a) it was entirely unrelated to broader economic trends, and (b) it was over almost as soon as it began. The 1987 event looked nothing like the last real bear market, a long stretch of misery that endured from 1968 to 1982. We bring this up because, based on everything we see in the economic and corporate profits landscape today, any potential pullback in the immediate future would more likely arise from the sudden emergence of a hitherto dormant risk factor than from a structural change in conditions. The course, in other words, remains flat and forgiving, but runners should always be aware that lightning can strike.
Even Ultramarathoners Tire Out
And that, in turn, brings us back to that superstar distance runner, the bond market. Because if anything could potentially make that flat course hillier and more unpredictable, it would be an end to the “lower for longer” assumption about bond yields that is baked into every asset class with a risk premium. The risk premium for any asset starts with interest rates; namely, the prevailing risk-free rate layered with additional quanta of risks deemed pertinent to the asset in question. Upsetting the applecart of low rates would reverberate throughout the capital markets in a uniquely pervasive way.
For now, the bond market would appear to still be a ways away from its last legs. Both the Fed and the ECB will likely try to provide reassuring guidance over the course of this fall as to how they plan to move towards a more “normal” monetary policy environment with a minimum of disruptive surprises. We don’t expect much disruption to ensue from the upcoming September meetings of either central bank. But we have to pay close attention to any unusual wobbles or other signs of fatigue along the way.
Should you be concerned about the somewhat bumpy ride US stocks have encountered in the past couple days? Or is this a welcome chance to get in some long overdue bargain hunting before the S&P 500 resumes its lazy upward drift to a series of new highs?
The answer would depend, we imagine, on whether you see the unrest on the Korean peninsula – arguably the best go-to explanation for yesterday’s 1.45 percent pullback in the US benchmark index – as something genuinely serious and potentially destabilizing, or as little more than a spate of made-for-Twitter taunts that will, as these things generally do, settle down. As you contemplate this, bear in mind that most of the intense geopolitical flashpoints in history (notably including the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis) have had relatively negligible impacts on asset returns in the months following the event. We have noted before that disaster doesn’t strike far more often than it does strike.
Caveat Bargain Hunter
That being said – and our instinctive proclivity towards bargain-hunting notwithstanding – there are some reasons entirely unrelated to geopolitics that merit some thought before doubling down on your equity market exposure. This comes back to a theme we have discussed extensively with clients in recent weeks, namely, the rather listless, leaderless nature of the market’s upward drift this summer. Consider the chart below, which shows the relative performance of the main S&P 500 industry sectors against the benchmark index for the year to date.
In this chart we draw particular attention to three sectors: technology, financials and energy. These are the three sectors that were the key drivers of profit growth in the just-concluded second quarter earnings season. Energy led the way with a triple-digit earnings rebound from the depths of the sector’s miserable 2016. Technology and financials both enjoyed double-digit earnings growth and the tech sector’s top line was strong as well, helped along by the benign tailwind of a weaker dollar against major trading partners.
With the exception of tech, though, these earnings haven’t translated into share price performance. Energy continues to be the market’s problem child, seemingly unable to convince investors that the current trough recovery in earnings is sustainable. Financials, of course, were the darling of the post-election reflation trade before that ill-conceived flight of fancy crashed and burned in this year’s first quarter. Banks and their ilk have trailed the benchmark since then. And tech, even though it maintains a solid performance lead this year, has shown itself to be vulnerable on several occasions, most notably with that big pullback in early June.
The apparent lack of attention paid to earnings extends to the level of individual stocks as well. A Financial Times article earlier this week reported on the market’s apparent failure to reward companies beating their Q2 earnings estimates, noting that “there has been little or no reward for companies reporting better than expected earnings per share and sales.” This observation fits in squarely with our contention that, while the market drifts higher in the absence of a compelling negative headwind, it lacks a sustaining theme. And without such a sustaining theme the market is, we believe, more vulnerable to the types of external shocks we have seen this week.
Labor Day Looms
As we write this before Friday’s market open, we have no crystal ball to tell us whether yesterday’s pullback will extend for a few more days (S&P 500 futures are about flat with 20 minutes to go before the open). We haven’t seen a multi-day pullback for more than a year and a half, but they do happen with some regularity. We think it more likely than not that the Korea kerfuffle will subside in due time, playground taunts from both heads of state kept in check by cooler heads. But the listless market will still be exposed to these kinds of periodic shocks, and they may come into sharper focus as the traditional back to school season approaches. Yesterday the VIX, the market’s “fear gauge”, shot up above 17 after weeks of historically low dormancy. Until we have another compelling, sustainable positive trend narrative, we should not be surprised to see more of these periodic, brief solar flares.
There’s not much interesting going on in the stock market these days, even less so than in the August “dog days” of years past. Oh sure, the Dow breaks 22,000 and local news stations go into one of their predictable round-number happy dances (as if the Dow Jones Industrial Average were anything other than a quaint relic from the 19th century). The S&P 500 (a more useful proxy for the “stock market”) lazily drifts along, sporadically setting new highs on the gentle currents of decent corporate earnings and low, but fairly stable, macroeconomic growth. Volatility, that once-fearsome stalker of equity portfolios, seems to be on the cup of fossilizing into amber or the permafrost.
On the other hand, bonds – wow! Everyone’s talking about bonds, normally the portfolio slice over which investors don’t lose sleep. More specifically, everyone’s talking about what could happen to bond prices if central banks follow through on a combination of raising rates and reducing balance sheets. Safe to say that “Raise and Reduce” focuses Wall Street’s attention in the same crystal-clear way that “Repeal and Replace” engaged the gimlet eyes of health care activists in recent weeks. For much of 2017 to date, yields on longer-dated bonds like Treasuries and investment grade corporates have remained relatively subdued while rates at the short end of the yield curve have climbed in expectations of further rate hikes. But ever since Mario Draghi mused about the pace of recovery in the Eurozone in late July, intermediate bonds (in particular Bunds and other European issues) have been channeling much of that volatility that the stock market has lost. Investors reasonably want to know if their bond portfolios are safe.
History Compared to What?
The issue at hand is whether central banks will go ahead with all these “Raise and Reduce” plans. If they were to do so, and if intermediate and long term rates were to suddenly spike as a result, then all those supposedly safe bond portfolios would be in the crosshairs. The “bond bubble” you may have heard about if you tune into the financial news channels and their bespoke pundits contemplates this scenario. At some point, the argument will wind its way back to the phrase “historically low rates” to describe how, after plumbing the lowest levels in the history of the American republic a scant twelve months ago, there is nowhere for rates to go but up, and possibly up a lot.
But what exactly are these historical averages, we would ask, and how relevant are they to the current environment? Bond yields don’t exist in a vacuum; they generally are related to the rate of growth and, particularly, the rate of inflation in an economy. In this context, historical averages are misleading. The average rate of core inflation (consumer prices excluding the volatile sectors of energy and food) from 1960 to the present was 3.8 percent, and the corresponding average rate of real GDP growth was 3.0 percent. Over the same time period, average yields on the 10-year Treasury bond were 6.2 percent, clearly far above where they have trended for most of this decade.
Past Performance Indicative of Nothing in Particular
But this 57 year “history” is hardly homogeneous. The first half of the 1960s enjoyed the tailwind of a very unusual confluence of productivity growth and growing labor participation that began after the Second World War. Those trends had petered out by the early 1970s, replaced by lackluster growth and soaring inflation – the “stagflation” era that still gives central bankers nightmares and clouds their policy thinking. Growth resumed in the 1980s with the help of both household and corporate debt, then experienced a very brief spike in productivity in the late 1990s. An uneven pace of growth in the mid-2000s collapsed with the 2007-09 recession, leading us to the current era of slow growth, tepid wages and moderate consumer prices.
The chart below shows the GDP and inflation trends over this time period. If bond yields are supposed to reflect what the collective wisdom considers a reasonable reward for deferring consumption today for return tomorrow, then what does this past history tell us about where rates might reasonably be in the weeks and months ahead?
As we have argued numerous times in these pages, the case for long-term growth much above the current trend of around 2 percent is weak: none of the catalysts – population, labor force participation or productivity – are working in the right direction. What would drive sharply higher inflation, then? And in the absence of a genuine inflation threat, what would prompt central bankers – well aware of their status as practically the only relevant economic policymakers in the world today – to take draconian action to battle imaginary dragons?
One can never rule out the potential for human error, and central bankers of course are still only human. But we do not think that a collapse in bond prices arising out of intensely hawkish central bank maneuvers is a high or even moderate probability scenario as we chart out the final leg of 2017 market trends.
Over the past few months, we’ve had a number of conversations with clients that go something like this:
Client: Wow, these are crazy times, huh? Politics! Never seen anything like this!
Us: Yep, they sure are crazy times.
Client: So, why does the stock market keep going up? When should I be worried?
In today’s commentary we will address this concern, and explain why we believe that, whatever one thinks of the political dynamics playing out here at home or abroad, it probably is not a good idea to transpose these sentiments onto a view of portfolio allocation. Political risk is a real thing. But history has shown there to be very little causal relationship between momentous political events and movements in risk asset markets. Any market environment, whether bull or bear, is affected by tens of thousands of variables every day, many of which have little correlation with each other, and very few of which are easy to pinpoint and ascribe to prime mover status. We offer up a case study in support of this claim: the US stock market in the early 1970s that encompassed the Nixon Watergate scandal.
That Dreary Seventies Market
President Nixon resigned from office in August, 1974, shortly after it became clear that Congress was preparing to commence impeachment proceedings in the wake of the revelations about the Watergate crimes and attempted cover-up by the administration. As the chart below shows, the S&P 500 fell quite a bit during the month of August 1974, as well as before and after the Nixon resignation. But the chart also shows that there was a lot else going on at the same time.
The Nixon resignation remains to date the most consequential political scandal in modern American history. It had an earth-shaking effect on the political culture in Washington, leading to far-reaching attempts by lawmakers to restore the integrity of the systems and institutions the scandal had tarnished. As far as markets were concerned, though, Watergate was far down the list of events giving investors headaches. Following a historically unprecedented period of economic growth and rise in living standards over the prior two decades, the first five years of the 1970s witnessed two wrenchingly painful recessions, spiraling inflation and a gut-punch to household budgets in the form of OPEC’s 1973 oil embargo. The freefall in stocks that took place in 1973 and 1974, if it is to be tied to any specific catalyst, flows from the real dollars-and-cents impact of the embargo and the recession. Watergate, as important as it was as a political event, was little more than a blip on a radar screen already filled with bad news.
Tweets Come and Go, Markets Carry On
Which brings us back to today’s daily carnival of the bizarre from the banks of the Potomac Drainage Basin. While the tweets fly and the heads of the high priests of conventional wisdom explode, the economy…well, just chugs along at more or less the same pace it has for the past several years. Today’s initial Q2 GDP reading (2.6 percent, slightly below expectations) sets us up for another year of growth averaging somewhere around 2 percent. The labor market is healthy, there is neither hyperinflation nor deflation, and corporate earnings growth is trending close to double digits. No major world economy appears in imminent danger of a lurch to negative growth.
Yes, stock prices are expensive by most reasonable valuation measures. And yes, there is not much in the way of sector leadership momentum. But until and unless we see compelling signs of a shift away from this uncannily stable macro context, we see little evidence that Washington shenanigans will have much of an impact on stocks. At some point, those tens of thousands of global variables at play will deliver up a different set of considerations and necessitate new strategic thinking. Trying to time the precise market impact, as always, is a fool’s errand.