Posts tagged Geopolitics & Markets
It was Game On week. No, not the NCAA basketball tournament with its annual goody-bag of Cinderella stories and humble pie for top seeds, but the opening salvo of the elections in Europe about which we’ve all been chattering since the beginning of the year. What message will those discontented bodies politic in the fraying Eurozone send to global markets? Vox Populi rising, or more of the same?
Nee, Non, Nein
“Nothing here, move on” might be an appropriate response to this week’s contest in the Netherlands, and indeed much of the post-election commentary focused on the singular Nee – Dutch for No – served up by the voters to anti-immigrant polemicist and Freedom Party (PVV) head Geert Wilders. A stunning 82 percent of the citizenry turned out (dream on, America!) to give Mr. Wilders the thumbs-down and enable incumbent Mark Rutte and his VVD party to form a new government. This outcome fits rather neatly into a long-held view that, while disgruntled Europeans may register their unhappiness in polls and in the less consequential votes for the EU representatives they send to Brussels, they will heed their better angels when voting in their own national governments. Historians will point out that ethnocentric populism, while always present, has never managed to crack the high 30s in percentage terms over more than a century of national electoral contests. In this reading of the current environment, the Dutch “Nee” is likely to be followed by a French rejection of Marine Le Pen in favor of centrist Emmanuel Macron, and a vote for more of the same in Germany when Angela Merkel seeks her fourth term. Certainly these would have to be considered the default outcomes in the absence of any new news.
The Math of Discontent
A closer read of the Dutch outcome, though, tells a somewhat different story and one that would appear to be well in line with broader trends both within and without the Old Continent. The PVV – Wilder’s party – didn’t actually lose parliamentary seats but rather gained five. The big losers of the night, by the math of seat gains or losses, were the two establishment parties. PM Rutte’s PVV lost eight seats (though still retaining its position as the largest single party). But the PVV’s coalition partner, the Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) lost a stunning 29 seats. That adds up to a net loss of 37 for the Establishment. It also serves up yet more evidence that the traditional European left (think Britain’s beleaguered Labor Party or France’s Socialists with a 4 percent favorability rating) is in a death spiral.
Meanwhile three “alternative” parties – the left-leaning, Europhile D66 and Green List and the center-right, quasi-populist CDA, picked up 23 seats between them. Adding Geert Wilder’s 5 seats means that a non-Establishment alternative, split roughly between pro and anti EU sentiment, will play an outsize role in the new government. With no clear mandate for either bailing out of the EU/Eurozone or doubling down on open borders and free trade, the result is likely to be a lack of clear direction one way or the other. This outcome much more resembles the recent past than it does some bold new step forward. Populism may have its limits, but so does globalism.
Mr. Market’s Quiet Genius
For the past couple months we have spilled a great deal of ink on the pages of this column finding fault with the so-called “reflation-infrastructure” trade that appeared to be based on little other than hope and animal spirits. But we are starting to see a little method in the apparent madness of the markets. No – there is no infrastructure pony out back with a Christmas bow around its neck. There never was. Just as in Europe, our own policy engine is stuck in second gear, and not just on account of the apparent own goals the current administration and Congress keep making. Ours, too, is a body politic divided, and those divisions are, so far at least, keeping in check any decisive movement juggernaut in one given direction.
And that suits Mr. Market just fine, thank you very much. Hey – economies are doing pretty much okay on their own, here at home, in Europe, Japan and much of the emerging world. Citizens are disgusted with their governments for some very valid reasons. The less interference we get from misguided policymakers, goes this line of thinking, the better. No action is good action. Continued improvement in jobs and wages, with a modest but not frenetic pick-up in prices, all in the context of real GDP growth of two percent or a bit more – that’s enough for now. Enough to keep corporate earnings growing at least in the mid-high single digits. These may not be the best of times, but neither are they the worst. As long as things remain more or less as they are, this bull market can perhaps enjoy an extended sunset rather than suffering an abrupt end.
Fiscal policy is where all the cool kids hang out now, as we noted in last week’s commentary. But the monetary policy nerds at the Fed got at least a modicum of attention this week as the dots settled on the Fed funds plot chart Wednesday afternoon. As was widely expected, the meeting resulted in a 0.25 percent target rate hike and some meaningful, if subtle, changes to the 2017 outlook. Three policy actions are on tap for next year, and this time the market seems to take this outlook seriously. Chair Yellen & Co. expect the recently favorable trends in output growth and employment to continue, while expecting to see headline prices reach the two percent target by 2018. These observations appear to be largely irrespective of what does or does not happen with all the hyped-up fiscal policy that has been driving markets of late. Be well advised: monetary policy will still matter, quite a bit, in 2017. It will have an impact on many things, not least of which will be the opportunity set of fiscal policy choices.
Divergent Today, Insurgent Tomorrow
Market watchers on Wednesday made much of the (temporary, as it turns out) pullback in stock indexes in post-FOMC trading. But the real action, as has often been the case in the last six weeks, was in the bond market. The yield spike is noteworthy in absolute terms, but even more striking on a relative basis. Consider the chart below, showing the spread between the 2-year U.S. Treasury note and its German Bund counterpart.
Short-term U.S. rates are at 52-week highs while German rates are at their 2016 lows. The spread between the two is wider, at 2.07 percent, than it has been at any time since 2003. Remember divergence? That was the big theme in the discourse one year ago, when the Fed followed through on its 2015 policy action last December. The Eurozone and Bank of Japan were full steam ahead with their respective stimulus programs as the Fed prepared to zag in the other direction. Then markets hit a speed bump in January, the Fed backed off any further action and rates came back down. As the above chart shows, U.S. and German short-term rates followed a more or less similar trajectory for most of the year.
But divergence is back with vengeance. Holders of U.S. dollar-denominated assets will be pleased, as the euro gets pushed ever closer to parity. Policy divergence leads to dollar insurgence. On the negative side, that insurgence looks set to redouble the FX headwinds that have clipped corporate top line revenue growth for much of the past two years. That, in turn, will make it challenging to achieve the kind of double-digit earnings growth investors are banking on to justify another couple laps of the bull market.
Three Times the Charm?
What we took away from Chair Yellen’s post-meeting press conference was a sense that the Fed’s world view has changed only modestly amid all the hoopla of the post-election environment. She took pains to note that the outlook shift to three possible rate changes in 2017 does not reflect a seismic change in thinking among the dot-plotters, but an incremental shift reflecting a somewhat more positive take on the latest growth, employment and price data.
And fiscal policy? Yellen could hardly avoid the topic; it was the point of the vast majority of the questions she fielded from the press. Over the course of her tenure at the Fed she has spoken many times of the need for monetary and fiscal policy to complement each other at appropriate times in the business cycle. This, however, may not be one of those times. Consider her comment in response to one question: “So I would say at this point that fiscal policy is not obviously needed to help get us back to full employment.” For the moment, at least, and in the absence of any tangible data to suggest otherwise, the Fed does not appear to be giving undue attention to the fiscal variable.
As Location Is To Real Estate, Productivity Is to Growth
Chair Yellen did make a point of emphasizing what kind of fiscal policy she does like: namely, that which directly helps boost productivity. That’s a point you have heard us make in this space ad nauseum, so it was good to hear it from the Eccles Building. What kind of fiscal policy could that be? Education, jobs and skills training programs and improving the quality of installed capital used by American workers were specifically called out by the Fed chair. Of course, there is no clarity of any kind that such productivity-friendly programs will make it through the legislative sausage factory. One can always hope, though.
Happy (Fiscal) Holidays
Opinions among the politico-financial commentariat appear to be converging on the basic idea that “fiscal policy is the new monetary policy.” Out with the obsession over FOMC dot-plots, in with infrastructure! Does a more robust fiscal policy, if in fact implemented, presage a structural bump-up in GDP? The stock market seems to think so, with a strangely high degree of conviction, as illustrated in the chart below.
This chart, one of our periodic favorites, shows what we like to call the “risk gap” between stock prices (the solid blue line showing S&P 500 price performance for the past two years) and volatility (the green dotted line shows the CBOE VIX index, the market’s so-called “fear gauge”). The wider the risk gap, the more complacent the market. As of late the gap has turned into a chasm, with stock prices setting all-time highs on a near-daily basis while the fear gauge slumbers at or near recent lows, and well below the threshold of twenty indicating a high-risk environment.
The takeaway from the chart would appear to be this: not only are we absolutely, positively going to get a bracing jolt of stimulative fiscal policy in the near future, but that new policy is going to translate into higher GDP growth, higher wages and prices, and who knows what else. Maybe a groundbreaking new proof for Fermat’s last theorem?
If you kept your nerve during the seven day run-up to last month’s election (where you see that big stock price dip and brief spike in the VIX), then you are no doubt pleased as punch that Mr. Market decided to react thus. But you may also be concerned about whether this reaction is a rational assessment of the impact of future fiscal policy, or alternatively a sugar high that will leave in its wake a sensation not unlike overindulging in Krispy Kremes.
Three Pillars of Fiscal Wisdom
The fiscal policy measures being lobbed around Washington think tanks and spin rooms these days fall into three broad categories: taxes, regulations and infrastructure. Call them the Three Pillars of fiscal policy in Paul Ryan’s brave new world of one-party rule. As we noted above, the market’s near-immediate response to the prospect of the Three Pillars was ebullient optimism. This attitude is partly understandable. After all, we have had to endure eight years of gridlock in Washington during which very little got done. Central banks, which did all the heavy lifting during this time, are understandably receptive to the prospect of some burden-sharing.
But two questions pose themselves. First, how much of whatever comes out of the abstract Three Pillars and into actual policy will be stimulative? Second, as Fed Chair Yellen herself has asked, how much stimulus does the economy even need? Job growth is close to what economists typically regard as “full employment.” Moreover, despite a somewhat weaker wage figure in the last batch of jobs numbers, hourly earnings have trended above core and headline inflation for the last year. GDP in the third quarter was above expectations, and even the long-beleaguered, all-important productivity number beat expectations in Q3. These are not exactly conditions screaming out for a redoubling of stimulus (though, to the point made by many central bankers, when it does become time for more stimulus in the future, it would be preferable for the burden to be shared between monetary and fiscal sources).
Given that the economy is, in fact, not falling off a cliff, by nature austerity-loving Republicans in the House are likely to push back on initiatives that add significantly to the budget deficit. Tax cuts will always be a priority over new spending on the right-hand side of the Congressional aisle. Of the Three Pillars, tax cuts are probably the most likely to be first out of the gate. But even here, as we read the (admittedly confusing) tea leaves of current chatter, the outcome is not likely to be as simple as was the last batch of significant cuts under George Bush. Not only individual and corporate taxes are under consideration, but some kind of a value-added sales tax as well, as a partial offset measure. Strangely a VAT tax – generally considered regressive – seems to have a measure of Democratic support.
We will have quite a bit to say about the progress, or lack thereof, of the Three Pillars in forthcoming commentaries. Where we always want to take the discussion, though, is back to how these measures ultimately connect to anything that drives actual cash flows for publicly traded companies. Connecting these dots is what helps us understand whether there is anything fundamental behind temporal stock price movements or not.
Right now our assessment tends more towards the “not.” That “risk gap” illustration above strikes us as being unsustainable. Either volatility will pick up at some point – most likely as the pre-inauguration honeymoon winds down and the real business of governing looms large – or markets will resume the kind of drift patterns along a trading corridor such as we saw for much of 2015 and 2016.
A period of corridor drift could be preceded by a sizable pullback of five to ten percent, such as the ones we experienced in August 2015 and January 2016. We tend to think that such a pullback would more likely be the result of an external surprise – another plunge in the renminbi, say, or even a geopolitical shock from a global trouble-spot – rather than anything directly connected with the still-healthy U.S. economy. While we don’t see the makings of a sustained downturn ahead, it is worth remembering that stock price valuations remain at decade-plus highs.
Only a sharp upturn in corporate earnings in the coming quarters will supply the justification needed to be comfortable with those high valuations. That upturn, should it come, will be the result of continuing improvements in productivity and a revival of global demand. Not from a fiscal stimulus program that may or may not happen.
In this space last week we presented a case for “guarded optimism” in risk asset markets, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. Then the Tuesday Surprise happened. It would be reasonable for one to ask us whether we are still of that cautiously optimistic view we expressed one week ago, and that will be our theme this week.
Sound and Fury
First of all, let us be crystal clear about one thing. When the subject of politics comes up in any of our weekly commentaries, our discussion is limited to how we perceive the directional impact of political events on equities and other risk asset markets. Donald Trump’s Electoral College victory has major potential implications for the U.S. and the world at many levels. Both of us have our own personal views about the outcome. But our focus here, as it is with any subject we present in these pages, is simply to share with our clients and other readers our assessment of how this development may affect their long-term investment portfolios.
As of today, our view is very little changed from where it was one week ago. Yes – futures markets plummeted through circuit-breaker levels as the results trickling in from North Carolina and Florida illuminated Trump’s path to 270. And yes – a few inclusive-sounding words by the President-elect, delivered in a relatively calm, measured tone in the wee hours of the morning, succeeded in reversing those overnight losses ahead of a Wednesday rally. That’s short-term noise, and while we could see more of that play out over the next couple weeks, we do not see as likely any sustained directional trend one way or the other proceeding from the simple fact of Trump’s victory.
Beyond the short-term sound and fury, we see three critical questions that could set the tone of markets in the first half of next year and beyond. First, will the new administration insert itself into Fed Chair Janet Yellen’s realm of monetary policy in a way that upsets central bank-dependent asset markets? Second, how will the economic priorities of Team Trump impact particular industry sectors and, by extension, the sales and earnings prospects of publicly traded companies? Third, will those same economic priorities live up to the often inflammatory, dangerous rhetoric on foreign trade that came up in the course of the campaign?
The Last Democrat
Among her other claims to fame, Janet Yellen now has the dubious distinction of being the last Democrat in Washington, D.C. with any meaningful power. The President-elect’s personal distaste for her is well-known and was featured prominently in the campaign’s closing ad messages. We think it unlikely, though, that the new president would play footsie with a possible market crash by taking concrete action in his first year to limit the Fed’s ability to independently execute monetary policy. Yellen’s term expires in January 2018, and odds are better than not that she will be replaced then by a Republican Fed head. Trump would have little to gain, and a great deal to lose, by stirring up trouble in the Eccles Building any time before then.
That is not to say that the risk of a White House – Fed confrontation does not exist as a possible 2017 surprise. In particular, it will be interesting to see how Trump and his new economic advisors react if, as expected, the Fed reactivates its rate hike program starting in December. Notoriously unpredictable as a candidate, it remains to be seen how restrained Donald Trump will be as president. We will be studying the tea leaves of formal policy speeches and off-the-cuff Twitter remarks alike in the coming weeks to get a better sense; for the time being, anyway, we would expect a more pragmatic approach to relations with the Fed at least within the next twelve months.
The Return of Fiscal Policy?
One of the first ways we expect 2017 to be unlike every one of the last eight years is that fiscal policy – i.e. actual legislative action targeting areas of economic stimulus – will be a real part of the conversation. In 2009 the Republican Congressional leadership more or less designed a tactical program around denying the Obama administration opportunities to implement economic policy. They didn’t always succeed – most notably in the 2009 stimulus package responding to the Great Recession and then in the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act – but by the time of Obama’s reelection in 2012 fiscal policy was by and large not a viable part of the economic equation. That has changed with the looming imminence of one-party rule. When we hear various ideas floated around – infrastructure spending, corporate tax reform, and stimulus programs for coal and other non-renewable energy sources are examples currently making the rounds – we have to assume they can actually become law and have an impact for better or worse.
One practical consequence of this is that sector picking may be back in vogue, as armies of quants tinker around with algorithms designed to follow the direction of putative fiscal policy initiatives. We already see signs of how this will play out; just since Wednesday morning, for example, the healthcare sector has been cleaved into subsectors with very distinct, uncorrelated trading patterns. Republicans on the Hill are baying for an immediate repeal of the Affordable Care Act, with little sense of what if anything is to replace it. That exposes health insurers to much uncertainty. On the other hand, expectations of an ultra-light regulatory touch are boosting the shares of drug manufacturers and biotech firms.
Trade or No Trade?
Ultimately, corporate earnings will depend on far more than U.S. fiscal policy. The IMF revised its estimates for global growth next year down in its most recent quarterly assessment. Both output and demand remain below historical norms in most developed as well as emerging markets. Weak foreign demand and a strong U.S. dollar are likely to continue to weigh on earnings and profit margins. That was going to be true regardless of who won on Tuesday night. Both campaigns took a relatively hard line against global trade; again, though, the fact that the executive and legislative branches all went Republican means that – to be blunt about it – if the new administration wants to start a trade war then it will be well within the realm of possibility to implement protectionist legislation.
Somewhat along the lines of our thinking that Trump would not likely rush into an immediate monetary policy confrontation with Janet Yellen, we think it less than probable that he would strike up a trade confrontation with China as an opening economic policy salvo. We have to imagine that somewhere in his economic transition team are voices to convince him of the unfavorable cost-benefit equation of such action.
There will be plenty of pressure from outside Washington to live up to his campaign rhetoric, however. It is not lost on anyone, least of all on traditional conservative free-traders who populate D.C. redoubts like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, that the margin for Trump’s victory was delivered by voters who have largely been on the losing side of the global economy’s distribution of fortunes. The President-elect will soon enough have to confront the dilemma of pro-trade, pro-growth policy versus the strong protectionist impulses of the newly-empowered working class Republican base.
So there they are: monetary policy, fiscal stimulus and approach to trade are the three open questions at the top of our list of priorities. As we said last week, connecting the dots between the current direction of macroeconomic trends and corporate sales & earnings – i.e. the overall narrative that long predated the election – offers enough grist for at least a cautiously optimistic take on asset markets as 2017 gets underway. Whether we stand by that view as the year progresses will depend in no small part on how we see the evidence shaping up to provide answers to these three questions.
Central banks in developed and (most) key emerging markets operate independently from their national governments. This independence is what endows monetary policymakers with the ability to act in times of economic strain while elected officials, hemmed in by unyielding partisan constraints, bicker haplessly on the sidelines. Increasingly, though, a taskmaster of an entirely different stripe has dominated the deliberations of monetary mandarins. Global asset markets were the unseen, but very much felt, presence in the room when the Fed convened this year to debate policy actions in January (China-sparked stock market correction), March (post-correction nerves) and June (Brexit). Asset sensitivity has been no less on the table for deliberations in Frankfurt, London and Tokyo.
The perceived reluctance of the Fed and other central banks to “provoke” risk asset markets into tantrums has drawn criticism from observers who see the bankers’ dependence on asset price movements as unhealthy and likely to end badly. Perhaps the most telling evidence of this phenomenon is in the chronic gap between the short to intermediate term interest rate projections of central bankers themselves and the market’s own take, from spot rates at the short end of the curve to Fed funds futures projections around upcoming FOMC outcomes. This week offered some evidence that the bankers may be trying to strike back. We’ll know more in the coming weeks about how much of this is posturing and how much is actual policy.
Super Mario Stands Pat
In the same week when the electronic form of Super Mario took the leap onto Apple’s new iPhone 7, real-life ECB chairman Mario Draghi chose, not only not to move, but not to say anything about not moving. The former was not a surprise; not many observers expected the ECB to announce an expansion of its current €80 billion per month bond purchasing program. But there was a general sense that Mr. “Whatever It Takes” might give a verbal nod in one or both of two ways: to extend the term of the current program from March to September of next year, and/or to indicate a widening of the eligible asset pool for ECB purchases. That second issue may be in any event unavoidable, given supply constraints on the amount of available debt under current eligibility rules.
Nothing in any way explicit, though, came from Draghi. Slumbering Eurozone bonds were suddenly jolted out of their summer reverie; the 10-year Bund yield is actually positive for the first time in many weeks. Flummoxed investors now wonder if the ECB’s silence portends something more profound; namely, an incipient declaration by central bankers that fiscal policymakers need to join the team, and meanwhile short-term asset prices be damned.
On Deck: Janet and Masahiro
Are bond yields overreacting to the ECB’s absence of verbal cues? It certainly would not be the first time. A less dramatic reading of Thursday’s meeting would simply be that Draghi’s stimulative inclinations haven’t changed at all, but that he still has work to do in bringing a likely reluctant Bundesbank on board with any expansion to the current framework, either for an extension or for a widening of the eligible asset pool. We imagine it likely that yields may fluctuate back and forth over the next ten days or so, driven more by tea leaves-reading than anything else. Both the Fed and the Bank of Japan meet in the first half of the week after next. We have made it clear in recent commentary that we see a vanishingly small chance that the Fed would actually raise rates in September, given the general absence of a need to do so and the charged political environment into which such a move would be made.
A string of recent musings by Fed officials, though, and most recently that of the normally dovish Eric Rosengren of the Boston Fed, has kept the Fed’s September meeting very much in the center of market chatter. Coming as it did on the heels of Draghi’s silence yesterday, asset markets are repricing expectations. In particular, Rosengren offered shades of Alan Greenspan circa 1996 with a reference to the dangers of “ebullient” asset markets in a climate of perpetually low rates. We should note, though, that while Rosengren got most of the headlines his was not the only view in circulation today; fellow FOMC voting member Dan Tarullo offered a more cautious observation, based on the same available empirical data informing our own recent opinions, that there is still enough slack in overall growth and price targets to not necessitate immediate action.
If the Fed does move on 9/21 – and we still do not think it will – we would see that as genuine evidence that a concerted declaration of independence is at hand. Our view would be bolstered further still if the currently very hard to read Masahiro Kuroda and his colleagues at the Bank of Japan signal at their meeting an intent to back off further forays into negative interest rate territory.
Fight or Flight?
More interesting still, though, would be the central bankers’ reaction to what could be a very nasty aftermath in those asset markets spurned by the bankers’ attempt at liberation from their clutches. How steely would the resolve of Janet, Mario and Masahiro be in the face of a violent spasm in equity and other asset markets? After all, it’s not like elected politicians and their fiscal policy executors are waiting in the wings, ready to swoop in with their own pragmatic solutions to our economic problems. Nor is there much evidence of the kind of robust organic economic growth that could get asset prices back on track after an initial swoon. Are central bankers really ready to cut the cord and see how markets survive in a world of diminished stimulus? All verbal (and non-verbal) Kabuki aside, we don’t imagine they will be inclined to tempt fate.