Posts tagged Market Impact Events
Well, the first quarter of 2019 is about to enter the history books, and it’s been an odd one. On so very many levels, only a couple of which will be the subjects of this commentary. To be specific: stocks and bonds. Here’s a little snapshot to get the discussion started – the performance of the S&P 500 against the 10-year Treasury yield since the start of the year.
Livin’ La Vida Loca
For an intermediate-term bond investor these are good times (bond prices go up when yields go down). For an equity investor these are very good times – the 2019 bull run by the S&P 500 is that index’s best calendar year start in 20 years. There are plenty of reasons, though, to doubt that the good times will continue indefinitely. Something’s going to give. The bond market suggests the economic slowdown that started in the second half of last year (mostly, to date, outside the US) is going to intensify both abroad and at home. The stock market’s take is that any slowdown will be one of those fabled “soft landings” that are a perennial balm to jittery nerves, and will be more than compensated by a dovish Fed willing to use any means available to avoid a repeat of last fall’s brief debacle in risk asset markets (on this point there is some interesting chatter circulating around financial circles to the effect that the equity market has become “too big to fail,” a piquant topic we will consider in closer detail in upcoming commentaries).
We have been staring at a flattening yield curve for many months already, but we can now dispense with the gerundive form of the adjective: “flattening” it was, “flat” it now is. The chart below shows the spread between the 10-year yield and the 1-year yield; these two maturities are separated by nine years and, now, about five basis points of yield.
Short term fixed rate bonds benefitted from the radical pivot the Fed made back in January when it took further rate hikes off the table (which pivot was formally ratified this past Wednesday when the infamous “dot plot” of FOMC members’ Fed funds rate projections confirmed a base case of no more hikes in 2019). But movement in the 10-year yield was more pronounced; remember that the 10-year was flirting with 3.25 percent last fall, a rate many observers felt would trigger major institutional moves (e.g. by pension funds and insurance companies) out of equities and back into fixed income). Now the 10-year is just above 2.5 percent. Treasuries are the safest of all safe havens, and there appears to be plenty of safe-seeking sentiment out there. The yield curve is ever so close to inverting. If it does, expect the prognostications about recession to go into overdrive (though we will restate what we have said many times on these pages, that evidential data in support of an imminent recession are not apparent to the naked eye).
What about equities? The simple price gain (excluding dividends) for the S&P 500 is more than 13 percent since the beginning of the year, within relatively easy striking distance of the 9/20/18 record high and more or less done with every major technical barrier left over from the October-December meltdown. “Pain trade” activity has been particularly helpful in extending the relief rally, as money that fled to the sidelines after December tries to play catch-up (sell low, buy high, the eternal plight of the investor unable to escape the pull of fear and greed).
The easy explanation for the stock market’s tailwind, the one that invariably is deployed to sum up any given day’s trading activity, is the aforementioned Fed pivot plus relaxed tensions in the US-China trade war. That may have been a sufficient way to characterize the relief rally back from last year’s losses, but we question how much more upside either of those factors alone can generate.
The Fed itself suggested, during Wednesday’s post-FOMC meeting data dump and press conference, that the economic situation seems more negative than thought in the wake of the December meeting. The central bank still appears to have little understanding of why inflation has remained so persistently low throughout the recovery, but finally seems to be tipping its hat towards the notion that secular stagnation (the phenomenon of lower growth at a more systemic, less cyclical level) may be at hand. This view would seem to be more in line with the view of the bond market than with that of equities.
As we said above – something’s gotta give. Will that “something” be a flat yield curve that tips into inversion? If so, what else gives? That will be something to watch as the second quarter gets underway.
It wasn’t all that long ago that Davos Week was a big deal. Confident, important communiqués about the state of the world delivered by important, impeccably tailored men (and a few women here and there). The rest of the world’s inhabitants might live out their quotidian habits in a perpetual fog, but the great and good who assembled in the little Swiss Alpine town every January were there to tell us that it was all going to be okay, that the wonders of the global wealth machine would soon be trickling their way. Now the fog has enshrouded them as well. While their status as influencers was getting sucked down into the lowest-common-denominator Twitterverse, their ability to explain the great trends of the day was upended by the improbable turn those trends were taking away from the comfortable Washington Consensus globalism of years past. “The mood here is subdued, cautious and apprehensive” reports Washington Post columnist (and Davos Man in good standing) Fareed Zakaria from the snowy slopes this year. Apprehensive, not confident, which is an apt way to sum up the present mindset of the world.
Never Underestimate the Power of Kick the Can
Yet, for all the fretting and fussing among the stewards of the world’s wealth pile, some of the key risks that have been plaguing investors in recent weeks seem to be turning rather benign. Consider as Exhibit A the state of the British pound, shown versus the US dollar in the chart below.
The pound has rallied strongly since plummeting in early December last year. If you go back and track the history of Brexit negotiations since that time, you find that the actual news about a Brexit resolution is almost all dismal. The deal PM Theresa May brought back from Brussels was panned as soon as it reached Westminster; that same deal formally went down to one of the most ignominious defeats in UK parliamentary history last week.
All the while – the pound sterling has rallied! Why? Because the Brexit deal’s unpopularity means that there are only two ways this whole sorry affair plays out between now and March, when the Article 50 deadline comes into effect. One is that the UK crashes hard out of the EU, which would be a disaster for the country. The other – and far and away the most likely, is to kick the can down the road. Extend the Article 50 deadline, probably to the end of the year, and see what kind of fudge can be worked out between now and then. Maybe (most likely, as we have been saying for some time now) a second referendum that scotches Brexit for once and all. Maybe something else. Maybe someone has to make a bold decision at some point. But not yet, not yet, as that fellow said in “Gladiator.” Thus the strong pound.
March Without the Madness
The month of March has in fact been looming large over Davos think-fests and cocktail parties this week. In addition to Article 50, there is that self-imposed deadline by Washington’s trade warriors to reach some kind of deal with China on the terms of cooperation going forward – absent which, according to Trump’s protectionist acolytes, there would be hell to pay in the form of new tariffs. Yet as the days go on, the evidence mounts that this administration’s tough talk on any number of fronts is all hat and no cowboy. This administration has plenty of other troubles with which to contend, and by now they know that actually following through with tough trade rhetoric will spark another pullback in the stock market. We don’t think it’s being Pollyanna to say that this trade showdown at high noon will likely not come to pass.
Finally, the other risk event that could befall markets after the Ides of March would be the Fed meeting that month with the potential for another interest rate hike. While that is a possibility, the Fed’s actions in recent weeks have been very cautious and non-confrontational with edgy markets. Recent inflation numbers have come in a bit below expectations. We’ll see what happens with Q4 GDP next week, but indications are that it will settle back somewhere in the 2-plus percent real growth range. In other words, the Fed will have plenty of flexibility if it decides to join in with the kick the can fun and hold off until next time. Even on the question of the Fed’s balance sheet there have been some recent indications that it may not wind down as quickly or deeply as previously thought.
“Never make tough decisions today that you can punt down the field for later” – this instinct is alive and well in the world of global policymaking. As long as that remains the case, Davos Man, you should take a deep breath and go back to enjoying your cocktails and canapés.
The month of December opened with the continuation of a relief rally that started just after Thanksgiving. The S&P 500 had dipped into correction territory but was clawing its way back up. The index closed on December 3 just 4.8 percent shy of the last record high set on September 20.
And that was as good as it would get. In the 12 trading days since then, the benchmark large cap index has registered only three up days, and those could charitably be described as anemic at best. As the opening bell rings in the last trading day of this tumultuous week, the S&P 500 sits more than 15 percent below that September 20 close. The Russell 2000 index of small cap stocks is in a bear market, down 24 percent from its early September peak. The Nasdaq Composite of erstwhile high-flying technology powerhouses is also on the cusp of that 20 percent bear threshold.
The suddenness and magnitude of the turnaround, in the absence of any obvious turn for the worse in economic and corporate financial data, has caught many hedge funds and other sophisticated investment vehicles, particularly those driven by quantitative trend methodologies, flat-footed. The natural question on investors’ minds is: how much worse can it get?
Making Sense of the Senseless
The intensity of this month’s drawdown in equities seems to derive from the confluence of three strands of worry: the prospects for a global economic slowdown, the apparent end of the “Fed put,” and the eye-popping level of dysfunction in Washington, illuminated most recently by the looming likelihood of a government shutdown and the departure of the widely respected Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Let’s take these in turn, summing up with our argument for taking a deep breath and staying disciplined.
There’s a tried and true old saw among market wags that economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions. To be fair to practitioners of the dismal science, recessions are fiendishly difficult to predict in advance. That being said, there continues to be very little in the monthly macro releases to suggest that growth in the US will turn negative any time soon. But the “harmonious convergence” story of 2017—with the US, EU, developed Asia Pacific and emerging markets all moving up together – has faded. The trade war sits over the globe, Damocles sword-like. China, the EU and Brexit-addled Britain all have their own particular problems. With the current recovery cycle being long in the tooth as it is, expectations are building that is as good as it will get. The same story plays out in corporate earnings: the go-go days of 25 percent earnings growth will end when the tax cuts lap one year in January. Earnings are still expected to grow in high single digits in 2019 , but the end of the sugar high brings a glass half empty mentality.
Greenspan’s Punchbowl Is No More
To put it mildly, the market was not at all pleased with Jerome Powell’s Fed this week. Wednesday was the conclusion of the December FOMC meeting. Ahead of the customary 2pm press release and subsequent press conference, investors seemed primed for at least a little good old-fashioned happy talk. After all, it wasn’t all that long ago that a stock market pullback of a lesser magnitude than the current one would elicit comforting reassurances from the Fed’s dove wing. But that was then. That was when the Fed’s stimulus program depended on shaking investors out of low-risk assets into equities and other higher risk asset classes. True – expectations for 2019 dropped from three rate cuts to two, and true also that the language was somewhat more measured about global growth prospects. But rate hikes are still on the table, and so is the winding down of the Fed’s balance sheet. Think of the “Fed put” as an opioid, and the market as a morphine addict. In the long run, weaning off that artificial stimulus will be beneficial. But those first few days (i.e., now) are rough sledding.
Whoville On the Potomac
And that brings us to Washington, which appears to be vying hard for the title of “world’s most dysfunctional political capital.” For most of the past two years the market has largely ignored the political gyrations that have consumed those inside the increasingly weird Beltway snow globe. Now, the prospect of a government shutdown, which seems likely to happen at midnight tonight, by itself is not something that normally spooks the market. The resignation of a major cabinet official – even when that official happens to be arguably the most respected personage in the present administration – is likewise something that normally gets more eyeballs from readers of the Washington Post than those of Bloomberg News. And the prospect of complete policy gridlock once Democrats retake the majority in the House next month is something that almost never freaks investors out (if no policy is getting made in DC then we can sleep well at night, go the usual thought bubbles over Mr. Market’s head).
This time, though, there are concerns – reasonable ones, sadly – that the dysfunction has the potential to become genuinely destructive in the weeks and months ahead. Anyone who has closely followed all the goings-on in the executive branch for the past two years can quite easily construct a plausible worst-case scenario that looks – well, really worst-case. There is at least a taste of that sentiment getting priced into the market right now.
What Tomorrow Brings
If one is convinced that the most likely scenario to play out is the worst-case one, then the rational thing to do is to reduce all exposure to risk assets and willingly accept zero percent real returns as the trade-off for sleeping well at night. If one sees a higher likelihood for something other than the worst case to emerge, then a stronger case could be made that the current market is quite oversold.
Always remember this: the price of any company’s stock is nothing more and nothing less than a collective estimate as to the net present value of all the future cash flows that company can generate. Of all the things out there that have the potential to impact those cash flows – recession, trade war, actual war – what magnitude will that impact likely be? On any given day, the collective wisdom may be wildly off the mark – either unrealistically pessimistic or too giddy in optimism – but over time share prices should converge to a realistic assessment of value.
We have plenty of concerns about the year ahead, and we will be discussing these in detail in our forthcoming annual outlook. These concerns will very much factor into our specific asset allocation decisions, and they anticipate a continuation of market volatility. But conditions like the present call for discipline and for perspective beyond the short-term sentiments buffeting daily market swings. Breathe in, breathe out, repeat.
Financial markets move to the metronome of data, but not only data. Optics and perception also factor into the equation. Experience tells us that perception can quite easily become reality. Thousands of trader-bots are primed on any given day to lurch this way and that, often on the basis of no more than the parsed verbiage of a Fed speech or a “presidential” tweet. Sometimes the waves generated by those bots cross each other and cancel out. Other times they all find themselves going in the same direction and create a tsunami.
When “Buy the Dip” Met “Sell the Rally”
Many of the headline data points continue to suggest that there is little reason to worry. The latest batch of jobs data came out this morning and were not way out of line with expectations – net positive payroll gains and a steady, but not overheated, pace for wage growth. In public statements Fed chair Powell projects confidence about growth prospects heading into next year. But other indicators are flashing yellow, if not necessarily red. Oil prices suggest a tempered demand outlook. Fed funds futures contracts are sharply backing away from the presumption of three rate increases next year and perhaps even a shift back to rate cuts in 2020. The picture for global trade remains as opaque as it has been for much of the year, leading to reductions in 2019 global growth estimates by the IMF.
With that in mind, it seems increasingly plausible that the current volatility in risk asset markets is something different from the other occasional pullbacks of the past few years. This one is more grounded in the perception that an economic slowdown is ahead. Not “tomorrow” ahead or “next January” ahead, but quite plausibly sometime before the calendar closes on 2019. What we’re seeing in this pullback (for the time being, anyway) is a roughly balanced approach to buying the dips at support levels and selling into relief rallies at the resistance thresholds. Having made it through a negative October without the bottom falling out, the animal spirits to propel a sustained upside rally are thus far being kept in check. Perception is running ahead of actual data, as it frequently does.
Pick Your Flavor
None of this means that a slowdown (or worse) is absolutely, definitely in store in the coming months. But if it seems like an increasingly probable outcome, how does one prepare? There is never any shortage of blow-dried heads in the media to tell you that “when the economy does X the market does Y” with “Y” being whatever pet theory its proponent is hawking on the day. The problem is that there is no statistical validity to any kind of pattern one might discern between slow or negative growth in the economy and the direction of stock prices. There simply aren’t enough instances for an observation to be meaningful. The US economy has technically been in recession just five times since 1980 (two of which were arguably one event, the “double-dip” recession of 1980-81). There’s no statistical meaning to a sample size of n=5, just like flipping a coin five times does not give you the same insight that flipping a coin 10,000 times does.
The last three recessions occurred, respectively, in 1990, 2001 and 2008. The chart below shows the trend in real GDP growth and share price movements in the S&P 500 over this period.
Here is what jumps out from the above chart: the pullback in the stock market during the relatively mild recession of 2001 was much more severe than the one that accompanied the deeper recession of 1990. Consider: 2001 barely even made it into the history books as a technical recession (the story of how recessions become official makes for an interesting article in and of itself – stay tuned for our 2019 Annual Outlook this coming January!) Yet the bloodbath in stocks was a sustained bear market over nearly three years. By contrast, the market fell just short of, and never technically went into, a bear market during the 1990 recession. 2001 was closer in terms of damage done to the Big One, the Great Recession of 2008.
Here is where we come back to our favorite hobby horse: inferring useful meaning from past instances is misguided, because each instance has its own miserable set of unique variables, like every unhappy family in “Anna Karenina.” Before the 2001 recession happened, you will recall, the high-flying technology sector crashed in a stunning mess of shiny dot-com valuations. A financial crisis – a crisis born of nosebleed asset valuations – precipitated a minor contraction in the real economy. And of course in 2008 it was another financial crisis, this one deeper and holding practically the entire global credit market in its grasp, that begat the near-depression in the economy that followed.
We think of 2001 and 2008 as “recession-plus,” where the “plus” factor arguably contributes more to the severity of the pullback in risk assets than do the macroeconomic numbers relating to jobs, GDP, prices and sales. It was no fun for investors as those numbers turned south in 1990, but the pain was relatively shallow and short-lived. Not so for the multi-year tribulations of 2001 and 2008.
Now, there is no clear path from where we stand today to either a 1990-esque standalone recession, a more severe situation driven by exogenous factors, or just a simple slowdown in growth. Or even (though less likely) a second wind of the growth cycle driven by a yet-unseen burst of productivity. Nor has perception, while currently trending negative, yet become reality. We imagine those bot-generated waves will collide and cancel out a few more times before the trend becomes more sustainably directional. Meanwhile, planning for alternative scenarios is the priority task at hand.
In the canons of Fed Scripture there was the Greenspan put, which begat the Bernanke put, which begat the Yellen put, and the Governors saw that it was good, and the Governors rested on the seventh day. And then came Jerome Powell, and the put was no more. Or was it?
You’ve Got a Friend at the Fed
For those not steeped in the arcane speech patterns of those who inhabit and/or observe the goings-on in the Eccles Building, the “Fed put” is the widely-held assumption among investors and traders that whenever risk asset markets get choppy, the Fed will be there to ease the pain with a fresh punch bowl of easy money.
Case in point: in the early months of 2016, just after the Fed had raised rates for the first time since the 2008 recession, global equities took a hit from some negative economic data from China. Now, nobody in the Yellen Fed at the time ever actually came out and said “the S&P 500 fell more than 10 percent, so we’re going shelve the rate hikes for a while.” But investors could draw their own conclusions – rates did stay on the shelf, not rising again until the end of 2016, a full year after the first increase.
For much of the current recovery cycle the colloquial Fed put was part and parcel of the formal monetary stimulus policy to get the economy back on its feet. Encouraging investors to shift out of low-risk assets like government bonds and into riskier things like equities was a central feature of the system. But those days are over. When stocks lurched into a downturn back in early October it seemed that the market finally got the memo – the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed’s monetary policy decision arm) had raised rates again in the September meeting, were on track to do so again in December, and Fed chair Powell was quoted in a speech as saying that current rates were still far away from the neutral interest rate. The economy’s doing well, corporate earnings are fine, no need to keep the training wheels on…right? Investors seemed to think otherwise, and Red October was on.
A Lighter Shade of Neutral
Let’s go back to that Powell comment about the neutral rate, because it figures very much into what the market has been up to this week. First of all, what exactly is the “neutral” rate of interest? Glad you asked, because even the cerebral Fed folk themselves can’t give you a clear answer. It’s supposed to be whatever rate of interest is neither stimulative (too low) nor restrictive (too high). The various members of the FOMC have their own ideas, which fall out into a range of about 2.5 to 3.5 percent based on the most recent “dot plot” assumptions the Fed releases periodically after the FOMC meets.
On Wednesday this week, Powell once again referenced the neutral rate. This time, though, rather than saying that rates were currently “far away” from neutral, he said they were “just below” the range of neutral rate estimates. The market went into a tizzy again, but this time in a good way with major indexes jumping more than 2 percent. And so the excited chatter resumed…is that a Powell put we see out there? We may well be wrong about this, but we tend to think not.
Do the Math
Currently, the Fed funds rate is in a target range of 2.0 to 2.25 percent, which puts rates…well, just like Powell said, “just below” the range of neutral rate estimates. The chart below illustrates this.
But why did investors obsess over those two words “just below?” Here’s how the math works. The midpoint of the current Fed funds range is 2.125 percent (i.e., halfway between the floor of 2 percent and ceiling of 2.25 percent). The FOMC generally likes to see the effective rate (i.e. the actual market rate banks charge each other for overnight loans) somewhere close to the midpoint.
So, to get that midpoint rate above the 2.5 percent lower boundary of the neutral rate range would require two additional rate hikes (presumably one later this month and one sometime next year). To get to the midpoint of the neutral range, a more likely outcome, would require three or four additional rate hikes to get to 2.875 percent or 3.125 percent (i.e., either side of the 3.0 percent midpoint neutral rate).
Three or four additional increases…wait, isn’t that what the Fed has already signaled it plans to do? Why, yes! One in December and then two or three in 2019 is the default assumption coming out of FOMC press releases and commentary since at least the middle of this year. So why all the fuss? Parsing what exactly Powell meant by “far away” or “just below” or any other combination of two words would seem silly, if the math seems obviously the same as it has been for months already.
One reason given for all the investor excitement was that Powell’s comments on Wednesday came right on the heels of another blast of word salad from the nation’s chief Twitterer complaining about the Fed and higher interest rates. Was the Fed chief bending the knee to Trump like so many other seemingly reasonable people have in the past two years? Is the Fed put back in the policy bowl because Trump wants low interest rates?
While one can never say never in this day and age, we see very little likelihood that the head of the Federal Reserve, charged among other things with maintaining the independence of the central bank, would immerse himself into the middle any political imbroglio. The timing may have seemed strange, but there just is no factual basis in which to read any kind of political message from Powell’s speech. He did say that there is no “preset” path for rates – which is what the Fed always says. Data about the health of the global economy will inform the pace of interest rate policy. If growth appears to be slowing or going into reverse then there will likely be fewer rate hikes, while if the pace continues to hum along at current levels there is no reason to assume anything other than the four rate hikes already baked into policy expectations.
We’ll get a preview of whether our analysis is correct or not in just a few short weeks when the FOMC meets for the last time this year. There are just a handful of macro data points coming out between now and then, and barring a very unexpected surprise either from the labor market or consumer price readouts, we don’t see anything to suggest the December Fed funds increase won’t happen. Hopefully Mr. Market will be able to figure this out in a relatively drama-free fashion.