Jump to content

JohnDFX

DFX Market Analyst
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

JohnDFX last won the day on March 26

JohnDFX had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

2 Followers

About JohnDFX

  • Rank
    Frequent Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. UK Parliament Votes to Delay Brexit Deal, Now What? Heading into the weekend, overnight implied volatility behind the Cable and other Pound crosses had charged to their highest level in over two years. That reflected well the fundamental weight represented by the first Saturday sitting in the Commons in 37 years. Parliament convened to debate the government’s withdrawal agreement bill which Prime Minister Boris Johnson managed to hash out with European negotiators during the EU leaders summit. The compromise came at the last possible moment as the law passed by MPs before their proroguing required Johnson had a deal in hand by October 18th or he would be required to send a letter to European officials requesting an extension for negotiations to avoid a no deal outcome. It was telling that the progress towards avoiding a hard Brexit scenario to this point had seen GBPUSD charge its biggest 7-day rally in decades yet anticipated volatility had soared in tandem. That speaks to the level of speculation going on and the very convoluted situation with which we are dealing. Ultimately, Saturday’s vote would confound the momentum that had built towards a tangible deal and in turn trip up the speculative charge that had gained such remarkable purchase these past few weeks. The MPs voted 322 to 306 on the so-called Letwin amendment which would withhold approval of the deal until legislation was in place. That would in turn trigger the ‘Benn Act’ which required to the PM to send a letter requesting an extension from the October 31st deadline out to January 31st. The government did this begrudgingly along with a second letter in which Jonson made clear he believed a delay would be a mistake. The impact that this has on the market is inevitability convoluted as the array of scenarios for the ongoing negotiations is itself complicated with options. Though the deal was not pushed through, the effort to delay is principally based on an effort to push back a no-deal outcome in a bid to permanently prevent it from ever coming to pass. Nevertheless, the intensity of the recent charge is compounding speculative appetite that will likely be frustrated by this turn of events. A swift retreat that could then turn to contemplative balance. It is possible that the EU could reject the request to push back the decision date which would send a shock of panic through both the Sterling and capital markets, but that is a low probability. Granting the UK an extension that only lasts a few weeks rather than three months would leave very little time to accomplish anything other than an approval of the offered withdrawal agreement or risk reviving the no-deal scenario. Some European leaders want to know what will be the point of offering an extension – coming to agreement on the given deal, general election or perhaps referendum. The pressure will remain in all of these scenarios, but the intensity will be greater depending on the immediacy of the scenario. Meanwhile, the government officials (the Foreign Minister) have stated their belief that they have the necessary numbers to push the current deal through Parliament. It has been suggested they will call for a ‘meaningful vote’ and possible seek to work through the details of the current deal in order to find the majority that Johnson needs to move forward. To Pound traders and foreign investors, this will look like general uncertainty which is naturally reflected as volatility. Committing to a particular course for a market steeped in such instability will be exceptionally risky. That kind of scenario will draw more speculators than steadfast investors, only compounding the situation. Beware trading GBPUSD this week. A Serious Escalation of the Global Trade War…Underappreciated Despite efforts by the European Union’s trade delegation to negotiate a compromise, the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) moved forward with slapping hefty tariffs on certain EU imports. The White House will not be easily swayed with this push as it considers the effort to be sanctioned – at least partially – by the global community. The World Trade Organization (WTO) found that the US could pursue corrective measures against the EU to the tune of $7.5 billion for what it considers harm done through unfair subsidizations for the Europe’s principal airplane manufacturer, Airbus – never mind the group found the US guilty of similar practices in favor of Boeing, it just has yet to rule on the amounts that can be pursued. While the lack of ground the US is willing to negotiation is a general problem that the whole world is experiencing, the particular trouble for the EU is in the products that are being taxed. In addition to the expected 10 percent tariff on imported airplanes, the US has also imposed a 25 percent hit to certain agricultural products and there was also reports they were pursuing industrial goods as well (though that isn’t yet clear in the details). These unrelated industries to the initial dispute register as economic aggression that urges retaliation. Remarkably, despite what this situation would insinuate, the coverage around its unfolding has been particularly light. In part that is likely owing to more immediate concerns such as Brexit, the US-China stand off and regular warnings of economic lethargy. Just as crucial to the limited impact is the lack of retaliation from European officials. That is unlikely to last. In a best case scenario – short of an unexpected compromise – would be Europe waiting until the WTO rules on the notional amount it can pursue against the US for the Boeing finding. That could keep this additional threat to the already fading growth forecast at a simmer rather than rolling boil. Yet, there is considerable debate among European officials on how to act. Germany’s Finance Minister has urged his counterparts to hold off on retaliations to allow for negotiations to work and likely to avoid a high probability path of steady escalations that seems routine with the US. On the other hand, the EU’s Trade Minister warned before the official tariff start date that they would have “no alternative” but to take countermeasures if Washington wouldn’t deal. If Europe moves to counter the US, risk trends and economy watchers will pick up on it readily. We may find some grey area should retaliation be held to what is considered like-for-like for industries unrelated to airplane manufacturing. If that is the case, the US may not be quick to cry foul and escalate, particularly when they are distracted by so many other issues nowadays. Alternatively, if they are spoiling for a fight and looking for a reason to spread their self-labeled righteous efforts to rebalance trade practices around the world, the Trump Administration could make another sharp response in a shock-and-awe approach. Ultimately, we will not be able to avoid that recession that seems to be lurking at the fringes if the two largest economies in the world decide to gouge the trade between them. EURUSD Launches a Rally, But From Where? There is a lot going on in the FX and global capital markets, so it is understandable that some significant movement in some of the less-trafficked corners of our charts goes overlooked. Yet, that doesn’t suit the EURUSD. The world’s most liquid exchange rate (and arguably asset) has accelerate a bullish reversal that began with the month. Technicians would recognize the move for being the strongest two-week advance in approximately 13 months. From there, the technical boundaries that we’ve overcome – like the 3-month descending trend channel – carry some weight of their own. But what makes this effort particularly remarkable in my estimation is the starting point. Through the end of September, the pair was trading at its lowest level in two-and-a-half years. Adding to the interest in the move is the context of a market that has proven remarkably stagnant. Sure, we were plumbing new lows, but the decline was coming in starts and fits with a very gradual descent which reflected well on the broad restraint this benchmark has exhibited for the past 17 months. Are we finally seeing volatility restored to a pair that has successfully avoided large swings for that long? To interpret the probability of a transitional period, we need to understand what has steered the market through its restrained routine thus far. Why has EURUSD been so controlled? While some believe this is an anchor born of two reserve currencies, I suspect that we are witnessing the confluence of multiple competing forces. Safe haven capacity, relative growth and now trade war implications are just a few of the more exceptional forces jostling these currencies. It is very likely that these matters take up a bigger role in their relative performance into the future. Yet, at present, the bullish reversal from EURUSD has a few interesting properties to perhaps highlight what is the most interesting matter at present. This past week, the Euro didn’t show a broad rally across its major counterparts and EURCHF in particularly made no effort to reinforce. Alternatively, the Dollar made a fairly broad retreat. Realization of trade war blow back, recognition of the struggling economic data or political uncertainty may all be contributing to the slide; but I think a more familiar catalyst is responsible: monetary policy. Through the end of the past week, the probability of a third consecutive rate cut from the Federal Reserve rose to 89 percent according to Fed Funds futures. That is a significant escalation from a week ago and up from little more than 20 percent a month ago. If this is indeed the root of this ground swell, thing should get more and more interesting as we approach the Fed’s October 30th meeting.
  2. Is This a US-China Trade War Turn We Can Rely In? The market was struck with a broad sense of enthusiasm through the second half of this past week. There were a number of developments – or expectations for forthcoming events – that contributed to this buoyancy. The theme stirring the most optimism was anticipation that the United States and China were finally making progress in their 15-month trade war. Just before the New York close on Friday, officials announced that indeed they had found some middle ground for compromise. The question global investors should be asking is whether this is tangible and significant enough progress between the world’s two largest economies to foster enough confidence in the economic and financial outlook to beat back unrelated systemic concerns that continue to march forward – such as the fears of an impending recession. It certainly draws some measure of concern that the build up to the announcement was answered by a pullback when the news actually hit the wires (‘buy the rumor, sell the news’), though that may be a function of the twilight hour for liquidity. To properly evaluate the heft of the ‘compromise’, we need to first understand what was agreed upon. An agreement by China to purchase $40-50 billion in US farm products was the most tangible improvement – though it will partially be working to offset trade restrictions suffered the past year. The most important agreement is the deferment of the 5 percent point increase in the tariff rate on $250 billion in imported Chinese goods to 30 percent due to take effect October 15, though it was not clear if this was completely off the table. After that, the measures are more ambiguous. The US vowed it would review its entities black list (though Huawei was not part of that consideration) as well as reconsider the decision to label China a currency manipulator. There was also language to suggest discussions would continue over one of the Trump administration’s principal issues, cracking down on intellectual property theft and subsidies for state run enterprises, but there was nothing approaching detail on enforcement. There is certainly material to point to in this agreement, but it falls far short of the milestone whereby the leaders couldn’t just reverse course with little warning as they have done a number of times before, including after the June G20 agreement. The potential of a mere delay in the tariff rate hike isn’t nearly as concerning as the fact that the planned increase in the United States’ tariff list on December 15 was left in place – likely as pressure to speed along a deal. Further, China’s interest to loosen control over its economic and financial influence for IP enforcement, subsidies and American access to the Chinese economy will be very thin as the government faces the slowest pace of growth in three decades. There is significant interest on both sides of this standoff to find a compromise – President Trump wants to avoid a recession before the campaign season heats up and China wants to avoid too severe economic pressure that can further contribute to social unrest – but the struggle to secure superpower status can be powerful and the pain absorbed thus far can prove difficult to reverse. Market performance Monday will be very telling as to where sentiment stands on whether there is enough confidence in these two parties and whether their cooperation is even enough. Hope for a Brexit Breakthrough Mounts Amid General Good Mood Market Another ongoing political standoff that both carries broad economic / financial risk and found a seeming break in the cloud cover this past week was the Brexit negotiations. It was difficult to miss the market’s enthusiasm with a Sterling rally that translated into the biggest two-day GBPUSD rally in over a decade. The Pound has shown time and again that while it may feel some of the crosswinds buffeting the global markets, the status of the UK’s separation from the European Union is chief to its bearing and all other matters have their volume turned to zero when there are developments. So, how encouraging was the news this past week? Looking to the headlines, there were updates to reflect upon. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Irish counterpart Leo Varadkar stirred hope when they both offered enthusiasm after their meeting, saying there was a “pathway” forward as they discussed the contentious border. That was followed by a meeting between the EU’s main negotiator Michel Barnier and UK Brexit minister Stephen after which it was stated they 'look forward to these intensified discussions in the coming days'. Though nothing material has yet been agreed to, this seems like a meaningful break owing to the language alone. Neither side has voiced confidence in their discussions for some time, so this does represent a significant change. With this modest progress, what are the scenarios moving forward? A full compromise on the Irish border would likely set up a true breakthrough for the extended Brexit with an actual deal in hand. If that progress if found, the British currency will continue to climb. While the health and bearing of the UK’s economy and markets will not be able to avoid other known and unforeseen crags, there is a substantial discount to afforded to the possibility of a no-deal outcome. On the other hand, if Johnson refuses to settle on his aggressive position with the country’s withdrawal, there remain certain insurance measures that can forestall imminent crisis. Parliament voted before its court-ordered, shortened suspension period that the PM would have to request an extension from the EU should no deal be struck by October 19. While he has been adamant on the timetable of the exit, it is unlikely he challenges a law, and the EU for its part likely has no interest in triggering a recession in any regional economy by refusing. Keep abreast of headlines that will inform us on the state of talks as well as the planned EU leaders summit on Thursday and Friday. The IMF Updates Growth and Financial Stability Forecasts While some cracks in the iron walls of global trade disputes seem to be providing a foundation for speculative enthusiasm heading moving forward, there are still serious fundamental encumbrances to a genuine bullish view of the future. Perhaps the most critical of the risks on the horizon is the threat that the global economy cannot avert its impending stall out. While trade wars have exerted material pressure on growth (the IMF director estimated the US-China fracas was going to cost the world $700 billion in GDP) and even more detriment through investor, consumer, business confidence; there are other – more natural – matters throttling growth. With the US enjoying its longest expansion and bull market on record, a moderation is overdue. I do not fully buy into the belief that periods of growth do not die of old age as there is limited resources that can be utilized to support such a period. That is especially true of the period we have experienced this past decade which has experienced bouts of extreme pace helped along by external and temporary influences such as monetary policy. Fed and other central banks have set their expansionary policy as a key strut to the health of the global economy. What is worrying is that this measure finds as much influence through self-reinforcing speculative belief as it does through genuine distribution of productive capital. That is why it is so troubling that recent waves of stimulus have not been met with the same conviction from market participants and disagreements among the policy setters threatens to further invite scrutiny. In this fragile backdrop, we are expecting an important update on the economic health of the globe this week. In truth, there are important milestones on a weekly basis at this point – from monthly PMIs to sentiment surveys to warnings from supranational groups like the OECD. Yet, what we have on tap is both comprehensive and targeted to perhaps the most contentious situation in the global market. In the latter case, we are due the 3Q GDP reading from China. Though hope for an improved trade relationship with the US is warming markets, the absorbed effect of months of tariffs will show through in this lagging indicator. A poor showing is very likely (whether a new 30-year low or near the previously set figure) or otherwise the markets will treat it with deep skepticism. The only favorable aspect of this update from a trading perspective is that it occurs on Friday, so more anticipation in price action than actual discounting. As for the comprehensive view, we are awaiting the IMF’s updated forecast on world’ growth through its semi-annual WEO (World Economic Outlook). The week long meetings are anchored around this particular update and the new Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, has already signaled that the update would downgrade the perspective to the worst course since the Great Financial Crisis. Have her warnings already led the market to fully price in the pain? I will also be watching the groups GFSR (Global Financial Stability Report) very closely. Stability of the markets is one of the more critical accelerants to crises when things start to fall apart and the discussions around the effectiveness of monetary policy are starting to push these questions to the forefront.
  3. The Trade War Spreads to More Critical, Global Growth Organs We have been unofficially engaged in a global trade war since March 2018. That is when the United States moved forward with a tariff on imported metals (steel and aluminum) from any destination outside of the country. Since this opening salvo, there have been small actions against countries outside the singular focus of China, but the incredible escalation between Washington and Beijing has drawn most of the global attention. With tariff rates running as high as 30% on over $350 billion in goods between the two economies, it is no surprise that we evaluate the growth-crushing competitive efforts on the basis of these two superpowers alone. As it currently stands, we are still awaiting another wave of products receiving a hefty tariff rate upgrade in approximately two months’ time while talks are set to resume on Thursday between the two parties. That said, reports over the weekend indicated China was not impressed with the Trump administration’s most recent efforts to find middle ground. It is important to keep tabs on the situation between the US and China, but at this point the markets seem to place greater emphasis on the data that reflects the tangible repercussions of their fight. If you want to watch the next stage of painful escalation in this systemic threat, it seems clear that the tension between the US and the European Community is the emergent battlefield. There are already a few active trade levies between these two largest developed world economies, but most of the systemic threats have been reserved to an escalation in mere threats….until now. This past week, the WTO (World Trade Organization) ruled that the United States could raise $7.5 billion in tariffs against the EU for unfair subsidies supporting the region’s principal airplane manufacturer, airbus. The US Trade Representative’s office wasted no time in moving forward with the punitive action. That itself is not a surprise nor even a serious controversy. What was provocative were the details of the United States’ plans. The country announced a 10% tariff on imported airplanes, but it would slap a far more punitive 25% tax on European agricultural and industrial goods. That is a move that registers more directly as a trade war action, moving well beyond the cover of WTO ‘sanction’ (the group urged negotiations) and encouraging reprisal. To their credit, the EU held back from retaliatory actions this past week, hoping that an understanding could be met. That said, they EC will not wait forever. It was reported that they were ready to react immediately before the ruling, and they have been quick to respond verbally to all of the US threats over the past months. If we go down this route of a trade war even half the scale of what the US and China have committed to, expect forecasts for global recession to change from an outlier of the pessimists to the baseline view of the investing masses. A Near-Daily Update on Recession Fears Until late August, the word ‘recession’ was only uttered by conspiracy theorists or serial pessimists. That reticence was despite a growing wave of economic data, sentient surveys and supranational organizations warning that a stall could be in he not-so-distant future. That isolation has dissipated quickly over just the past few months. The inversion of the US 10-year to 3-month yield curve was the first distinct cue that the market and then media picked up on. With a moniker like ‘economists’ favorite recession signal’, the headlines wrote themselves. Once attention was called to the frailty of the longest running expansion on record (at least in the US), the other holes started to become more overt. In the US, the NY Fed’s own recession indicator listed the probability of contraction for the world’s largest economy over the next 12 months above 30 percent – a signal that has indicated momentum into the genuine article in all but one instance going back decades. Meanwhile, the warnings from global groups have been taken more seriously: such as the OECD, WTO and IMF over these past two weeks – warning of significantly slower growth though not necessarily full contraction. Data has similarly indicated trouble from US and Chinese manufacturing contraction (‘recession’) to some full GDP readings around the world actually printing a negative monthly or even quarterly report – an official recession is two consecutive quarters of contraction according to the NBER. Ultimately, the market determines what is important or market moving. We have seen numerous data points and warnings shrugged off by the markets over the past years because the speculative bias was such that market participants were happy to allow complacency to dictate a capital market drift higher. That does not seem our undercurrent at present however. Since the February 2018 plunge, we have seen a serious struggle among speculative interests to lift the markets back to their previously-set all-time highs, much less beyond them. The US indices were the most bubbly among the traditional risk assets and even they have not progressed far beyond the early 2018 swing high. Most other recognizable benchmarks are significant lower than their respective peaks from that year. In other words, the markets are paying closer attention to warning signs and are more willing to leverage their occurrence into meaningful market movement. With that setting in mind, there are a number of indicators this week that can stir our imaginations for the worst including: China service sector PMI; China foreign reserves; Eurozone investment sentient; Japan household spending; Germany industrial production; US small business sentiment; US consumer confidence; UK July GDP and Germany factory orders among many others. Keep tabs on the economic calendar as well as the headlines (Google search of ‘recession’ is quite informative). Gold – When Fundamentals and Technicals Conflict Gold is perhaps one of the indicative signals from the market as to the state of the global financial system and economy that you can find from any single source. The precious metal is a well-known safe haven, but its climb this past year has deviated significantly from the performance of fellow measures like the Dollar and sovereign debt not to mention risk assets like US indices. Its position as an alternative to traditional fiat is far more important. With central banks once again turning to expansive policy regimes while economic forecasts barely budge, there is a natural depreciation of all assets that represent this quandary: which includes currencies and government debt. There are few reliable alternatives to these traditional stores of wealth – especially when they are all dropping in tandem (Dollar, Euro, Pound, Yen). One of the very few, historical benchmarks that can meet the test is gold which is global and has played its role as a means for exchange many times through history. Given this unique role, consider the outlook for the economy and markets. Even if you don’t believe a recession is at the door, the threshold for significant expansion is very high at this point. Further, there is not much room for easy speculative gain but enormous room for retrenchment. Where would you seek safety and stability if push came to shove? We – the market at large – were faced with that existential question to some degree this past week. On a technical basis, the precious metal took a remarkable bearish jog, a move that textbooks would place a high probability on fueling an overwhelming bearish trend. This past Monday’s drop cleared two months of range resistance that happened to also stand as the ‘neckline’ on a large head-and-shoulders pattern over the same period. There are few more preferred reversal measures among pattern watchers. If unencumbered by fundamental complications, speculative fear could have readily taken over and guided a more significant move for the bears. Instead, the reversal stalled immediately upon launch. This is the conflict that can arise when two favorite analytical techniques conflict. There is considerable debate over which measure is more indicative and reliable. In reality, they both have their merits and place. The backdrop and depth of catalyst can tip the scales of influence from one method to the other. Yet, if you are a trader willing to considerable a broader picture of the market in order to identify more reliable signals, it is better to find opportunities where the techniques coincide rather than conflict. Yet, in this world of contradiction, it is worth watching gold on a regular basis whether you intend to trade it or simply use it for signaling purposes.
  4. Politics and Markets There are numerous, open political fissures around the world – including the approaching Brexit deadline; the ongoing flux of Euro-area stability and Chinese social pressure arising from economic concerns. Each of these represents significant headline fodder both within their respective country as well as in the international press. Yet, as many newspaper column inches or top headlines in online news aggregators these issues may represent, they don’t naturally adapt to clear economic or market impact. Evaluations are made over the prevailing trends and assumptions applied as to how these issues will work their way into tangible impediments to either growth or returns. That said, the uncertainty of all three of the aforementioned issues has unmistakably dimmed investors’ and consumers’ growth expectations. To ignore these matters when they are key motivators for a majority of market participants would allow a gaping hole in your analysis. Then again, it is easy to allow the drama of the headlines to overshadow the practical impact it may exert, allowing the natural passions of politics to take your well thought out strategy completely off the rails. The difficulty in striking this fine balance is even more folly prone when it comes to the state of US politics. There has been an extreme divergence in party politics over the past decade and President Donald Trump has only fostered the divide. This creates a situation in which those in strong support of the White House allow their values outside the market paint a further exaggerated picture of an already complacent and exposed position, seen in the recent consumer sentiment surveys in which those reporting unsolicited enthusiasm for economic health via the President’s policies hit a record high. On the other end of spectrum, there are those that believe a recession is imminent through trade wars, political gridlock, dramatic debt expansion or income disparity. Naturally, the rise of the impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives for interactions with the Ukraine exaggerates the reach into actual market impact. So how do we make a practical assessment as to what impact such political events can legitimately have so as to avoid emotions-based missteps and/or exploit the ‘wisdom of the crowds’. There are two measures of response that I typically expect in such developments: short-term and long-term impact. For the former, we can evaluate how much interest is concentrated on issue by using tools like Google Trends search or hashtag density for social interest to inform how likely a headline around the topic will leverage a market response. However, I prefer the empirical approach of assessing how much impact a related development will have on the market to set expectations for future updates. For long-term implications for growth and investor positioning, sentiment surveys such as the University of Michigan’s, Conference Board’s or Gallup’s for consumers or New York Fed’s for large investors can help course correct. Yet if you take the time each week or determine which developments are consistently taking control of the market most of the time through the bulk of the movement – what I consider rule number one for fundamental analysis – you’ll find yourself not as readily prone to finding the passions of politics drawing you away from the objective work of applying a successful strategy. Trade Wars Deadlines When discussing the course of trade wars, most people would move to evaluate the state of play between the United States and China, and for good reason. These are the two largest independent economies in the world and their relationship has steadily deteriorated to the very costly detriment of the global economy since the first economic ‘shots’ were fired back in March 2018. However, to judge the course of the global economy and investment environment on the talking points between these two superpowers alone would be to miss the truly virulent threat in stalled global trade. There are some caveats to the particular US-China standoff that keeps it from readily inciting panic. Many developed countries consider China a long-term bad actor when it comes to fair trade and have so for many years. Therefore, they are willing to tolerate some degree of pressure. Also, there is an unrealistic assumption of the Chinese government’s control over the health of its economy and financial system born of the command style approach they have used for decades. Then there is dulled reaction time globally that follows a decade of bullish market performance which earns an unreasonable sense of immortality as it keeps buoyant despite supposed fundamental setbacks. This confidence evaporates though if and when the altercations shift to encompass other developed world economies. The United States’ renegotiation of the NAFTA agreement seemed to have lifted its pressure on the markets as high-level agreement was made on the replacement USMCA. Yet, are have yet to see Congress approve the deal with Democrats asking for more and the year-end deadline is approaching. With many threats, we face tangible fractures between the two largest developed economies in the world this week as the WTO is due to deliberate the United States ability to apply tariffs for the claim that Europe had illegally subsidized Airbus for an uncompetitive advantage. This is a point of contention, but the risk lingering a seven weeks out is far more likely to provoke extreme retaliations on a global basis. President Trump received a report from the Commerce Department on the threat to national security inflicted by foreign auto imports. The White House had until May 18th to make a decision originally, but he deferred 180 days. That puts the deadline at November 14th. To suggest he wouldn’t go through with a tax on this competition would be to ignore the precedence already set. Also, the political pressure can also lead to more brash decisions. What Should We Expect If a Recession Hits? According to the New York Fed’s recession probability indicator – based on the increasingly popular Treasury yield curve – the world’s largest economy is facing a 38 percent probability of tipping into contraction over the next 12 months. Speculative interest/fear of this occurrence is significantly higher. Many have pointed out that previous instances of this same indicator rising to this level in the past have signaled eventual recessions in all but one instance. Further, there is also the increasingly popular belief that the chances of recession increase significantly as it is discussed and surveys reflect greater anticipation – a self-fulfilling prophecy so to speak. Google search ranking of ‘recession’ surged in the United States this past month to highs not seen since the actual Great Recession a decade ago. Further, other major countries have struggled with their own expansion – such as China running at a decades’ low pace, Japan notching negative quarters, Eurozone members contracting and more. With economic storms such as trade wars, Brexit and deteriorating monetary policy effectiveness weighing, it would seem prudent to at least prepare a contingency risk plan. If a recession were to befall the global economy, how would it play out and what would the response to try and correct its course look like? As for the occurrence of a slump in global growth, there will be leaders and laggards to turn into the red. Some with artificial curbs to imported pain or unique sources of growth can hold back the tide for a little longer than others. Considerable attention will be paid to one of the sparks that would ultimately feed the consuming fire, but the recognition of the more prolific fuel – excess leverage throughout the system – won’t be appreciated until it is too late. Consumers, investors and politicians will demand action from the world’s largest central banks. They will attempt to lift the economy, but will come up wanting as they have little in the way of standard policy tools or even effective unorthodox means left to them after a decade of capital market padding. If the market recognizes their limits, it will only deepen the panic. Then the governments of the world will be expected to step in. Programs like the TARP and TALF in the US preceding QE will be unleashed, but these will not be any more effective this central bank stimulus. Coordinated response will be the greatest possible option, but the state of global politics has shown these authorities more interested in competing for limited resources (growth) than collaborating to create more for everyone. That will similarly deepen any crisis. Eventually, unprecedented actions would be taken, but after how much economic pain and investor loss? It is hard to tell.
  5. What are Central Banks Attempting to Achieve at This Point? Over the past two weeks, we have seen major central banks loosen the reins on monetary policy or otherwise set the stage to move further into unorthodox policies. The most notable moves were made by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Federal Reserve. The latter cut its benchmark by 25 basis points to bring its range down to a high level of 2.00 percent – though it maintained its increasingly dubious position that it expects no further reductions this year. The former took more dramatic action. The 10 bp rate cut lowered its deposit rate to -0.50 percent, but it was the announcement that stimulus purchases (QE) would restart in November after an 11 month hiatus and introduction to tiered rates to help European banks struggling with profitability that represented a shifting frontier for policy. Just as extraordinary was the steady course held by the Bank of Japan (BOJ) who maintained its open-ended stimulus program tied to a 0% 10-year JGB yield target and the Swiss National Bank’s -0.75% benchmark. These four central banks alone could represent the landscape of global policy directing growth and inflation in the developed world, and that recognition itself should raise concern over the state of our economy and markets. An obvious question that should be raised in the face of this concerted easing is: what is the purpose? For all of the aforementioned groups, the target is either inflation and/or a growth metric like employment. It is reasonable to further assume there are certain unofficial objectives as well, such as general financial stability or even capital market appreciation as a means to fund a ‘trickle down wealth effect’ (something former Fed Chairman Bernanke was an ancillary objective of the US QE program). Yet, if we gauge the Fed against these various goals, we find core inflation above target, full U3 employment, volatility readings remarkably tame and capital markets at record highs. Why supply more fuel if you are already running at full speed unless you foresee a high probability of some crisis? Admitting this level of concern on the other hand could inadvertently trigger the conditions that realizes those fears. Many feel the hazy objectives shouldn’t matter so long as the potential results are faster growth and/or higher local markets. Yet, that is ignoring the reality of the costs associated to such efforts, and there is more recognition of this cost/benefit reality being voiced among the central banks’ ranks. Adding to the familiar criticism from the BIS, we have had officials from the Fed, ECB, BOJ, BOC, and many others voice concern over our inflated and distorted foundation. Just this past week, Rosengren added to the discussion after he dissented the rate cut saying such efforts lead to inflated asset prices and encourage excessive leverage among household and businesses. An underappreciated consideration in this mix is the more general case that the ineffectiveness of monetary policy as a tool grows increasingly obvious. What happens should a genuine recession of financial seizure – not just a soft patch of unmoored fear of such an occurrence – shows? These banks will be one of the few options to squelch the fire and they will have expended their influence when it wasn’t even necessary. Long-Term Versus Short-Term Objectives There is a well-known business school debate that CEOs are incentivized to pursue short-term profits at the expense of long-term business growth – and sometimes continuity. This often leads to the ‘CEO is a villain’ caricature that that prevails outside the world of finance, but these objectives are pressured by a very different market force: investors. Market participants have long sought as much ‘share-holder value’ as possible when considering where to allocate their capital to fulfill a desire to outperform the broader market .That is aggressive even in the best of times, and it is particularly difficult nowadays. Another side effect of the extreme monetary policy being employed across the globe is a remarkably low rate of return on investments tied to benchmark rates (essentially everything). Meanwhile, the S&P 500 upon which performance is benchmarked is setting an impossible pace. How is a company to provide that level of ‘value’ when underlying growth is tepid? They borrow against the future like most other systemic players, such as issuing debt to buy back shares. And so, the system grows ever more unstable. Another point of short-term focus arising on the horizon is found through government/fiscal objective. While there are certain countries that are shifting further towards long-term objectives – like China attempting to shift to service sector strength, consumer spending and open markets – the majority, particularly in the developed world, are heading in the opposite direction. That may be in part due to political cycles. Few places is this pressure more obvious than in the United States. The unfavorable polls for President Trump were easy to right off in previous years, but they are more difficult to overlook as the country starts to get into campaign gear. Just this past month, we have started to see a clear rise in concern over recession risks via investors and consumers in the United States. In a monthly economic Gallup poll, one of the reasons offered for the downturn in the outlook is the references to recession by economists – self-fulfilling prophecy. To stave off a leadership change in 2020, the Administration has very clearly fixed on the health of the economy as a critical target to boost reelection potential. Yet, they have also committed to the onerous trade war. How to offset a mature business cycle, a slower global economy and blowback from trade wars? Through the long-term, it is an improbable goal. For the short-term though, moves can be made to extend for a spell at the cost of greater instability and a deeper slump later on. This is why we are seeing demands for more central bank QE, fiscal policy that defies the typical party line and ruminations of devaluing the Dollar. Recession Signals Rising Again Fear over the health of the global economy continues to erode investor and consumer confidence. Sentiment surveys have stood as one of the most robust countermeasures against data that otherwise calls attention to struggling growth measures. Yet, even the most resilient of the economic participants are starting to show signs of wear. US consumers have maintained an almost unbreakable sense of enthusiasm until these past few months. That matches the sudden surge in search around ‘recession’ via Google – hitting the highest level since the Great Recession this past month. This shows a measure of awareness that will ‘weaponize’ poor data that gives weight to data that was previously overlooked. Testing this theory, last week, the OECD updated its growth forecasts and their perspective sent a chill into the market. With notable downgrades in 2019 and 2020 performance projections for the likes of the US, China, Europe and UK; they downgraded their global targets to 2.9 and 3.0 percent respectively. According to the previous IMF definition for global pacing, a reading under 3.0 percent could be construed a recession. The market didn’t tumble on the unfavorable update, but it certainly took the air out of speculative appetite in the aftermath of more central bank support. In the week ahead, we should keep very close eye on the various cues for economic performance. There are sentiment surveys that are scheduled such as the US, Eurozone, German and UK consumer readings; and there will also be those measures that are often overlooked but made more important given the general perspective in the backdrop. The market readings will further keep markets occupied and perhaps return to main street influence. The US Treasury 10-year/3-month spread has neared zero and the 10-year/2-year spread flipped positive recently. Sometimes, a temporary relief can sharpen the recognition pain when it returns. If these figures worsen again, an already on-alert market will read into the turn. As for traditional data, Monday’s session carries the most direct vehicle in the form of September PMIs from Japan, the Eurozone and US.
  6. And Now, the Fed The market has monetary policy on its mind heading into the new trading week thanks to the actions of the European Central Bank (ECB) this past Thursday. One of the world’s largest central banks, the group is making a bid – perhaps unintentional and perhaps not – to be the most accommodative group of its size. Already sporting a negative rate, a large balance sheet and a T-LTRO program; President Draghi steered his team back into an expansionary phase of dovishness despite his retiring in a few months. Testament to their forward guidance efforts, the market largely expected the 10 basis point cut to its discount rate (to -0.50 percent), the restart of quantitative easing or QE (20 billion Euros per month starting Nov 1) and the introduction of tiered lending aimed at helping banks struggling with profitability. In fact, the move was so thoroughly baked in that the Euro’s initial tumble reversed to gains and capital markets seemed little charged after the effort was made official. On the one hand, the ECB will be happy that it avoided triggering a volatility event which could create more difficult conditions to support moving forward. Alternatively, there is more than a little ‘wealth effect’ assumption to the transmission of current monetary policy. Underwhelming response from the markets could signal monetary policy is reaching the limits of its effectiveness. That is the unpredictable scene we are met with as we approach the Fed’s policy event. The Federal Reserve’s policy event is scheduled for Wednesday at 18:00 GMT. Even putting aside the existential crisis traders are facing with the concept that monetary policy may be losing its effectiveness, this was due to be an important meeting. September’s meeting represents one of the ‘quarterly’ events whereby we are due the Summary of Economic Projections. That includes the updated forecasts for interest rates that the markets watch so closely. Even more pressing with this particular meeting, is the question as to whether the Fed will follow up with its first rate cut in a decade this past July. After that meeting, Chairman Powell said the move was a ‘midcycle adjustment’, a phrase repeated in the official perspective of the group in the meeting minutes. That would insinuate that the next reduction – if there would be one – depends heavily on data. As it happens, recent jobs figures weren’t gangbusters but the trend is still the best in decades. Further, core inflation registered by the CPI was accelerating above target. These are not the developments that would signal easing is urgently necessary. Nonetheless, we are facing a serious difference of opinion on the subject with the market still pricing in a robust 80 percent probability of a rate cut - though down from certainty just a week ago. Does the Fed dare disappoint the market and trigger capital market fear that will in turn necessitate central bank support later regardless or will it cut despite its explicit remarks that it was unnecessary and tarnish its credibility? Many market participants – especially those that have benefit from the zombie-like complacency bid these past years – would advise protecting market gains to avert any speculative slump that can make more tangible the economic pain. Yet, the long-term risks of satisfying risk takers can be severe and irreparable damage to credibility and ultimately an inability to fight serious fires in the future. The global market is struggling under trade wars and the natural flagging of the economic cycle. There is certainly appetite for the world’s most hawkish, large central bank to make a more consistent distribution of support, but satisfying these appetites would only draw attention to the state of dependency growth and market performance attached to stimulus and negative rates – not to mention dissuades fiscal powers from taking on the responsibility themselves. If the Fed refuses to act and there is investor fallout globally, those central banks already all-in will find their own credibility razed to the ground. A lot rides on the Fed, and not just for the Dollar or Dow. Good Will and Rumors of Economic Pressure Points in Trade Wars There is an unmistakable enthusiasm around the state of the US-China trade war over these past two weeks. It started slowly enough with the suggestion that the two sides would return to the negotiation table in earnest early next month with leaders from each camp suggesting they were optimistic. As far as inspiration goes, that doesn’t even rank as a far-fetched cue for optimism. We have seen far too many slow starts of this exact type flame out and ultimately result in a worsening of relations between the two. Thankfully, there were more tangible efforts of good will to build momentum upon. China announced that it was waiving tariffs on 16 US imports that were previously taxed – the first such course reversal since the trade war began. Despite the relative minimal move, the US responded by announcing that it would delay the increase of tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese imports from 25 to 30 percent by two weeks, pushing it from October 1st to the 15th. Looking to surpassing that frequent trip point after the first round, China then followed up with the announcement that it would exempt US pork and soybeans from tax at the ports. This is indeed tangible progress, but recall that the higher level officials are not due to meet until early October. Further, there have been frequent false dawns whereby the absence of a compromise has not resulted in status quo but rather an escalation. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that both sides are interested in boosting market sentiment – such good will reciprocation would never have occurred previously as each would have deemed it an overdue step by the liable party. For China’s part, it is concerned about the state of its local economy and financial system already under significant pressure. In the US, the Presidential elections are over a year away, but the campaign is already starting; and the rising fear of recession is posing a serious problem for Donald Trump. Fully reversing the trade war actions and striking a trade agreement would take serious time and capitulation from states and personalities not commonly known to ‘surrender’. It is still possible however. The real question we should ask though is: will the lifting of trade wars recharge growth or investment appetites? The absence of a ballooning crisis is not the same thing as seeding GDP or returns. Trade wars have taxed an already threadbare global economy while highlighting the dependency on external sources of support like central banks simply to keep the masquerade going. It is not a good point in time to look at markets through rose colored glasses. Repeated Accusations of Currency Manipulation Will Spur a Currency War There were a number of skeptics of the value added and intent from the ECB’s decision to escalate the support this past week – including some of the key bank members themselves. However, one person’s criticism that was fully expected as they took their rates deeper into negative territory and announced the restart of the QE program was US President Donald Trump. He has reflected on their efforts more often these past months as a platform to critique the Federal Reserve. Rather than decry their efforts as purely manipulative in a bid to earn growth at the expense of more virtuous trade partners, he has held their course up as a template for which the Fed is falling behind on. His berating of Chairman Powell has been relentless, but the haranguing hasn’t changed the central bank’s course – well, not as much as intended considering the President’s policy mix has weighed markets which the Fed is less capable over ignoring. At what point will a President frustrated by slowing growth and a central bank that is unwilling to supplement for the pain the trade war is causing – and ultimately incapable of holding back any serious collapse in economy – decide to take exchange rates as a tool into his own hands? The ECB’s moves will raise his ire, but the rebound in the currency will frustrated his claims that they are principally a move to devalue the currency. Such details haven’t held him back before however. With the Dollar holding near two-year highs with Euro, Yen and Yuan at the very lease employing serious policies that have at least a secondary result of FX depreciation; this will stand out as a genuine option in the event of emergency (a fading campaign in the face of economic struggle). Adding to the pressure, the Swiss National Bank (SNB) and Bank of Japan (BOJ) will likely hit upon the POTUS’s radar in the week ahead. Both are due to deliver policy updates. The SNB is not expected to cut rates further, but it is already hovering at a -0.75 percent rate and attempts to simply keep pace with the ECB so as not to allow EURCHF to drop. Meanwhile, the BOJ is similarly expected to hold course, but recently its officials have stated they were looking into the option of plumbing negative rates in a bid to finally earn the policy response they have failed to render thus far through a dovish mix anchored by an open-ended stimulus program.
  7. The Global Importance of the ECB Rate Decision Top event risk - both for concentrated volatility potential for its local currency and global influence via systemic means – over the coming week is hands down the ECB (European Central Bank) rate decision. Under normal circumstances, the monetary policy decision by the world’s second largest central bank is occasion for significant response from local currency and capital markets. For the Euro, the event is made far more potent at this particular meeting owing to the market’s aggressive speculation for a further infusion of support to their – and the economy’s – cause. Looking to overnight swaps, market participants are certain of a further lowering to the benchmark rate that is already set at -0.40 percent. Further, the group is expected to restore quantitative easing (QE) having only ended the previous effort back in December and failing to wean appetite for extreme accommodation with another TLTRO (targeted long-term refinancing operation). This would represent a virtual ‘all-in’ upgrade to an already-extreme support effort and is likely aimed at surpassing the market’s expectations. Yet, it would be difficult to live up to such lofty forecasts – much less best them. The Euro has already pushed to a more-than two-year low against the US Dollar so is already pricing in a substantial dovish view. Yet, beyond besting or falling short of the market’s expectations for the Euro’s purposes, we start to get into potentially systemic matters. If the central bank does depress the accelerator fully, outgoing President Mario Draghi will leave incoming Christine Lagarde with few reasonable options left to navigate any further tumultuous waters that occur early in her term. Just this past week, she was attempting to sooth German officials skeptical of unorthodox policies such as negative rates saying she would investigate the costs more thoroughly alongside the presumed benefits. She remains a firm advocate of easy policy however. That said, regardless of her commitment to carrying on Draghi’s regime, the question of the market’s willingness to respond to the effort is far more important to the health and stability of markets moving forward. We are already seeing the ‘effectiveness’ of central banks’ efforts wane in more recent iterations, a dangerous scenario if we ever genuinely need their (the ECB and its peers) support to stave off a crisis. If the ECB earns its near-term relief, all will not be immediately fine. If the markets respond favorably, economists adjust for the ‘stimulus effect’ and the Euro drops; it will instantly catch the attention of US President Donald Trump. He already uses the European authority’s policy as evidence of what he considers manipulation to afford an artificial advantage in his regular badgering of the Federal Reserve. Chairman Powell and crew have weathered the accusations thus far, but the President is being pushed by the pressure of an economy weighed by trade wars. If the Fed doesn’t indicate its willingness to follow the ECB down, he is likely to take measures into his own hands to – perhaps inadvertently – start a currency war. Brexit: All We Need Is More Time for a Pound Rebound The British Pound mounted an impressive rally this past week – and with no technical time to spare. GBPUSD through Tuesday dove to levels not seen since the post-Brexit flash crash back in October 2016. In fact, sliding any further would have put this benchmark currency cross back to its lowest levels in over three decades – more than just a simple drift in contrasting value and much more a statement on the troubled view of the British currency. Yet, just as the markets were nervously eying the exchange rate for perspective on the British currency, a short-term relief rally kicked in Wednesday. Part of this pair’s performance has to be assigned to the Greenback which started to slip across the board. Nonetheless, the Pound was rallying universally and it had a very clear fundamental cue with which to anchor its performance. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been maneuvering these past weeks to ensure a ‘no deal’ option on Brexit be kept firmly in the mix in a bid to keep pressure on the EU to force concessions – if at all possible. Yet, his move to suspend Parliament for weeks before the official Brexit deadline on October 31st spurred new problems when his support from a razor thin majority in Parliament faltered. Now, the two institutions – government and parliament – are jostling for position in chess-like moves and countermoves. There is still significant risk that the country leaves the Union without an agreement to offer some economic and financial access – especially with weekend reports that France has no interest in offer an extension to negotiations even if the UK requests as they believe there is little sign they will work towards a genuine compromise. That said, merely tempering the threat of high probability ‘no deal’ outcome can afford significant lift for the Sterling. While it is possible the currency can always drop lower given its own situation and the context of its global counterparts, it is generally pricing in the ‘worst case scenario’ of the known circumstances at present. While buying time would not reset its long-term course, it can bleed some of the aggressive, short-term (short side) speculation and inspire more of the optimists to be opportunists. What Matters More to Fed: Consumer Inflation, Sentiment or the ECB While this week will be topped by the ECB’s monetary policy decisions, the looming event scheduled for Wednesday the 18th will pull at global investors’ fears and anticipation. There is even more riding on the US central bank’s policy choices. Beyond the practical consideration that it is directing the world’s largest economy and financial system, Jerome Powell and crew are directing the pace of retreat from the most progressive effort to ‘normalize’ extreme policy among the major central banks. This reflects how far the world’s monetary policy authorities are willing to go in a bid to prop growth, which will contribute to risk trends; but it will also set the baseline for effectiveness/ineffectiveness of their collective efforts. With 200 basis points available to ease and a reduced balance sheet that can carry the sentiment-based impact of a rebound, there is reason to watch even the fine tune adjustments in expectations. With that attention, there will be considerable weight afforded to the interim event risk that could possibly alter the ultimate decision a week forward. Through this week, the most traditional measure to keep tabs on will be the market’s favorite inflation indicator, the consumer price index or CPI. If there is an allowance for the group to resort to policy that under normal circumstances would be labeled ‘extreme’, they would have to find it in the price measures of their dual mandate as employment trends are on a decade-long expansion. As it stands, the Chairman and minutes have projected inflation pressures to reach target levels through the medium-term – which would suggest they do not intend to meet the market’s (and Trump’s) demands for aggressive easing. Another tangible event that isn’t part of the Fed’s official policy criteria but is of significance to the group’s forecasts and market’s divergent expectations is the University of Michigan’s consumer confidence survey. When the central bank says it is evaluating trends in employment and price growth through ‘the medium-term’, they are projecting out over the next two years on average. Of course, a lot goes into the change in these measures over that period, but few things are as informative of the outlook as sentiment surveys that state intention to alter course. Given the consumer is the backbone of the US economy and this particular survey has so many beneficial components – including measures like expectations for market performance – there is considerable influence in this indicator. Intention to reduce consumption, lower inflation expectations and fear of a financial retrenchment could sway the Fed to act ‘preemptively’. Now, even more untraditional but what may ultimately be the most important driver of US monetary policy moving forward is the actions of the ECB. Officially, the US central bank (and most of its largest counterparts) do not take into consideration external factors when making their own policies. In practice, the disparity in course of these major banks can lead to issues such as capital diversion. If the European authority cuts rates deeper into negative territory and restarts QE, further charge in the Dollar and market demand for US support to balance out the global spectrum could raise pricing risk to levels that trigger volatility and speculative fallout if the Fed doesn’t act.
  8. Is Trump Responding to the Dow – and Would He Prioritize Index Over Dollar? This past week generated another heavy round of criticism from the US President. In both ad hoc press conferences and tweets, Donald Trump scrutinized a number of economic and financial hurdles that he believes is threatening the health of the US economy. The most familiar critique continued to target the Federal Reserve and specifically its Chairman, Jerome Powell. Trump took to the wires to levy blame against the monetary policy authority essentially every day. His specific accusations were of a familiar flavor, but they boil down to an essential accusation that the independent setter of interest rates was keeping the Fed Funds baseline higher than it should be which is choking off growth. His specific targeting, however, shows some internal conflict over his interests and the paradox for which his own demands would not be met even by a fully compliant central bank. The most frequent issue the President has taken with Fed policy has been the level of the US Dollar – which notably closed this past week at a more-than two-year high, or EURUSD two-year low. An accusation that other authorities are manipulating their own currency (the ECB with the Euro and PBOC with the Yuan) isn’t his chief concern, but rather that the Fed isn’t responding in kind. From his remarks, it seems he is less concerned over the economic pain a stronger currency may bring, but rather that the transmission of the trade war efforts employed by the Administration are watered down by the exchange rate adjustment. Therein lies one conundrum as an effective policy push by Washington would lead to a weaker global counterpart and thereby weaker currency. Therefore, some extra-ordinary effort needs to be employed to keep the currency steady or to force it to depreciate alongside the transmission of the pressure – hence the badgering Powell. Conversely, when the stock market begins to sag, the focus from the White House shifts to the level of the Dow or S&P 500, though the stated interest remains the same in a reflection of strong growth. It should be said, the economy is not necessarily the market. As the market slips and recession signals multiply, there is an effort to identify the source. Relatively little attention is paid to the age of the maturity of the economic and financial cycle alongside the disparity of expansion and unrealistic investor expectations as there is a collective obsession for singular catalysts (a function of crowd psychology). There has been a growing din of criticism around the negative impact of the trade war tariffs in economist assessments, business sentiment surveys, earnings reports and more. The President has stated clearly though that he will not let up on the pressure mounted against China. With the blame building, Trump has instead started to redirect towards American businesses. This past week, he blamed auto manufacturer GM for not moving the operations it has in China back to the US. That same day, he also stated that companies that warned earnings could be negatively impacted by the trade wars were “weak” or “badly managed”. This does not exactly warm investor enthusiasm over the health of the markets. So, will the President continue to push for a lower Dollar and shame US businesses into amplifying the effort to transmit the tariffs or let up on the economic conflict to keep the markets buoyant? You can’t have both and eventually bouncing between the two objectives will seem conditions fracture. The Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia Kick off a Season of Critical Monetary Policy Decisions September is a month for which nearly every one of the major central banks are due to weigh on their local monetary policy; and this year, we happen to find this ‘external’ influence on economy and market performance at a particularly critical junction. Markets are buoyant – some like the US indices are much higher than others, but they are broadly trading well beyond value – and the underlying strength of the global economy has clearly eroded. This has put increased pressure on the world’s monetary policy authorities to compensate for where the markets lack in traditional form. Unfortunately, rates are already extremely low and there is already an enormous amount of stimulus (over $20 trillion from just 6 central banks alone) sloshing around the system. What more could these groups reasonably do? What would we as market participants assume policy efforts that have already earned limited economic performance and has more recently struggled to offer capital market lift can do through further iterations of the same? I am skeptical that there is the same delusion that has translated into convenient complacency that we’ve seen in previous years standing in wait to provide further lift through the foreseeable future. The limited capacity of the Fed, ECB and others is no longer an academic conversation but rather Main Street fare. We are due some critical rate decisions later in the month – the ECB on the 12th expected to introduce an open-ended QE, the Fed on the 18th is targeted with a demand for another cut, then a combo of BOJ, BOE and SNB is on the 19th – but we have a few decisions we should watch this week as well. The Bank of Canada (BOC) is currently the most hawkish major central bank, not for its current level but rather its reticence to commit to a dovish course. If this group capitulates, it can be a big Canadian Dollar charge, but it could also nudge views of global monetary policy. As for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), the group is already into easing mode and generally contemplating unorthodox policy. This is significant on a global basis because the Australian Dollar’s position amongst the majors is in large part a function of its yield – it is a carry trade. As that trait falters, the systemic view of returns and value are further distorted. Seasonality Takes an Extreme Swing in September Through the S&P 500 and VIX With Friday’s close, we have brought to an end the week, month and season all at once. This period traditionally marks a serious transition of market conditions that usually moves from quiet listlessness and beneficial complacency into a period of significant activity and substantially higher risk of capital market losses. Historically, the month of August is the most reserved period of the calendar year according to the performance of the S&P 500 over the last four decades (see the attached image). While the index averages out a moderate level of gains for the month, what is truly remarkable is the volume behind the market. When adjusted by active trading days, August registers less trading than February or December (which have fewer total days). When we look to the reasoning behind such restraint, there is a certain level of self-fulfilling prophecy to the receding tide. Investors expect that quiet will dictate the decisions of other investors so they themselves accordingly with smaller adjustments to position that leave the systemic and long-term balance to another time. What is interesting is that the month of August is actually quite active when referencing the VIX volatility index. That mix of restraint in progress but rising volatility was actually in clear display this past month as the S&P 500 spent much of the period bouncing rapidly back and forth in a restrictive span. That sets the stage for September. With the US Labor Day holiday, we transition from the full ‘Summer lull’ to the active Fall trading season. Volume picks up, but volatility hits new highs through the month – peaking between September and October. Notably, this activity starts to register more progress in price action. Referencing back to the seasonal measures, the S&P 500 has averaged only one month of losses back to 1980 and that is during the month of September. This likely has as much to do with the markets living up to its fears as any repeatable development timed specifically during this part of the year, but it occurs with statistical relevance nonetheless. What’s more, the market has plenty to worry over at this juncture between the fears of recession, the persistence of trade wars, wavering confidence in the leveraged dependency on central banks and more. Often times, investors are simply waiting for a collective reason to de-risk from exposure they already consider excessive, and this gives a familiar anchor into the mass psyche.
  9. Reckless Acceleration of the Trade War With the global (including the US and China) economy already straining under the weight of the ongoing trade wars, the two largest individual economies too steps this past week to leverage the pressure even higher. As expected, China felt it necessary to respond to the upgraded efforts announced by President Trump on a staggering $300 billion more in Chinese goods – the ‘rest’ of the country’s imports that weren’t already facing a tax. It seems the White House considered the phased application of the 10% duty between September 1 and December 15 was a show of good will, but Beijing did not. The response from Beijing of its own staggering of $75 billion in tariffs between those same dates as well as the return of a 25 percent tariff on US auto imports previously paused in April was somewhat surprising as the country is not in a particular strong position to match like-for-like taxes on the other country’s goods, a reality reflected in their allowance of the USDCNH to overtake 7.0000. This automated offset to direct charges from the United States responded as intended with a charge to a fresh record high through Friday’s close, and subsequent strong follow through into Monday’s Asia open to surpass 1.5 percent in a mere three days. It seems Washington’s strategy is following the shock-and-awe model as the President announced a further step mere hours after China’s response to the previous step. He upped the rate on all those tariffs already in place (25 to 30% on $250 billion) and those that are due to be imposed (10 to 15% on $300 billion). Yet, that ‘floating’ exchange rate will remain a point of frustration for the administration as it allows China more cushion to ‘wait out the President’. It is very likely that Trump is intent on forcing China – who it is suggested intends to hold out until the election – to avoid rolling the US economy into a stall out that makes his reelection chances very difficult. While it perhaps seems a war devolving away from strategy, there are absolutely objectives on both sides, they just happen to be very rudimentary. While officials may very well have a cutoff point at which they intend to throw the breaks on the war, I believe we are already passed the point of no return. The leaders of these respective economies likely recognize this inevitability as well – Trump stated recently that a ‘short’ recession would be worth it if it changed China’s habits. At the point that these governments see a near-term recession as a foregone conclusion, they will revert to strategy aimed at safe guarding their long-term status in the global economy. While it may seem the US has the leg up on the trade war scale, China’s leadership has more breathing room against re-election pressure. This is a fight from which the participants cannot easily extricate themselves. The Ominous Approach of a Stalled Global Economy As the fighting in global trade escalates, the outlook for economic activity steadily erodes. There are certainly a number of data points and forecasts that project ominously for key local economies – and the aggregate global health by proxy – but it isn’t the number of flashing red lights that speaks to the inevitability of growth stalling out. It has a lot to do to the awareness of trouble an subsequent anticipation that is formed from these increasingly-perceptible readings. President Trump has repeated the claim frequently as of late that the news outlets are pushing fears of a recession in a bid to push self-fulfilling prophecy in a bid to oust his administration at the next election. While most news agencies work on an ad model that benefits from some measure of panic (‘if it bleeds, it leads’), engineering a regime change is far-fetched. That said, the purveyors of news inevitably play a role in the evolution of sentient among consumer, business leaders and investors. In reporting the subsequent inversion of the 2-10 Treasury yield curve this past Thursday or the troubled mix of data from the global August PMIs (timely proxy for GDP), they are raising awareness of the unfavorable environment in which there is tangible risk in making large purchases, ramping capital expenditures or adding to existing ‘risk’ positions. Falling into step with such troubling forecasts has more to do with human nature than any ploy and perhaps any sense of inevitability. Even though we are deep in an economic and investment growth cycle, it is always possible to stretch it out even further. Yet, pushing those in control of expenses to reach further increasingly marginal returns or gratification (from purchases) at the growing risk of losses to jobs, revenue or capital, requires greater and greater suspension of belief in traditional ‘value’. Unfortunately, the hope for tax cuts, infrastructure spending and monetary policy gearing does not offset the realities of an economy that has run out of traditional fuel and quickly burning through its reserves. Jackson Hole Symposium: The Vows of Unlimited Economic Support Ring Hollow With global investors showing obvious concern at the state of affairs around the world where governments are pursuing policy aimed at fostering growth at the expense of others and bursts of volatility continue to flash danger on many account statements (the S&P 500’s three worst single-day declines this year were all in August), it is natural for traders to seek out a savior. In textbook terms, a rise in risk would encourage a proportional response from market participants in reducing their exposure. Yet, that is clearly not the regime we have been operating in these past years – and frankly that has rarely ever been the case as speculation is an inevitability (and why I do not ascribe to the efficient market hypothesis). Often, the stalwarts of the financial system suggest their views of optimism or pessimism are based purely on the backdrop of economic growth, but their assessments are necessarily more complicated than just a single GDP projection pulled out of thin air. The scenarios of trade wars (both benefit and detriment), diverted capital flow owing to background policy change and monetary policy are more informative of our course moving forward than the linear projections of dated indicators like the quarterly growth figures from governments. So, when we are pressed to evaluate the heaviest influences for surprising risk and sustaining positive growth, there is no greater power than the world’s largest central banks. For a decade, they have flooded the system with cheap funds with a stated goal of encouraging growth, but through a less-often admitted means of what amounts to ‘trickle down wealth’. There was actually a point during the Bernanke era that the Fed Chairman stated clearly that they were attempting to spur underlying economic growth by supporting financial venues. Well, over the past years, this mechanism to support expansion has clearly diminished in power. A Dollar, Euro or Yen of stimulus has translated into increasingly infinitesimal growth. Most investors recognized this diminished capacity but were willing to overlook the traditional conduit of performance so long as these same central banks could reduce their personal risk through their efforts. It is the unmistakable failing on that implicit effort that poses more significant threat to market’s moving forward. That is why there was so much attention being afforded to what the leaders of the financial and monetary authorities would say at the weekend Jackson Hole Symposium. It is also why it was virtually impossible to truly live up to the demands of market participants. Their assurances to do ramp up a weak response to another downturn with extremely limited capabilities certainly does not.
  10. Jackson Hole Symposium Has Too Much to Cover There are two particularly important, multi-day summits scheduled for this coming week. Given the individual market-moving capacity of US President Donald Trump, the G7 Summit from August 24th through the 26th will be particularly important to watch. He has announced remarkable change in policy at or around such large events before – particularly when provoked by flabbergasted global counterparts. There are five general topics on the agenda which are all important but the market-centric among us – and who wouldn’t considering them more dialed in given the state of the economic outlook – will be most interested in the third of the listings which is the conversation on globalization. It is worth noting that as of January 1st, 2020, the United States will take over the presidency of the group. Yet, as far as the impact this can reasonably have on the markets for the week in front of us, there is very limited potential given that the event begins on a Saturday. If anything, anticipation for surprise policy tweets will discourage positioning for fear of another painful weekend gap. There are two particularly important, multi-day summits scheduled for this coming week. The other major gathering on tap from Friday through Sunday is the Kansas City Federal Reserve-hosted Jackson Hole Symposium. This is a gathering of major policy authorities (government and central bank), business leaders and investors whereby they discuss the most important matters for the financial system and economy of the day. Given the current fragile nature of both dynamics at present, there is enormous pressure on this event and its participants to urge a sense of calm. They will find this exceedingly difficult to achieve. The official topic of the event is the ‘Challenges for Monetary Policy’ which is certainly a concern, but not one designed to immediately provide relief. The politicizing of monetary policy threatening short-term focus and policies that result in currency war- like conditions will likely come up explicitly if not in the undertone. If the Fed and others use this event to warn that the effectiveness of there tools are diminishing as they are already stretched to the max and face diminishing returns in economic and financial influence, that will only solidify reality for so many that have grown to believe that there are only three things certain in life: death, taxes and asset inflation. They will attempt to hedge their language, but market participants are extremely vigilant of cracks in our troubling backdrop. Furthermore, the world will be looking for as much reassurance of a safety net against an increasingly probable economic downturn as can be mustered. This will likely prove a very disappointing event for many. The Inverted Yield Curve vs Sovereign Debt Sliding Into Negative Yield The story of the inverted yield curve continues to gain traction across the market – from bond to FX trader, new investor to old hand. In part, this is testament to the self-reinforcing influence of the financial media and financial social platforms. That is why there is a cottage industry in analyzing the collective views garnered from browsers and tweets, whether for genuine view or contrarian signal. Yet, how much should we really read into such a signal. There is very strong statistical evidence to suggest that certain yield comparisons in certain countries heralds economic and/or market troubles. The 10-year to 3-month Treasury yield curve is an economist favorite and has been inverted for a number of months now while the trader-favorite 10-year to 2-year spread only slipped below the zero mark this past week. Just to be clear, this is essentially a situation where the market demands more return from (virtually) triple-A rated government at the front of the world’s largest economy to lend to them over 3 months and 2 years versus 10 years. Something is systemically wrong if this is the case. Usually, this portends recession as we’ve seen for most similar instances in history. There is caveat in the reality that the sample size is small and conditions do change between the generations that pass between many of these instances. The Fed and other central banks being so active in purchasing their local government’s debt is a very big systemic change. However, there is also very serious data to suggest that we are looking at a stalled economy despite all the unique circumstances and distortions we are dealing with at present. There is very strong statistical evidence to suggest that certain yield comparisons heralds economic troubles. Another consideration with the signals these curves offer is the time gap between the market-based cue and the official flip on the economic switch. Yet, just because there is an average 12 month lag time between the two, does not mean we can comfortably assume that we can continue to press our luck until mid-2020. The official signal of a recession by the NBER and others is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. What’s more, the speculative nature of the financial markets rarely has investors hold out on their judgement of risk until that lumbering signal has flashed red. I find that the curve is not so personally concerning as the overall level of global yields themselves. The US 30-year Treasury yield plunged to a record low this past week. Globally, an unprecedented amount of government and high-rated debt is facing negative yield. That may seem fine on the face of it from a consumer’s perspective – who wouldn’t want to be paid to borrow money – but it is a reflection of serious problems in the system. Negative yields are an indication that there is no appetite for lending despite the affordability, it creates sever problem for profitability of financial institutions and it means there is very little policy room for authorities to ease conditions to jump start growth whether stalled or collapsing. As you see the headlines continue to flash negative yield around the world, remember that this is a serious problem for the environment in which you are investing. Trump Eased Trade War Pressure but Neither Markets Nor China Placated There was a noticeable waver in the Trump administration’s trade war pressure this past week, which many political pundit zeroed in on from both ends of the spectrum. Perhaps spurred by the market’s sudden bout of indigestion following the reciprocal escalations between the US (announcing the remaining $300 billion in Chinese imports would face a 10 percent tariff) and China (allowing the 7.0000 level on the USDCNH exchange rate give way), the White House backtracked to offer some modest relief in the pressure. It was announced that some small portion of goods would be left off the list all together owing to their importance to health and security while a wider range of consumer goods (clothing and consumer electronics) would avoid the new tax until December 15 to avoid hitting the American holiday shopping season. The half-life of the market’s enthusiasm was even more brief than their shortened bout of fear following the initial one-two punch to global trade. China’s was similarly dubious in its response. The White House lamented that China did not move to ease its own policies aimed in retaliation, but that should not exactly surprise given that the US had enacted a disproportionate escalation and China’s own measures cannot be linearly throttled – to push the exchange rate back below 7.0000 would only reinforce the belief that the PBOC is fully manipulating its Yet, my top concern remains on the risk that the two largest regional economies in the world could see threats evolve into actions. Moving forward, we will have to rely on unscheduled headlines to update our standings in US-Chinese trade relations. Perhaps the Jackson Hole Symposium or G7 summit will offer up some key insights, but there is little reason to believe these administrations are plotting it out thoroughly to offer investors genuine relief. Furthermore, it is crucial that we don’t lose sight of the other trade conflicts building up around the world. Japan and South Korea as well as the Eurozone and UK skirmishes are serious problems to the fabric of global growth. Yet, my top concern remains on the risk that the two largest regional economies in the world could see threats evolve into actions. The US and EU have warned each other with complaints and suggestion of policy preparation, but there hasn’t been serious movement yet. That may have changed however when France decided to push forward with a 3 percent digital tax on the largest tech companies in the world – which happen to largely be US-based. Some of these biggest players (Google, Amazon, Facebook) are due to testify to Congress early next week and they will no doubt cry foul. Yet, if they push the volatile government too far; their efforts to reduce their tax bill could trigger a much larger drain on global growth and trade…which will cause a much larger hit to their income.
  11. Is Trump Intentionally Stirring Market Volatility? The dust is still settling from the most recent string of reciprocal retaliations between the US and China in their ongoing trade wars. As a brief synopsis, the White House frustrated by the lack of progress in negotiations as they were due to break for a month announced August 1st it would slap a 10 percent tariff on the remaining $300 billion in Chinese goods that it was not already taxing. China responded the following Monday by letting the USDCNH cross the 7.0000 Rubicon. The US in turn labeled its counterpart a currency manipulator so that it could pursue other legal means to which Beijing suspended all agriculture imports from the US. That is where we find situation heading into the new trading week. It is possible that we are in another period of stasis where uncertainty starts to give over to complacency once again. Yet, there is motivation for President Trump to keep up the pressure. With the exchange rate adjustment made on the Yuan, China has essentially made a means to automatically offset much of the impact from US tariffs. This is more of a move towards a market-based currency policy than what we have seen before (there aren’t naturally hard barriers in exchange rates), and a weaker currency would be expected should an detrimental economic wind blow in. Nevertheless, the US President will use this shift to bolster his claims of manipulation, and the markets will grow wary of the implications for foreign investor capital repatriation that raises added concern China will not be happy to deal with given its financial and economic pains of late; but this was ultimately the most practical move. Moving forward, raising the tariff rate on Chinese import will be largely offset by exchange response, which means the principal strategy for exerting pressure on the country has essentially been neutralized. The administration could try to muster alternative plans with greater effectiveness but there is little the US could resort to short of mustering international support – and their regular threats to trade partners doesn’t make that likely – or that would otherwise pull other countries into support of China. With an appetite to ‘go it alone’ and keep on the offensive, the US government looks like it wants to simply improve the channel of influence with its tariffs. For that to happen, the Dollar would need to depreciate. This is why Trump has been relentless of his critique of the Federal Reserve, voicing discontent with the group nearly every day last week. He sees a simple formula of rate cuts leading to a weaker currency – which is not assured – but he seems to carry little about the group’s credibility or the concern such a move would inspire among investors (a sudden aggressive easing despite stocks at records and the jobless rate at decades low would suggest a crisis is ahead). With the central bank unwilling to cave to the pressure and no other practical approach within his means to devalue the currency without triggering heavy consequence, he may be attempting to rock the market such that investors demand Fed’s action. The slump last week, in May and through the fourth quarter (signaled in early September) all came soon after the US escalated trade wars. Could this ploy work? Yes, but it would carry serious complications. ‘Tis The Season of Holiday Trade, But Is This Time Different? We are entering into the prime period of the ‘summer doldrums’. Summer is a fairly generic phase when it comes to the markets and depending on the unique circumstances each year; but statistically, the lowest average daily volume for the S&P 500 – my favorite, imperfect risk asset – occurs through the month of August. This timing aligns broadly to holiday periods in the US and Europe which in turn leverages the remaining global investors’ expectations as to activity through the period. As a notable asterisk, historically, the VIX begins a steep rise through the same months before peaking in September and October. While prominent technical levels, a dearth of traditional fundamental updates and statistical norms are all means to coax expectations; I find a profitable bias and ultimately complacency are most reliable sources of market intent – much like the assumption of historical status like its ultimate safe haven position which triggers a flight to Treasuries when fear is on the rise once again. That said, market participants shouldn’t form the basis of their position on complacency which is essentially a decision to ignore risk in order to earn tepid returns. There is a saying in markets, ‘will this time be different’ which is used far more often as a contrarian’s criticism of those with that are dubious of a market that has deviated too far from what they gauge as value. It is the same sentiment shared by those that mock the caution of those moving to the sidelines or taking on hedge when risks retreat – particularly should those same unrelenting bulls be saved by a stiff bounce. Yet, asking whether markets are going to eventually shed an unearned optimism which would expose assets that have been artificially driven to excessive highs is the reasonable approach, not blindly buying every dip or (worse) simply adding to an increasingly stretched position with no plan to unwind during favorable times. GBPUSD Is Within Reach of a Three-Decade Low Though many technical measures may suggest the British Pound is stretched in its tumble – particularly in its past three months – and various fundamental aspects to the currency would argue a foothold of relative value, the currency is dropping like a rock. This past week, the Sterling continued its crash against an otherwise unsteady Dollar to trade within 1 percent of the more than three-decade low the pair hit during its October 2016, post-Brexit flash crash low. EURGBP has been of similar constitution. Despite the growing tab of issues for Europe between an ECB dovish drive, Italian government stability risk and the United States constant pressure on its trade status; this pair has climbed for 14 consecutive weeks through this past Friday – though it is still 5 percent from its recent record high set back in late 2008. GBPJPY is perhaps the most forgiving as it is approximately 9 percent from its own decades’ low, which I guess we would have to give credit to the Bank of Japan’s early work to devalue its currency. This past week, the UK economy was weighed by troubling economic data which included he first quarterly contraction in GDP since 2012. The real source of fear however remains with the troubled course of the UK-EU divorce. We are still months out from the official deadline (October 31st) for both sides to work out their differences and come to an acceptable split. Yet, with former Prime Minister Theresa May’s departure, the reassurances that the government would do everything in its power to avoid a ‘no deal’ outcome have gone. In fact, new PM Johnson seems to have as the centerpiece of his negotiation strategy a clear warning that this option is wide open. In fact, his reassurances have been so effective, that now the market is treating that once-unthinkable scenario as the baseline outcome. There is little doubt that severing the economic links with the diplomatic ties would carry serious economic and financial ramifications – the IMF, BOE and even the UK government have provided stark assessments. Yet, at what point would the Sterling be fairly valued for a hard break should it come to pass? That is open to interpretation – and the market will be making its best effort to find that balance so long as Boris Johnson voices his appetite for ‘no-deal’.
  12. Another Massive Escalation of the US-China Trade Wars The White House continues to double down on its aggressive posturing against China in a bid to force the county to yield to its demands at the negotiation table. This approach follows a few patterns in economics, sociology and debate whereby the commitment to escalation persists despite growing risks and diminishing return when or if a compromise is struck – such as the ‘escalation of commitment’ behavior. Late this past week, President Trump himself announced that an additional $300 billion in Chinese imports – essentially the balance of all trade with the country – would be saddled with a 10 percent import tax starting September 1st. He and his representatives – such as economic adviser Larry Kudlow – stated the burden could be avoided if China were to budge on the economic impasses, but the former would also remark that they could be increased further if the situation was seen as not progressing. China does not historically yield to such overt, public tactics; rather it more often responds by retaliating in kind. That is a problem as there is not a like-for-like option for China to respond at this point. It ran out of US imports to slap new or escalated tariffs on with the last volley. This disproportionate status was a glaring imbalance, but China likely resorted to mere threats as it feared pushing the US to more dramatic retaliations. In diplomatic terms, to not respond now would invite a more emboldened US as it sees no negative consequences for inflicting pain. The next steps from here is where greatest risks reside. If China finds a back channel agreement to halt the pressure, it could suggest an interim turning point. China however would not want the capitulation public for political reasons, but the US would for political reasons. If China retaliates, it will likely take the stalemate off the rails. Without US imports to tax, the country would have to resort to selling private US assets which would not sway the government, restricting rare earth materials which wouldn’t register to the White House until much economic damage is done or they result to a ‘nuclear’ (economic) option. Allowing the Yuan to depreciate sending the USDCNH above the 7.00 mark will offset strictly tariff-based costs, but it will give Trump a platform to claim manipulation – though a currency would naturally depreciate if it is on the short-side of economic pain. Selling US Treasuries would be the most severe option with plenty of pain for China to share as its holdings are enormous, but desperate times can push people to desperate measures. Side Effects of Trade Wars: More Demand for Stimulus, Other Countries Start Fights The immediate consequences of an escalating trade war between the world’s largest economies is easy to visualize: economic pain for both that spills over to the global economy as trade inevitably will be impacted for those ‘other’ countries. However, there are other outcomes that can result that have just as disruptive properties on growth or the financial system. One side effect of driving such a destructive fight is that it lowers the boundaries for taking further risks in other avenues, effectively normalizing detrimental decision making. One natural segue is for a country that feels aggrieved to utilize similar tactics with other counterparts for which it feels are taking its partnership for granted. That most threatening spillover for the global community would be for the US and European Union to take active measures against each other. That shouldn’t seem so far fetched now considering the number of reports that suggest the US President has moved forward with China against the suggestion of advisers. Both sides of the Atlantic have laid out lists of tariffs that they are readying against each other and there are obvious flashpoints like the Airbus-Boeing row. Spillover is not just a circumstance for those countries already engaged. Like nationalism, the tactics of protectionism can be adopted for other countries that feel they are experience circumstances similar to those that spurred the US to action. One example is Japan and South Korea who have gone through a few iterations of retaliation between them as they claim the other is taking advantage of the relationship. Another consequence of trade policy that directly throttles economic activity is outcry for relief through other circumstances. Monetary policy became the go-to aid for any threats to growth over the past decade, so it is natural demands for relief are directed towards groups like the Fed, ECB, BOJ and others. That exact pressure has been raised by the US President to the FOMC for months. The central bank has rejected the pressure for the purpose of its independence, but the group cannot very well ignore tangible risks to economic health that result from international policies. The response is not limited to the countries that are engaged either. While the Fed has cut rates and is expected to do so again next month, the ECB is investigating a return to QE and the PBOC vows to resort to easing in the second half; the markets expect groups like the RBA and RBNZ will have to offer relief of their own as soon as this week when they meet on policy. A Reminder: The True Tipping Point is Realizing Central Banks Are Powerless Speaking of the need for monetary policy, one of the greatest financial risks facing the global economy – aside from the excess of leverage at all levels of the financial system (government, businesses, consumer, investor) – is the realization that central banks do not have the tools to stabilize future crises. Rationally, most market participants would recognize this is the case if they were to project the course of future periods of market instability. Yet, after a record decade of bullish markets (in US indices), there is an understandable complacency and even a large pool of investors that have never even experienced a true bear market. When a troubled reality wins out, however, the tools that central banks can use are going to be severely limited. Even in the best of circumstances, rate cuts are not nearly as important for stabilizing the financial system as basic credibility – essentially the market responding to the belief that the deep-pocketed central banks’ efforts will alter the course. The Fed, among the major central banks, has the most room to maneuver through traditional policy – and that is not much scope with the high end of the range at 2.25 percent (225 basis points). The other major central banks are working with substantially lower yields. Stimulus programs are more directly associated to firefighting in modern times, and key central banks (the ECB and BOJ most prominent) have extremely little margin to add more liquidity to the system with any hope of earning financial return. A thought experiment: if fear started to spread across the global markets and central banks were not a reliable source of emergency stability, where would you expect to find support? If your answer is a coordinated government response in this environment, our precarious state should be obvious. Let’s hope it doesn’t get to that point.
  13. ECB Didn’t Live Up to Lofty Speculation, Will the Fed? There is a span of high-level rate decisions this coming week, but only one of these updates carries serious potential to not only move its domestic assets but further potential to generate reaction from the entire financial system: the FOMC. This past week, the European Central Bank offered us a look into how far the dovish reach of the largest central banks is currently stretching. Against heavy speculation that the group was going to clearly lay out the runway to further rate cuts and escalation of unorthodox policy, they instead offered a more reserved view of their plans. Fending off an approximate 40 percent probability of another 10 basis point rate cut, the ECB held rates and offered up language that said they expect to keep rates at their current level “or lower” through the first half of 2020. On a full swing back into stimulus – versus the half measure of the TLTRO – President Draghi said they were looking into options. There is complication in the ECB pushing ahead with further accommodation as new leadership is coming in a couple months. This seems to concern them more than the risks that their increasingly extreme measures risk degrading the efficacy of monetary policy all together, particularly risky in the event that we face another global slowdown or financial crisis. The swell in European investor fears about the prospects for the future may be soothed by an outside wind if it proves timely and fully supportive. According to the market, the Federal Reserve is certain to hike rates at its meeting on Wednesday. Fed Funds futures are forecasting a 100 percent change of a 25 basis point (bp) cut and is reaching further to an approximate 25 percent probability of a 50 bp move. That is unlikely. Under scrutiny from the President and the markets, the Fed is attempting to signal its consistency as it works to reinsure its credibility. In the June Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), the median forecast on yields was for no change to the benchmark this year. A 25 bp cut at this meeting would not deviate too far from their assessment as the dot plot showed at least 8 members expected at least one 25bp cut (1 anticipated two), so it was a close sway in majority. That said, 50 bp against a backdrop of data that has performed well and equity markets are records would send the wrong signal: either one of hostage to fear of volatility or a sense of panic that they are not sharing about the future. How much is the markets banking on the Fed to converge with its much lower yielding counterparts? That answer will likely spell how much volatility we should expect. Donald Trump Throws a Curve Ball on Trade Wars Fear over trade wars had receded recently as confusion seemed to replace the tangible pain of tactical threats. Between the US and China, headlines were more about the next round of talks that were being conducted at a high level in China while trouble over the status of Huawei and the retaliation that could bring was fading out of the news cycle. We almost cleared the week with a ‘no news is good news’ perspective when President Trump decided to weigh in on something the market had long suspected was a strategy but presumed would never be made certain by officials. In offhand remarks that suggest he does not appreciate the fear that can be easily sparked in speculative markets, Trump said China may not agree to any trade deal until after the Presidential elections in November 2020. That may very well be China’s strategy: wait it out until a more amenable administration potentially takes over. That said, the Chinese economy has already taken a significant blow from the standoff thus far. It is unlikely they would want to keep it up that long on the chance of turnover. This may also reflect a Trump administration tactic: refuse to compromise out to the election and use it as a campaign point that no other government would be able to close the deal. Either way, this is a concerning musing. And, in the meantime, don’t forget that there is pressure building up on other fronts. For the United States, the question of open trade war with Europe seems to be graining tangibility with the theorizing of explicit moves from both sides for a variety of perceived infringements including the Airbus-Boeing spat. The most costly threat though remains the potential that the US is considering a blanket 25 percent tariff on all autos and auto parts which could encompass many countries but carry the most pain for Germany, Japan and South Korea. Speaking of those latter two, there is an Asia-specific trade war burgeoning between Japan and South Korea with the former threatening the supply materials necessary for the latter to produce computer chips. And, though it isn’t often considered a ‘trade war’ front, the UK-EU divorce carries with it clear trade disruption implications that will compound a global figure in collective trade. Another Verse in Milestone Towards Currency Wars Most business leaders and financiers publicly project a confidence that the world faces little or no risk that a currency war could erupt between the largest economies in the world. Privately, they are very likely worrying over the pressure building up behind active measures to devalue currencies and setting off a chain reaction of financial instability. It isn’t a stretch to suggest certain major currencies are artificially deflated, but most instances are not this way intentionally (for the purpose of economic advantage over global counterparts) or have been implemented recently. The ECB deflated the Euro with direct threats of monetary policy back in 2014 when EURUSD was pressuring 1.4000. Japanese officials slipped up before that when they suggested they are pursuing their open-ended QE program in an effort to drive their currency lower to afford a trade advantage. They later back-tracked and now simply say their ceaseless JGB purchases are a bid to restart inflation, which has floundered for three decades. The Swiss Franc is faced with constant intervention threat by the SNB, but their efforts are tied to the Euro and ECB’s overwhelming stimulus drive. In most instances around the world, policy officials are attempting to account for missing their stated policy goals (such as inflation) or offset external pressures that are themselves the results of a collective unorthodox policy epoch. However, in this desperation, there is increasingly an assumption of malicious intent from trade partners. President Trump is certainly suspicious of global counterparts. He reiterated his concerns this past week in something of a different light. Seemingly facing pressure by advisers for his frequent lamenting of the strong Dollar being interpreted as a ‘weak Dollar’ policy, the President said the Greenback is still the currency of choice – which he supports – while the Euro wasn’t doing well and the Yuan was ‘very weak’. That still looks like intent. What is troubling were the reports that trade adviser – and noted extreme China hawk – Peter Navarro had presented a range of ideas to possibly devalue the Dollar to the administration. They rejected the ideas, but the fact that this is taking place at all certainly raises the threat level of a currency war extremely high.
  14. China GDP Refocuses Speculative Attention from Monetary Policy to Growth Last week, it was fairly clear that a particular fundamental theme had stepped up to take command of our attention. Monetary policy has garnered greater traction recently owing largely to speculation that the Federal Reserve will have to reverse its course of normalizing extreme accommodation and subsequently cap the responsibility for global investors to bear the exceptional risks in our financial markets on their own shoulders. This speaks to a familiar equation that we’ve seen take center stage through the unique growth phase of the past decade: where genuine economic potential lags, central banks can compensate by offloading risk to make anemic returns more attractive. The US central bank was the chief threat to that calculation of complacency after 200 basis points of tightening and a slow runoff of its balance sheet. This is the official government-based growth reading that will set off the season of GDP readings, with the US figures due on Friday, July 26th Moving forward, the Fed’s support or opposition to supplemented risk taking will still carry enormous weight, but the perspective is now one of ‘wait and see’ until the next rate decision on July 31st – where the markets are certain of a 25 bp cut and price a 20 percent probability of a 50 bp move. In the meantime attention will likely shift to something with more immediate influence. For scheduled event risk through the week ahead, the top listing is arguably the Chinese 2Q GDP update. As an economic milestone for the world’s second largest individual economy, the gravity here is obvious. However, the implications run deeper than that. This is the official government-based growth reading that will set off the season of GDP readings, with the US figures due on Friday, July 26th. Furthermore, given China’s efforts to transition their economic dependency away from exports and onto domestic means as well as its central position in the ongoing trade wars, we are monitoring an integral player in the web of global health that is facing exceptional instability. There is perhaps some reassurance to be found in this figure given that the government has substantial control over the economy and the reporting of the statistics. It is very unlikely that we register a severe shortfall. That said, the markets compensate for these measured movements with greater deference towards even small changes. What’s more, Asia’s economic health was already cast in shadow at the end of this past week. Singapore – the world’s 34th largest economy – reported a dramatic 3.4 percent quarter-over-quarter slump in the previous quarter. This series does have some history of volatility, but the bare growth of 0.1 percent annual expansion is unmistakably poor with the worst pace since the second quarter of 2009. Pressure Increases Even Further for Trade War ‘Accidents’ and Especially for Contagion The good will between the United States and China in their trade relations following the G-20 sideline meeting seems to have all but evaporated. Without meaningful progress to seed reasonable hope of reversing the large tariffs the countries have placed on each other, we are left to evaluate the growing tension on the periphery of their fraying relationship. This past week, senior officials in the Trump administration reportedly agreed that China had violated its sanctions on Iran by importing a million barrels of its oil, but there was no immediate agreement on how to respond. On the other side of the table, China has said it will sanction those US companies that were involved in the arms sale to Taiwan. While a full reversal on the trade war doesn’t seem to be in the cards through the foreseeable future, there seems little will at present to escalate the situation along its natural course of the US going ‘all in’ on all Chinese imports while China responds with even more unorthodox measures such as restrictions on rare earth materials. Trump had tasked aides to look into means to devalue the Dollar is immediately believable and a serious threat of destabilizing an already-troubled situation Meanwhile, the pressure is ratcheting up outside the now-conventional channels of economic retaliation with the very real risk that all such efforts will be construed as some form of retaliation and escalation. Reports this past week that Trump had tasked aides to look into means to devalue the Dollar is immediately believable and a serious threat of destabilizing an already-troubled situation. The President has repeatedly accused China and the EU of using monetary policy and other means to artificially weaken their respective currencies to afford ill-gotten advantage to their economies. While there are arguments that can be made to both cases, pursuing retribution at this juncture would be a severe threat. A related issue that will no doubt draw the attention of Trump and his advisors was the appointment of IMF Director Christine Lagarde to be the new leader of the ECB when Draghi steps down at the end of October. The IMF recently issued its review of the EU with advice that the region should continue to sport its enormous stimulus given conditions. That can easily be interpreted by a person or people looking for antagonism as a move to further advantage. Another development that should be watched closely is France’s decision to move forward with a 3 percent digital tax on earnings made in France by large tech companies. Many of those companies that will face the levy are American, a fact that will not go unnoticed by the White House. With the UK considering a 2 percent tax of its own and the EU still moving forward with debates on a broad duty, there is a rising risk that the US pushes forward with the tens of billions in tariffs it has warned Europe over and perhaps even the adoption of a blanket tariff on auto imports. If this is the course we follow, take those atmospherical recession warnings more seriously. US Earnings Season Starts with Recession Fears, Trade Fallout and Business Cycle Under Scrutiny The second quarter US earnings season is due to start in earnest in the week ahead. We have already taken in a few noteworthy corporate updates these past weeks. Levi Strauss, who reported this past week, is the target for retaliatory tariffs from Europe while Micron and Fedex who offered updates two weeks ago find performance directly reflective of trade tension. While there are a few companies reporting that have overt exposure to strained Chinese relations, the high profile updates ahead will tap into other matters. Netflix’s report on Wednesday will look to leverage some of the influence that it enjoyed in previous years when tech shares paced US equities which in turn led the global view on risk appetite. However, lately, the FAANG members and collective seem to have lost the ear of the market. On the tech side, IBM’s update on the same day and Microsoft figures on Thursday will offer a more endemic growth picture. In revenue terms, a drop in benchmark rates is often a burden to banks Perhaps the most prominent theme to extract from this week of US earnings will be an important ‘cost’ of monetary policy accommodation from the Fed. The central bank is warning the engines for rate cuts, and most investors can only see benefit from the reversal with the moral hazard tide rolling back in. Yet, there are systemic risks associated to the fact that the group is so unnerved about the near future that it is contemplating easing despite still meaningful growth, not to mention the danger that could follow should the markets decide to lose confidence in central banks’ ability to fight off crises owing to their depleted resources. In revenue terms, a drop in benchmark rates is often a burden to banks. While each cut in the overnight rate does not confer proportional burden to financial institutions’ margins while each hike adds to it, that is more often the case over cycles and particularly when we are attempting to lift rates off of long-term deflated levels. We are unlikely to see the fall out in this past three-month period’s returns from JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley; but their forward guidance for future profits can certainly offer up reference. Look beyond the single tickers’ response to their own financials and instead monitor the systemic repercussions.
  15. Enough Threats of a Currency War and You Find Yourself In One It has been a common theme in the negotiations between the United States and the countries they have targeted for trade inequities that aggressive language has preceded tangible action. While both sides (the US versus the ‘World’) have been clearly willing to dole out the warnings, it has been the White House that has advanced both action and intimidation far more willingly. At this stage, we have seen the trade war level out somewhat. US President Trump and Chinese President Xi agreed to some measure of armistice at the G-20 meeting, heading off a standing threat by the US to expand is onerous 25 percent tariff against Chinese imports to encompass the remaining $300 billion or so in goods that were not already being taxed. Yet, that is about as far as the agreement has stretched – with the caveat that US firms would be allowed to sell their manufactured goods to Chinese telecom. As far as the scorecard goes, this hardly qualifies as de-escalation; but negotiations are ‘ongoing’. ...if the US were to forge twin trade and currency wars, a financial crisis is likely and a systemic downgrade in the use of the US Dollar as top reserve currency would be inevitable. In the meantime, US policymakers seem to be anxious to avoid any impression that they are letting off the pressure on the rest of the world to ‘right their wrongs’ against the country. The US Trade Representative’s office this past week proposed tariffs on an additional $4 billion worth of EU goods to add to the $21 billion list offered up back in April. This is ostensibly a response to the ongoing spat between the US and Europe on what they each deem is unfair subsidizing of each other’s’ largest airplane manufacturer (Boeing and Airbus respectively). Thus far, the two principal Western economies have not engaged in an all-out trade war – like the US and China have – but all the ingredients of escalation are in place. I maintain that if these two economies engage in this growth-destructive behavior, it will inevitably stall the developed world (and like global) – GDP. As it happens, President Trump has taken the standoff to a different venue altogether: exchange rates. He revived his criticisms this past week that other key economies are targeting devalued currencies as a means to artificially amplify their own growth. Of course, a government that is conducting an aggressive trade war that looks to leverage taxes to change trade partners ways would hope for a steady – or cheaper – currency to ensure those levies have their maximum impact and the local reciprocal pain is minimized. While Trump’s threats have thus far have been kept to criticism over the Federal Reserve’s policies while his own administration say he is not seeking a ‘weak dollar policy’, if the central bank doesn’t acquiesce to his critiques, he may very well pursue other avenues to make a more comprehensive impact. That said, if the US were to forge twin trade and currency wars, a financial crisis is likely and a systemic downgrade in the use of the US Dollar as top reserve currency would be inevitable. Fed Monetary Policy Finds Itself In a Position to Steer the Broad Markets We have gotten to a point where there is so much reliance on monetary policy for the well being of the entire financial system that the markets are gauging their day-to-day sentiment against significant shifts in monetary policy expectations. While external support for the markets is a function of all the majors central banks’ collective efforts, the world’s largest authority holds greater pull owing to its symbolic status as captain to the world’s largest economy and as the paradigm of what a ‘hawkish’ policy is this unusual economic cycle. The interest is so sharp that the markets are reading into key pieces of event risk not for their economic consequences, but rather for the support or opposition it represents to a faster reversal in Fed Reserve policy. Point-in-case was this past week’s US employment report. Fed intent will remain a driving force for this equilibrium which places greater emphasis on top-line US data and central banker speak when gauging global market moving potential. The June nonfarm payrolls (NFPs) beat expectations soundly with a 224,000 net addition (versus 160,000 forecasted) with the jobless rate barely ticking up from its multi-decade low (3.7 percent) and wage growth holding steady at a 3.1 percent annual pace. All-in-all, this was a robust print to contribute to a remarkably strong series. And yet, the markets responded as if it was a bad omen of what was ahead as the major US indices (Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq) all gapped lower on the open Friday. Why would run of important data that supported the outlook for growth provoke a slump in capital markets? Because, the market is not intending to profit through a long-term picture of strong economic expansion and steadily rising rates of return but rather through the tried and true strategy of front running deep pocketed and relentless central banks. This puts us in an economically-unusual but relatively familiar situation from this past decade whereby the speculative rank covets data that disappoints just enough to warrant monetary policy accommodation without tipping an overwhelming wave of deleveraging. That is a difficult balance to maintain. Nevertheless, Fed intent will remain a driving force for this equilibrium which places greater emphasis on top-line US data and central banker speak when gauging global market moving potential. That said, the week ahead holds a few particularly important milestones. On the economic calendar side, the market’s favorite inflation figure – the US CPI – is due for release on Thursday. For the more qualitative influences, there is a range of Fed speak scheduled with Chairman Jerome Powell’s Congressional testimony Wednesday and Thursday. The Curious Case of an Unrelenting Sterling Slide The British Pound cannot seem to catch a break. Where many of the key Sterling crosses have come to levels of meaningful support recently, we have seen the boundaries bow under the pressure while some pairs haven’t even broken stride. GBPUSD and GBPCHF are good examples of crosses that show little deference towards boundaries while both GBPCAD and EURGBP have extended incredible pace - 9 week slides for the GBP for both marking the worst performance in 12 years and on record respectively. Against the backdrop of Brexit, this may not seem that unusual a fate. However, it is not so straightforward a scenario when we consider we are not dealing with a relentlessly deteriorating situation – at least not yet. At present, we are in a holding pattern in the UK-EU divorce proceedings as the Britain works out who the next leader of the Conservative Party – and therefore the country – will be. ...be mindful when trading Sterling Normally, in this situation, we would find markets either trading without much progress either bullish or bearish while in some situations in the past there is a measurable unwinding of a stretched speculative exposure. The difference for the Pound is the practical recognition of probabilities for the difference scenarios. While possible that the leadership change will happen quickly and the two sides hash out a fruitful agreement that satisfies all, it is very unlikely. Instead, the front-runner for the next PM, Boris Johnson, continues to make clear his comfort with a no-deal outcome should European negotiators not relent. And, despite his suggestions that the country will be totally prepared for such an outcome, three years of uncertainty has led to a deeply-rooted skepticism. In the event that the controversial figure takes over the Tories and the country finds itself heading towards General Election, it will only extend the uncertainty and make a solution by the designated cutoff date (October 31st) virtually impossible. That deadline marches relentlessly closer. With a clear mandate for negotiation on the UK’s side still weeks away at least, the probability of a more disruptive outcome grows. And, against this backdrop, it is worth reiterating that uncertainty is risk. Be mindful when trading the Sterling.
×
×