Moral Hazard Quagmire

By Doug Noland via creditbubble buletein

The Nasdaq100 (NDX) jumped another 3.5% this week, increasing 2020 gains to 32.3%. Amazon gained 4.3% during the week, boosting y-t-d gains to 77.8% – and market capitalization to $1.626 TN. Apple surged 8.2% this week, increasing 2020 gains to 69.4%. Apple’s market capitalization ended the week at a world-beating $2.127 TN. Microsoft rose 2.0% (up 35.1% y-t-d, mkt cap $1.612 TN). Google rose 4.8% (18.2%, $1.073 TN), and Facebook gained 2.2% (30.1%, $761bn). The NDX now trades with a price-to-earnings ratio of 37.4.

This era will be analyzed and debated for decades to come – if not much longer. Market Bubbles, over-indebtedness, inequality, financial instability and economic maladjustment – festering for years – can no longer be disregarded as cyclical phenomena. Ben Bernanke has declared understanding the forces behind the Great Depression is the “Holy Grail of economics”. It’s ironic. That the Fed never repeats its failure to aggressively expand the money supply in time of crisis is a key facet of the Bernanke doctrine – policy failing he asserts was a primary contributor to Depression-era financial and economic collapse. Yet this era’s unprecedented period of monetary stimulus is fundamental to current financial, economic, social and geopolitical instabilities.

August 18 – Bloomberg (Craig Torres): “The concentration of market power in a handful of companies lies behind several disturbing trends in the U.S. economy, like the deepening of inequality and financial instability, two Federal Reserve Board economists say in a new paper. Isabel Cairo and Jae Sim identify a decline in competition, with large firms controlling more of their markets, as a common cause in a series of important shifts over the last four decades. Those include a fall in labor share, or the chunk of output that goes to workers, even as corporate profits increased; and a surge in wealth and income inequality, as the net worth of the top 5% of households almost tripled between 1983 and 2016. This fueled financial risks and higher leverage, the economists say, as poorer households borrowed to make ends meet while richer ones shoveled their wealth into bonds… ‘The rise of market power of the firms may have been the driving force’ in all of these trends, Cairo and Sim write in the paper.”

My analytical framework’s “money” and Credit focus is at times lacking in capturing non-monetary macro factors. To blame the Fed and global central banks for all that ails the world (while a valid starting point) represents a too simplified view of complex dynamics. To be sure, technological innovation and advancement along with “globalization” continue to exert momentous influence – arguably at an accelerated pace. Indeed, analysis with technological and globalization trends at its focal point could offer a plausible explanation of many macro developments – to the exclusion of policymaking and finance. As the above Fed research asserts, it is increasingly tempting to deflect blame for inequality upon monopoly power.

Isabel Cairo and Jae Sim’s Fed research paper, “Market Power, Inequality, and Financial Instability,”is a technical research piece: “A few secular trends have emerged in the U.S. economy over the last four decades… First, real wage growth has stagnated behind productivity growth over the last four decades and, as a result, the labor income share has steadily declined… Second, the before-tax profit share of U.S. corporations has shown a dramatic increase in the last few decades… Third, income inequality has been exacerbated over the last four decades… Fourth, wealth inequality has also been exacerbated during the last four decades… Finally, the rising household sector leverage has been coupled with rising financial instability…” “We develop a real business cycle model and show that the rise of market power of the firms in both product and labor markets over the last four decades can generate all of these secular trends.”

“In this paper, we quantitatively investigate the role of rising firms’ market power in both product and labor markets in explaining the six secular trends. In so doing, we are inspired by Kalecki (1971), who… predicted that the market power of the firms would increase over time and consequently, labor share would fall in the long-run.”

Understandably, Amazon lost money in its initial years. Losses mounted steadily from 1995, jumping to $720 million by 1999, $1.4 billion in the year 2000 and $567 million in 2001. The company posted a 2003 profit of $35 million on revenues of $5.3bn. Net Income jumped to $589 million in 2004 (pre-tax $365 million), earnings not exceeded until 2008’s $645 million (on revenues of $19.2bn). Amazon reported Net Income last year of $13.18 billion on Revenues of $280.5bn.

What impact did loose monetary policies have on Amazon’s evolution to an online retail juggernaut, crushing traditional retailers and online competitors alike? Enjoying limitless access to virtually free finance, there were no constraints on investment spending (or acquisitions). And as competitors increasingly struggled to retain profitability and affordable finance, there was nothing holding back Amazon’s rein of dominance.

Tesla’s stock price closed the week at $2,050, up almost 400% y-t-d, with a market capitalization of $390 billion, exceeding the combined capitalization of five global auto heavyweights (Ford $26.7bn, GM $41.0bn, Toyota $218bn, Honda $45.3bn, and Daimler $51.8bn). Tesla reported losses of $725 million in 2016, $1.8bn in 2017, $742 million in 2018 and $629 million in 2019. After reporting cumulative profits of about $450 million over the past four quarters, Tesla’s stock currently trades with a price/earnings ratio of 895.

How would Tesla appear these days if not for ongoing aggressive Federal Reserve stimulus and the resulting loosest financial conditions imaginable? Would it have survived? I’m all for zero emissions vehicles – as well as a proponent for Schumpeter’s “creative destruction.” But zero rates, QE, mispriced finance and market Bubbles have created financial and economic distortions with momentous consequences. Years of ultra-cheap finance, booming securities markets, and a most elongated business cycle have created powerful industry behemoths. Pandemic crisis measures now cement monopoly power.

To be sure, whether it is Amazon, Tesla, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook or scores of other market darlings, a hot stock price is essential to achieving market dominance. For one, it provides a currency for acquisitions, purchases that often include fledgling competitors. And as these companies grow increasingly dominant in both the markets and real economy, surging stock prices ensure these heavyweights attract and retain the best and brightest talent (further cementing competitive advantage).

There is today no more powerful factor in exacerbating inequality than the stock market. A position (with stock grants) at one of the hundreds of market darlings is today a ticket to extraordinary riches. While tens of millions have lost their jobs and financial security over recent months, those fortunate to be riding the bull market wave have enjoyed spectacular wealth gains.

August 20 – Bloomberg (Liz Capo McCormick): “The unprecedented speed and scale of the Federal Reserve’s buying of Treasuries and mortgage debt to aid a severely impaired bond market has accomplished that without raising the specter of moral hazard, Federal Reserve Bank of New York researchers wrote… Pandemic-sparked volatility in March caused liquidity in the world’s biggest bond market to plunge to its worst since the 2008 financial crisis. The Fed responded with purchases of Treasuries and mortgage securities that peaked at more than $100 billion a day combined. It’s still soaking up about $80 billion of Treasuries and at least $40 billion of mortgage securities a month, and some bond veterans warn that the central bank’s involvement in the market could potentially be encouraging risky behavior, such as excessive borrowing. But a post… in the New York Fed’s Liberty Street blog argued against that. ‘The magnitude of the Desk’s purchase program in 2020 ‘to support the smooth functioning’ of the Treasury and agency MBS markets marked those purchases as highly unusual,’ wrote Kenneth Garbade, a senior vice president in the New York Fed’s Research and Statistics Group, and Frank Keane, a senior policy advisor. But they also say that the tool has been used before and ‘the infrequency of Federal Reserve intervention suggests that relying on the Fed on those rare occasions when markets are in extremis has not materially exacerbated moral hazard.”

The Fed’s stunning pandemic response has greatly exacerbated at least two pernicious dynamics – Inequality and Moral Hazard. Only Fed economists could argue the Federal Reserve’s crisis response measures haven’t stoked risk-taking throughout the markets (and in the real economy). Indeed, any doubt that the Fed would invoke “whatever it takes” to support the securities markets has been allayed.

It is strangely flawed analysis deserving of a response. “The magnitude of the Desk’s purchase program in 2020 ‘to support the smooth functioning’ of the Treasury and agency MBS markets marked those purchases as highly unusual. From an operational perspective the speed and size of the program were unprecedented, yet as a policy response, as the three episodes discussed here show, it was not unique.”

The Fed economists point to three episodes as evidence recent Fed crisis measures were not unique: 1) Fed purchases of $800 million of Treasuries during September 1939, at the start of WWII. 2) Several hundred million Treasury purchases in response to disorderly markets in July 1958. 3) The buying of several billion Treasury securities in May 1970, in response to disorderly markets after President Nixon announced a military escalation with large-scale operations in Cambodia – along with anti-war protests and the Kent State tragedy. The analysis concludes with a bold assertion: “…The infrequency of Federal Reserve intervention suggests that relying on the Fed on those rare occasions when markets are in extremis has not materially exacerbated moral hazard.”

Arguably, the three highlighted historical interventions have little or no bearing whatsoever on today’s Moral Hazard Quagmire.

I would point to more than three decades of serial – and escalating – market interventions and bailouts – including Greenspan’s 1987 post-crash liquidity assurances; early ‘90’s aggressive rate cuts and yield curve manipulation; 1994 GSE quasi-central bank liquidity operations; the 1995 Mexican bailout; Greenspan’s pro-markets “asymmetric” policy responses; the ’98 LTCM bailout to safeguard global derivatives markets; Bernanke’s 2002 “helicopter money” and “government printing press” speeches; the Fed’s post-tech Bubble accommodation of rapid mortgage Credit growth as the primary system reflation mechanism – and the subsequent blatant disregard for mortgage finance and housing excesses; the post-Bubble $1 TN QE program, bailouts and various extraordinary crisis measures in 2008/09; the Bernanke Fed’s coercion of savers into the debt and equities markets; Draghi’s “whatever it takes” 2012 crisis response; Bernanke’s 2013 assurance that the Fed would “push back” against any market tightening of financial conditions (i.e. market corrections); the Bernanke and Yellen Feds’ decade-long aversion to policy normalization; the Powell Fed’s abrupt market instability-induced December 2018 abandonment of policy “normalization”; the September 2019 “insurance” rate cut and QE in the face of record stock prices and generally overheated securities markets.

“Moneyness of Credit” was an analytical focus of mine during the mortgage finance Bubble period. It was a historic Moral Hazard episode, with the government-sponsored enterprises, the Treasury and Federal Reserve all contributing to the perception that federal backing insured mortgage finance would remain safe and liquid (money-like) – irrespective of the risk profile of the underlying mortgages. The view that Washington would never allow a housing (or mortgage finance) bust was fundamental to egregious risk-taking and excess (in both the Real Economy and Financial Spheres).

I coined “Moneyness of Risk Assets” in 2009 upon recognizing that Bernanke was targeting rising equities and corporate Credit markets as the primary mechanism for post-Bubble system reflation. Epic Moral Hazard was unleashed. Markets accurately assumed the Fed had taken a giant leap with respect to market intervention and support – with the greater the degree of Bubble excess the more confident the marketplace became that the Fed wouldn’t risk pulling back.

In the realm of Moral Hazard, last autumn’s “insurance” monetary stimulus was a catastrophic policy blunder. Stress was building in leveraged speculation and within global derivatives markets – air was beginning to leak from the global financial Bubble. The Fed’s aggressive measures quashed the incipient market correction and stoked only greater speculative excess. This ensured the acute market fragility that contributed to March’s near-financial meltdown.

And the financial crisis spurred an unprecedented $3 TN expansion of Fed market liquidity. M2 money supply surged an unparalleled $2.9 TN in only six months, in an ongoing episode of historic Monetary Disorder. And when it comes to Moral Hazard, one cannot overstate the significance of the Fed’s giant leap to purchasing corporate bonds and even ETFs that hold junk bonds. With rates back to zero and the Fed now directly backstopping corporate Credit, “money” has flooded into perceived safe and liquid bond ETFs (in the face of the steepest economic downturn in decades). A debt issuance bonanza ensued.

Once more for posterity: “…The infrequency of Federal Reserve intervention suggests that relying on the Fed on those rare occasions when markets are in extremis has not materially exacerbated moral hazard.”

Rather than infrequent, Fed intervention has become incessant. Market “extremis” has turned commonplace. And any assertion that Fed policies have not materially exacerbated Moral Hazard completely lacks credibility. In fact, it’s foolish.

Friday afternoon from Bloomberg (Lu Wang): “Bears Are Going Extinct in Stock Market’s $13 Trillion Rebound.” “Skeptics are a dying breed in American Equities.” “Going by the short positions of hedge funds, resistance to rising prices is the lowest in 16 years… At the start of August, the median S&P 500 stock had outstanding short interest equating to just 1.8% of market capitalization, the lowest level since at least 2004…” “At 26 times forecast earnings, the S&P 500 was trading at the highest multiple since the dot-com era.” “Consider the internet frenzy 20 years ago. Back then, large speculators, mostly hedge funds, were net short on S&P 500 futures in all but five weeks in 1998 and 1999. Those mostly losing bets were completely squeezed out in 2000. That’s when the crash came.”

http://creditbubblebulletin.blogspot.com/2020/08/weekly-commentary-moral-hazard-quagmire.html

Precarious World – Doug Noland

Another fascinating – if not comforting – week. A Friday Wall Street Journal headline: “Big Tech’s Embarrassment of Riches – Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all show resilience during pandemic while undergoing congressional scrutiny.” Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all reported booming earnings the day following appearances by respective CEOs before the House Antitrust Subcommittee. Down the road from Capitol Hill, the FOMC released their post-meeting policy statement. Chairman Powell then conducted a virtual press conference where he addressed key issues: “inflation running well below our symmetric 2% objective,” and “inequality as an issue has been a growing issue in our country and in our economy for four decades.”

While it is true that inequality has been building for decades, this trend has worsened markedly since the 2008 crisis. Much more so of late.

Powell: “So [inequality is] a serious economic problem for the United States, but it’s got underlying causes that are not related to monetary policy or to our response to the pandemic. Again, four decades of evidence suggests it’s about globalization, it’s about the flattening out of educational attainment in the United States compared to our other competitor countries. It’s about technology advancing too.

If we could chart “inequality,” it would at this point be rising parabolically – following the trajectory of the Fed’s balance sheet. I had been assuming Fed holdings would at some point be getting a lot larger. It seemed clear inequality would only get worse. COVID dramatically accelerated both trends.

Bubble Analysis is these days as fruitful as ever. We’re in the waning days of a multi-decade super-cycle. Bubble markets have become extraordinarily distorted and increasingly disorderly. Protracted deep structural maladjustment has fostered pervasive Bubble Economy Dynamics. Aggressive monetary inflation and central bank market interventions – primary contributors to financial and economic Bubbles – are being deployed to hold Bubble collapse at bay. And we’re now witnessing the initial consequences of desperately throwing massive stimulus at speculative market Bubbles and a Bubble Economy.

Apple closed Friday trading at an all-time high $412, with a market capitalization of a world-leading $1.76 TN. After its 90% rally off March lows, the stock enjoys a y-t-d gain of 40%. Amazon has gained 72% so far in 2020, with market capitalization surging to $1.59 TN. Google has gained 9% ($995bn market cap), and Facebook 23% ($720bn). Microsoft sports a year-to-date gain of 28%, with a market value of $1.53 TN. Apple and Facebook traded to record highs this week, with Amazon, Microsoft and Google just below recent all-time highs.

If you have the great fortune to be employed at one of the tech giants (owning shares and option grants), you likely have never had it so good. Moreover, this windfall has created the wherewithal to trade the markets, likely furthering your good fortune.

Powell: “As I have emphasized before, these are lending powers, not spending powers. The Fed cannot grant money to particular beneficiaries. We can only create programs or facilities with broad-based eligibility to make loans to solvent entities with the expectation that the loans will be repaid.”

While Powell’s comments were directed to the Fed’s emergency lending facilities, it has become a critical issue that the Fed can and does “grant money to particular beneficiaries.” Owners of securities – Treasuries, agency bonds and MBS, stocks, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, municipal bonds, CLOs, etc. – have been huge beneficiaries of Fed money. Many speculating in derivatives markets (i.e. call buyers and put sellers) have benefited hugely. Robinhood traders – and day-traders and equities speculators generally – have benefited. The leveraged speculating community has been a particular beneficiary.

It’s Central Banking 101 that central banks must stay well clear of “Credit allocation.” Choosing winners and losers puts a central bank’s credibility at risk and jeopardizes independence. The Fed let the genie out of the bottle with its move to QE and other emergency measures during the last crisis.

Compliments of COVID, inequality is now rightfully considered one of the critical issues of this era. Fed measures directly – and conspicuously – benefit Wall Street firms and clients, the general markets, corporations, and the wealthy. Why, then, shouldn’t the Federal Reserve today turn its full attention to supporting the less fortunate and disadvantaged – especially during the worst pandemic in a century. It’s a reasonable question, and the Fed faces very serious credibility and independence issues if it can’t muster a good answer.  The Federal Reserve should never have ventured into the wealth creation and allocation business.

Ironically, markets these days actually fancy all the focus on inequality.

Powell: “So [inequality is] a critical, critical problem for our society but one that really falls mainly to fiscal policy and other policies. Our part of it is to push as hard as we can on our employment mandate… We saw what happened to people at the lower end of the income spectrum late in the last expansion. It was the best labor market in 50 years they told us. We saw that the biggest wage increases were going to people on the bottom end of the wage spectrum… So a tight labor market is probably the best thing that the Fed can foster to go after that problem which is a serious one.”

“Pushing as hard as we can on our employment mandate” translates to “pressing monetary stimulus to the absolute limit.” Results are essentially preordained: inequities will only worsen. Markets, meanwhile, celebrate the reality that monetary policy is trapped in a dynamic of securities markets Bubble inflation, with bursting Bubbles poised to inflict irreparable damage to Fed credibility. In the meantime, the Fed is stuck knee-deep in political muck (of its own making).

From the FT (James Politi): “Mr Biden made the US central bank a key focus on his plan for a ‘major mobilisation of effort and resources’ to help ‘advance racial equity across the American economy’, his campaign said… In particular, it said that Mr Biden would work with Congress to amend the Federal Reserve act to force the central bank to ‘aggressively enhance its surveillance and targeting’ of ‘persistent’ racial inequalities.

Chairman Powell and the FOMC would clearly prefer to defer to fiscal policy to help rectify inequality and festering social stress. QE and aggressive market interventions have essentially granted Washington a blank check book. I’ll assume eventual stimulus legislation bipartisan compromise will push this year’s fiscal deficit to $5 TN.

Dump aggressive monetary stimulus on a speculative marketplace and the outcome will be a more unwieldy Bubble. Dump extreme stimulus on a maladjusted Bubble Economy – in the throes of a pandemic – and expect strange results. How many tens of billions flowed to Robinhood and other trading accounts? Just imagine the enthusiasm generated when free chips are handed to patrons as they enter a casino. How much stimulus flowed freely into stock and bond funds?

How many fiscal stimulus dollars flooded into the already overflowing coffers of the big tech companies, as millions of restaurants and small businesses were breathing their dying breaths. How much free money was used to purchase iPhones, computers, tablets, TVs and such, helping secure the manufacturing jobs of workers throughout Asia? How much stimulus went into software, cloud and online services, myriad downloads and such, completely bypassing millions of struggling small businesses and most U.S. workers.

This is not your granddad’s Economic Structure. And to hear the Federal Reserve still focused on below target inflation is a farce. For decades now, the shift to new technologies and a services-based economy placed downward pressure on many consumer prices. And seemingly tepid consumer price pressures empowered a transformation to permanent policy accommodation (the Fed and global central banks). Loose monetary policies stoked asset price inflation and Bubbles, while accommodating economic structural transformation. When bursting market Bubbles exposed economic vulnerabilities, the Fed resorted to ever more aggressive stimulus measures.

It’s now all coming home to roost. Fed stimulus only stokes dangerous speculative excess, while the Bubble Economy structure is revealed as a financial black hole. Despite massive monetary and fiscal stimulus, U.S. GDP contracted at a shocking 33% annualized pace during the second quarter. Ominously, Trillions of fiscal stimulus were absorbed like a dry sponge.

This is key: There was a chance for a rapid return to some semblance of normalcy. If the virus had been quickly contained, brisk economic recovery would have restored confidence. Previous spending patterns would have returned, and the vast majority of businesses would likely have survived. But the virus became more contagious and, as a society, we didn’t make the necessary sacrifices to gain the upper hand on COVID.

The outbreak resurgence came with major consequences. The recovery – in confidence and economic activity – was disrupted. The return to previous spending patterns was significantly postponed – if not crushed. Importantly, this ensures that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of sole proprietorships to major corporations will fight for survival. Severe Credit issues are now unavoidable.

“Hogwash!” would be the reply from today’s fearless stock market bulls. Clearly, equities markets are playing a different game – with the assumption aggressive monetary stimulus can sustain Bubble excess for the foreseeable future.

Yet other markets corroborate my analysis. Ten-year Treasury yields ended the week at a record low 53 bps – down 13 bps for the month. Perhaps more reflective of the deteriorating environment, the U.S. dollar index suffered its worst month since 2010 – losing 4.8% versus the euro, 6.2% against the Swedish krona, 5.7% against the Norwegian krone, 5.5% to the British pound and 2.0% to the Japanese yen. Over the past month, Gold gained $195, or 11%, to a record $1,976. Silver surged 34% in July. And how about some of this week’s equities declines: Germany’s DAX down 4.1% and Japan’s Nikkei sinking 4.6%.

The U.S. has been inflating historic financial and economic Bubbles – and these Bubbles are faltering. Financial Bubbles and Deep Structural Economic Maladjustment will force policymakers into The Precarious World of Ongoing Massive Monetary and Fiscal Stimulus. Significant dollar devaluation is inevitable, with the dollar’s world reserve currency status in jeopardy. An equities market speculative melt-up only exacerbates instability and systemic fragility. Risk of major social, political and geopolitical instability is escalating. And the safe havens signal a major crisis is unavoidable.

For the Week:

The S&P500 gained 1.7% (up 1.2% y-t-d), while the Dow slipped 0.2% (down 7.4%). The Utilities increased 0.9% (down 4.6%). The Banks fell 1.4% (down 34.3%), and the Broker/Dealers dropped 1.5% (down 4.1%). The Transports jumped 2.7% (down 8.3%). The S&P 400 Midcaps rose 0.8% (down 9.7%), and the small cap Russell 2000 gained 0.9% (down 11.3%). The Nasdaq100 advanced 4.0% (up 24.9%). The Semiconductors surged 4.8% (up 15.5%). The Biotechs fell 1.9% (up 11.6%). With bullion surging $74, the HUI gold index gained 2.7% (up 45.0%).

Three-month Treasury bill rates ended the week at 0.0825%. Two-year government yields fell four bps to 0.11% (down 146bps y-t-d). Five-year T-note yields dropped seven bps to 0.21% (down 149bps). Ten-year Treasury yields fell six bps to 0.53% (down 139bps). Long bond yields declined four bps to 1.19% (down 120bps). Benchmark Fannie Mae MBS yields sank 18 bps to 1.24% (down 147bps).

Greek 10-year yields increased three bps to 1.08% (down 35bps y-t-d). Ten-year Portuguese yields declined a basis point to 0.35% (down 9bps). Italian 10-year yields rose two bps to 1.01% (down 40bps). Spain’s 10-year yields slipped one basis point to 0.34% (down 13bps). German bund yields dropped eight bps to negative 0.52% (down 34bps). French yields fell five bps to negative 0.19% (down 31bps). The French to German 10-year bond spread widened three to 33 bps. U.K. 10-year gilt yields declined four bps to 0.10% (down 72bps). U.K.’s FTSE equities index sank 3.7% (down 21.8%).

Japan’s Nikkei Equities Index dropped 4.6% (down 7.1% y-t-d). Japanese 10-year “JGB” yields were little changed at 0.02% (up 3bps y-t-d). France’s CAC40 lost 3.5% (down 20.0%). The German DAX equities index fell 4.1% (down 7.1%). Spain’s IBEX 35 equities index sank 5.7% (down 28.0%). Italy’s FTSE MIB index dropped 4.9% (down 18.8%). EM equities were mixed. Brazil’s Bovespa index increased 0.5% (down 11.0%), while Mexico’s Bolsa declined 0.9% (down 15.0%). South Korea’s Kospi index rose 2.2% (up 2.4%). India’s Sensex equities index fell 1.4% (down 8.8%). China’s Shanghai Exchange jumped 3.5% (up 8.5%). Turkey’s Borsa Istanbul National 100 index dropped 5.4% (unchanged). Russia’s MICEX equities index rose 1.7% (down 4.4%).

Investment-grade bond funds saw inflows of $7.904 billion, and junk bond funds posted positive flows of $295 million (from Lipper).

Freddie Mac 30-year fixed mortgage rates declined two bps to 2.99% (down 76bps y-o-y). Fifteen-year rates fell three bps to 2.51% (down 69bps). Five-year hybrid ARM rates sank 15 bps to 2.94% (down 52bps). Bankrate’s survey of jumbo mortgage borrowing costs had 30-year fixed rates down six bps to 3.12% (down 92bps).

Federal Reserve Credit last week added $4.4bn to $6.917 TN, with a 47-week gain of $3.195 TN. Over the past year, Fed Credit expanded $3.165 TN, or 84.4%. Fed Credit inflated $4.106 Trillion, or 146%, over the past 403 weeks. Elsewhere, Fed holdings for foreign owners of Treasury, Agency Debt gained $5.1 billion last week to $3.407 TN. “Custody holdings” were down $55.5bn, or 1.6%, y-o-y.

M2 (narrow) “money” supply fell $70.2bn last week to $18.318 TN, with an unprecedented 21-week gain of $2.811 TN. “Narrow money” surged $3.448 TN, or 23.2%, over the past year. For the week, Currency increased $6.5bn. Total Checkable Deposits jumped $55.9bn, while Savings Deposits slumped $113.9bn. Small Time Deposits declined $6.9bn. Retail Money Funds fell $11.9bn.

Total money market fund assets declined $18.3bn to $4.570 TN. Total money funds surged $1.292 TN y-o-y, or 39.4%.

Total Commercial Paper slipped $1.6bn to $1.019 TN. CP was down $133bn, or 11.5% year-over-year.

Currency Watch:

July 28 – Bloomberg (John Ainger and Liz Capo McCormick): “Goldman Sachs… put a spotlight on the suddenly growing concern over inflation in the U.S. by issuing a bold warning… that the dollar is in danger of losing its status as the world’s reserve currency. With Congress closing in on another round of fiscal stimulus to shore up the pandemic-ravaged economy, and the Federal Reserve having already swelled its balance sheet by about $2.8 trillion this year, Goldman strategists cautioned that U.S. policy is triggering currency ‘debasement fears’ that could end the dollar’s reign as the dominant force in global foreign-exchange markets… ‘Gold is the currency of last resort, particularly in an environment like the current one where governments are debasing their fiat currencies and pushing real interest rates to all-time lows,’ wrote Goldman strategists including Jeffrey Currie. There are now, they said, ‘real concerns around the longevity of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency.’”

For the week, the U.S. dollar index fell 1.1% to 93.349 (down 3.3% y-t-d). For the week on the upside, the British pound increased 2.3%, the euro 1.1%, the South Korean won 0.9%, the Swiss franc 0.8%, the Swedish krona 0.8%, the Singapore dollar 0.6%, the Norwegian krone 0.6%, the Australian dollar 0.5%, the Japanese yen 0.3%, and the Brazilian real 0.2%. For the week on the downside, the South African rand declined 2.4% and the New Zealand dollar dipped 0.2%. The Chinese renminbi gained 0.62% versus the dollar this week (down 0.17% y-t-d).

Commodities Watch:

The Bloomberg Commodities Index increased 0.8% (down 15.1% y-t-d). Spot Gold jumped 3.9% to $1,976 (up 30.1%). Silver surged 6.0% to $24.216 (up 35.1%). WTI crude fell 2.5% to $40.27 (down 34%). Gasoline sank 6.8% (down 31%), and Natural Gas declined 3.6% (down 18%). Copper slipped 0.8% (up 3%). Wheat fell 1.5% (down 5%). Corn dropped 2.4% (down 16%).

Coronavirus Watch:

July 29 – Reuters (Kate Kelland and Julie Steenhuysen): “It’s dog eat dog in the world of COVID-19 vaccines. That’s the fear of global health agencies planning a scheme to bulk-buy and equitably distribute vaccines around the world. They are watching with dismay as some wealthier countries have decided to go it alone, striking deals with drugmakers to secure millions of doses of promising candidates for their citizens. The deals – including those agreed by the United States, Britain and the European Union with the likes of Pfizer, BioNtech, AstraZeneca and Moderna – are undermining the global drive, experts say.”

July 30 – Financial Times (Edward Luce): “It is late October and Donald Trump has a surprise for you. Unlike the traditional pre-election shock — involving war or imminent terrorist attack — this revelation is about hope rather than fear. The ‘China virus’ has been defeated thanks to the ingenuity of America’s president. The US has developed a vaccine that will be available to all citizens by the end of the year. Get online and book your jab. It is possible Mr Trump could sway a critical slice of voters with such a declaration. The bigger danger is that he would deepen America’s mistrust of science. A recent poll found that only half of Americans definitely plan to take a coronavirus vaccine. Other polls said that between a quarter and a third of the nation would never get inoculated. Whatever the true number, anti-vaccine campaigners are having a great pandemic — as indeed is Covid-19. At least three-quarters of the population would need to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity.”

July 27 – Wall Street Journal (Philip Wen and Yoyu Wang): “Australia reported only a handful of new coronavirus cases in early June, while Hong Kong went three weeks without a single locally transmitted infection that month. Japan had already lifted a state of emergency in May after the number of new cases dropped to a few dozen nationwide. All three reported new high-water marks in daily infection numbers in the past week, showing how difficult it can be to keep the virus at bay, even in places lauded for taking early and decisive action.”

July 28 – Financial Times (Guy Chazan and Anna Gross): “Public health officials are sounding the alarm over a resurgence of coronavirus cases in Europe as countries ease lockdowns and international travel ramps up with some experts warning citizens have become too complacent. The increase is marked in countries such as Spain, while eastern Europe and the Balkans, which were largely spared the worst of the early pandemic, are seeing a steep increase in recorded cases. Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, warned of a looming ‘second wave’ of Covid-19 across Europe on Tuesday, while the head of Germany’s public health authority said: ‘We’ve let our guard down’.”

July 24 – Reuters (Jane Wardell): “Almost 40 countries have reported record single-day increases in coronavirus infections over the past week, around double the number that did so the previous week, …showing a pick-up in the pandemic in every region of the world. The rate of cases has been increasing not only in countries like the United States, Brazil and India, which have dominated global headlines with large outbreaks, but in Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, Bolivia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, Belgium, Uzbekistan and Israel, among others. Many countries, especially those where officials eased earlier social distancing lockdowns, are experiencing a second peak more than a month after recording their first.”

July 30 – Reuters (Alasdair Pal): “India… reported more than 50,000 daily coronavirus cases for the first time, driven by a surge in infections in rural areas at a time when the government is further easing curbs on movement and commerce. There were 52,123 new cases in the previous 24 hours, according to federal health data, taking the total number of infections to almost 1.6 million.”

July 29 – Reuters (Colin Packham): “Australia recorded its deadliest day of the coronavirus pandemic on Thursday with 14 deaths and more than 700 new infections mainly in Victoria state, where the government ordered all residents to wear face-coverings outside.”

Market Instability Watch:

July 26 – Wall Street Journal (Amrith Ramkumar): “Stocks, bonds and commodities are heading for their strongest simultaneous four-month rise on record, highlighting the breadth of the market recovery during the 2020 economic slowdown. Through Thursday, the S&P 500 and S&P GSCI commodities index were each up more than 25% since the end of March, while the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index added more than 3% in that span. If the gains hold during the final week of July, this would be the first time that the gauges all rose that much in a four-month period, according to a Dow Jones Market Data analysis going back to 1976. Investors and analysts attribute the broad rise in financial markets to faith in government and central-bank stimulus programs, hopes for vaccine development and wagers that the coronavirus crisis will spell opportunity for a number of large but nimble, well-placed companies at the expense of others whose struggles are deepening.”

July 25 – Wall Street Journal (Michael Wursthorn, Mischa Frankl-Duval and Gregory Zuckerman): “Stuck at home in lockdown, millions of Americans are trading the markets like never before. At E*Trade Financial Corp., investors opened roughly 260,500 retail accounts just in March, more than any full year on record. Newer rival Robinhood Markets… logged a record three million new accounts in the first quarter. Individual investors’ last big binge was for dot-com stocks in the late 1990s. That era saw money-losing technology companies vaulted into the stratosphere and spawned a culture of day traders who played the markets as a full-time job. It appears even bigger—and broader—this time around, amplified by digital communities on Twitter and Discord… Investors have transformed those social-media platforms into virtual trading desks, a place to swap tips, hype stocks and talk trash as they attempt to trade their way to a quick fortune.”

July 29 – Bloomberg (Sarah Ponczek and Lu Wang): “Robinhood day traders swarmed to Eastman Kodak Co. shares as the stock rallied 1,600% this week. As of 11 a.m. in New York on Wednesday, 43,000 users of the investing app had added Kodak to their accounts in some form over the past 24 hours, according to website Robintrack.net… Roughly 27,000 of the additions came over a four-hour span earlier Wednesday. The growing presence of retail investors has become a popular markets narrative this year with zero commission fees and the potential for entertainment in a world largely without sports or gambling luring a new crop of traders.”

July 29 – Bloomberg (Vivien Lou Chen): “Bond traders have been bracing for weeks for a new run at record low yields on U.S. Treasuries. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell gave them what they were looking for on Wednesday. Five-year yields fell to a series of record lows during the day, before and after the Fed delivered a widely expected dovish message of support for the coronavirus-stricken U.S. economy. The rate touched as low as 0.2437%, just below the upper bound of the Fed’s target range for overnight lending. The day’s final leg down came as Powell wrapped up a press conference in which he warned of signs that increasing virus cases are weighing on growth.”

Global Bubble Watch:

July 26 – Bloomberg (Moxy Ying): “After a dreadful March quarter for Asian corporations, investors are bracing for another wave of reporting cards that will reflect the first full three-month period during the worst virus outbreak in living memory… The members on the gauge that have reported second-quarter earnings so far saw an average decline of 73% on year, according to… Bloomberg. That’s after a 64% fall in the previous three-month period, which was the worst in data going back to 2011.”

July 28 – Reuters (Laurence Frost, Tim Hepher and Jamie Freed): “Global airlines cut their coronavirus recovery forecast…, saying it would take until 2024 – a year longer than previously expected – for passenger traffic to return to pre-crisis levels… ‘The second half of this year will see a slower recovery than we’d hoped,’ IATA Chief Economist Brian Pearce said. June passenger numbers were down 86.5% year-on-year… after a 91% contraction in May.”

July 31 – Bloomberg (Jacqueline Poh): “The automotive industry has borrowed $132 billion since March as the spread of the coronavirus curbed demand for cars and closed factories. The sector is the largest user of funds put in place to ease the impact of the pandemic. The amount consists of $79 billion in new loans and $53 billion in drawdowns from existing credit lines. Facilities linked to the pandemic account for almost 80% of overall loan borrowings by the sector in the year to date.”

Trump Administration Watch:

July 29 – Associated Press (Lisa Mascaro): “President Donald Trump… dismissed Democratic demands for aid to cash-strapped cities in a new coronavirus relief package and lashed out at Republican allies as talks stalemated over assistance for millions of Americans… Republicans, beset by delays and infighting, signaled a willingness to swiftly approve a modest package to prevent a $600 weekly unemployment benefit from expiring Friday. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., roundly rejected that approach as meager, all but forcing Republicans back to the negotiating table. ‘As of now, we’re very far apart,’ said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin… Stark differences remain between the $3 trillion proposal from Democrats and $1 trillion counter from Republicans putting aid for millions of communities at risk. Money for states and cites is a crucial dividing line as local governments plead for help to shore up budgets and prevent deeper municipal layoffs… Trump complained about sending ‘big bailout money’ to the nation’s cities, whose mayors he often criticizes.”

July 27 – Reuters (Susan Cornwell and David Lawder): “Senate Republicans… proposed a $1 trillion coronavirus aid package hammered out with the White House, paving the way for talks with Democrats on how to help Americans as expanded unemployment benefits for millions of workers expire this week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the proposal a ‘tailored and targeted’ plan focused on getting children back to school and employees back to work and protecting corporations from lawsuits, while slashing the expiring supplemental unemployment benefits of $600 a week by two-thirds. The plan sparked immediate opposition from both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats decried it as too limited compared to their $3 trillion proposal that passed the House of Representatives in May, while some Republicans called it too expensive.”

July 30 – CNBC (Jacob Pramuk): “A coronavirus relief agreement in Congress looked illusory Thursday as new economic data showed a U.S. economy buckling under the pandemic’s weight. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., tried to unanimously pass an extension of the weekly enhanced federal unemployment insurance Thursday afternoon that would slash the benefit from $600 to $200 per week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., rejected it. Schumer then attempted to unanimously approve the $3 trillion rescue package House Democrats passed in May. That legislation also failed, leaving Congress no closer to breaking an impasse over how best to boost a health-care system and economy ravaged by the pandemic.”

July 29 – Reuters (Patricia Zengerle, Susan Cornwell and David Morgan): “U.S. congressional Republicans and Democrats, struggling to reach a deal to provide more aid to those hurt by the coronavirus pandemic, slid on Wednesday toward letting a $600-per-week unemployment benefit lapse when it expires this week. High-ranking Trump administration officials met privately with lawmakers from both parties to see if they can bridge vast differences over the enhanced unemployment benefit and a host of other issues including a moratorium on evictions that expired last Friday. Despite the day of meetings, there was little apparent progress on legislation…”

July 28 – CNBC (Jacob Pramuk): “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said… he will not pass a coronavirus relief bill in the Senate which does not include liability shields. ‘We’re not negotiating over liability protection,’ he told CNBC’s Kayla Tausche as Congress looks to craft a pandemic rescue agreement.”

July 30 – Reuters (Steve Holland): “President Donald Trump… raised the idea of delaying the Nov. 3 U.S. elections, an idea immediately rejected by both Democrats and his fellow Republicans in Congress – the sole branch of government with the authority to make such a change. Critics and even Trump’s allies dismissed the notion as unserious and simply an attempt to distract from devastating economic news.”

Federal Reserve Watch:

July 29 – Financial Times (James Politi and Colby Smith): “The Federal Reserve has warned that the fate of the world’s largest economy would ‘depend significantly on the course of the virus’ as the US central bank extended measures to deal with the risk of an international shortage of dollars. …The Federal Open Market Committee made no significant changes to monetary policy, holding interest rates close to zero and pledging to do more to support the recovery if necessary. Jay Powell… expressed fears that increases in Covid-19 infections across many US states had started to hit the economy, citing ‘non-standard, high-frequency data’ on credit card spending, employment, hotel occupancy, restaurant bookings and consumer surveys.”

July 29 – Bloomberg (Matthew Boesler and Catarina Saraiva): “The Federal Reserve left interest rates near zero and vowed to use all its tools to support the recovery from an economic downturn that Chair Jerome Powell called the most severe ‘in our lifetime.’ ‘The path forward for the economy is extraordinarily uncertain, and will depend in large part on our success in keeping the virus in check,” he told reporters… He sounded a dour tone about how long a road is ahead to get back to where the country was only months ago and noted that more fallout from the virus still lies ahead. ‘Even if the reopening goes well — and many, many people go back to work — it is still going to take a fairly long time for parts of the economy that involve lots of people getting together in close proximity’ to recover, he said. ‘Those people are going to need support.’”

July 29 – Financial Times (James Politi and Colby Smith): “The Federal Reserve took little action at its meeting this week, but sent plenty of dovish signals to investors — highlighting its worries about the impact of coronavirus on a US recovery, its hopes that Congress will renew fiscal stimulus, and its willingness to add monetary support. ‘We’ve got to hope for the best and plan for the worst,’ Jay Powell… said at his press conference…, after a two-day gathering of the Federal Open Market Committee. ‘We’re in this until we’re well through it,’ he said. ‘The picture is, you have the lockdown, then you have the reopening, but there’s probably going to be a long tail where a large number of people are going to be struggling to get back to work.’”

July 28 – Reuters (Lindsay Dunsmuir): “The U.S. Federal Reserve said… it will extend several of its lending facilities through the year-end as the central bank continues to dial back expectations on how quickly the U.S. economy will recover from the novel coronavirus pandemic. The extensions apply to those facilities that were due to expire on or around Sept. 30…”

July 27 – Wall Street Journal (Nick Timiraos): “Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) said… she would join Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) in opposing the nomination of economist Judy Shelton to the Federal Reserve’s board of governors. President Trump formally nominated his former economic adviser to a seat on the seven-member board earlier this year, and her candidacy cleared a significant hurdle last week on a party-line vote in the Senate Banking Committee. Republicans have a 53-47 vote advantage in the Senate, meaning that Ms. Shelton can’t afford to lose more than three Republicans if all Democrats oppose her candidacy.”

U.S. Bubble Watch:

July 30 – Associated Press (Martin Crutsinger and Paul Wiseman): “The coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy plunging by a record-shattering 32.9% annual rate last quarter and is still inflicting damage across the country, squeezing already struggling businesses and forcing a wave of layoffs that shows no sign of abating. The economy’s collapse in the April-June quarter, stunning in its speed and depth, came as a resurgence of the viral outbreak has pushed businesses to close for a second time in many areas. The government’s estimate of the second-quarter fall in the gross domestic product has no comparison since records began in 1947. The previous worst quarterly contraction — at 10%, less than a third of what was reported Thursday — occurred in 1958 during the Eisenhower administration.”

July 30 – CNBC (Fred Imbert): “The number of Americans who filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week totaled 1.434 million…, roughly in line with expectations, as the coronavirus pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy. It was the 19th straight week in which initial claims totaled at least 1 million and the second consecutive week in which initial claims rose after declining for 15 straight weeks.”

July 28 – Associated Press (Martin Crutsinger): “U.S. consumer confidence tumbled in July to a reading of 92.6 as coronavirus infections spread in many parts of the country. The Conference Board… reported Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index fell from a June reading of 98.3. The weakness came from a drop in the expectations index, which measures consumer views about the short-term outlook for income, business and labor market conditions.”

July 29 – Bloomberg (Maeve Sheehey): “Food insecurity for U.S. households last week reached its highest reported level since the Census Bureau started tracking the data in May… In the bureau’s weekly Household Pulse Survey, roughly 23.9 million of 249 million respondents indicated they had ‘sometimes not enough to eat’ for the week ended July 21, while about 5.42 million indicated they had ‘often not enough to eat.’”

July 30 – Wall Street Journal (Christopher Mims): “If the partisans of America’s elected leadership seem to agree on almost nothing these days, Wednesday’s Big Tech antitrust hearing was stark evidence that they do share one common target. Despite what were sometimes cantankerous and politically charged exchanges between Republican and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee, perhaps the most interesting line of the hearing came at the start, when Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.), chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, recounted a comment he attributed to Rep. Ken Buck (R., Colo.): ‘This is the most bipartisan effort I’ve been involved with in 5½ years in Congress.’ What followed was a bipartisan roast of the heads of Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Google parent Alphabet Inc. and Facebook Inc… It was a pandemic-era spectacle of scrutiny that evoked past congressional grilling of the captains of other industries near the peaks of their powers…”

July 30 – Financial Times (Richard Henderson): “Corporate America is finding it hard to kick the share buyback habit, even after the US slipped into its worst recession in decades. Total buybacks are expected to drop this year as the downturn caused by coronavirus saps corporate profits, prompting many US blue-chips to suspend or cut back share repurchases. Yet companies in the S&P 500 that have reported second-quarter earnings so far have reduced the number of their outstanding shares by an average of 0.3% from the previous quarter… Updates showed that some of the largest US multinationals continued to buy back their own stock or even accelerated stock repurchases.”

July 29 – Wall Street Journal (Doug Cameron and Andrew Tangel): “Boeing… outlined plans to slash more production and jobs and look for other ways to conserve cash as the coronavirus pandemic deepens its toll on the global aviation industry. The U.S. plane maker lost $2.4 billion in the second quarter and said it may consolidate some jet assembly among its three main factories to save money and prepare for a multiyear slowdown in aircraft deliveries. Boeing’s plans to become smaller will leave the Chicago-based aerospace giant increasingly reliant on its defense business for cash and likely ripple through its vast supplier network, their workforces and the broader U.S. economy.”

July 29 – Reuters (Lisa Lambert and Susan Heavey): “The U.S. Treasury said… it has reached a deal with the U.S. Postal Service on the conditions of a loan of up to $10 billion that was included in recent coronavirus relief legislation. The head of the service said the borrowing would push off an ‘approaching liquidity crisis,’ but not solve its financial problems.”

Fixed Income Watch:

July 29 – Reuters (Michelle Conlin): “More than $21.5 billion in past-due rent is looming over Americans struggling to make ends meet, global advisory firm Stout, Risius and Ross estimated…, as Republicans and Democrats fight over a new COVID-19 relief package. Senate Republicans this week proposed a new plan that would not reinstate the recently-lapsed federal eviction ban, which carried a stay for rent due for one-third of renters.”

July 30 – Financial Times (John Dizard): “CMBS, or commercial mortgage-backed securities, may not be the biggest class of impenetrably written paper in the US, but, with about $550bn outstanding, they count for something. In their present 2.0 form, CMBS were designed to avoid some of the structural weaknesses from their pre-financial crisis form. In recent decades the securities helped build all those franchised restaurants, hotels and suburban offices… Since Covid-19, it has become clear that money offered by CMBS has become too expensive and its terms too hard to modify. If you borrow money from an ordinary bank for your business, you can, in theory at least, go back to the loan officer or ‘relationship manager’ you started with, and seek to restructure the loan. That’s not how CMBS works.”

July 30 – Bloomberg (Lisa Lee and Katherine Chiglinsky): “They’ve been billed as a solution to the rock-bottom interest rates weighing down the returns of America’s asset managers. Collateralized loan obligations — which package and sell leveraged loans into chunks of varying risk and return — promise safety and higher yields. And one industry more than any other has gone all in. Insurers have become the biggest U.S. investors in the market, topping banks and hedge funds to amass a third of all domestic holdings… The love affair was sudden: By the end of 2019, they owned $158 billion of CLO bonds, a 22% jump from the prior year and almost double what they had in 2016, according to Barclays Plc figures.”

July 28 – Wall Street Journal (Laura Kreutzer and Laura Cooper): “Privately held companies, particularly smaller operations, are starting to feel more pain from the coronavirus pandemic as loan default rates rise while their lenders and private-equity backers seek ways to steer them safely to the end of the year. ‘You would probably be shocked at how little restructuring activity went on in the second quarter,’ said Brian Williams, a partner at Carl Marks Advisors. ‘A lot of people were deferring payments, [and] lenders were offering forbearances.’ ‘That’s now beginning to change,’ he said. ‘The big theme now is, who is going to fund the next three to six months?’ The default rate on private debt rose to 8.1% in the second quarter, according to the Proskauer Private Credit Default Index…”

July 31 – Bloomberg (Katherine Greifeld): “At a time of mounting corporate defaults and deepening economic gloom, a new fund may be about to bring collateralized loan obligations to the masses. Janus Henderson is planning a U.S. exchange-traded fund that will seek floating-rate exposure to the highest-quality CLOs, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission this week. While many loan ETFs exist, there are currently none dedicated to CLOs.”

China Watch:

July 26 – Reuters (Martin Quin Pollard and Thomas Peter): “China took over the premises of the U.S. consulate in the southwestern city of Chengdu on Monday, after ordering the facility to be vacated in retaliation for China’s ouster last week from its consulate in Houston, Texas. The seizure capped a dramatic escalation in tensions between the world’s two biggest economies that began when employees at China’s Houston consulate were seen burning documents in a courtyard last Tuesday, hours before Beijing announced that it had been ordered to leave the facility.”

July 30 – Bloomberg: “Chinese President Xi Jinping called for a greater push on reforms to stimulate domestic demand and the economy to ride out mounting risks and challenges, saying conditions remain ‘complicated and grave.’ Speaking at a Politburo meeting on economic policy, Xi said China should speed up its ‘dual circulation’ growth model that is primarily driven by domestic demand, while drawing in foreign investment and stabilizing trade, the official Xinhua News Agency reported… Xi’s remarks come ahead of series of high-level political meetings that will chart the development path of the world’s second-largest economy.”

July 31 – Bloomberg: “President Xi Jinping is accelerating his push for a China that can stand on its own feet as mounting pressure at home and abroad exposes the vulnerability of Beijing’s economic model. In a series of remarks over the past few weeks he’s touted the so-called ‘dual circulation’ development model, in which a more self-reliant domestic economy serves as the main growth driver supplemented by certain foreign technologies and investment. Following a Politburo meeting Thursday, Xi said China should speed up this approach in the face of an economic situation that ‘remains complicated and challenging with unstable and uncertain factors.’”

July 30 – Reuters (Guy Faulconbridge and Kate Holton): “China… accused the United States of stoking a new Cold War because certain politicians were searching for a scapegoat to bolster support ahead of the U.S. presidential election in November. Asked if he saw a new Cold War, China’s ambassador to London, Liu Xiaoming, said the United States had started a trade war with China and that there would be no winner from such an approach. ‘It is not China that has become assertive. It’s the other side of the Pacific Ocean who want to start new Cold War on China, so we have to make response to that… We have no interest in any Cold War, we have no interest in any war… We have all seen what is happening in the United States, they tried to scapegoat China, they want to blame China for their problems,’ he said. ‘We all know this is an election year.’”

July 28 – Bloomberg: “China’s economic recovery lost some upward momentum in July, with the effect of stronger market sentiment damped by muted demand in the real economy. The overall indicator for the economy in July was unchanged from last month, after improving in May and June. The calculation of the indicators has been revised from this month to include metrics for car purchases, real-estate sales and the building sector.”

July 31 – Bloomberg (Rebecca Choong Wilkins and Molly Dai): “More and more Chinese firms are struggling to juggle their debt loads. That’s likely to get tougher as President Xi Jinping calls for increasingly targeted monetary policy. At least 77 companies with a total of $44.7 billion of bonds outstanding are facing pressure repaying their debt, according to Bloomberg compiled data… It’s the highest weekly number of firms since Bloomberg began collecting data in January last year, up 28% from the end of March…”

July 30 – Bloomberg: “Concern is growing about the ability of a Beijing district’s local government financing vehicle to repay its debt. The 2022 dollar bond of Beijing Haidian District State-Owned Assets Investment Group touched a record low of 75.3 cents on the dollar on Thursday after the district’s state asset supervision office urged the company to fulfill its debt repayment obligation on time.”

July 28 – Wall Street Journal (Mike Bird): “The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission warned… last week that nonperforming loans, which have barely increased so far this year, are likely to climb significantly. The government demands that lenders assist riskier small firms. This large-scale forbearance to borrowers will add to the pile of nonperforming loans in the longer term. On Monday, credit ratings firm Fitch Ratings estimated that inefficient credit in the Chinese banking system as a whole ran to between 15% and 22% of gross domestic product at the end of 2019—roughly unchanged from its level at the end of 2015. That would suggest nonperforming-loan ratios are already far higher than the banks actually report.”

July 26 – Bloomberg: “Office vacancies in China’s biggest cities are at the highest in more than a decade even as the nation’s economy has largely swung back into action after the coronavirus outbreak. Vacancy rates for prime office buildings in Shanghai climbed to 20% in the second quarter and 21% in the tech hub of Shenzhen, both the highest since at least the financial crisis in 2008… Beijing’s 15.5% rate was the most since 2009… ‘Tenants have generally become more conservative and the majority are choosing to put their expansion or relocation plans on hold,’ said Michael Wu, an executive director of office services at Colliers International Group Inc. ‘We’re starting to see fierce competition on rent among landlords.’”

July 31 – CNN (James Griffiths and Sarah Faidell): “Hong Kong will postpone legislative elections due to be held in September by one year because of the coronavirus outbreak… Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam said the move to postpone the Legislative Council elections, slated for September 6, was the most difficult decision she had made in the last seven months. She added that she had the support of the Chinese central government in making this decision.”

July 30 – Bloomberg (Natalie Lung and Iain Marlow): “Hong Kong authorities drew new red lines on the limits of dissent in the financial center, barring a dozen activists including Joshua Wong from seeking office and arresting four others over social media posts. The back-to-back actions came within a span of about 24 hours Thursday — a sweeping gesture showing how much a national security law enacted last month had strengthened Beijing’s hand. Both the Chinese and Hong Kong governments issued statements praising the disqualification of 12 opposition candidates, showing that mere opposition to the law drafted by Beijing was enough to prevent them from taking office.”

July 29 – Reuters (Clare Jim): “Commercial lenders in Hong Kong say they are concerned about a 30% drop in building values over the past 12 months and will consider calling in or restructuring loans if values fall much further. If lenders demand repayment of loans or try to tighten terms, it could set off a wave of property sales that might depress prices even further in the Chinese-run territory… ‘The market is not going to get better in the next half to one year,’ said a real estate investor who provides financing in the city. ‘If you’re in the Hong Kong market, I’d say de-risk if you can. Get your money back.’”

Europe Watch:

July 25 – Reuters (Michael Nienaber): “A decision by European leaders to issue joint debt to finance coronavirus aid for weaker member states should remain an exemption and not serve as a blueprint for future budget challenges, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann said… European Union leaders… clinched an historic deal on a massive stimulus plan for their coronavirus-throttled economies following a fractious summit lasting almost five days. The agreement paves the way for the European Commission… to raise up to 750 billions euros on capital markets on behalf of all 27 states, an unprecedented act of solidarity in almost seven decades of integration. ‘It’s important that the EU has proven its capability to act in the crisis,’ Weidmann told Funke media group… But Weidmann added the agreed debt mechanism should remain an exemption and that strict conditions had to be attached to the financial aid.”

July 30 – Reuters (Michelle Martin and Nick Tattersall): “The German economy contracted at its steepest rate on record in the second quarter as consumer spending, company investment and exports all collapsed during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, wiping out nearly 10 years of growth. …Gross domestic output in Europe’s largest economy shrank by 10.1% quarter-on-quarter from April to June after a revised 2.0% contraction in the first three months of the year. The plunge was the steepest since the office began collecting quarterly growth data in 1970 and was worse than the 9% contraction predicted…”

July 31 – Bloomberg (William Horobin): “The French economy experienced its sharpest contraction on record in the second quarter when strict coronavirus lockdowns choked off manufacturing, tourism and consumer spending across Europe. Output in the euro area’s second largest economy declined 13.8%…, with huge declines in consumer spending, trade and investment.”

July 31 – Reuters (Belen Carreno): “The coronavirus crisis has pulverised Spain’s economy, triggering its worst recession since the civil war, with collapsed tourism numbers boding ill for hopes of a swift rebound. …The economy came to a virtual halt in March and remained paralysed until the end of June. It shrank 18.5% in the second quarter, a drop so harsh it wiped out all the recovery achieved since the 2008 global financial crisis…”

July 31 – Reuters (Sergio Goncalves and Catarina Demonydit): “Portugal’s gross domestic product shrank 14.1% in the second quarter of 2020, the biggest contraction ever, as lockdowns imposed to contain the spread of the coronavirus hit key sectors of the economy.”

EM Watch:

July 30 – Reuters (Daina Beth Solomon and Drazen Jorgic): “The coronavirus crisis could set back Latin America and the Caribbean by a decade as countries endure faltering economies and rising poverty, the U.N. economic commission for the region and the World Health Organization (WHO) said… Poverty in the region is forecast to climb 7 percentage points compared with last year to engulf an additional 45 million people, according… the WHO and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).”

July 26 – Wall Street Journal (Avantika Chilkoti and Gabriele Steinhauser): “Zambia was once a model in Wall Street’s rush to issue debt for the world’s poorest nations, attracting bigger orders and lower interest rates than some more-developed countries. Less than a decade later, the Southern African nation is straining to pay back more than $11 billion in loans. The world is gearing up for a battle over developing-country debt like few it has seen before. Rich and poor countries are at loggerheads with private investors that, over the past decade, replaced governments as the biggest creditors to emerging markets. Zambia looks set to become a case study in the clash over how to ease the debt load of developing countries that were ill-prepared for the financial pain inflicted by the coronavirus pandemic.”

July 30 – Reuters (Anthony Esposito and Miguel Angel Gutierrez): “Mexico’s economy contracted by double digits in the second quarter as the coronavirus pandemic ravaged Latin America’s second-largest economy and shut factories, kept shoppers and tourists at home and upended trade… GDP fell 17.3% in the second quarter from the previous three months in seasonally adjusted terms, the sharpest drop on record…”

July 28 – Financial Times (Laura Pitel and Eva Szalay): “The Turkish lira tumbled to the lowest level against the dollar since May in the second day of frenetic trading, even as authorities spent about $2bn in an attempt to fend off the heavy selling. The currency dropped as much as 1.6% on Tuesday to 6.97 against the dollar as Turkey’s defence of the currency crumbled. The sharp decline represented a renewed pick-up in volatility after an abrupt drop late on Monday. Authorities had previously succeeded in holding the lira steady at around TL6.85 since mid-June. The tumult has defied vigorous resistance from Turkey’s state banks.”

Japan Watch:

July 28 – Reuters (Bhargav Acharya and Kaori Kaneko): “…Fitch… revised its outlook on Japan’s long-term foreign currency debt rating to negative from stable, citing the sharp coronavirus-induced domestic economic contraction. ‘The coronavirus pandemic has caused a sharp economic contraction in Japan, despite the country’s early success in containing the virus,’ Fitch said… ‘The negative outlook reflects that the higher debt ratio and downside risks to the macroeconomic outlook will nevertheless exacerbate the challenge of placing the debt ratio on a downward path over the medium term,’ Fitch said.”

Leveraged Speculation Watch:

July 30 – Bloomberg (Michael McDonald): “Seth Klarman said the Federal Reserve is treating investors like children and is helping create bizarre market conditions that are unsupported by economic data. ‘Surreal doesn’t even begin to describe this moment,’ Klarman said in a letter to investors… Investor ‘psychology is surprisingly ebullient even though business fundamentals are often dreadful,’ he added. The culprit is the Fed, Klarman said… ‘Investors are being infantilized by the relentless Federal Reserve activity,’ said Klarman, who runs hedge fund firm Baupost Group. ‘It’s as if the Fed considers them foolish children, unable to rationally set the prices of securities so it must intervene. When the market has a tantrum, the benevolent Fed has a soothing yet enabling response… As with the 30-year-olds still living in their parents’ basements, we can only wonder whether the markets will ever be expected to make it on their own.”

July 28 – Wall Street Journal (Xie Yu): “Chinese hedge-fund managers are having a banner year, outperforming rivals elsewhere. That is partly because Chinese stocks are also among the world’s best performers in 2020, as confidence grows that the country is moving past the coronavirus pandemic. A volatile year has also benefited investors who can be fast and flexible, while some portfolio managers say their grounding in China helped them quickly grasp the risks posed by Covid-19. The Eurekahedge Greater China Long Short Equities Hedge Index, which tracks 56 funds, registered an average return of 8.0% in the year to Monday.”

July 29 – Bloomberg: “China’s insatiable appetite for equities is stoking the fastest growth in years for its $385 billion hedge fund industry. New fund offerings swelled to about 1,500 in July after running at a 1,217 monthly pace in the first half, the fastest since at least 2015, according to fund tracker Shenzhen PaiPaiWang Investment & Management Co. The country’s largest quantitative hedge fund firm registered nine new products last week alone. The influx could give fresh impetus to China’s $9 trillion equity market, where a dramatic rally that had pushed indexes to five-year highs…”

Geopolitical Watch:

July 26 – CNBC (Frederick Kempe): “We’ve never been here before. The escalating confrontation between the United States and China is so perilous because the world’s two largest economies – and the two defining countries of their times – are navigating uncharted terrain. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s landmark speech at the Nixon library… marked the most robust call-to-action yet against the Chinese Communist Party. It came amid tit-for-tat consular shutdowns in Houston and Chengdu, and the Friday arrest by the FBI of an alleged Chinese military operative in San Francisco. It’s tempting to brand this a hotter phase of a new Cold War… However, that language understates the historic novelty of what’s unfolding and its epochal enormity.”

July 30 – Financial Times (Helen Warrell and Peggy Hollinger): “China has warned the UK not to allow ‘cold war warriors’ to ‘kidnap’ cordial relations between Beijing and Britain, firing a new salvo in the ongoing diplomatic row between the two countries. Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador in London, said disagreements over Beijing’s imposition of a new security law in Hong Kong, as well as the UK’s ban on using Huawei in its 5G mobile networks, had ‘seriously poisoned the atmosphere’ in Sino-British relations.”

July 28 – Reuters (David Brunnstrom and Daphne Psaledakis): “The United States and close ally Australia held high-level talks on China and agreed on the need to uphold a rules-based global order, but the Australian foreign minister stressed Canberra’s relationship with Beijing was important and it had no intention of hurting it.”

July 26 – Reuters (Andrew Osborn): “Russian President Vladimir Putin said… the Russian Navy would be armed with hypersonic nuclear strike weapons and underwater nuclear drones, which the defence ministry said were in their final phase of testing.”

Link to the article – http://creditbubblebulletin.blogspot.com/2020/08/weekly-commentary-precarious-world.html

Deutsche Bank Projects Fed’s Balance Sheet Will Hit $20 Trillion In “Next Few Years”

One week ago, Deutsche Bank’s top credit strategist, the often whimsical amateur piano player, Jim Reid, did the unthinkable, admitting that he is “a gold bug”, and adding that in his opinion, “fiat money will be a passing fad in the long-term history of money”, a shocking admission for most career financial professionals who are expected to tow the Keynesian line and also believe in the primacy of fiat and its reserve currency, the US Dollar.

In any case, Reid was just getting warmed up, and in his Friday “chart of the day” reminds his long-term readers that in his view, “central bank balance sheets will explode in the decade ahead and probably beyond.” To bolster his case, he refered to a recent report written by another DB strategist, the bank’s chief US economist Matt Luzzetti, who suggests that the Fed may need to add up to $12tn to its balance sheet over the next few years to reach what he thinks is the equivalent to a shadow Fed Funds rate of -5% to fill what he calls the policy gap.

For those who missed it, here is the punchline from Luzzetti’s note:

We find that the Fed will need to provide significant accommodation – roughly equal to a fed funds rate of -5% — and that QE and forward guidance could be insufficient. Assuming limited impact from forward guidance given that markets are pricing negative rates, our estimates range from an additional $5tn to $12tn more of balance sheet expansion needed. Our  preferred calibration sits towards the high end of that range.

As the economist ominously concludes, “the lessons for the monetary policy outlook are somewhat discouraging. In the absence of a considerably better economic outlook due to factors exogenous to the Fed – for example more rapid development and widespread availability and usage of a vaccine or a significantly more robust fiscal response —  meaningfully more aggressive QE is needed.

And visually:

That said, the Deutsche strategists caveat that “this is not a projection but more of what would be needed if they choose the balance sheet route alone. A decision to supplement QE with other tools, such as YCC and more bank or credit-oriented policies (which Matt views as likely), would reduce this amount.”

Alternatively, Luzetti quotes NY Fed president Williams who recently noted, “necessity is the mother of invention”, adding that the need to provide substantial accommodation in an environment where the Fed’s conventional tools may be limited could thus lead, over time, to more serious exploration of alternative tools.

And yes, all of the above means that the Fed will need to catalyze another market crash to usher in the next round of massive stimulus.

In any event, going back to the stunning balance sheet forecast, Reid calculates that if the balance sheet was used as the only tool, hitting this amount would take roughly 8 years at the current QE run rate, and writes that the graph above “puts this into some  perspective based on 100 years plus of the Fed balance sheet in real adjusted terms. In nominal terms it took 94 years to hit the first trillion of Fed balance sheet. 12 years later we are at $7tn. Could we be approaching $20 trillion within a decade?”

Well… of course.

But regardless of whether or when it takes place, this forecast backs up Reid’s own long standing view on balance sheet growth based on the huge past, present and future debt burden the financial system has been saddled with.

And yes, anyone asking how to best hedge against the monetary insanity that is coming, the answer is very simple: keep buying gold, whose surge to $3,000 – which is also Bank of America’s price target –  is just a matter of time.

via zerohedge

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/why-nothing-can-stop-gold-deutsche-bank-projects-feds-balance-sheet-will-hit-20

A Major Fed Policy Shift

Written by Craig Hemke, Sprott Money News

July 21, 2020

It may or may not happen at next week’s FOMC, but that hardly matters. What’s important is that a policy shift is coming and the impact upon the precious metals will be significant.

Many times already in 2020, we’ve utilized this space to explain why negative real interest rates are the most extraordinarily important and fundamental rationale for owning physical gold and silver. Most recently, this article from two weeks ago:

• https://www.sprottmoney.com/Blog/real-rates-drive-…

As we head toward another Federal Open Market Committee meeting next week, attention will turn again to whether or not the FOMC will soon implement a policy of “Yield Curve Control”. In the days leading up to last month’s FOMC meeting, this notion was all the rage, but while Yield Curve Control was discussed at the meeting, no formal announcement was made.

• https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/how-yield-curve-con…

Which is interesting, as it appears that some measure of “de facto” yield curve control has already been put into place, beginning around April 1 of this year and with an easily-identifiable range between 60 and 75 basis points.

Whether or not this policy is already being covertly applied hardly matters. Instead, it’s clear that The Fed is headed in this direction and the impact across all markets will be significant.

Late last week, a trial balloon was floated by Bloomberg. You may have missed it, but if you’re a gold and silver investor, it’s extremely important that you take time to consider it today. Here’s the link:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07…

What is this “major policy change” that Bloomberg reports The Fed is actively considering? In a move away from their oft-stated “dual mandate”, The Fed is preparing to change their policy to allow for an overshoot of inflation, above and beyond the current goal of 2% per year. Will this policy change be announced next week? Maybe. Will it be announced in September? More likely. Will it be announced before year end? Almost definitely.

And with this policy shift will come the necessity of Yield Curve Control. Why would YCC become indispensable? Because without it, a rising inflation rate would force interest rates higher…and The Fed is on record stating that they plan to hold yields near zero through 2022. The article from Bloomberg concludes as much, as you can see from the closing paragraph:

Articles such as this don’t appear at Bloomberg by magic. Instead, these trial balloons are designed to measure market response in advance. So understand that higher inflation targets AND yield curve control are very likely coming before the end of the year…and perhaps as soon as September or even next week.

And what does this mean for gold and silver investors? It’s an institutionalization of sharply negative real interest rates. If The Fed holds the yield on the 10-year note below 1% while inflation moves toward 3% or 4%, then negative inflation-adjusted returns for this bedrock institutional holding will drive demand for gold as an alternative Tier One asset. Already, traditional mainstream analysis is beginning to understand the ultimate impact on gold prices. See this from Barron’s:

• https://www.barrons.com/articles/gold-could-overta…

In conclusion you, too, must also recognize the hugely significant implications that this impending “policy shift” will have on the precious metals. The year 2020 has already seen some tremendous gains for gold and silver. However, when The Fed announces the policy changes of higher inflation and yield curve control, the current price rally is likely to accelerate to the upside.

About Sprott Money

Specializing in the sale of bullion, bullion storage and precious metals registered investments, there’s a reason Sprott Money is called “The Most Trusted Name in Precious Metals”.

Since 2008, our customers have trusted us to provide guidance, education, and superior customer service as we help build their holdings in precious metals—no matter the size of the portfolio. Chairman, Eric Sprott, and President, Larisa Sprott, are proud to head up one of the most well-known and reputable precious metal firms in North America. Learn more about Sprott Money.

Cheap Convexity

Macro in a World of Policy Omnipotence

@jturek18, jonturek@gmail.com

The one trade now in global macro is, can policymakers continue to get whatever outcomes they want.

Sections:
– For the market, skew has mattered more than expectations

– Macro in a world of policy omnipotence

– The last idiosyncratic rates trade, China

– Is the JGB curve ironically the best DM steepener

For the market, skew has mattered more than expectations One of the things that has seemingly been missed in this market is, the narrative has been focused on outcomes while the market has been pricing skew. I think over the past few months there have been a few examples of this.

– EUCO recovery fund. The narrative at the beginning of the process after the M&M press conference on May 18th, the size is not big enough. What has the market reaction been? the precedent of European fiscal transfers is a far more important development than the actual size of the recovery fund. As we have learned in Europe, it is harder to start something than to make it bigger, ask Mario Draghi.

– In the US, fiscal stimulus was supposed to struggle to cap the revenue drop caused by the unprecedented nature of this crisis. To an extent, it has, but what this narrative missed in a distributional sense is, the policy response to deflationary shocks has changed and the left tail has been clipped. The government sends out money and the central bank does open ended QE. Does this mean future growth is promised, no, but it does change the recession landscape in terms of size and duration.

– The US dollar is another example of this. How was the Fed going to downstream dollars to EM corps and Asian non banks. And then from there, was there really going to be a change in global growth composition that would change the USD “smile” world where US asset outperformance continues in perpetuity. Would previously frugal surplus countries step up with ambitious fiscal plans that would not only plug the covid hole but transcend the current crisis and serve as an economic accelerant going forward. The immediate answer to a lot of these questions was, the most probable outcome is no, but the market traded the skew and thats where we are today.

Going forward, I’m not sure what changes the current risk dynamic. I think a very interesting dynamic has been the fact that a weak dollar has not elicited a response from the long end of the US bond market. This may speak to the asymmetry we see in the current relationship. When the dollar is strong it weighs on global NGDP and thus term premium. When the dollar is weaker, FX basis tightens, and it again makes sense for foreign real money to buy the long end FX hedged to get a yield pickup over its local government bond equivalent. This latter dynamic is like rocket fuel for risk assets, especially EM, as all the stimulative effects of a weaker dollar, trade finance etc. can happen without a commensurate move up in term premium. This is the dream for EM. The question now is, after a pretty substantial move lower in the dollar, does it make sense to have some tactical stuff against core positions that have a risk bias. I think the places to look for this sort of exposure is CBs that have already said they don’t want further FX appreciation (ILS, THB, TWD).

Macro in a world of policy omnipotence 
One of the more amazing transitions in markets since March has been the market’s outlook towards policy. In the darker days of March, the Fed was “constrained” by the effective lower bound and fiscal was too slow. So the bet was, this shock would overwhelm policy. Fast forward to now, and the market has basically said no shock is too big for policy makers and if that is the case, we just gravitate towards the right side of the risk distribution as the policy put is struck so high.

Where we are now is, the market asks itself what the Fed wants and then puts those trades on. What are those trade:

– The Fed wants a weaker dollar. They turned every world government bond market into USD to prove that.

– The Fed wants IG to trade at new tights. Allowed record IG issuance three months in a row. Liquidity that prevents solvency issues.

– The Fed wants risk assets higher to ensure smooth financial market functioning for the real economy.

– The Fed wants real yields to plummet which effectively allows their easing footprint to expand with improvements in the outlook. Pro cyclical policy.

We are now in the market cycle of, the Fed can do what it wants, so the only thing to figure is what it wants to do.

The next stage of this understanding is in Brainard’s speech from last week. The theme of that speech was the transition from “stabilization to accommodation”. But I will translate that differently: we got nominal yields where we want them, now the policy focus is on real yields.

A key theme in the speech was this transition of, “stabilization to accommodation.” What does that look like. Well, we know from pre covid, at the ZLB, Brainard was in favor of using ycc to reinforce forward guidance. However, “stabilization to accommodation” has further consequences. This theme of transition is right out of the Benoit Coeure playbook. During the stabilization period, what is important, as Coeure put it, is for the central bank to “put its money where its mouth is.” QE plays outsized role and has a higher multiplier. Then the transition happens, to accommodation. QE multiplier falls as policy has succeeded in shifting upwards the distribution of risks around the growth outlook. This is when strong odyssean or outcome based forward guidance is most efficacious and asset purchases serve as reinforcement for forward guidance. “As the outlook improves, the signal that asset purchases send regarding the likely date of a first rate hike becomes increasingly important for anchoring the medium to long-term segment of the curve.” This is where the Fed is: they have cutoff the mechanism in which good news is priced into any part of the yield curve and they plan on reinforcing that, whether that is outcome based forward guidance with curve caps or not, I’m not sure it will matter. The market already knows. The Fed’s policy goal is to prevent bad things and accentuate good things.

So the skew for real yields is still towards going further negative. A few things:

– The market has transitioned from thinking policy can’t respond to this size of a shock, to where it is now, policy can do anything. Betting on rising real yields is basically a bet policy is outmatched versus the size of the shock. That has been the wrong bet.

– Assuming my previous note about the dollar being a solved problem is in the ballpark, the chances of a runaway dollar clogging up the financial plumbing and constricting trade finance again has been severely reduced.

– The traditional Phillips Curve is dead. Maybe the New Keynesians have it right (marginal cost driven as opposed to slack). In fairness, they did tell us to look through current slack. Future marginal costs matter more than current economic activity. I.e. there is this form of discounting which leads to stickiness. But either way, in a world that policy makers are going to be expected to replace lost incomes, the distribution of potential economic outcomes is changed.

One of the things that weighed so heavily on bonds and breakevens in the prior decade was the asymmetry of deflation. When the economy was doing well, inflation did nothing, so imagine what would happen in a recession. That skew has fundamentally changed in a world where lost income is replaced to a certain extent and recoveries are unencumbered by premature stimulus withdrawals.

I’m not sure what stops this chart unless the market is to reevaluate its views on USD. Real yields and precious metals by extension are a just bet on continued policy omnipotence.



The last idiosyncratic rates trade, China
One of the more interesting and frustrating government bond markets in the world has been China. Yields in China seem to be the only place where the market is taking the “V” seriously. And when it comes to things like TSF (total social financing) and industrial production in China, it has been pretty “V” like. To add to this, China following the NPC let rip a special CGB issuance which the NPC fast tracked. Without a big RRR cut and other liquidity measures from the PBoC which were evidently absent, it zapped all the liquidity from the market and yields backed up a lot and the fixing rate from 1.5% to over 2.2%.

The question now is, are Chinese rates the place to receive and get some counter risk exposure. I have been burned on this trade before, but in terms of asymmetry, it ticks all the boxes. The Chinese “V” in industrial activity is more than priced and TSF numbers have likely made policy makers a bit nervous which could see the Q3 numbers come down. And finally, the PBoC is now adding a lot of liquidity even if it is not cutting rates such as the MLF or OMO. Since last week, the net injection of reverse repos has been over 230b RMB. To me, at a minimum this is policy makers saying, rates have gone far enough. And if that is the case, you get some negative equity correlation with a good risk reward.

A trade I am really interested in is a cross currency steepener with Korea. Basically the idea is, if Chinese industrial activity is again leading the global economy out of covid, then the backend of Korea should begin to reflect that. So if this is a China led reflation, 10y KRW below 1% is probably wrong. On the flip side, in risk off, Chinese 2y above the fixing rate will move a lot. The point of this trade is, you are vol-adjusted received, and in case reflation goes into third gear, you’re paid some duration and hoping the front end of China still sticks towards the fixing.

Is the JGB curve ironically the best DM steepener? 
Not so many people spend much time on JGBs anymore, and probably for good reason, it’s barely a market at this point. With that said, there seem to be a few interesting parts to the market, especially given the external backdrop.

Going back at least a year, in the very front end (tbills) and the very long end, there has been a lot of interesting things going in JGBs, even if YCC has crushed everything in between

– In the long end, the BoJ has not been shy about encouraging steepness in the name of financial stability. This has been clear in FSR’s (financial system report) and Rinban schedules of long end purchases. The BoJ is firmly aware that too flat of a curve is a problem for its bank/saving heavy economy. Throw on covid and budget blowout after at least two supplementary budgets, it makes sense the curve has steepened quite a lot, especially in the back end.



– In the short end, something else has been going on over the past couple years ago and it explains why foreign ownership of JGBs has soared. Basically, as Japan was one of the biggest users in the FX swap market in terms of funding/hedging USD, its cross currency basis swap spread traded very negative. Because of this dynamic, money would come into the FX swap market to take advantage of this very negative spread. What happens is, money comes in to take the other side of Japanese lifer/pension money looking for USD, usually at 3m point. Lifers would swap Yen for USD, to either US banks or reserve managers sitting on USD. Now, with all that Yen, these players would then buy Japanese tbills, which because of the negative xccy created a massive yield pickup over equivalent treasuries or bunds. However, given where FX basis trades now, the Japanese carry trade is a bit less compelling.

This dynamic could set Japan up to actually be the most asymmetric steepener out there. What we have seen so far is, as it relates to DM curves is, anything with carry and rolldown gets taken in, which explains the foreign bid in ACGBs. However, the background of that is, if FX basis is normalized, Japan can go back to getting foreign hedged yield pickup abroad, which will weigh on the long end in JGBs. Basically the point of this is, 2s30s Japan is being encouraged to steepen by both policy makers and dynamics within the financial plumbing. It can’t go forever, but Japan may ironically be the place to steepen.

Japan more so than anyone else explicitly wants steepness in the curve and some of the technical backdrops may go to reinforce that bias. Of course there will be cuteness with overseas buying of JGBs on asset swap to take advantage, but the bias of the long end of the curve is to steepen and Kuroda wants the same thing.

The Path to Average Equity Returns in the 2020s is Challenged

by Bryce coward via Knowledge leaders capital blog

The returns of the 2009-2020 bull market were nothing short of extraordinary. From the 2009 low in the S&P 500 to the 2020 high, stocks gained a massive 488%, or nearly 18% on an annualized basis. This compares to an average nominal price return for US stocks of about 5.5% annualized going all the way back to 1896, or 6.7% in the post-war period. So, the recent bull market produced average annual returns more than 3x that of normal. Even if we measure the S&P 500’s full cycle performance from the low in 2009 through the low in 2020, that still gives us an annualized return of 14.5%, or nearly three times the annual average return through history.

Going forward, can this type of high return environment be replicated? To answer that question it helps to understand the sources of equity appreciation from the previous cycle and ask whether those things are likely to be repeated during this cycle.

Let’s start with decomposing earnings per share into its piece parts.

  • From the 2009 low in stocks through the recent high earnings per share rose about 265% in total (12.5% annualized, from about $43/share to about $157/share).
  • Contributing to this rise was rising sales, which increased about 33% in total, or 2.6% annualized.
  • The tax cuts enacted in 2017 also added significantly to aggregate earnings, boosting EPS by 19.3%.
  • Share buybacks were on a tear over the last five years, adding 1.3% to EPS in each of those years through the reduction in the denominator.
  • But share issuance was rampant at the beginning of the cycle. In total, share buybacks added 4.5% to aggregate EPS over the last bull market.
  • The final leg in EPS growth is what we will call ‘other margin expansion’. The aggregate profit margin for the S&P 500 expanded from 7.7% in 2009 to 11.8% in 2020. Some of this margin expansion was due to tax cuts, but most of it was due to lower interest rates (10-year rates fell from about 3.3% to 0.3% more recently), and wages falling relative to aggregate output (wages as a percent of GDP fell from 45%, to an all-time low of 42% in 2011, and have recently risen back to 43.5%).
As previously stated, the S&P 500 rose by 488% over the previous cycle. Roughly 265% of this was due to higher earnings, and the rest was due to multiple expansion. The P/E ratio rose from about 10 in early 2009 to about 22 at the beginning of 2020, which is a 220% rise. So, 60% of the appreciation in the S&P 500 came from earnings growth and the other 40% came from multiple expansion.

In the next chart we put all this together into a breakdown the S&P 500’s total appreciation into the granular piece parts.

With that behind us, we need to analyze each component of share price appreciation from the last cycle to in order to judge whether it is likely to be repeated this next cycle.

Sales growth. Are aggregate sales likely to rise by 2.6% annualized going forward? Sales growth closely tracks population growth. From 2009-2019 the US population grew by 3% per year on average. From now until 2024, the IMF estimates that the US population will only grow 2.25% per year on average. A 0.75% lower rate of population growth in the years to come vs the previous decade would seem to imply a lower aggregate level of sales growth for the S&P 500 this cycle compared to last cycle.

Tax cuts. It would stretch the imagination to assume another round of massive corporate tax cuts in the years ahead, even if the Republican party were to sweep in November. Alternatively, if the Democrats sweep, the corporate tax rate is likely to rise to 28% (it’s a campaign promise by Joe Biden). Currently, Biden is the odds on favorite to take the White House and the Democrats are the favorites to retake the Senate. Therefore, tax cuts certainly cannot be counted on for EPS growth this time around and may in fact reduce aggregate EPS.

Share buybacks. In the age of bailouts the term “share buyback” has taken on a negative connotation. Even if there is not legislation regulating buybacks in the coming years, we are hard pressed to assume a higher level of buybacks during this cycle compared to last. For this reason, the buyback factor may be neutral this cycle compared to last.

Other margin expansion. With the 2-year Treasury rate at 19bps, the 10-year at 70bps, and BAA spreads only a bit above average at 292bps, we are hard pressed to see another significant interest rate reduction being a catalyst for margin expansion this cycle. At the same time, wages as a share of GDP are still only slightly above the post-war low. A Blue wave in November would certainly usher in policies to help swing the pendulum back in favor of labor at the expense of capital. Therefore, margin expansion due to lower wages as a percent of output would seem an unlikely source of margin expansion.

Finally, multiple expansion. At the beginning of the last market cycle the S&P 500 was sporting a forward PE of 10x. Back in March, the PE only reached a nadir of 17x and is already back to 25x. Could the forward multiple double from the March low and reach 34x? Anything is possible (see negative oil prices). But even with Fed asset purchases (which empirically are accretive to multiples), we would be hard pressed to count on multiples topping those from the 1999-2000 period by a wide margin.

In sum, the last market cycle was a unique one in terms of the aggregate stock price appreciation as well as its sources. Some of those sources were clearly one offs (tax cuts), while others may have simply reached their logical limits (interest rates, wages as a share of output). In the end, we find lots of reasons to expect lower EPS growth and less multiple expansion during this market cycle than last. At the very least, this means we have to re-calibrate our return assumptions moving forward and not expect a repeat of the 2009-2020 cycle. At worst, it could mean that achieving even average equity returns over the coming years could be a challenge.

Falling Rig Count and Demand Normalization

05/ 28/ 2020

Topics: Oil MarketsCommoditiesNatural ResourcesShale Oil

Share

“If production were to average 80.5 mm b/d, then global inventories would go from ‘full’ to 15-year low levels in only two months.”

US added 38 percent more oil and gas rigs last year

Image Source: desmogblog.com

In recent blogs we’ve been discussing how OPEC+ cuts coupled with “involuntary” cuts from U.S. shale producers will dramatically limit available supply when demand normalizes. However, there is another element that will also affect future oil supply: the huge retrenchment in drilling activity taking place today.

The US oil rig count has fallen 45% in the last six weeks alone and our models suggest these declines will continue. Of the publicly traded companies we follow, capital spending has been cut by 40% on average so far with many companies now announcing a second round of cuts. In total, we estimate that the US oil rig count will fall by nearly 75% from 2019 levels. Our proprietary neural network tells us that US production will decline sharply by 2.1 mm b/d as we progress throughout 2020 based on these drilling assumptions (before considering any shut-ins). In other words, based upon capital spending guidance, new production would not nearly be enough to offset natural field declines from aging wells. This phenomenon would then continue into 2021 unless drilling activity were sharply increased later this year (something we think is unlikely).

In the rest of the non-OPEC world, several final investment decisions (FIDs) have already been postponed or rejected on long lead-time projects, making it a near certainty that production from this group will decline well into the 2020s. Summer maintenance programs in the North Sea will likely be deferred as well, saving near-term cash at the expense of production.

Together with the shut-ins discussed above, attrition from lower drilling expenditures and deferred maintenance could cause production to fall to 80.5 mm b/d by the end of 2020.

Image Source: rigzone.com

As demand normalizes, today’s large inventory overhang will be worked off much faster than anyone realizes. For example, “full” crude storage is approximately 3.5 bn bbl while the 15-year low level is 2.5 bn bbl. In the oil section of our Q1 2020 letter we discuss demand drivers in depth, but for now assume that demand normalizes slowly over the year eventually reaching 95 mm b/d by year end. While this sounds optimistic, we should point out this projection assumes demand would still be lower year-on-year by 5 mm b/d by year end (a conservative estimate). If production were to average 80.5 mm b/d, then global inventories would go from “full” to 15-year low levels in only two months. Even if OPEC+ fully reversed their production cuts, inventories would go from full to dangerously low in just under five months.

However, the reality in 2021 may be even more dramatic. Demand will likely continue to normalize, adding the remaining lost 5 mm b/d to regain the 100 mm b/d level. At the same time, the shales will continue to decline well into 2021, opening the gap between supply and demand to well over 10 mm b/d sometime next year.

http://blog.gorozen.com/blog/falling-rig-count-and-demand-normalization?utm_campaign=Weekly%20Blog%20Notification&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=88645664&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-841SzaM_Bk3Vqn7l59vSr-aHCVBmDngNBF8tmdVCwT2NOe5_tq87ZHIpFyTtORzSpBrL4JHifgAbyPvvpQHijmmktXeQ&_hsmi=88645664

Silver’s Silver Lining

By Michael A. Gayed, CFA via seekingalpha.com

Summary

Investors may consider some exposure to silver as the multi-year, supply-demand surplus scenario looks to be transitioning towards a more favorable picture.

On the demand side, I expect industrial production to ramp up by H2 20/2021; the increasing trend of electrification and solar energy should support demand sentiment.

In these heady, uncertain times, laced with excess monetary stimulus, silver, to me, offers more value than gold.

I do much more than just articles at The Lead-Lag Report: Members get access to model portfolios, regular updates, a chat room, and more. Get started today »

Everyone’s looking for gold. So, I’ll be the one collecting the silver. – Rehan Khan

Source: Yahoo Finance

A couple of weeks ago, I questioned if silver might take some steps to correct its broad underperformance relative to gold. Since then, the former has made some headway in addressing this, with May proving to be a really good month so far. Of course, this outperformance has come over a very small sample size, and I don’t want to jump the gun, but I do think there are some rather interesting conditions brewing for the medium-term prospects of the white metal.

Gold-silver ratio

The gold-silver ratio has almost always been a good leading indicator of how things could pan out in the world of silver, although, it’s fair to say that we might have to calibrate our expectations, given how this ratio has zoomed towards unprecedented levels recently. Up until this year, the long-term average of this metric was around 60, with the 85-90 levels being hit only 4 times over the last 20 odd years (2003, 2008, 2016, and mid 2019). At 100-plus levels, currently, this ratio does appear rather stretched with room for more reversion. Even if you think reversion towards the long-term average of 60 might be a bit of a stretch, I do think there are some compelling fundamental factors (which I expand on below) that could help push the ratio down to the bottom end of the ascending price ratio channel, which is around the 80-90 zone (which would still be overbought by historical standards).

Source: Trading View

Broad supply-demand picture

Source: Silver Institute

Over the last four years, the supply-demand equation for silver has not been conducive for silver prices with a surplus being seen every year. However, what’s encouraging is that the imbalance has really come off from the elevated levels of 62-68 million ounces seen in 2016/2017. In 2020, whilst we are likely to have yet another year of surplus, you’re still looking at a whopping 53% y-o-y drop in the market balance at 14.7 million ounces. The key juxtaposition here is between industrial demand and mine production. Whilst industrial demand had grown at a CAGR of 3% from 2015 to 2019, mine production during this same period came off by -2%, and I don’t think we are too far away from having a deficit situation in silver.

Silver supply

Source: Metals Focus

Mexico remains, by far, the largest producer of silver, making up c.23% of global production. Peru is the other dominant country in this space, and even before the pandemic brought things to a standstill, there were some pretty significant production cuts in both these countries last year. This was mainly on account of declining grades at several large mines and disruption-related losses at some major silver producers.

This year, things have turned for the worse since mid-March, with all the key silver producers being impacted by mandated production suspensions, refinery and smelting disruptions, and transport disruptions. Mexico is still in broad health emergency with lockdowns until May 30th, although mining has been permitted since May 18th, provided a certain mine is located in a municipality with no to few active COVID-19 cases. In Peru as well, one has seen a similar theme, although there has been a gradual resumption of activities since the 2nd week of May, with miners operating at 35-40% capacity. All in all, c.66% of total global silver production was put on hold this year, the most for any metal!

Even for the rest of the year, I’m not sure we can expect a significant ramp up on the production front with big silver mining companies, including Pan America Silver Corp. (NASDAQ:PAAS) and First Majestic Silver Corp. (NYSE:AG), all announcing plans to cut capex and exploration activities.

Silver demand

Unlike gold, silver’s utility in the industrial landscape is a lot more pronounced. Key applications include electronics, automobiles, medicine, solar, water purification, window manufacturing, and brazing alloys. I wrote recently about why we could see a pickup in global industrial production by H2-20 and that should bode well for the prospects of silver with industrial demand accounting for c.55% of total silver demand.

Two silver consumer segments that I am particularly enthused about are the automobile and the photovoltaics segments. Silver’s use in automobiles has gone up considerably over the last decade due to a push towards more electrification (silver is one of the most reflective and best conductors of electricity). Whilst this industry may have been hampered in H1, demand in the large auto markets of the world is preparing for a rebound.

Source: CPM Group

If you look at the supply-demand table above, you can see that industrial demand from photovoltaics has grown very strongly, doubling from 48.4 million ounces in 2014 to 98.7 million ounces in 2019. I believe solar energy is here to stay as it is an inexhaustible fuel source that is pollution-free and one that is fast becoming more versatile and affordable. According to Allied Market Research, we’re looking at a c.21% CAGR industry, poised to hit $223 billion by 2026. An interesting concept that is gaining traction in the US is solar carports. This is one of the most viable options for refueling EVs and is currently in use at several large department stores, federal and state locations. The US Department of Energy has suggested that the country might need c.8000 solar carport stations to provide a minimum level of urban and rural coverage. In addition to a general industrial pickup, as we go greener and vehicle electrification gains momentum, silver demand should inevitably ramp up.

Silver – a less expensive gold proxy for these uncertain times

In addition to the utilitarian value that it offers industries, I’d also like to think of silver as something as a gold proxy. On account of the unprecedented level of recent monetary stimulus that has decimated the value of paper currencies, precious metals such as gold and silver will be increasingly seen as a store of value to mitigate this. Gold, of course, has been the rockstar of asset classes in the recent past, but I think there is greater value to be seen in silver. I expect physical investments in silver to ramp up as investors diversify away from uncertain equities and seek suitable alternatives to cope with a potential reflation scenario. Net physical investment in silver which grew at 12% YoY in 2019 is poised to grow at an even greater rate of 16% this year. Interestingly inflows into silver ETFs have been gaining speed, up 13% YTD. Incidentally, last week, a major ETF – iShares Silver Trust (NYSEARCA:SLV) saw a significant week on week spike of 5.4%, adding 24 million units.

Conclusion and how to play silver

The risk-reward on silver is not as appetizing as it was back in March, and as mentioned at the start of the article, May has been particularly good for this white metal, with silver futures up c.17% on a 1-month basis. That said, as implied by the gold-silver ratio, I still think there is further room for silver to move. Over the medium term, encouraging fundamental factors should keep interest in this metal elevated. If you’re an equity person, you can consider key silver miners such as First Majestic Silver or America Silver Corp. but this would not be my first preference as they also have exposure to other metals and you have to contend with company-specific issues. Besides, these stocks have more than doubled in value since the March lows. My preference would be the ETF iShares Silver Trust that more closely tracks the performance of silver and is still yet to break out of the long-term range.

Source: Trading View

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4349941-silvers-silver-lining