Australia at risk as USD rises

NAB are predicting that the RBA will cut rates twice in 2017.

This ties in with the Credit Suisse view: if Donald Trump succeeds in reducing the US trade deficit, it will cause a USD shortage in international markets. And, in Australia, “a USD shortage tends to exert downward pressure on rates, bond yields, the currency and even house prices.”

Macrobusiness joins the dots for us: “a rising USD this year is very bad for commodity prices and national income while being bearish for interest rates and the AUD.”

Source: CS: Australia at risk as USD rises – MacroBusiness

Trump’s Dumb War on Nafta | Bloomberg View

Bloomberg editorial view:

America’s trade pact with Mexico and Canada reshaped all three economies, creating a highly integrated and competitive economic zone. The evidence is clear that, in the aggregate, this helped American workers — and not just because Nafta and other free-trade agreements make goods cheaper and promote U.S. exports. A subtler point is equally important: When a U.S. firm takes advantage of Nafta by moving jobs abroad, those investments spur demand for workers at home.

This surprising and little-understood benefit isn’t theoretical speculation. On average, the evidence shows, when U.S. manufacturers create 100 new jobs in Mexico, they create roughly 250 new jobs at home. U.S. manufacturing employment has declined over the years — but, as one study of Nafta puts it, more manufacturing jobs are lost from companies that don’t invest abroad. When U.S. companies build foreign plants, they not only hire more U.S. workers, they also invest and spend more on research and development — at home.

This striving for success in a connected global economy is disruptive: Some workers lose in the process, even as others (in larger numbers) gain. So the U.S. needs a stronger social safety net, better schools, more support for training and worker mobility, subsidies for low-wage employment and other measures. Sheltering U.S. firms from competition with import barriers, or blocking their foreign investments with threats or other interventions, will make them less competitive — and make Americans overall worse off.

NAFTA is not to blame for poor economic growth in the US. It’s open to debate whether the evidence presented in this article is correct, but imposing tariff protection is seldom the answer. It’s often a case of short-term gain, long-term pain as protected industries lose competitiveness.

Source: Trump’s Dumb War on Nafta – Bloomberg View

Dow breaks 20,000

The Dow Jones Industrial Average broke the important psychological barrier of 20,000 this week. The news was greeted with cheers from the media, many advisers and investors.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Older readers may recall a similar event when the Dow broke 1000 on November 14, 1972. Here is an excerpt from the New York Times that day:

The Dow Jones industrial average closed above the 1,000 mark yesterday for the first time in history.

It finished at 1,003.16 for a gain of 6.09 points in what many Wall Streeters consider the equivalent of the initial breaking of the four-minute mile.

“This thing has an obvious psychological effect,” declared one brokerage-house partner. “It’s a hell of a news item. As for the permanence of it — well, I just don’t know.”

Last Friday, the Dow surpassed 1,000 during the course of a day’s trading, but it fell back below the landmark figure by the end of the session.

But yesterday the market was not to be denied. The Dow finally put it all together, the peace rally, the re-election of President Nixon, the surging economy, booming corporate profits and lessening fears about inflation and taxes and controls and other uncertainties of 1973.

…..International Business Machines, Wall Street’s best known glamour issue, moved up 11 1/4 points to 388, its best price of the day.

…..An office broker, watching the stock tape from his desk downtown, murmured in wonderment: “There’s a sort of renewed confidence in the whole economic outlook.”

The broker who questioned the permanence of the move must have had a crystal ball. Three months later, the Dow reversed below 1000, commencing a bear market that ended at 570.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Four years later, in 1976, the Dow again rallied and broke 1000. Only to retreat in another bear market that carried as low as 750. A third advance carried the Average above 1000 in 1981, before another retreat, this time to 780.

Only in 1982, a full ten years after the first breakout, did the Dow finally break clear of 1000, advancing strongly over the next few years.

The next significant barrier for the Dow was 10,000. Breakout took place in 1999, during the Dotcom boom, with a minimum of fuss. At least one pundit at the time predicted the Dow would reach 100,000 by 2020.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

Contrary to initial indications, the 10,000 level also proved a formidable barrier, with breach of support in 2001 heralding the start of a bear market that fell as low as 7200.

Recovery in 2003 appeared robust, with two secondary corrections respecting the new support level at 10,000. But the global financial crisis in 2008 saw the Dow fall to 6500. It took more than ten years after the initial breakout before we could comfortably say that the Dow had broken clear of 10,000.

The next important barrier is the current 20,000. It may be naive to think we have seen the last of it.

If past records are anything to go by, we could be in for an interesting decade.

How to survive the next four years

Donald Trump

We are entering a time of uncertainty.

Donald Trump started his presidency with a continuation of the confrontational approach that he exhibited throughout his campaign, with scant regard to unifying the country and governing from the middle. Instead he has signed off on two controversial oil pipelines that, while they would create jobs, have met fierce opposition and are likely to polarize the nation even further.

Subtlety is not Trump’s strong point. Expect a far more abrasive style than the Obama years.

Trump also signed off on constructing a wall along the border with Mexico. Again, this will create jobs and slow illegal immigration — two of his key campaign promises — while harming relations with the Southern neighbor.

Another key target is the trade deficit. The US has not run a trade surplus since 1975. Expect major revision of current trade agreements like NAFTA, which could further damage relations with Mexico, and a slew of actions against trading partners such as China and Japan who have used their foreign reserves in the past to maintain a trade surplus with the US. Floating exchange rates are meant to balance the flow of imports and exports on current account, minimizing trade surpluses/deficits over time. But this can be subverted by accumulating excessive foreign reserves to suppress appreciation of your home currency. Retaliation to US punitive actions is likely and could harm international trade if not carefully managed.

Apart from wars, Trump and chief strategist Steve Bannon also seem intent on provoking a war with the media, baiting the press in a recent New York Times interview:

Bannon delivered a broadside at the press…. saying, “The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.” Bannon also said, “I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States…..”

Trump and Bannon’s strategy may be to provoke retaliation by the media. One-sided reporting would discredit the press as an objective source of criticism of the new presidency.

On top of the Trump turmoil in the US, we have Brexit which threatens to disrupt trade between the UK and European Union. If not managed carefully, this could lead to copycat actions from other EU member states.

Increasingly aggressive steps by China and Russia are another destabilizing factor — with the two nations asserting their global power against weaker neighbors. Iran is another offender, attempting to establish a crescent of influence in the Middle East against fierce opposition by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and their Sunni partners. Also, North Korea is expanding its nuclear arsenal.

We live in dangerous times.

But these may also be times of opportunity. Trump has made some solid appointments to his team who could exert a positive influence on the global outlook. And confrontation may resolve some long-festering sores on both the economic and geo-political fronts.

How are we to know? Where can we get an unbiased view of economic prospects if confrontation is high, uncertainty a given — the new President issuing random tweets in the night as the mood takes him — and a distracted media?

There are two reliable sources of information: prices and earnings. Stock prices reflect market sentiment, the waves of human emotion that dominate short- and medium-term market behavior. And earnings will either confirm or refute market sentiment in the longer term.

As Benjamin Graham wrote:

“In the short term the stock market behaves like a voting machine, but in the long term it acts like a weighing machine”.

In the short-term, stock prices may deviate from true value as future earnings and growth prospects are often unclear. But prices will adjust closer to true value as more information becomes available and views of earnings and prospects narrow over time.

We are bound to experience periods of intense volatility over the next four years as hopes and fears rise and fall. These periods represent both a threat and an opportunity. A threat if you have invested on hopes and expectations rather than on solid performance. And an opportunity if intense volatility causes prices to fall below true value.

It will pay to keep a close watch on technical signals on the major indexes. As well as earnings growth in relation to index performance.

Also, keep a close eye on long-term indicators of market risk such as the Treasury yield curve and corporate bond spreads. These often forewarn of coming reactions and will be reviewed on a regular basis in future newsletters.

BIS: High household debt kills growth | Macrobusiness

From Leith van Onselen, reproduced with kind permission from Macrobusiness:

Last month I showed how Australia’s ratio of household debt to GDP had hit 123% of GDP – the third highest in the world – according to data released by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS):

ScreenHunter_16670 Dec. 13 07.13

Martin North also compiled separate data from the BIS, which showed that Australia’s household debt servicing ratio (DSR) is also the third highest in the world:

Despite record low mortgage rates, Australia’s mortgage slaves are still sacrificing a far higher share of their income to pay mortgage interest (let alone principal) than when mortgage rates peaked in 1989-90:

ScreenHunter_16672 Dec. 13 11.05

Now the BIS has released a working paper, entitled “The real effects of household debt in the short and long run”, which shows that high household debt (as measured by debt to GDP) has a significant negative long-term impact on consumption and growth. Below are the key findings:

A 1 percentage point increase in the household debt-to-GDP ratio tends to lower growth in the long run by 0.1 percentage point. Our results suggest that the negative long-run effects on consumption tend to intensify as the household debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 60%. For GDP growth, that intensification seems to occur when the ratio exceeds 80%.

Moreover, the negative correlation between household debt and consumption actually strengthens over time, following a surge in household borrowing. What is striking is that the negative correlation coefficient nearly doubles between the first and the fifth year following the increase in household debt.

As shown in the table above, Australia’s household debt-to-GDP ratio was 123% as at June 2016 (higher now) – way above the BIS’ 80% threshold by which GDP growth is adversely impacted.

According to Martin North:

This is explained by massive amounts of borrowing for housing (both owner occupied and investment) whilst unsecured personal debt is not growing. Such high household debt, even with low interest rates sucks spending from the economy, and is a brake on growth. The swelling value of home prices, and paper wealth (as well as growing bank balance sheets) do not really provide the right foundation for long term real sustainable growth.

Another obvious extrapolation is that there could be carnage when mortgage rates eventually rise from current historical lows.

ASX 200 strengthens

The ASX 200 is testing its new support level at 5600. Rising Twiggs Money Flow indicates medium-term buying pressure. Respect of 5600 is likely and would signal an advance to 6000*.

ASX 200

* Target medium-term: 5800 + ( 5800 – 5600 ) = 6000

Small cap stocks, represented by the ASX Small Ordinaries Index, are weaker, indicating the market remains risk-averse. Twiggs Money Flow below zero continues to indicate selling pressure.

ASX Small Ordinaries Index

Intent as the enemy of truth | On Line Opinion

From Jennifer Marohasy:

When all 1,655 maximum temperature series for Australia are simply combined, and truncated to begin in 1910 the hottest years are 1980, 1914, 1919, 1915 and 1940.

…..Considering land temperature across Australia, 1914 was almost certainly the hottest year across southern Australia, and 1915 the hottest across northern Australia – or at least north-east Australia. But recent years come awfully close – because there has been an overall strong warming trend since at least 1960, albeit nothing catastrophic.

……there is compelling evidence that the Bureau of Meteorology remodels historical temperature data until it conforms to the human-caused global warming paradigm.

I would like to see more open debate around this issue rather than the typical “trust me I’m an expert” or “the science is settled” response.

Source: Intent as the enemy of truth – On Line Opinion – 9/1/2017

Is Globalization to Blame? | Boston Review

From Dean Baker:

Among the many myths about globalization, the worst is that the loss of large numbers of manufacturing jobs in the United States (and Europe) was inevitable…..

Globalization need not have taken the course it did. There was nothing inevitable about large U.S. trade deficits, which peaked at almost 6 percent of GDP in 2005 and 2006 (roughly $1.1 trillion annually in today’s economy). And there was nothing inevitable about the patterns of trade that resulted in such an imbalance. Policy decisions—not God, nature, or the invisible hand—exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected…….

Source: Is Globalization to Blame? | Boston Review

Best time to short commodities since 2012

From Vesna Poljak:

….China’s stimulus is finite and demand for raw materials will collapse without it.

Australian Atul Lele, the Bahamas-based chief investment officer of private wealth manager Deltec, says all monetary and fiscal stimulus has a natural conclusion – “it just ends” – and traditional indicators of commodity prices such as global growth and liquidity conditions have been outrun by prices already.

“Right now, commodity prices are consistent with 8 per cent global industrial production. If we saw that, ex of the financial crisis recovery, it would be the strongest rate of global industrial production growth since 1981, at least. Now I’m bullish global growth and more bullish than most people, but it’s not going to happen and even if it does happen, all you’ve done is justify current commodity prices. So why would you buy a resource stock now?”

China continues to inject stimulus to revive its economy but that is making its financial system increasingly unstable. Credit growth in excess of 30% of annual GDP warns of a banking crisis according to the BIS. And shrinking foreign reserves flag that the currency is under pressure.

China faces the impossible trinity. According to David Llewellyn-Smith at Macrobusiness, a country pegged to the Dollar can only achieve two out of the following three:

  • a stable exchange rate
  • independent monetary policy
  • free and open international capital flows

At present all three are under pressure.

Source: Best time to short commodities since 2012 says Deltec’s Atul Lele

China’s Day of Reckoning | The Market Oracle

From Michael Pento:

Therein lies China’s dilemma: Allow the yuan to intractably fall, which will increase capital flight and destroy its asset-bubble economy. Or, raise interest rates to stabilize the currency and risk collapsing asset bubbles that will crumble under the weight of rising debt carrying costs.

China embodies a Keynesian dystopia that results from central planning gone mad. It’s mirage of prosperity should soon be coming to an unpleasant end. The misguided belief any government can print unlimited amounts of money and issue a massive amount of new credit; while providing the conditions that are the antitheses necessary for viable growth, has one significant Achilles heel: eventually, it will destroy your currency. Currency is always the pressure valve that explodes in an economy that has reached the apogee of dysfunction. The Red nation isn’t the only offender on this front, but is certainly one of the worst. Therefore, China and the yuan may have finally run out of time.

Source: Chinese Yuan’s Day of Reckoning :: The Market Oracle ::