S&P 500 and the trade war

We are now headed for a full-blown trade war. Donald Trump may have highlighted the issue but this is not a conflict between him and Xi — it should have been addressed years ago — nor even between China and the West. Accusations of racism are misguided. This is a conflict between totalitarianism and the rule of law. Between the CCP (with Putin, Erdogan, and the Ayatollahs in their corner) and Western democracy.

Australia will be forced to take sides. China may be Australia’s largest trading partner but the US & UK are it’s ideological partners. I cannot see the remotest possibility of Australia selling out its principles for profits, no matter how tempting the short-term rewards (or threatened hardships). We have a proud history of standing up against oppression and exploitation.

Disruptions to supply chains and supply contracts in the US (and China) are going to be significant and are likely to impact on earnings. The S&P 500 reaction is so far muted, with retracement testing medium-term support at 2800. There is also no indication of selling pressure on the Trend Index. Nevertheless, a breach of 2800 is likely and would warn of a test of primary support at 2400.

S&P 500

Falling Treasury yields highlight the outflow from equities and into bonds. Stock buybacks are becoming the primary inflow into stocks.

10-Year Treasury Yields

However, corporate bond spreads — lowest investment grade (Baa) yields minus the equivalent Treasury yield — are still well below the 3.0% level associated with elevated risk.

S&P 500

Profits may fall due to supply disruption (similar to 2015 on the chart below) but the Fed is unlikely to cut interest rates unless employment follows (as in 2007). Inflation is likely to rise as supply chains are disrupted but chances of a rate rise are negligible. Fed Chairman Jay Powell’s eyes are going to be firmly fixed on Total Non-farm Payrolls. If annual growth falls below 1.0% (RHS), expect a rate cut.

S&P 500

This excerpt from a newsletter I wrote in April 2018 (Playing hardball with China) is illuminating: “In 2010, Paul Krugman wrote:

Some still argue that we must reason gently with China, not confront it. But we’ve been reasoning with China for years, as its surplus ballooned, and gotten nowhere: on Sunday Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, declared — absurdly — that his nation’s currency is not undervalued. (The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the renminbi is undervalued by between 20 and 40 percent.) And Mr. Wen accused other nations of doing what China actually does, seeking to weaken their currencies “just for the purposes of increasing their own exports.”

But if sweet reason won’t work, what’s the alternative? In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent.

I don’t propose this turn to policy hardball lightly. But Chinese currency policy is adding materially to the world’s economic problems at a time when those problems are already very severe. It’s time to take a stand.

Krugman (no surprise) now seems more opposed to trade tariffs but observes:

….I think it’s worth noting that even if we are headed for a full-scale trade war, conventional estimates of the costs of such a war don’t come anywhere near to 10 percent of GDP, or even 6 percent. In fact, it’s one of the dirty little secrets of international economics that standard estimates of the cost of protectionism, while not trivial, aren’t usually earthshaking either.”

Trump has to show that he is prepared to endure the hardships of a trade war and not kowtow to Beijing. But the chances of a reasonable response are unlikely.

Men naturally despise those who court them, but respect those who do not give way to them.

~ Thucydides (circa 400 BC)

ASX 200 and the Banks

The ASX 200 retreat below support level at 6350 has been gentle, with a long tail indicating that buying support remains. The Trend Index likewise shows only a moderate decline. Respect of support at 6000 would be a bullish sign.

ASX 200

Financials are the largest sector, comprising 32.1% of the ASX 200 according to S&P Indices. Retracement has so far been gentle and respect of the new support level at 6000 would be a bullish sign.

ASX 200 Financials

Apart from a declining housing market and the RBNZ call for more than $8 billion in additional equity capital (estimated by S&P Global Ratings), the four major banks face declining margins.

Net Interest Income (as % of Total Assets) has rallied since 2015 but remains in a long-term down-trend, with a projected average of 1.7%. Fee income (right-hand scale) has declined to below 0.50% of total assets, while other income (RHS) fluctuates around 0.20%.

Banks Income as % of Total Assets

Source: APRA – Major Banks

If we compare income to operating expenses, the gap between non-interest income (fees, commissions & other income) and operating expenses is widening. Combined with declining net interest margins and increasing capital requirements, the heady days of strong profit growth may be nearing an end.

Banks Income & Expenses as % of Total Assets

Source: APRA – Major Banks

I am cautious of Australian banks, more because of the headwinds they face over the next two years than the long-term outlook, but declining margins do not help. We hold more than 40% in cash and fixed interest in the Australian Growth portfolio.

Materials (the second largest sector at 18.1%) are undergoing a modest correction. Respect of support at 12500 would be a bullish sign. Declining Money Flow peaks, however, warn of strong selling pressure and a test of 12000 remains likely.

ASX 200 Materials

Employment lifts but S&P 500 tentative

Growth in total non-farm payrolls ticked up to 1.76% for the 12 months to April 2019, supporting Fed reluctance to cut interest rates.

Payroll Growth

The Philadelphia Fed Leading Index has been revised upwards, above a comfortable 1.0%.

Leading Index

Real GDP growth came in at a healthy 3.2% for the 12 months ended 31 March 2019 but growth in total hours worked sagged to 1.47%, suggesting that GDP growth is likely to slow.

Real GDP and Total Hours Worked

Growth in average hourly earnings came in at 3.23% (total private), suggesting that inflationary pressures remain under control. Little chance of a Fed rate hike either.

Average Hourly Earnings

The S&P 500 retracement respected support at 2900. Rising Money Flow indicates buying pressure but gains seem tentative.

S&P 500

US growth looks to continue but commodity prices warn that global growth is slowing.

Nymex crude penetrated its lower trend channel, warning of a correction. Despite the supply impact of increasing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, and the threat of supply disruption in Libya.

Nymex Light Crude

A similar correction on DJ-UBS Commodities index reinforces that global demand is slowing.

DJ-UBS Commodities Index

Australia’s irrelevant election

Satyajit Das spells out the challenges facing the Australian economy in the next decade:

The centerpiece of both major contenders’ campaigns are large tax cuts and significant government spending on infrastructure and welfare. Both parties pay lip service to sound public finance. But the sustainability of policies based on outbidding political opponents and financing permanent expenditure with impermanent revenues is questionable.

….This striking lack of control that Australia has over its economy is grounded in four factors.

….Sadly, no party’s manifesto addresses these fundamental challenges. Tax cuts will not reform a system which needs to be overhauled. Infrastructure spending provides a short-term increase in demand. Bad choice of projects and poor delivery, evidenced by the disappointing National Broadband Network which is over-budget and slow by the best international standards, may not enhance longer-term efficiency and productivity.

The narrowness of the economic base is ignored. No political party is willing to address over-investment in housing, the total value of which is around $6 trillion or around 4 times gross domestic product and constitutes a large proportion of household wealth. Encouraged by complex subsidies, capital is locked up in property, unavailable for more productive activities such as new industries. Leaders are reluctant to champion forceful structural reforms to improve education and skill levels as well as streamline regulation. Instead, all contenders seem happy to rely on windfalls to finance the nation’s living standards through ever shorter electoral cycles.

Worth reading the full article at Nikkei Asian Review

Hat tip to Macrobusiness.

Australian bank growth expected to slow

Last week I observed:

…the RBA will resist cutting rates unless the situation gets really desperate. Ultra-low interest rates encourage risk-taking and speculative behavior, offering short-term gain but courting long-term disaster. Walter Bagehot, editor of The Economist, observed more than 100 years ago: “John Bull can stand many things, but he cannot stand 2%.” Sound economic management requires that central bankers make the hard choices, resisting pressure from commercial banks and politicians.

Total assets of the four major banks grew at a much faster rate than nominal GDP from 2004 to 2014. This was only achieved through rapid expansion of debt in the economy.

Major Banks Total Assets and Nominal GDP

The sharp rise in debt pushed households into a precarious position, with record levels of debt to disposable income and a serious bubble in house prices.

Australian Household Debt to Disposable Income

The RBA and APRA have used macro-prudential measures over the last few years to rein in debt growth, with some success. The ratio of major bank total assets, mainly debt, to nominal GDP declined considerably since 2015.

Major Banks Total Assets over Nominal GDP

This is a major policy success by the RBA and APRA and they are unlikely to want to reverse course. But they may decide to slow, or even for a time halt, the decline in order to prevent a downward spiral in the housing market. Expect total asset growth of the big four to match nominal GDP growth, at around 5.0%, over the next decade. Comprising 3.0% real GDP growth and 2.0% inflation. A far cry from the heady days of 10% annual growth between 2004 and 2014.

Nasdaq breaks resistance

Real GDP growth came in at a healthy 3.2% for the 12 months ended 31 March 2019. Growth in total hours worked is lagging below 2.0%, suggesting that further acceleration is unlikely.

Real GDP and Total Hours Worked

Growth in total non-farm payrolls continues at close to 2.0%, minimizing the chance of an interest rate cut by the Fed.

Payroll Growth

The S&P 500 is testing its previous high at 2940, while a rising Trend Index (13-week) indicates buying pressure.

S&P 500

The Nasdaq 100 broke resistance at 7700, signaling another advance. Expect retracement to test the new support level. The long-term target is 9000.

Nasdaq 100

A rapid advance would outstrip earnings growth, with high earnings multiples warning of elevated risk. The market is quite capable of continuing this behavior for an extended time but I urge readers to be cautious and look for rising sales and earnings to support the stock price.

S&P 500: Expect slower earnings growth but no sign of recession

Credit growth in the US above 5% shows no signs of tighter credit conditions from an inverted yield curve. Growth in the broad money supply (MZM plus time deposits) has also not slowed, remaining close to 5%.

Credit Growth and Broad Money Supply

Growth in hours worked has slowed to 1.71%, suggesting that real GDP growth will dip below 2% in 2019 but remain positive.

Hours Worked and Real GDP growth

The Fed is unlikely to cut interest rates when average hourly earnings are growing at 3.2% (Total Private for the 12 months ended March 2019).

Average Hourly Wage Rate

The Leading Index from the Philadelphia Fed fell below 1%, giving an early warning that GDP growth will slow.

Philadelphia Fed Leading Index

A similar dip below 1% occurred ahead of the last three recessions. A second, stronger dip would warn of recession ahead.

Philadelphia Fed Leading Index

The S&P 500 is advancing to test resistance at 2950/3000, while the Volatility Index crossed below 1%, signaling that risk is no longer elevated.

Treasury Yields

Real GDP is likely to slow this year but remain positive. S&P 500 earnings growth is expected to slow and the index is likely to meet stubborn resistance at 2950/3000. The Fed is still a long way off cutting interest rates (a strong bear signal) and there is no sign of recession on the 2019 horizon. An extended top is the most likely outcome.

Inverted yield curve is no cause for panic….yet

10-Year Treasury yields continue to fall. A Trend Index peak below zero signals strong selling pressure (purchases of bonds).  Target for the decline is primary support at 2.0%.

10-Year Treasury Yields

The spread between 10-Year and 3-Month Treasury yields is at zero, warning that the yield curve is about to invert. While there is no cause for panic, an inverted yield curve is a reliable predictor of recession within 12 to 18 months, preceding every recession since 1960*.

*1966 is an arguable exception. Initially classed as a recession by the NBER, it was later reversed and airbrushed out of history.

10-Year minus 2-Year Treasury Yields & Bank Credit

The 10-year/3-Month spread last crossed below zero in August 2006 and was followed by a recession in December 2007. While credit conditions tighten when the yield curve inverts, there is considerable lag and the chart below shows that credit growth remains high while the yield curve is inverted.

Yield Curve Inversions & Bank Credit

A far more imminent warning (of recession) is when the yield differential recovers above zero.

Why does a recovering yield curve warn of impending recession?

First, you need to understand what causes the yield curve to invert. Economic prospects weaken to the extent that bond investors are prepared to accept lower long-term yields than the current short-term yield, in anticipation that interest rates will fall. The inverted yield curve will continue for as long as rates are expected to fall but will rapidly recover when the Fed starts to cut rates.

Treasury Yields

Falling short-term yields flag that the Fed is cutting interest rates, confirming bond investors earlier suspicions of a weakening economy. That serves as a reliable warning, after an inverted yield curve, of impending recession.

We are not there yet. The Fed may have eased off on further rate rises but is still some way off from cutting rates.

S&P 500: Treasuries warn of a bear market

10-Year Treasury yields plunged Friday, to close at 2.45%, warning of a decline to test primary support at 2.0%.

10-Year Treasury Yields

The yield curve is now likely to turn negative. The 10-Year/2-Year yield differential has already fallen to 0.13%. Below zero signals a negative yield curve, a reliable predictor of oncoming recession within the next 12 to 18 months.

10-Year minus 2-Year Treasury Yields

The S&P 500 retreated Friday and is likely to breach its new support level at 2800. Follow-through below 2600 would warn of a bear market.

S&P 500