Category: Economy

Analysis of the global economy

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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.

Posted on

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

Posted on

Buybacks, interest rates and declining growth

The Fed did a sharp about-turn on interest rates this week: a majority of FOMC members now expect no rate increases this year. Long-term treasury yields are falling, with the 10-Year breaking support at 2.55/2.60 percent. Expect a test of 2.0%.

10-Year Treasury Yields

While the initial reaction of stocks was typically bullish, the S&P 500 Volatility Index (21-day) turned up above 1.0%, indicating risk remains elevated.

S&P 500

The reason for the Fed reversal — anticipated lower growth rates — is also likely to weigh on the market.

Stocks are already over-priced, with an S&P 500 earnings multiple of 21.26, well above the October 1929 and 1987 peaks. With earnings growth expected to soften, there is little to justify current prices.

S&P 500 Price-earnings (PEmax)

The current rally is largely driven by stock buybacks ($286 billion YTD) which dwarf the paltry inflow from ETF investors into US equities ($18 billion YTD). We are also now entering the 4 to 6-week blackout period, prior to earnings releases, when stock repurchases are expected to dip.

Why do corporations continue to repurchase stock at high prices? Warren Buffett recently reminded investors that buybacks at above a stock’s intrinsic (fair) value erode shareholder wealth. If we look at the S&P 500 in the period 2004 to 2008, it is clear that corporations get carried away with stock buybacks during a boom and only cease when the market crashes. They support their stock price in the good times, then abandon it when the market falls.

S&P 500 Buybacks
source: S&P Dow Jones Indices

Shareholders would benefit if corporations did the exact opposite: refrain from buying stock during the boom, when valuations are high, and then pile into the stock when the market crashes and prices are low. Why doesn’t that happen?

The culprit is typically low interest rates. It is hard for management to resist when stock returns are more than double the cost of debt. Buybacks are an easy way of boosting stock performance (and executive bonuses).

Treasury Yields: 3-Month & 5-Year

Corporations are using every available cent to buy back stock. Dividends plus buybacks [purple line below] exceed reported earnings [green] in most quarters over the last five years.

S&P 500 Buybacks & Dividends compared to Earnings

That means that capital expenditure and acquisitions were funded either with new stock issues or, more likely, with debt.

Corporate debt has been growing as a percentage of GDP since the 1980s. The pace of debt growth slowed since 2017 (shown by a down-turn in the debt/GDP ratio) but continues to increase in nominal terms.

Corporate Debt/GDP

Low interest rates mean that stock buybacks are likely to continue — unless there is a fall in earnings. If earnings fall, buybacks shrink. Declining earnings mean there is less available cash flow to buy back stock and corporations become far more circumspect about using debt.

S&P forecasts that earnings will rise through 2019.

S&P 500 Earnings

But forecasts can change. Expected year-on-year earnings growth for the March 2019 quarter has been revised down to 3.5%. Forecasts for June and September remain at 12.0% and 11.4% (YoY growth) respectively.

S&P 500 Year-on-Year Earnings Growth Forecast

If nominal GDP continues to grow at around 5% (5.34% in Q4 2018) and the S&P 500 buyback yield increases to 3.0% (2.93% at Q3 2019 according to Yardeni Research) then earnings growth, by my calculation* should fall to around 8.2%.

*1.05/0.97 -1.

With an expected dividend yield of 2%, investors in the S&P 500 can expect a return of just over 10% p.a. (dividend yield plus growth).

But the Fed now expects growth rates to fall by about 1.1% in 2019 and 1.2% in 2020, which should bring investor returns down to around 9% p.a. Not a lot to get excited about.

I knew something was wrong somewhere, but I couldn’t spot it exactly. But if something was coming and I didn’t know where from, I couldn’t be on my guard against it. That being the case I’d better be out of the market.
~ Jesse Livermore

Posted on

“Stocks rebound but sentiment soft”

From Bob Doll at Nuveen Investments. His weekly top themes:

1. We think the odds of a U.S. recession are low, but we also believe growth will remain soft for a couple of quarters. U.S. growth may bottom in the first half of 2019 following a relatively disappointing fourth quarter and the recent government shutdown. We expect growth will improve in the second half of the year.

Agreed, though growth is likely to remain soft for an extended period. The Philadelphia Fed Leading Index is easing but remains healthy at above 1.0% (December 2018).

Leading Index

2. Inflation remains low, but upward pressure is mounting. With unemployment under 4% and average hourly earnings rising to an annual 3.6% level, we may start to see prices rise. So far, better productivity growth has kept the lid on prices, but this trend bears watching.

Agreed. Average hourly earnings are rising and inflation may follow.

Hourly Earnings Growth

3. Trade issues remain a wildcard. The U.S./China trade dispute appears to be making progress, but the timeline is slipping and significant disagreement remains over tariff levels and intellectual property protections.

This is the dominant issue facing global markets. Call me skeptical but I don’t see a happy resolution. There is too much at stake for both parties. Expect a drawn out conflict over the next two decades.

4. We do not expect Brexit to cause widespread market issues. We think the risk of a hard Brexit is low, since no one wants to see that outcome. Some sort of soft separation or even a Brexit vote redo appears more likely.

Agreed. Hard Brexit is unlikely. Soft separation is likely, while no Brexit is most unlikely.

5. The health care sector may remain under pressure due to political rhetoric. Health care stocks in general, and managed care companies in particular, have struggled in light of talk about ending private health care coverage. We think Congress lacks the votes to enact such legislation. But this issue, as well as drug pricing policies, are likely to remain at the center of the political dialogue through the 2020 elections.

Health care is a political football and may take longer to resolve than the trade war with China.

6. Downward earnings revisions may present the largest risk for stocks. As recently as September 30, expectations for first quarter earnings growth were +7%. That slipped to +4% by January 1 and has since fallen to -3%.

A sharp fall in earnings would most likely spring from a steep rise in interest rates if the Fed had to combat rising inflation. That doesn’t seem imminent despite rising average hourly earnings. The Fed is maintaining money supply growth at close to 5.0%, around the same level as nominal GDP, keeping a lid on inflationary pressures.

Money Supply & Nominal GDP growth

7. Equity returns may be modest over the next decade compared to the last. Since the bull market began 10 years ago, U.S. stocks have appreciated over 400%. It’s nearly impossible to imagine that pace will be met again, but we feel confident that stocks will outperform Treasuries and cash over the next 10 years.

Expect modest returns on stocks, low interest rates, and low returns on bonds and cash.

Posted on

China slowdown

Consumer durable sales are falling sharply:

And from Trivium China:

Premier Li Keqiang reiterated that big stimulus isn’t coming:

“An indiscriminate approach may work in the short run but may lead to future problems.”
“Thus, it’s not a viable option.”
“Our choice is to energize market players.”

….It’s a decidedly different tack than the credit-fueled stimulus of yesteryear, and the practical outcomes of this new policy response are two-fold:

  • Given that it’s a new strategy, the transmission channels from policy to actual economic growth support are not well understood.
  • The one thing we do know – this approach will take longer to impact the economy than the credit-driven responses of previous cycles.

The bottom line: It will take China’s deceleration longer to bottom out than markets and businesses currently expect.

China’s stated intention is to avoid big stimulus, so a policy reversal, if we see it, would signal that the slowdown is far worse than expected.

Posted on

Aussie banks get a wake up call from across the Tasman

I have long called for Australian banks to increase their equity capital in order to withstand a potential banking crisis in Australia. The Murray Commission found that banks, in a crisis, would act as “an accelerant rather than a shockabsorber”.

Now the RBNZ has announced plans to force the big four banks to hold more capital in their New Zealand banking operations. From Clancy Yeates at the Sydney Morning Herald:

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has mounted a firm defence of its plan to force Australia’s major banks to hold $NZ12.5 billion ($A12.12 billion) more in capital in their banking operations across the Tasman, saying the “highly profitable” businesses would have to accept lower returns.

In an interview on Wednesday, RBNZ deputy governor Geoff Bascand also justified the plan to bolster bank balance sheets by emphasising the social costs of banking crises and arguing New Zealand could not rely on Australian parent companies for a bail-out in severe shock.

……The big four Australian banks made $4.4 billion in cash profits from their New Zealand operations in 2018 representing about 15 per cent of their total combined profit with ANZ tipped to experience the most significant hit.

Mr Bascand said the central bank had estimated the big four’s NZ return on equity, until recently 14 to 15 per cent, would decline by between and 1 and 3 percentage points as a result of the change.

Earlier, Bascand said:

“At one time, the owners of a bank had plenty of skin in the game; in fact, there was a time when banks got most, or all, of their money from their owners. However, over the last century, banks have started to use less of their own money and more of other people’s, and the balance has almost entirely reversed. While we are not attempting to turn back the clock …..We believe that more ‘skin in the game’ for banks will result in:

  • Banks being better able to absorb large, unexpected losses
  • Society being less at risk from banking crises
  • Reduced fiscal risk…..As the global financial crisis illustrated, when banks fail there can be a severe domino effect that puts pressure on governments to step in with financial support
  • Bank shareholders and management being less inclined to take excessive risks”

(Gareth Vaughan, Interest.co.nz)

The RBNZ proposal calls for systemically important banks to hold a minimum of 16% Tier 1 capital against risk-weighted assets, of which 6% would be a regulatory minimum and 10% would act as a counter-cyclical buffer to absorb losses without triggering “resolution or failure options”. Bear in mind that risk-weighting significantly understates total assets and that leverage ratios, reflecting un-weighted assets, are about 55% of the above (i.e. 8.8%).

The banks have protested, warning that increasing capital will raise interest rates to borrowers.

…..The RBNZ has acknowledged interest rates charged by banks will probably rise as a result of the change, but Mr Bascand said it estimated the impact would be about half a standard 0.25 percentage point move in official interest rates.

If banks’ borrowing rates did rise more sharply than expected, he said the RBNZ could offset this through monetary policy…..

What the banks failed to consider (or mention) is that investors are prepared to accept lower returns on equity if there is lower associated risk. Also banks with strong balance sheets have historically experienced stronger growth. Both lower risk and stronger growth would help mitigate the costs of additional capital.

Question is, why are RBNZ raising concerns about bank capital and not APRA? Another case of regulatory capture?

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper