Middle class is drowning in debt, hobbling the economy | Rex Nutting

From Rex Nutting at MarketWatch:

For decades, economic growth in America was driven by a powerful and sustainable force: increased consumption paid for by the rising incomes for middle-class and working-class Americans.

But somewhere around 1980, that model broke down. Wages flattened out, but consumption didn’t. Americans cut back on their savings, and took on more debt — mostly mortgage debt — to satisfy their needs and desires.

It’s not a sustainable model, but it did persist for nearly 30 years until the credit bubble burst in 2007. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, and millions lost their homes when the credit spigot was shut off, forcing average families to cut back on their consumption and live within their means once again.

And now, with the economy only partially healed, it seems we’re going back to the lend-and-spend economy that failed us before.For the past six or seven years, most of what the Federal Reserve has done to fix the problem has been focused on getting the credit spigot turned back on: cutting interest rates and hectoring banks to start lending again, even though demand for loans was weak….

Read more at Middle class is drowning in debt, hobbling the economy – Rex Nutting – MarketWatch.

Quant Funds Are Hot Again | Morningstar

By Greg Carlson

Funds that use quantitative stock-picking models are on a roll. A list of 52 U.S.-sold quant funds compiled by Morningstar beat more than 80% of their respective peers over the trailing three years through June 13, and the group outperformed its respective peers in 2011, 2012, 2013, and thus far in 2014.

Read more at Quant Funds Are Hot Again.

Good week for the S&P 500 but not the ASX

Summary:

  • A good week for US markets.
  • China continues to threaten further down-side.
  • The ASX 200, pulled in opposite directions, is range bound for the present.
  • Momentum strategies require persistence.

The S&P 500 broke through 1950 and is expected to test the next resistance level at 2000*. Rising 21-day Twiggs Money Flow signals medium-term buying pressure. Reversal below 1925 is unlikely at present but would warn of a correction.

S&P 500

* Target calculation: 1900 + ( 1900 – 1800 ) = 2000

The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) continues its downward path, indicating low risk typical of a bull market.

S&P 500 VIX

The Shanghai Composite Index rebounded Friday after a tough week and continues to test primary support at 1990/2000. Breach of support would signal a decline to 1850*. 21-Day Twiggs Money Flow oscillating above zero indicates buying support; a fall below zero would suggest selling pressure. The primary trend is expected to continue its downward path, but this is a managed descent and an abrupt fall seems unlikely.

Shanghai Composite

* Target calculation: 2000 – ( 2150 – 2000 ) = 1850

After a strong surge on Thursday the ASX 200 retreated below 5450 on Friday, suggesting another test of support at 5400. Reversal of 21-day Twiggs Money Flow below zero indicates medium-term selling pressure. Breach of support is likely and would indicate a correction to 5300. Recovery above 5500 is unlikely at present, but the long-term trend remains upward.

ASX 200

* Target calculation: 5400 + ( 5400 – 5000 ) = 5800

China’s export dilemna

Growth in value of exports from China has slowed to single figures since 2012. It will be difficult sustain current GDP growth if this trend continues.

China Exports

The Harper Petersen index of shipping rates for container vessels, the Harpex, remains near its 2010 low, reflecting continued weakness in Asian manufactured goods exports (a rise in exports from Europe or North America would be absorbed by the high percentage of containers returned empty to Asia on the round trip).

US Imports from China

Rising Australian bulk commodity exports reflect the disconnect between Chinese imports and exports, with vast investment in infrastructure and rising stockpiles of raw materials used to sustain economic growth. But diminishing marginal returns on further infrastructure and housing investment mean failed recovery of manufactured goods exports would lead to a hard landing.

Australian Bulk Commodity Exports

A key factor will be the strength of the RMB against the US Dollar. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard suggests that China will meet strong resistance in its attempts to export its deflation to the West. Treasury’s forex report to Congress (April 2014) highlight’s sensitivity toward further exchange rate manipulation:

In China, the RMB appreciated during 2013 on a trade-weighted basis, but not as fast or by as much as is needed, and large-scale intervention resumed. The RMB appreciated by 2.9 percent
against the dollar in 2013. However, as a result of the depreciation of the yen and many emerging market currencies, the RMB strengthened more on a trade-weighted basis, with the RMB’s nominal and real effective exchange rates rising 7.2 and 7.9 percent, respectively. For most of 2013 the RMB exchange rate was at, or very near, the most appreciated edge of the daily trading band, suggesting continuous pressure for greater RMB appreciation. During 2014, however, the exchange rate has reversed direction, depreciating by a marked 2.68 percent year to date.

There are a number of continuing signs that the exchange rate adjustment process remains incomplete and the currency has further to appreciate before reaching its equilibrium value. China continues to generate large current account surpluses and attracts large net inflows of foreign direct investment; China’s current account surplus plus inward foreign direct investment in 2013 exceeded $446 billion. The reduction in the current account surplus as a share of China’s GDP has largely been the reflection of the unsustainably rapid pace of investment growth. Finally, China has continued to see rapid productivity growth, which suggests that continuing appreciation is necessary over time to prevent the exchange rate from becoming more undervalued. All of these factors indicate a RMB exchange rate that remains significantly undervalued. Further exchange rate appreciation would help to smoothly rebalance the Chinese economy away from investment toward consumption.

The Chinese authorities have been unwilling to allow an appreciation large enough to bring the currency to market equilibrium, opting instead for a gradual adjustment which has now been partially reversed . The expectation that the RMB would continue to appreciate over time resulted in large and increasing capital inflows in 2013. The PBOC’s policy of gradual adjustment triggered expectations of continued appreciation, and resulted in large-scale foreign exchange intervention. China’s foreign exchange reserves increased sharply in 2013, by $509.7 billion, which was a record for a single year. China has continued large-scale purchases of foreign exchange in the first quarter of this year, despite having accumulated $3.8 trillion in reserves, which are excessive by any measure. This suggests continued actions to impede market determination.

In short, China has been buying US Treasurys as a form of vendor financing, allowing them to export to the US while preventing the RMB from appreciating to its natural, market-clearing level against the Dollar. The fact that they are attempting to disguise this manipulation, using third parties, means that Congress is unlikely to tolerate further suppression of the RMB against the Dollar and will be forced to take action.

Is China hiding its FX reserves in...Belgium?

Feared sales of US Treasury investments by China, leading to a collapse of the Dollar, are most unlikely and would be a death knell for Chinese exports. Reversal of capital flows would cause rapid appreciation of the RMB against the Dollar, up-ending China’s former competitive advantage and boosting US exports.

Even without a reduction of existing Treasury holdings, appreciation of the RMB against the Dollar and Euro appears inevitable. This would be disastrous for China, causing them to forfeit their competitive advantage in export markets. And without access to the level of technology and global branding enjoyed by their Western counterparts, Chinese exporters are likely to struggle to hold existing markets, let alone achieve further growth. With diminishing returns on infrastructure and housing investment, China could soon run out of options to stimulate its economy. And its path as a global economic powerhouse may well follow that of its predecessor, Japan.

Is the market over-priced?

In my last post I concluded that the same factors driving rising inequality — new technologies and access to cheap labor through increased globalization — may also be driving a sustainable increase in corporate profits. While we may be understandably wary of “this time is different”, consider the following:

The rise of China as a trading partner over the last two decades.

US Imports from China

Corporate profits at 11% of GNP suggest a new paradigm when compared to the historic (normal) range of 5% to 7%.

Corporate Profits/GNP

The decline in employee compensation as a percentage of corporate value added mirrors the rise in corporate profits.

Employee Compensation/Value Added

And Robert Shiller’s CAPE, normally used to argue that the market is currently overpriced. If we stood in 1994 and looked at the range of CAPE values for the past century, we would no doubt have concluded that a CAPE value greater than 20 indicates the market is overpriced. In the last two decades, the CAPE only briefly dipped below 20 at the height of the global financial crisis. Now pundits argue that a CAPE value greater than 25 indicates the market is overpriced. Something has definitely changed.

Shiller CAPE

Whether the change is sustainable, only time will tell. But one thing is clear. Of the 466 corporations who have so far reported earnings for the first quarter 2014, 77% have either beaten (68%) or met (9%) their estimates. Corporate profits are not in imminent danger of collapse.

The Inequality Puzzle | Lawrence H. Summers

Larry Summers exposes the flaw in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Piketty argues that inequality is rising because the rate of return on capital is higher than the economy’s growth rate.

Does not the rising share of profits in national income in most industrial countries over the last several decades prove out Piketty’s argument? Only if one assumes that the only factors at work are the ones he emphasizes. Rather than attributing the rising share of profits to the inexorable process of wealth accumulation, most economists would attribute both it and rising inequality to the working out of various forces associated with globalization and technological change. For example, mechanization of what was previously manual work quite obviously will raise the share of income that comes in the form of profits. So does the greater ability to draw on low-cost foreign labor.

Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that two events occur together does not prove that one has caused the other.

Summers also addresses whether returns on capital are largely reinvested:

A brief look at the Forbes 400 list also provides only limited support for Piketty’s ideas that fortunes are patiently accumulated through reinvestment. When Forbes compared its list of the wealthiest Americans in 1982 and 2012, it found that less than one tenth of the 1982 list was still on the list in 2012, despite the fact that a significant majority of members of the 1982 list would have qualified for the 2012 list if they had accumulated wealth at a real rate of even 4 percent a year. They did not, given pressures to spend, donate, or misinvest their wealth. In a similar vein, the data also indicate, contra Piketty, that the share of the Forbes 400 who inherited their wealth is in sharp decline.

That income inequality is rising is undisputed, but the causes are not as simple as Piketty assumes. His proposal of a progressive tax on wealth is unlikely to see the light of day: the history of inheritance taxes is an indication of their ineffectiveness. But a shift away from income taxes towards land taxes and other flat rate, indirect taxes would provide a significant boost to the economy as illustrated by the following chart from the Henry Review.

Marginal welfare loss from a small increase in selected Australian taxes

Marginal welfare loss is the loss in consumer welfare per dollar of revenue raised for a small increase in each tax (the extent of compensation required to restore consumer satisfaction reflects the distorting effect of the tax on the economy). A decrease in the level of tax, on the other hand, would be likely to produce a similar-sized benefit. So a trade off between taxes at the top of the scale and those at the bottom would be expected to deliver a substantial net benefit.

Read more at Lawrence H. Summers for Democracy Journal: The Inequality Puzzle.

Is the S&P 500 overvalued?

The daily press appears convinced the S&P 500 is overvalued and due for a crash. Yet the macro-economic and volatility filters that we use at Porter Capital and Research & Investment — to identify market risk so that we can move to cash when risks are elevated — show no signs of stress. So I have been delving into some of the aggregate index data, kindly provided by Standard and Poors, to see whether some of their arguments hold water.

The Price-Earnings ratio for the S&P 500 itself is not excessive when compared to the last decade.

S&P 500 Price-Earnings ratio

The bears argue, however, that earnings are unsustainable. One reason advanced for this is that earnings growth has outstripped sales, with corporations focusing on the bottom line rather than business growth.

Faced with weak domestic demand, large US corporates have actively sought to manage their expenses so as to meet and exceed the market’s expectations. Combined with the unwinding of provisions taken in the GFC, cost management has allowed US corporates to achieve a 124% increase in 12-month trailing earnings off the back of a 25% increase in 12-month trailing sales since October 2009.
~ Elliott Clarke, Westpac

That may be so, but any profit increase would look massive if compared to earnings in 2009. When we plot earnings against sales (per share), it tells a different story. Earnings as a percentage of sales is in the same band (7% – 9%) as 2003 to 2006. A rise above 9% would suggest that earnings may not be sustainable, but not if they continue in their current range.

S&P 500 Earnings/Sales

The second reason advanced is that business investment is falling. Westpac put up a chart that shows US equipment investment growth is close to zero. But we also need to consider that accelerated tax write-offs led to a surge in investment in 2009/2010. The accelerated write-offs expired, but the level of investment merely stopped growing and has not fallen as I had expected.

Westpac: US Equipment Investment Poor

Private (non-residential) fixed investment as a whole is rising as a percentage of GDP, not falling.

S&P 500 Price to Book Value

Lastly, when we compare the S&P 500 to underlying net asset value per share, it shows how frothy the market was before the Dotcom crash, with the index trading at 5 times book value. That kind of premium is clearly unsustainable without double-digit GDP growth, which was never going to happen. But the current ratio of below 2.50 is modest compared to the past decade and quite sustainable.

S&P 500 Price to Book Value

I am not saying that everything is rosy — it never is — but if sales and earnings continue to grow apace, and with private fixed investment rising, the current price-earnings ratio does not look excessive.

A Century of Policy Mistakes | Niels Jensen

In A Century of Policy Mistakes Neils Jensen describes the demise of Argentina over the last 100 years.

A century ago Argentina ranked as one of the wealthiest countries in world, behind the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia but ahead of countries such as France, Germany and Italy. Its per capita income was 92% of the G16 average; it is 43% today. Life in Argentina was good. It enjoyed the benefits of one of the highest growth rates in the world and attracted immigrants left, right and centre. Boom times galore.

Argentina’s wealth was based on agriculture, but also on its strong ties with the UK, the pre-World War I global powerhouse. Equally importantly, it understood the importance of free trade and took advantage of the relatively open markets which prevailed in the years leading to the Great War. Most importantly, though, it benefitted from, but also relied upon, enormous inflows of capital from the rest of the world. All of this is well documented in a recent piece in The Economist which you can find here.

Neils identifies three main causes:

  1. An over-reliance on commodities;
  2. Failure to invest in education; and
  3. An increasingly closed, inward-looking economy.
  4. It occurred to me that, apart from education, Australia has made the same mistakes.

    Read more at A Century of Policy Mistakes | Niels Jensen – Absolute Return Partners | PRAGMATIC CAPITALISM.

Declining US commercial bank loans?

Sober Look highlights the sharply declining ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits.

Ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits

Its only when we examine the detail, however, that we note cash reserves have ballooned in the last 10 years. And most of those cash reserves are deposits at the Fed which now (post-GFC) earn interest. Adjust total deposits at commercial banks, for the excess reserves deposited back with the Fed, and the current ratio of 1:1 looks a lot healthier.

Ratio of commercial bank loans and leases to bank deposits Adjusted for Excess Reserves

As I pointed out in November, most new money created by the Fed QE program is being deposited straight back with the Fed as excess reserves. We need to adjust bank deposits for this effect to obtain a true reflection of bank lending activity.

Are US corporate profits sustainable?

Fierce debate has been raging as to whether rising US corporate profits are sustainable or likely to shrink, leaving the market overvalued. Consideration of some of the key contributing factors will enable us to assess if and when this is likely to occur.

Interest Rates

Low interest rates are clearly boosting corporate profits. The inverse relationship is evident from the strong profits recorded in the 1950s, when corporate bond rates were lower than at present, and also the big hole in profits in the 1980s, when interest rates spiked dramatically during Paul Volcker’s reign at the Fed.

Corporate Profits and AAA Bond Yields

The outlook for inflation is muted and the rise in interest rates is likely to be gradual and over several years, rather than a sharp spike, if the Fed has its way.

Employee compensation

Employee Compensation as a percentage of Net Value Added (by Corporate Business) has fallen sharply since the GFC, boosting corporate profits. Again we can observe an inverse relationship, with corporate profits spiking when compensation rates fall, and vice versa.

Employee Compensation compared to Net Value Added

A sharp fall in unemployment would send wage rates soaring, as employers bid for scarce labor. But that is not yet on the horizon and we are likely to experience soft wage rates in the medium-term (one to two years).

Corporate Tax Rates

The third element is the effective corporate tax rate which has fallen to an historic low, post GFC. Part of this can be attributed to tax losses incurred during the GFC, used to shield current income. The effect is likely to be short-lived, causing effective tax rates to drift upwards, towards pre-GFC rates around 24%.

Effective Corporate Tax Rate

Conclusion

The sharp rise in corporate profits is unsustainable in the long-term, but adjustments in the medium-term are likely to be modest. Higher wages and interest rates will have a more significant impact in the long-term, but are only likely to occur when sound economic growth is restored — which in turn would have a compensatory effect on corporate profits.

The quality of a person’s life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor.
~ Vince Lombardi