An overview on financial and commodity markets for last month
An overview on financial and commodity markets for last month
Linear Talk – Macro Roundup – 17th October 2017
Financial market liquidity returned after the thin trading which is typical of August. Stocks and crude oil were higher and the US$ made new lows. But a number of individual markets are noteworthy.
The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 both achieved record highs last month (2519 and 6013 respectively). In the case of the S&P this is the sixth straight month of higher closes, even as flow of funds data indicates a rotation into international equity markets.
The Eurostoxx 50 took comfort from the US move, closing the month at its high (3595) yet it remains below the level seen in May (3667) tempered, no doubt, by the strength of the Euro.
German Elections, showing a rise in support for the nationalist AfD and the prospect of an unconstitutional independence referendum in Catalonia, made little impression on European equity markets. The DAX also closed at its high (12,829) but, it too, failed to breach its record for the year of 12,952 witnessed in June.
Spain’s IBEX 35 was more susceptible to the political fracas in its north eastern region, but with other markets rising, it traded in a narrow range, closing at 10,382 on the eve of the referendum, having actually begun the month lower, at 10,329.
The Japanese Nikkei 225 remained well supported but still failed to breach resistance, making a high of 20,481 on the 18th. It has since taken out the old high. This move is supported by stronger economic data and revised growth forecasts from the IMF (released after month end).
Currency markets have been dominated by the weakness of the US$ since January. Last month was no exception. The US$ Index made a new low for the year at 90.99 on the 8th but swiftly recovered, testing 93.80 on the 28th. Technically, this low breached the 50% correction of the move from the May 2014 low of 78.93 to the January 2017 high of 103.81. Further support should be found at 88.43 (61.8% retracement) but price action in EURUSD suggests that we may be about to see a reversal of trend.
EURUSD made a new high for the year at 1.2094 on the 8th, amid rumours of ECB intervention. By month end it had weakened, testing 1.1721 on 28th. This has created a technical ‘outside month’ – a higher high and lower low than the previous month. For this pattern to be negated EURUSD must trade back above 1.2094.
EURGBP also witnessed a sharp correction the initial Sterling weakness which was a feature of the summer months. From an opening high of 0.9235 Sterling steadily strengthened to close at 0.8819. Nonetheless, Sterling remains weaker against the Euro than in 2013, amid fears of a ‘No Deal’ on Brexit and continued expectations of an economic slowdown due to the political uncertainty of that exit.
US 10yr Treasuries made a new low yield for the year at 2.02% on 8th. This is the lowest yield since the November 2016 election, however, expectations of another rate hike and the announcement of a planned balance sheet reduction schedule from the Federal Reserve, tempered the enthusiasm of the bond bulls. By month end, yields had risen 32bp to close at 2.34%.
In Germany 10yr Bund yields followed a similar trajectory to the US. Making a low of 0.29% on 8th only to increase to 0.52% by 28th. Increasing support for the AfD in the election, was largely ignored.
A trade which has been evident during 2017 has been the convergence of core and peripheral European bond yields. The larger markets such as Italy and Spain have mostly mirrored the price action of Bunds, their spreads widening moderately in the process. The yield on Portuguese and Greek bonds, by contrast has declined substantially, although there was a slight widening during September. Greek 10yr bonds, which yielded 8.05% at the end of January, closed the month at 5.67%. Over the same period 10yr Bunds have seen yields rise by 6bp.
UK 10yr Gilts also had an interesting month. From a low of 0.97% on 7th they reached 1.42% on 28th amid concerns about Brexit, the recent weakness in Sterling (which appears to have been temporarily reversed) and expectations that Bank of England Governor, Carney, will raise UK interest rates for the first time since June 2007. It is tempting to conceive that either the rise in Gilt yields or the recent rise in Sterling is wrong, these trends might both continue. Long Sterling and Short Gilts might be a trade worthy of consideration.
Perhaps anticipating the IMF – World Economic Outlook – October update, in which they revised their world growth forecasts for 2017 and 2018 upwards, the price of Brent Crude rallied to a new high for the year on 26th – $59.49/bbl. Aside from expectations of an increase in demand, the effect of two hurricanes in the US and a strengthening of resolve on the part of OPEC to limit production, may be contribution factors.
Copper also hit a new high for the year, trading $3.16/lb on 4th. Technically, however, it made an outside month (higher high and lower low than August) a break above $3.16/lb will negate this bearish formation. I remain concerned that Chinese growth during 2017 has been front-loaded. Industrial metal markets may well consolidate, with a vengeance, before deciding whether increased demand is seasonal or structural.
Macro Letter – No 78 – 02-06-2017
Trade and protectionism post globalisation
The success of free-trade and globalisation has been a boon for less developed countries but, to judge by the behaviour of the developed world electorate of late, this has been at the expense of the poorer and less well educated peoples of the developed nations. Income inequality in the west has been a focus of considerable debate among economists. The “Elephant Chart” below being but one personification of this trend:-
Source: Economist, World Bank
If the graph looks familiar it’s because I last discussed this topic back in November 2016 in – Protectionism: which countries have room for fiscal expansion? This is what I said about the chart at that time:-
What this chart reveals is that people earning between the 70th and 90th percentile have seen considerably less increase in income relative to their poor (and richer) peers. I imagine a similar chart up-dated to 2016 will show an even more pronounced decline in the fortunes of the lower paid workers of G7.
The unforeseen consequence to this incredible achievement – bringing so many of the world’s poor out of absolute poverty – has been to alienate many of the developed world’s poorer paid citizens. They have borne the brunt of globalisation without participating in much, if any, of the benefit.
It can be argued that this chart is not a fair representation of the reality in the west. This excellent video by Johan Norberg – Dead Wrong – The Elephant Graph – makes some important observations but, as a portfolio manager, friend of mine reminded me recently, when considering human action one should not focus on absolute change in economic circumstances, but relative change. What did he I mean by this? Well, let’s take income inequality. The rich are getting richer and the poor are…getting richer less quickly.
In the dismal science, as Carlyle once dubbed economics, we often take a half-empty view of the world. Take real average income. Since 2008 people have become worse-off as the chart below for the UK shows:-
However, in the long-run we have become better-off for generations. What really drives prosperity, by which I mean our quality of life, is productivity gains: our ability to harness technology to improve the production of goods and services.
Financial markets are said to be driven by fear and greed. Society in general is also driven by these factors but there is an additional driver: envy. Any politician who ignores the power of envy, inevitably truncates his or her career.
The gauntlet was thrown down recently by the new US administration: their focus was on those countries with trade surpluses with the US. Accusations of trade and currency manipulation play well to the disenfranchised American voter.
Well before the arrival of the new US President, however, a degree of rebalancing had already begun to occur when China adopted policies to increase domestic consumption back in 2012. A recent white paper entitled – Is the Global Economy Rebalancing? By Focus Economics – looks at the three countries with the largest persistent current account surpluses: China, Germany and Japan. As they comment in their introduction, a current account surplus may be derived by many different means:-
Decades of conflicting perspectives over the causes and effects of global trade imbalances have been thrust back into the spotlight in recent months by Donald Trump’s brazen criticism of almost every country with a significant current account surplus with the U.S. His controversial accusation that big exporter countries are deliberately weakening their currencies to gain a competitive advantage taps into an issue that has perplexed and divided economists and policymakers ever since the mid-1990s. At that time, countries such as the U.S. were starting to build up large current account deficits, while others such as China, Germany and Japan were accumulating large surpluses.
Put simply, a country’s current account balance measures the difference between how much it spends and makes abroad. Trade in goods usually—but not always—accounts for most of the current account, while the other components are trade in services, income from foreign investment and employment (known as ‘primary income’), and transfer payments such as foreign aid and remittances (known as ‘secondary income’).
A current account surplus or deficit is not necessarily in and of itself a good or bad thing, since a number of considerations must be factored in—for example, in the case of deficit countries, whether they make a return on their investments that exceeds the costs of funding them. A large current account surplus can be considered a desirable sign of an efficient and competitive economy if it comprises a positive trade balance generated by market forces. And yet such competitiveness can also be falsely created to an extent by policy decisions (e.g. a deliberate currency weakening), or may alternatively be a sign of overly weak domestic demand in a highly productive country. Therein lies the crux of the controversy, or at least one of many.
Global imbalances were a critically important contributing factor to the financial crisis, although they did not in themselves cause it. Even if the precise nature of that connection has sparked different interpretations, there is at least more or less agreement on the fundamentals of the part played by trade relations between the U.S. and China, the two countries traditionally responsible for the lion’s share of global imbalances. Credit-fueled growth in the U.S. encouraged consumers to spend more, including on products originating in China, thereby further increasing the U.S. trade deficit with China and prompting China to “recycle” the dollars gained by buying U.S. assets (mostly Treasury notes). This, in turn, helped to keep U.S. interest rates low, encouraging ever greater bank lending, which pushed up housing prices, caused a subprime mortgage crisis and ultimately ended in a nasty deleveraging process.
Services and investment balances can be difficult to measure accurately; trade data is easier to calculate. Here are the three current account surplus countries in terms of their trade balances:-
Source: Trading Economics, Chinese General Administration of Customs
Interestingly, China’s trade balance has declined despite the recent devaluation in the value of the Yuan versus the US$.
Source: Trading Economics, German Federal Statistics Office
The relative weakness of the Euro seems to have underpinned German exports. On this basis, the weakening of the Euro, resulting from the Brexit vote, has been an economic boon!
Source: Trading Economics, Japanese Ministry of Finance
The Abenomics policy of the three arrows whilst it has succeeded in weakening the value of the Yen, has done little to stem its steadily deteriorating trade balance. The Yen has risen ever since the ending of Bretton Woods, it behoves Japanese companies to invest aboard. The relative strength of the current account is the result of Japanese investment abroad.
Trade data is not without its flaws, even in a brand dominated business such as automobiles the origin of manufacture can turn out to be less obvious than it might at first appear. According to the Kogod – Made in America Auto Index 2016 – at 81% the Honda Accord ranks fifth out of all automobiles, in terms of the absolute percentage of an entire vehicle which is built in the USA, well above the level of many Ford and General Motors vehicles.
Conclusions and Investment Opportunities
The financial markets will react differently in each country to the headwinds of de-globalisation and the rise of protectionism. The US, however, presents an opportunity to examine the outcome for a largest economy in the world.
The US currency’s initial reaction to the Trump election win was a significant rise. The US$ Index rallied from 97.34 on the eve of the election to test 103.81 at the beginning of January. Since then, as the absolute power, or lack thereof, of the new president has become apparent, the US$ Index has retraced the entire move. Protectionism on the basis of this analysis is likely to be UD$ positive. In the long run protectionist policies act as a drag on economic growth. The USA has the largest absolute trade deficit. Lower global economic growth will either lead to a rise in the US trade deficit or a strengthening of the US$, or, perhaps, a combination of the two.
Interest rates and bonds may be less affected by the strength of the US currency in a protectionist scenario, but domestic wage inflation is likely to increase in the medium term, especially if border controls are tightened further, closing off the flow of immigrant workers.
US stocks should initially benefit from the reduction in competition derived from a protectionist agenda but in the process the long run competitiveness of these firms will be undermined. The continual breaching to new highs which has been evident in the S&P 500 (and recently, the Nasdaq) is at least partially due to expectation of the agenda of the new administration. These policies include the lowering of corporation tax rates (from 35% to 15%) to bring them in line with Germany, infrastructure spending (in the order of $1trln) and protectionist pressure to “Buy American, Hire American”. Short term the market is still rising but valuations are becoming stretched by many metrics, as I said recently in Trumped or Stumped? The tax cut, the debt ceiling and riding the gravy train:-
Pro-business US economic policy will continue to drive US stocks: the words of Pink Floyd spring to mind…we call it riding the gravy train.
Macro Letter – No 76 – 05-05-2017
Trumped or Stumped? The tax cut, the debt ceiling and riding the gravy train
“Our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix mess!”
Donald J. Trump
The current US debt ceiling is set at $19.8trln. Debt levels are already close to that level and special accounting measures have already been implemented by the US Treasury. This year alone total federal expenditures will be $3.7trln – leaving a tax shortfall of $559bln. Meanwhile, last week, Treasury Secretary, Mnuchin announced the long awaited tax cut plan. It included a proposal to reduce the US corporate tax rate to 15% from the current level of 35%. This, it is estimated by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, will increase the government deficit by $5.5trln over the next decade.
The Trump administrations other spending plans remain on the agenda, including $1trln for infrastructure, $54bln for the military and – assuming the Mexican’s can’t pay and won’t pay – $10bln for the Southern Border Wall.
How can this possibly add up? Through spending cuts, is the simple answer. Cuts have already been made to the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, Inland Revenue Service and Department of Education but around 65% of government expenditure, in areas such as welfare and healthcare, have been ring-fenced – they will remain off-limits. Balancing the books is going to be an awesome conjuring trick.
Even by the more conservative estimates of the Tax Foundation, the proposed tax cut will cost $2.2trln over the next 10 years. They estimate economic growth would increase by 0.4% as a result of the tax reduction, but point out that +0.9% annual GDP growth is required to offset the estimated decline in tax revenues. The sums do not appear to balance.
The chart below looks at US investment as a percentage of GDP going back to 1950, the era of Reaganomics (1981-1989) when the last substantial tax cuts occurred, suggests that the positive impact of tax reduction on economic growth, if Art Laffer is correct, may be, to borrow a phrase from Milton Friedman, long and variable:-
Source: The Economist, BEA
The Cato Institute – Lessons from the Reagan Tax Cuts which was published at this week, makes a number of observations (see below) but this chart, showing the GDP growth in the Reagan and Obama recessions, is instructive:-
Source: Cato Institute
One may argue that the Reagan period was an era of much higher inflation and therefore dispute the real-GDP growth differential, but the Cato Institute produce further evidence to support their argument, that tax cuts boost economic growth. Here are some of the highlights:-
Lesson #1: Lower Tax Rates Can Boost Growth
We can draw some conclusions by looking at how low-tax economies such as Singapore and Hong Kong outperform the United States. Or we can compare growth in the United States with the economic stagnation in high-tax Europe.
Source: Maddison, Cato
We can also compare growth during the Reagan years with the economic malaise of the 1970s.
Moreover, there’s lots of academic evidence showing that lower tax rates lead to better economic performance
The bottom line is that people respond to incentives. When tax rates climb, there’s more “deadweight loss” in the economy. So when tax rates fall, output increases.
Lesson #2: Some Tax Cuts “Pay for Themselves”
The key insight of the Laffer Curve is not that tax cuts are self-financing. Instead, the lesson is simply that certain tax cuts (i.e., lower marginal rates on productive behavior) lead to more economic activity. Which is another way of saying that certain tax cuts lead to more taxable income.
It’s then an empirical issue to assess the level of revenue feedback.
In the vast majority of the cases, the revenue feedback caused by more taxable income isn’t enough to offset the revenue loss associated with lower tax rates. However, we do have very strong evidence that upper-income taxpayers actually paid more to the IRS because of the Reagan tax cuts.
This is presumably because wealthier taxpayers have much greater ability to control the timing, level, and composition of their income.
Lesson #3: Reagan Put the United States on a Path to Fiscal Balance
I already explained above why it is wrong to blame the Reagan tax cuts for the recession-driven deficits of the early 1980s. Indeed, I suspect most leftists privately agree with that assessment.
Source: CBO, Cato
But there’s still a widespread belief that Reagan’s tax policy put the United States on an unsustainable fiscal path.
Yet the Congressional Budget Office, as Reagan left office in early 1989, projected that budget deficits, which had been consistently shrinking as a share of GDP, would continue to shrink if Reagan’s policies were left in place.
Moreover, the deficit was falling because government spending was projected to grow slower than the private sector, which is the key to good fiscal policy.
The Border Tax
One of the ways the Trump administration intend to balance the books is through the imposition of border taxes. They may become embroiled in the quagmire of legal challenges, that they are in contravention of World Trade Organisation rules, but I shall leave that topic for another time.
This February 2017 article from the Peterson Institute – PIIE Debates Border Adjustment Tax is an excellent primer on the pros and cons of this controversial policy proposal. The Peterson conference delegates did manage to concur that the corporate tax rate should be lower – the Trump proposal would merely bring the rate in line with the current level of corporate tax in Germany. The delegates also agreed that some form of ad valorem tax should be introduced to make up the tax shortfall, although they accepted that this would directly encroach on individual State taxation systems. Peterson’s Adam Posen raised the valid concern that VAT tends to fall most heavily upon the poorest in society, thus increasing income inequality still further. Adjusting the tax system is always fraught with dangers.
At the heart of the Peterson debate was the impact a Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) would have on US businesses:-
Figure 1 below shows net exports to total trade in a sector, relative to how labor intensive the sector is. The size of the bubbles reflects the size of total trade in the sector. Two things are important: (1) Most industries are net importers, thus they believe they will be forced to raise prices under the proposal. (2) The industries that will gain the most—those with a relatively high labor cost share and positive net exports—are largely absent in the United States. The aerospace industry is the lone exception. This breakdown implies that many more big lobbies will be against the BAT than in favor.
Source: BLS, US Census Bureau
BAT revenues are estimated to be around $100bln per annum, about half the cost of the corporate tax cut, using the more conservative Tax Foundation estimate, however, this assumes that the trade deficit remains unchanged in response to the imposition of BAT. Whilst some countries will see their currencies decline versus the US$ the recent plight of the Mexican Peso begs caution. It depreciated from USDMXN 18.2 to 21 versus the US$ in the aftermath of the US election but has since recovered to around USDMXN 19.
Financial Market Response and Investment Opportunities
The table below shows the level of the US$ Index, S&P500 Stock Index and the US 10yr Government Bond Yield on elections week and yesterday:-
It is worth noting that the US$ Index initially strengthened into the end of 2016, testing 104. It has subsequently moderated. 10yr bond yields also rose sharply, reaching 2.64%, but have since consolidated. It is the US stock market, which continues to achieve new all-time highs, which maintains faith in the pro-business credentials of the new administration.
The US bond market is dogged by the twin concerns of the fiscal profligacy of the government on the one hand and the hawkish intentions of the Federal Reserve, determined to normalise interest rates whilst they still can, on the other.
US GDP growth moderated in Q1. Commodity prices for staples, such as Iron Ore, Copper and Oil have diminished, as Chinese demand has waned of late. Meanwhile rising purchasing managers indices seem to be correlating with a rise in inventories. Personal income continues to growth slowly and personal savings has remains subdued, household debt to GDP is rising slightly but it remains well below the levels seen early in the decade. Consumers are unlikely to increase spending dramatically until they are more confident about long-term employment prospects. I wrote, last month about the impact of technology on jobs, in – Will technology change the prospects for emerging market growth? The impact on developed market employment will also be profound, but, I believe, it is also influencing the consumers’ response to higher prices. As prices rise, demand will fall. Central Banks should not target an inflation rate because it distorts the efficient working of the economy, but wage inflation, about which they are inclined to obsess, is likely to be subdued for a protracted period – years rather than months – by the effects of new technology.
Where does this leave stocks and bonds? Bond yields may rise if the US government deficit explodes: and a significant increase in bond yields will inevitably detract from the allure of the stock market. For the present, however, we continue to make new highs in stocks – the Nasdaq finally breached its, dot-com induced, 2000 highs at the end of April, after sixteen years – S&P500 valuations are high (a PE of 23 times and a CAPE of 27 times earnings) and yet “Buy American, Hire American” is a compelling slogan. As an international firm, hoping to continue selling your products to the United States, it makes sense to invest there. Pro-business US economic policy will continue to drive US stocks: the words of Pink Floyd spring to mind…we call it riding the gravy train.
Macro Letter – No 73 – 24-03-2017
Can a multi-speed European Union evolve?
At the Malta Summit last month German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters:-
We certainly learned from the history of the last years, that there will be as well a European Union with different speeds that not all will participate every time in all steps of integration.
On March 1st the European Commission released a white paper entitled the Future of Europe. This is a discussion document for debate next week, when members of the EU gather in Rome to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome.
The White Paper sets out five scenarios for the potential state of the Union by 2025:-
Scenario 1: Carrying On – The EU27 focuses on delivering its positive reform agenda in the spirit of the Commission’s New Start for Europe from 2014 and of the Bratislava Declaration agreed by all 27 Member States in 2016. By 2025 this could mean: Europeans can drive automated and connected cars but can encounter problems when crossing borders as some legal and technical obstacles persist. Europeans mostly travel across borders without having to stop for checks. Reinforced security controls mean having to arrive at airports and train stations well in advance of departure.
Scenario 2: Nothing but the Single Market – The EU27 is gradually re-centred on the single market as the 27 Member States are not able to find common ground on an increasing number of policy areas. By 2025 this could mean: Crossing borders for business or tourism becomes difficult due to regular checks. Finding a job abroad is harder and the transfer of pension rights to another country not guaranteed. Those falling ill abroad face expensive medical bills. Europeans are reluctant to use connected cars due to the absence of EU-wide rules and technical standards.
Scenario 3: Those Who Want More Do More – The EU27 proceeds as today but allows willing Member States to do more together in specific areas such as defence, internal security or social matters. One or several “coalitions of the willing” emerge. By 2025 this could mean that: 15 Member States set up a police and magistrates corps to tackle cross-border criminal activities. Security information is immediately exchanged as national databases are fully interconnected. Connected cars are used widely in 12 Member States which have agreed to harmonise their liability rules and technical standards.
Scenario 4: Doing Less More Efficiently – The EU27 focuses on delivering more and faster in selected policy areas, while doing less where it is perceived not to have an added value. Attention and limited resources are focused on selected policy areas. By 2025 this could mean A European Telecoms Authority will have the power to free up frequencies for cross-border communication services, such as the ones used by connected cars. It will also protect the rights of mobile and Internet users wherever they are in the EU.A new European Counter-terrorism Agency helps to deter and prevent serious attacks through a systematic tracking and flagging of suspects.
Scenario 5: Doing Much More Together – Member States decide to share more power, resources and decision-making across the board. Decisions are agreed faster at European level and rapidly enforced. By 2025 this could mean: Europeans who want to complain about a proposed EU funded wind turbine project in their local area cannot reach the responsible authority as they are told to contact the competent European authorities. Connected cars drive seamlessly across Europe as clear EU-wide rules exist. Drivers can rely on an EU agency to enforce the rules.
There is not much sign of a multi-speed approach in the above and yet, on 6th March the leaders of Germany, France, Italy and Spain convened in Versailles where they jointly expressed the opinion that allowing the EU to integrate at different speeds would re-establish confidence among citizens in the value of collective European action.
There are a couple of “general instruments”, contained in existing treaties, which give states some flexibility; ECFR – How The EU Can Bend Without Breaking suggests “Enhanced Cooperation” and “Permanent Structured Cooperation”(PESCO) as examples, emphasis mine:-
Enhanced cooperation was devised with the Amsterdam Treaty…in 1997, and revised in successive treaty reforms in Nice and Lisbon. Enhanced cooperation is stipulated as a procedure whereby a minimum of nine EU countries are allowed to establish advanced cooperation within the EU structures. The framework for the application of enhanced cooperation is rigid: It is only allowed as a means of last resort, not to be applied within exclusive competencies of the union. It needs to: respect the institutional framework of the EU (with a strong role for the European Commission in particular); support the aim of an ever-closer union; be open to all EU countries in principle; and not harm the single market. In this straitjacket, enhanced cooperation has so far been used in the fairly technical areas of divorce law and patents, and property regimes for international couples. Enhanced cooperation on a financial transaction tax has been in development since 2011, but the ten countries cooperating on this have struggled to come to a final agreement.
PESCO allows a core group of member states to make binding commitments to each other on security and defence, with a more resilient military and security architecture as its aim. It was originally initiated at the European Convention in 2003 to be part of the envisaged European Defence Union. At the time, this group would have consisted of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. After disagreements on defence spending in this group and the referendum defeat for the European Constitution which meant the end of the Defence Union, a revised version of PESCO was added into the Lisbon treaty. This revised version allows for more space for the member states to decide on the binding commitments, which of them form the group, and the level of investment. However, because of its history, some member states still regard it as a top-down process which lacks clarity about how the groups and criteria are established. So far, PESCO has not been used, but it has recently been put back on the agenda by a group of EU member states.
These do not get the EU very far, but the ECFR go on to mention an additional Schengen-style approach, where international treaties of EU members can be concluded outside of the EU framework. These treaties can later be adopted by other EU members.
As part of their research the ECFR carried out more than 100 interviews with government officials and experts at universities and think-tanks across the 28 member states to discover their motivation for adopting a more flexible approach. The chart below shows the outcomes:-
Interestingly, in two countries, Denmark and Greece, officials and experts believe that more flexibility will result in greater fragmentation. Nonetheless, officials and experts in Croatia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, and Spain are in favour of embracing a more flexible approach. Benelux and France remain sceptical. Here is how the map of Europe looks to the ECFR:-
The timeline for action is likely to be gradual. President Juncker’s plans to develop the ideas contained in the white paper in his State of the Union speech in September. The first policy proposals may be drafted in time for the European Council meeting in December. It is envisaged that an agreed course of action will be rolled out in time for the European Parliament elections in June 2019.
Can Europe wait?
Two years is not that long a time in European politics but financial markets may lack such patience. Here is the Greek government debt repayment schedule prior to the European Parliament Elections:-
Source: Wall Street Journal
This five year chart shows the steady rise in total Greek government debt:-
Source: Tradingeconomics, Bank of Greece
Greek debt totalled Eur 326bln in Q4 2016, the debt to GDP ratio for 2015 was 177%. Italy’s debt to GDP was a mere 133% over the same period.
The ECB would almost certainly like to taper its quantitative easing, especially in light of the current tightening by the US. It reduced its monthly purchases from Eur 80bln per month to Eur 60bln in December but financial markets only permitted Mr Draghi to escape unscathed because he extended the duration of the programme from March to December 2017. Further reductions in purchases may cause European government bond spreads to diverge dramatically. Since the beginning of the year 10yr BTPs have moved from 166bp over 10yr German Bunds to 2.11% – this spread has more than doubled since January 2016. The chart below shows the evolution of Eurozone long-term interest rates between October 2009 and November 2016:-
In 2011 the Euro Area debt to GDP ratio was 86%, by 2015 it had reached 91%. The table below shows the highest 10yr yield since the great financial crisis for a selection of Eurozone government bonds together with their ratios of debt to GDP. It goes on to show the same ratio at the end of 2015. Only Germany is in a stronger position today than it was during the Eurozone crisis in terms of its debt as a percentage of its GDP:-
Source: Trading Economics
Since these countries bond markets hit their yield highs during the Eurozone Crisis, Greece, Italy and Spain have seen an improvement in GDP growth, but only Spain is likely to achieve sufficient growth to reduce its debt burden. If the ECB is to cease killing the proverbial fatted calf, a less profligate fiscal approach is required.
Euro Area GDP averaged slightly less than 1.8% per annum over the last two years, yet the debt to GDP ratio only declined a little over 1% from its all-time high. Further European integration sounds excellent in theory but in practice any positive impact on economic growth is unlikely to be evident for several years.
EU integration has been moving at different speeds for years, if anything, the process has been held back by attempts to move in unison. There are risks of causing fragmentation with both approaches, either within countries or between them.
Conclusions and Investment Opportunities
Another Eurozone financial crisis cannot be ruled out this year. The political uncertainty of the Netherlands is past, but France may yet surprise. Once Germany has voted in September, it will be time to focus on the endeavours of the ECB. Their asset purchase programme is scheduled to end in December.
I would expect this programme to be extended once more, if not, the stresses which nearly tore the Eurozone asunder in 2011/2012 are likely to return. The fiscal position of the Euro Area is only slightly worse than it was five years ago, but, having flirted with the lowest yields ever recorded, bond markets have considerably further to fall in percentage terms than in during the previous crisis.
Spanish 10yr Bonos represents a better prospect than Italian 10yr BTPs, but one would have to endure negative carry to set up this spread trade: look for opportunities if the spread narrows towards zero. German Bunds are always likely to act as the safe haven in a crisis and their yields have risen substantially in the past year, yet at less than ½% they are 300bp below their “safe-haven” level of April 2011.
The Euro is unlikely to rally in this environment. The chart below shows the Euro Effective Exchange Rate since 2005:-
The all-time low for the Euro is 82.34 which was the level is plumbed back in October 2000. This does sound an outlandish target during the next debacle.
Euro weakness would, however, be supportive for export oriented European stocks. The weakness that stocks would initially suffer, as a result of the return of the Euro crisis, would quickly be reversed, in much the same manner that UK stocks were pummelled on the initial Brexit result only to rebound.
Macro Letter – No 72 – 10-03-2017
Low cost manufacturing in Asia – The Mighty Five – MITI V
The MITI V is the latest acronym to emerge from the wordsmiths at Deloitte’s. Malaysia, India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam. All these countries have a competitive advantage over China in the manufacture of labour intensive commodity type products like apparel, toys, textiles and basic consumer electronics. According to Deloitte’s 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index they are either among, or destined to join, the top 15 most competitive countries in the world for manufacturing, by the end of the decade. Here is the Deliotte 2016 ranking:-
The difficulty with grouping disparate countries together is that their differences are coalesced. Malaysia and Thailand are likely to excel in high to medium technology industries, their administrations are cognizant of the advantages of international trade. India, whilst it has enormous potential, both as an exporter and as a manufacturer for its vast domestic market, has, until recently, been less favourably disposed towards international trade and investment. Vietnam continues to benefit from its proximity to China. Indonesia, by contrast, has struggled with endemic corruption: its economy is decentralised and this vast country has major infrastructure challenges.
The table below is sorted by average earnings:-
Source: World Bank, Trading Economics
India and Vietnam look well placed to become the low-cost manufacturer of choice (though there are other contenders such as Bangladesh which should not be forgotten when considering comparative advantage).
Another factor to bear in mind is the inexorable march of technology. Bill Gates recently floated the idea of a Robot Tax, it met with condemnation in many quarters – Mises Institute – Bill Gates’s Robot Tax Is a Terrible Idea – examines the issue. The mere fact that a Robot Tax is being contemplated, points to the greatest single challenge to low-cost producers of goods, namely automation. Deliotte’s does not see this aspect of innovation displacing the low-cost manufacturing countries over the next few years, but it is important not to forget this factor in one’s assessment.
Before looking at the relative merits of each market from an investment perspective, here is what Deliotte’s describe as the opportunities and challenges facing each of these Asian Tigers:-
…has a low cost base with workers earning a quarter of what their counterparts earn in neighboring Singapore. The country also remains strongly focused on assembly, testing, design, and development involved in component parts and systems production, making it well suited to support high-tech sectors.
…is challenged by a talent shortage, political unrest, and comparatively low productivity.
Sixty-two percent of global manufacturing executives’ surveyed rank India as highly competitive on cost, closely mirroring China’s performance on this metric.
…highly skilled workforce and a particularly rich pool of English speaking scientists, researchers, and engineers which makes it well-suited to support high-tech sectors. India’s government also offers support in the form of initiatives and funding that focus on attracting manufacturing investments.
…challenged by poor infrastructure and a governance model that is slow to react
…As 43 percent of its US$174 billion in manufacturing exports require high-skill and technological intensity, India may have a strong incentive to solve its regulatory and bureaucratic challenges if it is to strengthen its candidacy as an alternative to China.
When it comes to manufacturing exports (US$167 billion in 2014), Thailand stands slightly below India, but exceeds Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia. This output is driven largely by the nation’s skilled workforce and high labor productivity, supported by a 90 percent national literacy rate, and approximately 100,000 engineering, technology, and science graduates every year.
…highly skilled and productive workforce creates relatively high labor costs at US$2.78 per hour in 2013.
…remains attractive to manufacturing companies, offering a lower corporate tax rate (20 percent) than Vietnam, India, Malaysia or Indonesia. Already well established with a booming automotive industry, Thailand may provide an option for manufacturers willing to navigate the political uncertainty that persists in the region.
Manufacturing labor costs in Indonesia are less than one-fifth of those in China.
…The island nation’s overall 10-year growth in productivity (50 percent) exceeds that of Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam,
…manufacturing GDP represents a significant portion of its overall GDP and with such a strong manufacturing focus, particularly in electronics, coupled with the sheer size of its population, Indonesia remains high on the list of alternatives for manufacturers looking to shift production capacity away from China in the future.
…comparatively low overall labor costs.
…has raised its overall productivity over the last 10 years, growing 49 percent during the period, outpacing other nations like Thailand and Malaysia. Such productivity has prompted manufacturers to construct billion-dollar manufacturing complexes in the country.
Deliotte’s go on to describe the incentives offered to multinational corporations by these countries:-
(1) numerous tax incentives in the form of tax holidays ranging from three to 10 years, (2) tax exemptions or reduced import duties, and (3) reduced duties on capital goods and raw materials used in export-oriented production.
Forecasts for 2017
In the nearer term the MITI V have more varied prospects, here are Focus Economics latest consensus GDP growth expectations from last month:-
Malaysia Economic Outlook 2017 GDP forecast 4.3%
…GDP recorded the strongest performance in four quarters in Q4, expanding at a better-than-expected rate of 4.5%.
…acceleration in fixed investment and resilient private consumption. Exports also showed a significant improvement, growing at the fastest pace since Q4 2015, thanks to a weaker ringgit and rising oil prices. However, the external sector’s net contribution to growth remained stable as imports also gained steam. Government consumption, which contracted for the first time since Q2 2014, was the only drag on growth in Q4, reflecting the government’s commitment to its fiscal consolidation agenda for 2016.
India Economic Outlook 2017 GDP forecast – 7.4%
Economic activity is beginning to firm after demonetization shocked the economy in the October to December period. The manufacturing PMI crossed into expansionary territory in January and imports rebounded.
…Despite the backdrop of more moderate growth, the government stuck to a market friendly budget for FY 2017
…which was presented on 1 February, pursues growth-supportive policies while targeting a narrower deficit of 3.2% of GDP…
…five states will conduct elections in February, with results to be announced on 11 March. The elections will test the electorate’s mood regarding the government after the economy’s tumultuous past months and ahead of the 2019 general vote.
Thailand Economic Outlook 2017 GDP forecast 3.2%
Growth decelerated mildly in the final quarter of 2016 due to subdued private consumption and a smaller contribution from the external sector. The economy expanded 3.0% annually in Q4, down from 3.2% in Q3.
…January, consumer confidence hit a nearly one-year high, while business sentiment receded mildly. On 27 January, the government announced supplementary fiscal stimulus of USD 5.4 billion for this year’s budget, which ends in September. The sum will be disbursed specifically in rural areas in a bid to close the growing inequality between urban and rural infrastructure and income. This shows that the military government is set to continue providing fiscal stimulus to GDP this year, which should spill over in the private sector via higher employment and improved economic sentiment.
Indonesia Economic Outlook 2017 GDP forecast 5.2%
…economy lost steam in the fourth quarter of last year as diminished government revenues caused public spending to fall at a multi-year low.
…household consumption remained healthy and the recent uptick in commodities prices boosted export revenues.
…for the start of 2017…momentum firmed up: the manufacturing PMI crossed into expansionary territory in January and surging exports pushed the trade surplus to an over three-year high.
…poised for a credit ratings upgrade after Moody’s elevated its outlook from stable to positive on 8 February. All three major ratings agencies now have a positive outlook on Indonesia’s credit rating and an upgrade could be a catalyst for improving investor sentiment.
Vietnam Economic Outlook 2017 GDP forecast 6.4%
…particularly strong performance in the external sector in 2016. Despite slower demand from important trading partners, merchandise exports, which consist largely of manufactured goods, grew 9.0% annually. The manufacturing sector is quickly expanding thanks to the country’s competitive labor costs, fueling manufacturing exports and bolstering job creation in the sector.
…industrial production nearly stagnated in January, it mostly reflected a seasonal effect from the Lunar New Year, which disrupted supply chains across the region.
…manufacturing Purchasing Manager’s Index, though it inched down in January, continues to sit well above the 50-point line, reflecting that business conditions remain solid in the sector. Moreover, the New Year festivities boosted retail sales, which grew robustly in January.
The table below shows the structural nature of the MITI V’s exchange rate depreciation against the US$. The 20 year column winds the clock back to the period just before the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997:-
Source: Trading Economics, World Bank
Looking at the table another way, when investing in Indonesia it would make sense to factor in a 4% annual decline in the value of the Rupiah, a 2.2% to 2.4% decline in the Ringgit, Rupee and Dong and a 1.3% fall in the value of the Baht.
The continuous decline in these currencies has fuelled inflation and this is reflected to the yield and real yields available in their 10 year government bond markets. The table below shows the current bond yields together with inflation and their governments’ fiscal positions:-
Source: Trading Economics
Indonesian bonds offer insufficient real-yield to cover the average annual decline in the value of the Rupiah. Vietnam has an inverted yield curve which suggests shorter duration bonds would offer better value, its 10 year maturity offers the lowest real-yield of the group.
Whilst all these countries are running government budget deficits, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia have current account surpluses and Indonesia’s government debt to GDP is a more manageable 27% – this is probable due to its difficulty in attracting international investors on account of the 82% decline in its currency over the past two decades.
Stock Market Valuations
All five countries have seen their stock markets rise this year, although the SET 50 (Thailand) has backed off from its recent high. To compare with the currency table above here are the five stock markets, plus the S&P500, over one, two, five, ten and twenty years:-
For the US investor, India and Indonesia have been the star performers since 1997, each returning more than six-fold. Thailand, which was at the heart of the Asian crisis of 1997/98, has only delivered 114% over the same period whilst Malaysia, which imposed exchange controls to stave off the worst excesses of the Asian crisis, has failed to deliver equity returns capable of countering the fall in its currency. Finally, Vietnam, which only opened its first stock exchange in 2000, is still recovering from the boom and bust of 2007. The table below translates the performance into US$:-
Putting this data in perspective, over the last five years the S&P has beaten the MITI V not only in US$, but also in absolute terms. Looking forward, however, there are supportive valuation metrics which underpin some of the MITI V stock markets. The table below is calculated at 30-12-2016:-
Source: Starcapital.de, *Author’s estimates
Conclusion and Investment Opportunities
Vietnamese stocks look attractive, the country has the highest level of FDI of the group (6.1% of GDP) but there is a favourable case for investing in the stocks of the other members of the MITI V, even with FDI nearer 3%. They all have favourable demographics, except perhaps Thailand, and its age dependency ratio is quite low. High literacy, above 90% in all except India, should also be advantageous.
Thailand and Malaysia look less expensive from a price to earnings perspective, than India and Indonesia. Their dividend yields also look attractive relative to their bond yields, perhaps a hangover from the Asian Crisis of 1997.
Technically all five stock markets are at or near recent highs:-
The Vietnamese VN Index is a long way below its high and on a P/E, P/B and dividend yield basis it is the cheapest of the five stock markets, but it is worth remembering that it is still regarded at a Frontier Market, It was not included in the MSCI Emerging Markets indices last year. This remains a prospect at the next MSCI review in May/June.
Given how far global equity markets have travelled since the November US elections, it makes sense to be cautious about stock markets in general. Technically a break to new highs in any of these markets is likely to generate further upside momentum but Vietnam looks constructive both over the shorter term (as it makes new highs for the year) and over the longer term (being well below its all-time highs of 2007). In the Long Run, I expect these economies to the engines of world growth and their stock markets to reflect that growth.
Macro Letter – No 71 – 24-02-2017
What impact could the NATO defence spending renegotiation have on EU budgets, bonds and stocks?
Given the mutual relationship of the NATO treaty it could be argued that, for many years the US has been footing the lion’s share of the bill for defending Europe. Under the new US administration this situation is very likely to change.
The July 2016 Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2009-2016) presents the situation in clear terms. At the Riga summit back in 2006 NATO members agreed to raise defence expenditure to 2% of GDP. In that year only six countries met the threshold – Bulgaria, France, Greece, Turkey, the UK, and the US. Eight years later, at the NATO meeting in Wales, members renewed their commitment to this target. Last year only five members achieved the threshold – Estonia, Greece, Poland, the UK, and, of course, the US.
The original NATO treaty was signed on 4th April 1949 by 12 countries, it was expanded in 1952 to include Turkey and Greece and in 1955 to incorporate Germany. In 1982, after reverting to a democracy, Spain also joined. Further expansion occurred in 1999, again in 2004 and most recently 2009.
Back in 1949 Europe was still recovering from the disastrous social and economic impact of WWII. Today, in the post-Cold War era, things look very different and yet, whilst defence spending has waxed and waned over the intervening years, the US still spends substantially more on defence, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, than any of its treaty partners. The table below reveals the magnitude of the current situation:-
Source: Geopolitical Futures, Mauldin Economics
US defence spending last year amounted to $664bln which equates to 3.61% of US GDP based on current estimates.
Setting aside the political debate about whether we should be spending more or less on defence, it would appear that the US continues to do more than its fair share, in economic terms, in defence of its NATO allies.
The next table looks at the budgetary implications of making the NATO budget equable. Firstly, all NATO countries committing 2% of GDP to defence (which would dramatically reduce the total NATO budget) or, secondly, maintaining the current level of spending, which would imply all countries contributing 2.58% of GDP. In both scenarios the US is a clear winner in economic terms:-
Source: NATO, UN, IMF
I have excluded the smaller, mainly Eastern European, countries from this analysis – their combined contribution is less than $13bln/annum. I do not wish to appear disparaging, on a percentage of GDP basis many of these countries contribute more than their larger European neighbours. My purpose in this analysis is to look at the relative increases or decreases under each scenario. Below are the Budget to GDP and Debt to GDP ratios before and after adjustment to the less demanding 2% defence expenditure target:-
Source: NATO, UN, IMF, Trading Economics
The Maastricht Treaty incorporated certain criteria in order to satisfy Germany, along with other cautious countries, of the fiscal rectitude of all countries seeking to join the Eurozone. Although they were never really taken seriously by politicians, these fiscal restrictions included a maximum Government debt to GDP ratio of 60% and a Budget deficit to GDP ratio of less than 3%. Applying these arcane criteria, only three countries – Denmark, Norway and Turkey – are in the enviable position of being able to undertake the required defence spending increases with equanimity.
The burning question going forward is how the largest countries in Europe will react to the US compliant that they have failed to increase spending since 2006. As George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures – The Evolving NATO Alliance succinctly explains:-
…the US accounts for about 50% of NATO members’ total GDP and 32% of their total population—and yet the US makes up about 72% of defense spending.
… Western European countries (excluding the UK) account for 31% of NATO members’ GDP and 33% of their population, and yet they contribute 16% to NATO members’ total defense spending.
Eastern European countries, which account for 4.2% of NATO members’ GDP and 12.7% of their population, are much poorer and smaller than Western European countries. Eastern Europe contributes 2.7% to defense spending. In effect, Eastern Europe contributes closer to its share than its far wealthier and stronger neighbors to the west.
According to SIPRI Milex data for 2015, Russia spent 5.4% of GDP on defence. Other notable defenders of their realms include Pakistan (3.4%) and India (2.3%).
At the Munich Security Conference which took place last weekend, the prospect of Germany finding an extra Eur20bln per year for defence spending was raised, but, being an election year, little more was heard on the topic. The conference was fascinating however, here are some of the key quotes:-
A stable EU is as much in America’s interest as a united NATO – Ursula von der Leyen – Minister of Defence – Germany.
American security is permanently tied to European security – James Mattis – Secretary of Defence – USA.
The role of Germany in Europe is always to be a bridge – between North and South and East and West – Wolfgang Schauble – Minister of Finance – Germany.
Make no mistake, my friends. You should not count America out – John McCain – Chairman of Senate Committee on Armed Services – USA.
Let us not forget that NATO is the backbone of our value system – Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert – Minister of Defence – Netherlands.
NATO is not an obsolete organisation. It is an organisation to which additional mandates should be added – Fikri Isik – Minister of National Defence – Turkey.
The United States of America strongly supports NATO and will be unwavering in our commitment to this Transatlantic alliance – Michael Pence – Vice President – USA.
Europe’s defence requires your support as much as ours – Michael Pence – Vice President – USA.
Things look very different if we add up our defence budgets, our development aid budgets and our humanitarian efforts all around the world – Jean-Claude Juncker – President – European Commission
The post-war generation rose to their challenge, we must rise to ours – Jens Stoltenberg – Secretary General – NATO.
The European Union is much stronger than we European’s realise – Federica Mogherini – Vice President – European Commission – High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – EU.
No one has any clue what the foreign policy of this administration is – Christopher Murphy – Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
From a negotiating perspective it would not be entirely unreasonable for the US to demand that the 2006 commitment of 2% spending be honoured retrospectively, in addition to the 2% commitment going forward. The table below shows how NATO members have performed in this respect since 2005, apart from the US, only Greece and the UK have been above target over the entire period. American frustration with its NATO partners is hardly surprising:-
Source: NATO, Geopolitical Futures
The tone of US comments at the Munich conference appear slightly more conciliatory than of late. Europe’s defence ministries have, nonetheless, been seriously shaken by the change in attitude which has accompanied the change of US administration.
According to commentators, who purport to have more of a clue than Christopher Murphy, US defence spending is likely to rise by between $500bln and $1trln under the new administration. This is no “Get Out of Jail Free” card for NATOs parsimonious majority, Europe will be pressured to defence spending at a time when budgets are already uncomfortably bloated. They have had more than a decade to comply with the Riga commitment.
Looking at the bigger picture for a moment, this sudden rise in spending is a small uptick in a downward trend. Defence budgets have been falling in all the major NATO countries, as the chart below indicates. In 1989 excluding the UK and US the average budget to GDP across NATO countries was 2.9% by 1998 it had fallen to 2% but since then it has steadily declined to an average of 1.4% today. This may be good from an economic perspective – as Frederic Bastiat argued most eloquently in relation to the cost of a standing army in his essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen:-
A hundred thousand men, costing the taxpayers a hundred million francs, live as well and provide as good a living for their suppliers as a hundred million francs will allow: that is what is seen.
But a hundred million francs, coming from the pockets of the taxpayers, ceases to provide a living for these taxpayers and their suppliers, to the extent of a hundred million francs: that is what is not seen. Calculate, figure, and tell me where there is any profit for the mass of the people.
Nonetheless, the economic burden of defence spending borne by the US is undoubtedly going to shift, or else, NATO will cease to be tenable going forward:-
I believe it is likely that Germany, France, Italy and Spain will find an additional $64bln/annum for Defence and Aid budgets. They may also have to pick up part of the bill for the smaller countries to their East.
Will this impact European bond markets? It seems like a drop in the ocean beside the Asset Purchase Program of the ECB. President Draghi announced in January that they will be reducing the monthly purchases from Eur 80bln per month to Eur 60bln starting in April. I suspect the impact will be limited but it might prolong the Asset Purchase Program somewhat.
The implications for defence contractors and their stock market valuations will be more direct. Here are some of the largest listed names in Europe. Not all of them have been darlings of the stock market of late:-
Source: Investing.com, LSE, NYSE Euronext
For those who, like myself, who prefer to analyse the sector rather than individual stocks, the STOXX Europe TMI Aerospace & Defense (SXPARO) may appeal; here is a three year chart:-
The combination of increased military spending by the US and the pressure being brought to bear on Europe, should see the defence sector outperform over the longer term. During the last 12 months the SXPARO has risen 15%. Its US equivalent, the iShares US Aerospace & Defense ETF (ITA) is up by 20% over the same period, whilst the Euro has declined by around 3% against the US$. As a general rule I prefer to buy Leaders rather than Laggards, but the logic of buying European if European governments are forced to honour their defence obligations remains compelling.