Will the Fed Indicate an Altered Course This Week?
Economic numbers may take a back seat to Fed Chair Powell’s address on Wednesday and other regional Fed President addresses throughout the week.
The PCE, which is an inflation adjuster to GDP, is reported on the same day as the Fed Chair’s midweek address, the potential for volatility is high.
Monday 11/28
10:30 ET, Dallas Fed Manufacturing Survey, is expected to show general activity down 20.5 vs. down 19.4 the prior month. This would be the seventh straight reduction in manufacturing.
12:00 ET, John Williams, the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, will be speaking. Although the NY Fed President has only one vote on the Federal Open Market Committee deciding monetary policy, the NY Fed tends to have more sway as the NY Fed President assumes the role of second after Chair Powell in the level of power.
Tuesday 11/29
9:00 AM ET, The FHFA House Price Index is expected to have fallen 1.2 percent in September after falling 0.7 percent in August and 0.6 percent in July. August marked the sharpest fall and first back-to-back fall in 11 years.
10:00 AM ET, Consumer Confidence for November 2022 is expected to come in at 100 vs 102.5 in October. The report measures consumers’ assessments of the labor market, business activity, and consumers’ own financial conditions. This could be one of the more important numbers of the week as consumer expectations and behavior can lead stock market movements and play into overall expectations as consumer spending is two-thirds of the U.S. economy.
Wednesday 11/30
8:30 AM ET, GDP this will be the second estimate of the third-quarter GDP. The consensus is 2.7 percent growth. The previous estimate for the same period came in at 2.6%. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE), which is considered the Fed’s favored measure of inflation, is expected to show a rise of 1.5% for the month vs. the previous 1.4% monthly increase. The PCE component of GDP may get more attention than the GDP itself since it is considered a measure of inflation.
8:30 AM ET, The U.S. Goods Deficit is expected to narrow by $1.3 billion to $90.6 billion in October after narrowing by more than $6 billion in September to $91.9 billion. Changes in the levels of imports and exports, along with netting the two (trade balance), are gauges of economic trends here and abroad. These trade figures can directly impact all financial markets; however, they do this in how they impact the valuation of the dollar.
8:30 Wholesale Inventories are expected to be revised downward to 0.5%. This follows a build-up in inventories in September. A decline could suggest supply-chain difficulties are increasing.
10:00 AM ET, JOLTS consensus is for job openings to fall 10.4 million vs. 10.7 million in September. This number will be focused on as the September number was at a level that caused some to question whether the economy still has job shortages.
1:30 PM ET, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will speak on the subjects of inflation and economic outlook; this could very well be the most market-altering event of the week. Watch it live by clicking here.
2:00 PM ET, Beige Book released. A look at how each of the 12 Federal Reserve districts are reporting economic activity in their regions is important in this is a source of information the FOMC uses to make their decisions.
3:00 PM ET, Farm Prices month-over-month is expected to have declined by 0.2%. Year-over-year the inflation contributor is expected to have risen 21%.
Thursday 12/1
8:30 AM ET, Jobless Claims for the November 27 week are expected to come in at 235,000 versus 240,000 in the prior week. Employment is one of the Fed’s mandates; as such, any number that significantly varies from consensus could alter the markets thinking.
9:25 AM ET, Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan is scheduled to give an address.
10:00 AM ET, ISM Manufacturing Index was 50.2 in October; the ISM Manufacturing Index has been gradually slowing to nearly breakeven. November’s consensus is 49.9.
10:00 AM ET, Construction spending is expected to fall 0.2 percent in October. This would be dramatic relative to September’s modest 0.2 percent gain.
Friday 12/2
8:30 AM ET, The Employment Situation or Non-Farm Payroll is expected to rise by 200,000, which would compare with 261,000 as reported in October. October was the sixth straight month and eight of the last nine that payroll growth exceeded consensus. Average hourly earnings in November are expected to rise 0.3 percent on the month for a year-over-year rate of 4.6; these would compare with 0.4 and 4.7 percent in October.
What Else
There are more rumblings about the Fed easing up on how rapidly it is braking to tame an inflationary economy. The Powell’s words and promises on Wednesday, taken alongside of the other Fed President addresses may confirm a turning point – a tapering of the tightening.
Why the Fed Needs to Gain Trust, Gain Momentum, and Gain More Yards
Monetary policy and its implementation is as much sport as science. Economics is actually a social science, so it relies on human behavior to mimic past behaviors as its prediction guide. But as in sports, victory is difficult if there is distrust in the coach that’s calling the shots (in this case Powell), or if there are people on your side that have reason to work against you, (an example would be Yellen). Consistency in blocking and tackling (doing the right thing) and not giving up, over time, wins games. Knowing what to expect from the opposing team (consumers) wins a healthy economy.
One repeated trait in monetary policy is that there is a lag between implementation (easing or tightening) and a change in economic conditions. It isn’t a short lag, and the impact varies. Since it could take more than a year for a policy change to begin to impact the economy, the Fed usually moves at a slow and measured pace in order to not overdo it.
The slow pace allows policymakers to observe the impact of their moves and change tactics (positions on the playing field) mid-game.
Federal-Funds Rate During Tightening Cycles
Note: From December 2008, midpoint of target range. December 2015 hike excluded from 2016-18 cycle
Source: Federal Reserve
Over the past nine months, we have been in a tightening cycle. During this period, the Fed has raised rates by 3.75%. On average (since 1975), when the Fed has tightened rates, they are notched up by 5.00% over 20 months.
The Fed’s current pace is faster than average. This is because inflation took them by surprise, and rose rapidly. Putting up a strong defense against inflation that has been rampant is necessary to not be shut out and allow the Fed to gain control over the outcome.
Because one has to be able to reflect back more than 40 years to have experienced the Fed raising rates this fast. Many have lost confidence in its ability, and are in their own way working against a winning outcome.
Pace of Fed Hiking Cycles
Note: From December 2008, the midpoint of target range
Source: Federal Reserve
The stock and bond markets move in group anticipation of expected policy moves by the Fed. This has been more pronounced in recent years as the Fed has basically shared its expectations after each meeting, setting up for the next. Higher rates make bonds and bank deposits more attractive. Higher rates also weaken the economy and corporate profits, and that induces investors to move away from stocks and even real estate.
Bonds now offer the highest yields since 2007. The stock market may have anticipated what was to come as it peaked in early January of this year, more than two months before the Fed began hiking in March.
Fed Hikes and S&P 500 Bear Markets
Sources: Federal Reserve; Dow Jones Market Data
Sources: Federal Reserve; Dow Jones Market Data
Employment
The Fed is concerned with a wage-price spiral feeding on itself. It likely won’t be satisfied that its tightening has been sufficient until it can be confident that it has avoided a wage-price storm on the economy.
Ideally, this would happen without unemployment rising. Soft landings took place in 1983-84 and 1994-95. But when inflation starts out too high, as it is now, unemployment usually rises notably, and a recession occurs.
Historically, this doesn’t happen until several years after the first increase. This time it is hoped it will be different, since the Fed is playing more aggressively.
Periods of Fed Hiking and Rising Unemployment
Note: The unemployment rate rose to 3.7% in October, up from the pandemic low of 3.5% a month earlier. Sources: Federal Reserve; Labor Department
Inflation
Historically, inflation has only fallen to acceptable levels after unemployment has increased, and long after the first rate increase – the exact timing has varied. If the fall in core inflation (which excludes the volatile food and energy components) between September and October continues, and September proves to be the peak, the time between the first Fed increase and the high point of inflation will be one of the shortest of any Fed hiking cycle.
Often, the break in inflation has been accompanied by a recession. The economy receded in each of the first two quarters and then grew in the third. The changes in the inflation component in Gross Domestic Product may have borrowed from one quarter and have been additive to the next. The fourth quarter reading should help level the growth averages out to see if we were indeed in a shallow recession.
Proximity of Peak Inflation and Recessions to Initial Rate Hikes, from Year Hiking Cycle Began
Note: Inflation refers to core CPI.
Sources: Federal Reserve; Labor Department
Take Away
As in many team sports, once one side gets momentum, they are difficult to stop . The Fed needs to gain the trust of the individual players in the economy in order to be successful. Saying one thing, then doing another, would undermine this trust. So far, despite the Fed originally being wrong about inflation, the Fed has done what it has said it would do. Stock and bond markets, which are a considerable part of the economy, have been slow to understand the Fed’s resolve.
It has been implementing the balance sheet run-off plan and raising rates toward a level it believes would equate to a future 2% inflation rate. Like so many other things in the social sciences, widely held expectations of the future become self-fulfilling.
Railroad Unions and Their Employers at an Impasse: Freight-Halting Strikes are Rare, and this Would be the First in 3 Decades
The prospect of a potentially devastating rail workers strike is looming again.
Fears of a strike in September 2022 prompted the Biden administration to pull out all the stops to get a deal between railroads and the largest unions representing their employees.
That deal hinged on ratification by a majority of members at all 12 of those unions. So far, eight have voted in favor, but four have rejected the terms. If even one continues to reject the deal after further negotiations, it could mean a full-scale freight strike will start as soon as midnight on Dec. 5, 2022. Any work stoppage by conductors and engineers would surely interfere with the delivery of gifts and other items Americans will want to receive in time for the holiday season, along with coal, lumber and other key commodities.
Strikes that obstruct transportation rarely occur in the United States, and the last one involving rail workers happened three decades ago. But when these workers do walk off the job, it can thrash the economy, inconveniencing millions of people and creating a large-scale crisis.
This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of Erik Loomis, Professor of History, University of Rhode Island.
I’m a labor historian who has studied the history of American strikes. I believe that with the U.S. teetering toward at least a mild recession and some of the supply chain disruptions that arose at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic still wreaking havoc, I don’t think the administration would accept a rail strike for long.
19th Century Rail Strikes
Few, if any, workers have more power over the economy than transportation workers. Their ability to shut down the entire economy has often led to heavy retaliation from the government when they have tried to exercise that power.
In 1877, a small strike against a West Virginia railroad that had cut wages spread. It grew into what became known as the Great Railroad Strike, a general rebellion against railroads that brought thousands of unemployed workers into the streets.
Seventeen years later, in 1894, the American Railway Union went on strike in solidarity with the Pullman Sleeping Car company workers who had gone on strike due to their boss lowering wages while maintaining rents on their company housing.
In both cases, the threat of a railroad strike led the federal government to call out the military to crush the labor actions. Dozens of workers died.
Once those dramatic clashes ended, for more than a century rail unions have played a generally quiet role, preferring to focus on the needs of their members and avoiding most broader social and political questions. Fearful of more rail strikes, the government passed the Railway Labor Act of 1926, which gives Congress the power to intervene before a rail strike starts.
Breaking the Air Traffic Controllers Union
With travel by road and air growing in importance in the 20th century, other transportation workers also engaged in actions that could shut down the economy.
The Professional Air Traffic Controllers Association walked off the job in 1981 after a decade of increased militancy over the stress and conditions of their job. The union had engaged in a series of slowdowns through the 1970s, delaying airplanes and frustrating passengers.
When it went on strike in 1981, the union broke the law, as federal workers do not have the right to strike. That’s when President Ronald Reagan became the first modern U.S. leader to retaliate against striking transportation workers. Two days after warning the striking workers that they would lose their jobs unless they returned to work, Reagan fired more than 11,000 of them. He also banned them from ever being rehired.
In the aftermath of Reagan’s actions, the number of strikes by U.S. workers plummeted. Rail unions engaged in brief strikes in both 1991 and 1992, but Congress used the Railway Labor Act to halt them, ordering workers back on the job and imposing a contract upon the workers.
In 1992, Congress passed another measure that forced a system of arbitration upon railroad workers before a strike – that took power away from workers to strike.
New Era of Labor Militancy
Following decades of decline in the late 20th century, U.S. labor organizing has surged in recent years.
Most notably, unionization attempts at Starbucks and Amazon have led to surprising successes against some of the biggest corporations in the country. Teachers’ unions around the nation have also held a series of successful strikes everywhere from Los Angeles to West Virginia.
United Parcel Service workers, who held the nation’s last major transportation strike, in 1997, may head back to the picket lines after their contract expires in June 2023. UPS workers, members of the Teamsters union, are angry over a two-tiered system that pays newer workers lower wages, and they are also demanding greater overtime protections.
But rail workers, angered by their employers’ refusal to offer sick leave and other concerns, may go on strike first.
Rail companies have greatly reduced the number of people they employ on freight trains as part of their efforts to maximize profits and take advantage of technological progress. They generally keep the size of crews limited to only two per train.
Many companies want to pare back their workforce further, saying that it can be safe to have crews consisting of a single crew member on freight trains. The unions reject this arrangement, saying that lacking a second set of eyes would be a recipe for mistakes, accidents and disasters.
The deal the Biden administration brokered in September would raise annual pay by 24% over several years, raising the average pay for rail workers to $110,000 by 2024. But strikes are often about much more than wages. The companies have also long refused to provide paid sick leave or to stop demanding that their workers have inflexible and unpredictable schedules.
The Biden administration had to cajole the rail companies into offering a single personal day, while workers demanded 15 days of sick leave. Companies had offered zero. The agreement did remove penalties from workers who took unpaid sick or family leave, but this would still leave a group of well-paid workers whose daily lives are filled with stress and fear.
What Lies Ahead
Seeing highly paid workers threaten to take action that would surely compound strains on supply chains at a time when inflation is at a four-decade high may not win rail unions much public support.
A coalition representing hundreds of business groups has called for government intervention to make sure freight trains keep moving, and it’s highly likely that Congress will again impose a decision on workers under the Railway Labor Act. The Biden administration, which has shown significant sympathy to unions, has resisted supporting such a step so far.
No one should expect the military to intervene like it did in the 19th century. But labor law remains tilted toward companies, and I believe that if the government were to compel striking rail workers back on the job, the move might find a receptive audience.
Will Global Rate Hikes Set Off a Global Debt Bomb?
The higher levels of risky corporate debt issuance over the past few year will need to be refinanced between 2023 and 2025, In numbers terms, there will be over $10 trillion of the riskiest debt at much higher interest rates and with less liquidity. In addition to domestic high yield issuance, the majority of the major European economies have issued negative-yielding debt over the past three years and must now refinance at significantly higher rates. In 2020–21. the annual increase in the US money supply (M2) was 27 percent, more than 2.5 times higher than the quantitative easing peak of 2009 and the highest level since 1960. Negative yielding bonds, an economic anomaly that should have set off alarm bells as an example of a bubble worse than the “subprime” bubble, amounted to over $12 trillion. Even if refinancing occurs smoothly but at higher costs, the impact on new credit and innovation will be enormous, and the crowding out effect of government debt absorbing the majority of liquidity and the zombification of the already indebted will result in weaker growth and decreased productivity in the future.
Raising interest rates is a necessary but insufficient measure to combat inflation. To reduce inflation to 2 percent, central banks must significantly reduce their balance sheets, which has not yet occurred in local currency, and governments must reduce spending, which is highly unlikely.
The most challenging obstacle is also the accumulation of debt.
The so-called expansionary policies have not been an instrument for reducing debt, but rather for increasing it. In the second quarter of 2022, according to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), the global debt-to-GDP ratio will approach 350 percent of GDP. IIF anticipates that the global debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 352 percent by the end of 2022.
Global issuances of high-yield debt have slowed but remain elevated. According to the IMF, the total issuance of European and American high-yield bonds reached a record high of $1,6 trillion in 2021, as businesses and investors capitalized on still low interest rates and high liquidity. According to the IMF, high-yield bond issuances in the United States and Europe will reach $700 billion in 2022, similar to 2008 levels. All of the risky debt accumulated over the past few years will need to be refinanced between 2023 and 2025, requiring the refinancing of over $10 trillion of the riskiest debt at much higher interest rates and with less liquidity.
Moody’s estimates that United States corporate debt maturities will total $785 billion in 2023 and $800 billion in 2024. This increases the maturities of the Federal government. The United States has $31 trillion in outstanding debt with a five-year average maturity, resulting in $5 trillion in refinancing needs during fiscal 2023 and a $2 trillion budget deficit. Knowing that the federal debt of the United States will be refinanced increases the risk of crowding out and liquidity stress on the debt market.
According to The Economist, the cumulative interest bill for the United States between 2023 and 2027 should be less than 3 percent of GDP, which appears manageable. However, as a result of the current path of rate hikes, this number has increased, which exacerbates an already unsustainable fiscal problem.
If you think the problem in the United States is significant, the situation in the eurozone is even worse. Governments in the euro area are accustomed to negative nominal and real interest rates. The majority of the major European economies have issued negative-yielding debt over the past three years and must now refinance at significantly higher rates. France and Italy have longer average debt maturities than the United States, but their debt and growing structural deficits are also greater. Morgan Stanley estimates that, over the next two years, the major economies of the eurozone will require a total of $3 trillion in refinancing.
Although at higher rates, governments will refinance their debt. What will become of businesses and families? If quantitative tightening is added to the liquidity gap, a credit crunch is likely to ensue. However, the issue is not rate hikes but excessive debt accumulation complacency.
Explaining to citizens that negative real interest rates are an anomaly that should never have been implemented is challenging. Families may be concerned about the possibility of a higher mortgage payment, but they are oblivious to the fact that house prices have skyrocketed due to risk accumulation caused by excessively low interest rates.
The magnitude of the monetary insanity since 2008 is enormous, but the glut of 2020 was unprecedented. Between 2009 and 2018, we were repeatedly informed that there was no inflation, despite the massive asset inflation and the unjustified rise in financial sector valuations. This is inflation, massive inflation. It was not only an overvaluation of financial assets, but also a price increase for irreplaceable goods and services. The FAO food index reached record highs in 2018, as did the housing, health, education, and insurance indices. Those who argued that printing money without control did not cause inflation, however, continued to believe that nothing was wrong until 2020, when they broke every rule.
In 2020–21, the annual increase in the US money supply (M2) was 27 percent, more than 2.5 times higher than the quantitative easing peak of 2009 and the highest level since 1960. Negative yielding bonds, an economic anomaly that should have set off alarm bells as an example of a bubble worse than the “subprime” bubble, amounted to over $12 trillion. But statism was pleased because government bonds experienced a bubble. Statism always warns of bubbles in everything except that which causes the government’s size to expand.
In the eurozone, the increase in the money supply was the greatest in its history, nearly three times the Draghi-era peak. Today, the annualized rate is greater than 6 percent, remaining above Draghi’s “bazooka.” All of this unprecedented monetary excess during an economic shutdown was used to stimulate public spending, which continued after the economy reopened … And inflation skyrocketed. However, according to Lagarde, inflation appeared “out of nowhere.”
No, inflation is not caused by commodities, war, or “disruptions in the supply chain.” Wars are deflationary if the money supply remains constant. Several times between 2008 and 2018, the value of commodities rose sharply, but they do not cause all prices to rise simultaneously. If the amount of currency issued remains unchanged, supply chain issues do not affect all prices. If the money supply remains the same, core inflation does not rise to levels not seen in thirty years.
All of the excess of unproductive debt issued during a period of complacency will exacerbate the problem in 2023 and 2024. Even if refinancing occurs smoothly but at higher costs, the impact on new credit and innovation will be enormous, and the crowding out effect of government debt absorbing the majority of liquidity and the zombification of the already indebted will result in weaker growth and decreased productivity in the future.
Will the Fed Minutes on Wednesday Suggest the Fed Will Finally Back Off?
Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in a press conference after the last FOMC meeting that the committee has “some ways to go” on easing surging prices. Investors wondered what “some ways to go” equate to in terms of basis points. The markets will get more insight this week as minutes from that meeting will be released. This may be the most market-moving highlight of the week, but the stock and bond markets are closed on Thursday, November 24, and stock markets close at 2 PM EST on Friday, shortening this week’s cumulative trading sessions more than any other week during the year.
What’s on Tap for investors:
Monday 11/21
8:30 AM EST, Chicago Fed National Activity Index. The index is expected to be .10% with a three-month average of .17%. vs .10% last period. CFNAI is a monthly index that tracks overall economic activity and inflationary pressures. It’s a weighted average of 85 existing monthly indicators of national economic activity. Its benchmark average, by creation, is designed to be 0.00% and a standard deviation of one. Since economic activity tends toward trend growth over time, a positive index reading corresponds to growth above trend and a negative index reading corresponds to growth below trend.
Tuesday 11/22
10:00 AM EST, Richmond Fed’s Manufacturing Index had been trending lower with a reading of negative 10 last month. The consensus this week is for negative 1, which would be less negative than it has been.
11:00 AM EST, Loretta Mester, President Cleveland Fed, will speak. Last week she showed her continued hawkish stance saying the Fed is “just beginning to move into restrictive territory.” This suggests that it is Mester’s position that rates will have to be led much higher.
1:00 PM EST, Money Supply is expected to have shrunk $128 billion.
Wednesday 11/23
7:00 AM EST, Mortgage Applications. The purchase applications index measures applications at mortgage lenders. This is a leading indicator for single-family home sales and housing construction.
8:30 AM EST, Durable Goods Orders are seen as rising 0.3 percent in October following a 0.4 percent rise in September. Ex-transportation orders are seen inching 0.1 percent higher with core capital goods orders, which fell back in September by 0.4 percent, rising 0.2 percent.
8:30 AM EST, Jobless Claims for the prior week are expected to come in at 225,000 versus a steady 222,000 two weeks ago.
10 AM EST, New Home Sales have declined the last three months in a row. It is expected to come in at a 574,000 annualized rate in October versus 603,000 in September.
10 AM EST, Consumer Sentiment is expected to show a deeply depressed 55.0 versus 54.7 at mid-November. Consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the economy, more during the holiday weeks. So the markets wantt to have a finger on their overall mood.
10:30 AM EST, EIA Petroleum Status Report. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides weekly information on petroleum inventories in the U.S., whether produced here or abroad. The level of inventories helps determine prices for petroleum products, this has been a big focus for investors because of its implications for prices.
12:00 PM EST, EIA Natural Gas Report. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides weekly information on natural gas inventories in the U.S., whether produced here or abroad.
2:00 PM EST, FOMC Minutes for November meeting. With just two more hours to trade before the Thanksgiving break, the FOMC minutes will be digested and reacted on quickly. It is not unusual to get a whipsaw market with such important releases in such a compressed time period.
Thursday 11/24
Image Credit: Marco Verch (Flickr)
Friday 11/25
The day after Thanksgiving is Black Friday in the U.S. It is named this because it is the day most retailers are consireded to have broken through to turn a profit. Market watchers view this day of intense shopping as a bellwether for the retail sector and overall consumer confidence. Recent retail earnings reports have been more mixed than usual with Target disappointing last week.
What Else
The last full week of November leads us to the last full month of 2022. There is still a strong push and pull between bulls and bear’s as the year comes to a close. The overall market is much cheaper than it began the year. At times like this, it is important to realize that there are always individual companies attaining above-average, positive performance. Channelchek is an excellent resource to explore and discover companies in the small and microcap space that are less reported on than other stocks that are more likely to follow market direction. Learn more.
If Cryptocurrency is not the Safe Haven it was Expected to Be, Will Assets Move Into Gold Investments?
In addition to any information discovered from Michael Burry’s 13F filing earlier this week, he’s been coming out in support of gold. He seems to expect that those that were seeking a “safe harbor investment” in various crypto-related investments are now having a change of mind. Despite his long positions held on September 30 and made public on November 14, he has teased that he could be extremely short the market; presumably, this could include any tradeable asset when you’re an investment analyst of this caliber.
Will Investors Rediscover Gold?
“Long thought that the time for gold would be when crypto scandals merge into contagion,” Burry wrote in a tweet this week.
@michaeljburry
The financial pressures spreading across the crypto industry that have helped destroy the crypto exchange FTX and exposed characters like Sam Bankman-Fried that may have been given too much trust, are causing reduced trust in digital assets.
Supporters and believers in the benefit of crypto had been using bitcoin and other tokens as a means of storage outside of securities. Their expectation has been that crypto is superior as a store of value during periods of inflation, currency depreciation, and economic turmoil.
Crypto prices have not offered much protection against plunging stock, bond, and real estate values. In fact, relative to the strong US dollar, crypto’s value has fallen off a cliff, offering no protection. The overall outstanding crypto worth has gone from $2.2 trillion to around $830 billion. Gold has not been rising during this period, but relative to US dollars, it is down only 3%.
Burry’s likely message is that the escalating cryptocurrency negatives will reduce demand for coins, yet demand for a safe haven asset would not be reduced. This could make gold again one of the only games in town for investors looking to protect against asset erosion.
Is Burry Short?
“You have no idea how short I am,” Burry said in a tweet this week.
@michaeljburry
He does not say he is short at all in this tweet. However, against the backdrop of many previous tweets warning against a market he believes will become more bearish, coupled with a holding report released that has five long holdings, the hedge fund manager of The Big Short fame is likely warning investors not to read too much positive into his fund’s holdings report. That report was released just before the tweet.
The value of long securities held in his roughly $292 million AUM was $41 million. As he demonstrated during the financial crisis, there are non-publicly reported ways to be short, even short beyond your AUM. Fund managers with assets over $100 million only have to disclose US-listed stocks in their 13F filings with the SEC each quarter. Excluded in the reporting are shares sold short, overseas-listed stocks, and other assets such as commodities.
In actuality, Burry’s increased positions in prison stocks and exposure to the company involved in making Artemis’ rocket boosters is more likely a sign that he likes the prospects of some companies while at the same time doesn’t like the broader market outlook.
Positive Tweets
In addition to his positive tweet on gold, Burry has suggested the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate hikes, which have weighed on market prices, could end in the spring. This was reflected in his October 24 tweet “Still think the Fed back off on QT early next year.”
Investing in Gold
Investors that look to gain exposure to gold, will typically buy gold bullion, gold funds, gold futures, and the stocks of gold mining companies. All have unique advantages. Investors looking to research junior miners of gold and other precious metals and natural resources, find Channelchek as an excellent resource to discover and research many different unique, actionable possibilities. Start here.
The health of the US Treasury market impacts almost all other markets. This is because the “risk-free” market (US Treasuries) and its relationship to the US dollar is the foundation from which other markets stand. If it is in trouble, all markets suffer. The “health” measure most associated with securities like treasuries is liquidity or whether money can be raised when needed. Other measures include market spread between the bid and the ask, trading activity levels, and price impact or how a large transaction impacts the price.
A just released report by New York Fed economists Michael Fleming and Claire Nelson discuss the current state of the U.S. Treasury markets from the unique point of view and access to information of the New York Fed.
The report follows:
How Liquid Has the Treasury Market Been in 2022?
Policymakers and market participants are closely watching liquidity conditions in the U.S. Treasury securities market. Such conditions matter because liquidity is crucial to the many important uses of Treasury securities in financial markets. But just how liquid has the market been and how unusual is the liquidity given the higher-than-usual volatility? In this post, we assess the recent evolution of Treasury market liquidity and its relationship with price volatility and find that while the market has been less liquid in 2022, it has not been unusually illiquid after accounting for the high level of volatility.
Why Liquidity Matters
The U.S. Treasury securities market is the largest and most liquid government securities market in the world. Treasury securities are used to finance the U.S. government, to manage interest rate risk, as a risk-free benchmark for pricing other financial instruments, and by the Federal Reserve in implementing monetary policy. Having a liquid market is important for all these purposes and thus of great interest to market participants and policymakers alike.
Measuring Liquidity
Liquidity typically refers to the cost of quickly converting an asset into cash (or vice versa) and is measured in a variety of ways. We consider three commonly used measures, calculated using high-frequency data from the interdealer market: bid-ask spreads, order book depth, and price impact. The measures are for the most recently auctioned
(on-the-run) two-, five-, and ten-year notes (the three most actively traded Treasury securities, as shown in this post) and are calculated for New York trading hours (defined as 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Our data source is BrokerTec, which is estimated to account for 80 percent of trading in the electronic interdealer broker market.
The Market Has Been Relatively Illiquid in 2022
The bid-ask spread—the difference between the lowest ask price and the highest bid price for a security—is one of the most popular liquidity measures. As shown in the chart below, bid-ask spreads have widened out in 2022, but have remained well below the levels observed during the COVID-related disruptions of March 2020 (examined in this post). The widening has been somewhat greater for the two-year note relative to its average and relative to its level in March 2020.
Bid-Ask Spreads Have Widened Modestly
Liberty Street Economics chart plots the five-day moving averages of average daily bid-ask spreads for the two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022.
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on data from BrokerTec.
Notes: The chart plots five-day moving averages of average daily bid-ask spreads for the on-the-run two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022. Spreads are measured in 32nds of a point, where a point equals one percent of par.
The next chart plots order book depth, measured as the average quantity of securities available for sale or purchase at the best bid and offer prices. Depth levels again point to relatively poor liquidity in 2022, but with the differences across securities more striking. Depth in the two-year note has been at levels commensurate with those of March 2020, whereas depth in the five-year note has remained somewhat higher—and depth in the ten-year note appreciably higher—than the levels of March 2020.
Order Book Depth Lowest since March 2020
Liberty Street Economics chart plots five-day moving averages of average daily depth for the two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022.
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on data from BrokerTec.
Notes: The chart plots five-day moving averages of average daily depth for the on-the-run two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022. Data are for order book depth at the inside tier, averaged across the bid and offer sides. Depth is measured in millions of U.S. dollars par.
Measures of the price impact of trades also suggest a notable deterioration of liquidity. The next chart plots the estimated price impact per $100 million in net order flow (that is, buyer-initiated trading volume less seller-initiated trading volume). A higher price impact suggests reduced liquidity. Price impact has been high this year, and again more notably so for the two-year note relative to the March 2020 episode. That said, price impact looks to have peaked in late June and July, and to have declined most recently (in October).
Price Impact Highest since March 2020
Liberty Street Economics chart plots the estimated price impact per $100 million in net order flow for the two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022.Source: Authors’ calculations, based on data from BrokerTec.
Notes: The chart plots five-day moving averages of slope coefficients from daily regressions of one-minute price changes on one-minute net order flow (buyer-initiated trading volume less seller-initiated trading volume) for the on-the-run two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022. Price impact is measured in 32nds of a point per $100 million, where a point equals one percent of par.
Note that we start our analysis of liquidity in this post in 2019 and not earlier. One reason is to highlight the developments in 2022. Another reason is that the minimum price increment for the two-year note was halved in late 2018, creating a break in the note’s bid-ask spread and depth series. Longer time series of bid-ask spreads, order book depth, and price impact are plotted in this post and this paper. The longer history indicates that the price impact in the two-year note is currently at levels comparable to those seen during the 2007-09 global financial crisis, as well as in March 2020.
Volatility Has Also Been High
Pandemic-induced supply disruptions, high inflation, policy uncertainty, and geopolitical conflict have led to a sizable increase in uncertainty about the expected path of interest rates, resulting in high price volatility in 2022, as shown in the next chart. As with liquidity, volatility has been especially high lately for the two-year note relative to its history, likely reflecting the importance of near-term monetary policy uncertainty in explaining the current episode. Volatility has caused market makers to widen their bid-ask spreads and post less depth at any given price (to manage the increased risk of taking on positions), and for the price impact of trades to increase, illustrating the well-known negative relationship between volatility and liquidity.
Price Volatility Highest Since March 2020
Liberty Street Economics chart plots five-day moving averages of price volatility for the two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022.
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on data from BrokerTec.
Notes: The chart plots five-day moving averages of price volatility for the on-the-run two-, five-, and ten-year notes in the interdealer market from January 2, 2019, to October 31, 2022. Price volatility is calculated for each day by summing squared one-minute returns (log changes in midpoint prices) from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., annualizing by multiplying by 252, and then taking the square root. It is reported in percent.
Liquidity Has Tracked Volatility
To assess whether liquidity has been unusual given the level of volatility, we provide a scatter plot of price impact against volatility for the five-year note in the chart below. The chart shows that the 2022 observations (in blue) fall in line with the historical relationship. That is, the current level of liquidity is consistent with the current level of volatility, as implied by the historical relationship between these two variables. This is true for the ten-year note as well, whereas for the two-year note the evidence points to somewhat higher-than-expected price impact given the volatility in 2022 (as also occurred in fall 2008 and March 2020).
Liquidity and Volatility in Line with Historical Relationship
Liberty Street Economics chart plots price impact against price volatility by week for the five-year note from January 2, 2005, to October 28, 2022.
Source: Authors’ calculations, based on data from BrokerTec.
Notes: The chart plots price impact against price volatility by week for the on-the-run five-year note from January 2, 2005, to October 28, 2022. The weekly measures for both series are averages of the daily measures plotted in the preceding two charts. Fall 2008 points are for September 21, 2008 – January 3, 2009, March 2020 points are for March 1, 2020 – March 28, 2020, and 2022 points are for January 2, 2022 – October 29, 2022.
The preceding analysis is based on realized price volatility—that is, on how much prices are actually changing. We repeated the analysis with implied (or expected) price volatility, as measured by the ICE BofAML MOVE Index, and found similar results for 2022. That is, liquidity for the five- and ten-year notes is in line with the historical relationship between liquidity and expected volatility, whereas liquidity is somewhat worse for the two-year note.
Note also that while liquidity may not be especially high relative to volatility, one might then ask whether volatility itself is unusually high. Answering this question is beyond our scope here, although we will note that there are good reasons for volatility to be high, as discussed above.
Trading Volume Has Been High
Despite the high volatility and illiquidity, trading volume has held up this year. High trading volume amid high illiquidity is common in the Treasury market, and was also observed during the market disruptions around the near-failure of Long-Term Capital Management (see this paper), during the 2007-09 financial crisis (see this paper), during the October 15, 2014, flash rally (see this post), and during the COVID-19-related disruptions of March 2020 (see this post). Periods of high uncertainty are associated with high volatility and illiquidity but also high trading demand.
Nothing to Be Concerned About?
Not exactly. While Treasury market liquidity has been in line with volatility, there are still reasons to be cautious. The market’s capacity to smoothly handle large flows has been of ongoing concern since March 2020, as discussed in this paper, as Treasury debt outstanding continues to grow. Moreover, lower-than-usual liquidity implies that a liquidity shock will have larger-than-usual effects on prices and perhaps be more likely to precipitate a negative feedback loop between security sales, volatility, and illiquidity. Close monitoring of Treasury market liquidity—and continued efforts to improve the market’s resilience—remain important.
Rising Unemployment: Economists Sometimes Say it’s Good for the Economy, But Are They Right?
interest rates are up, which means that projections for growth are down. Put simply, the proverbial something is close to hitting the fan.
Business closures and job losses are likely to become another hurdle for the global economy – and that points to rising unemployment. Yet, while most people would think of rising unemployment as a bad thing, some economists don’t entirely agree.
Economists have long pointed to a counterintuitive positive relationship between unemployment and entrepreneurship, born of the fact that people who lose their job often start businesses. This is often referred to within economic literature as necessity-based or push-factor entrepreneurship.
This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts ofDaragh O’Leary, PhD Researcher in Economics, University College Cork
Where it Gets Tricky
There is certainly good evidence for the existence of this contradictory relationship. The graph below shows the rates of UK business creation in blue and unemployment in red. As you can see, unemployment started to increase during the global financial crisis of 2007-09 and business creation followed not long after.
UK new business creation and unemployment, 2006-2020
This relationship between business creation and unemployment has previously been used by some as a justification for cold social policies towards the unemployed on the rationale that “the market fixes itself” in the long run. They see business closures and job losses not as human miseries that require government help, but necessary evils that are needed to reallocate the money, people and other resources back into the economy in more efficient ways .
But my latest research has found that rising unemployment is not quite the silver bullet for reigniting the economic engine that it’s cracked up to be. I looked at 148 regions across Europe from 2008 to 2017. Although I did find evidence that unemployment can stimulate business creation over time, this only seems to happen in higher performing regions within higher performing economies such as the Netherlands, Finland and Austria.
In lower performing regions within lower performing economies such as Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary, the relationship between unemployment and business creation actually appears to be negative. In other words, rather than inducing business creation, unemployment simply seems to lead to more unemployment.
The reason why higher performing regions in wealthier areas have a positive relationship between job losses and business creation is that they enjoy what are known as “urbanisation economies”. These are positive benefits derived from the scale and density of economic activity occurring within that area, including wider arrays of services, greater pools of customers and greater numbers of transactions relative to other areas of the economy.
For example, a firm located in a capital city like London will benefit from more abundant access to consumers, suppliers and lenders as well as larger labour pools. The higher population density in these areas also makes it more likely that firms and workers will learn faster as they observe the activities of their many neighbours. In more peripheral areas with fewer of these characteristics, the opposite is true. This is why unemployment affects different places differently.
What it Means
One consequence is that economists need to stop explaining how economies perform differently based solely on national factors. And it’s not just unemployment where this becomes apparent. For example, Ireland’s longstanding low rate of corporation tax (12.5%) has been cited as a reason for its high foreign direct investment, which accounts for roughly 20% of private sector employment.
Yet while just over 43% of all Irish enterprises in 2020 were located in either Dublin or Cork, counties like Leitrim in the north accounted for fewer than 1% of enterprises. So while national measures can help induce entrepreneurship and increase the overall size of the pie, the pie is shared very unequally. Just as rising unemployment can benefit some areas while hindering others, the same is true of government interventions.
Rural areas like County Leitrim have benefited far less from Ireland’s low corporation tax than more urbanised regions further south. Julia Gavin/Alamy
We therefore need to stop viewing the free market and government intervention as either wrong or right. In some contexts one is going to be more helpful, while in other contexts it will be the opposite. Recognizing this reality would improve on much of the polarized debate in politics and economics, in which those on the right can come across as cold and ignorant, while those on the left can seem self-righteous and sanctimonious, viewing capitalism and markets as dirty words.
How does this apply to today’s gathering downturn? It would make sense for governments to prioritize supporting businesses in more peripheral regions, while leaving those in wealthier urban areas to fend for themselves.
The famous economist John Kenneth Galbraith gave what I believe to be one of the best pieces of commentary on this topic, saying:
Where the market works, I’m for that. Where government is necessary, I’m for that … I’m in favor of whatever works in the particular case.
If we are to survive this upcoming recession and get things going again, we are going to need to acknowledge that centralized “one-size-fits-all” policies won’t be useful everywhere. The solutions to economic recovery are in some cases government intervention and in others the free market, but not always one or the other.
There is Potential for a Change in Sentiment Spurred by this Week’s Wholesale Inflation Report
One economic number doesn’t make a trend. The members of the Federal Open Market Committee know this, and certainly, the Chair, Jay Powell, understands. As it relates to last week’s CPI report, he may wish that one lower-than-expected inflation data point could prevent him from needing to do more, but it simply isn’t enough info from which the Fed can glean any actionable information.
As we head into the first trading session of a new week, it’s uncertain what the reaction of interest rates will be. They dropped substantially in response to last Thursday’s inflation data coming in better than expected. However, there was no chance of follow-through or reversal as Friday’s Veteran’s Day holiday left the bond markets closed.
With this, inflation numbers continue to be the most significant for both stock and bond investors. On this coming Tuesday, November 15, wholesale prices will be reported as the Producer Price Index (PPI). This release could have more weight in trade action than usual.
Thursday is another big day on the calendar as the markets will be grappling with a larger-than-normal volume of economic releases.
Monday 11/14
11:00 AM ET, The NY Federal Reserve Bank’s one and five-year inflation forecast. This is not an event that is usually paid much attention to by market participants. However, considering there are many parties interested in what members of the Federal Reserve System are now thinking, a dramatic shift from the previous forecast could inspire the financial markets to adjust accordingly.
Previously the one-year inflation expectation was 5.7%. The five-year inflation forecast was 2.2%.
Tuesday 10/15
8:30 AM ET, The Producer Price Index (PPI) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is an inflation gauge that measures the average change over time in the prices received by U.S. producers of goods and services. The prices are typically considered input costs for final products and can impact CPI, it may also impact company costs of production and, therefore, profits. The trend has been lower, YOY PPI has been running at 8.5%, and last month, it rose 0.4%, the expectation is for another 0.4% increase.
Michael Burry, and Warren Buffet’s holdings. The SEC requires investment funds to file a 13-f disclosing their publicly traded security positions. It is required every 45 days, making all of the information a minimum of 45 days old. Looking at a successful investor’s 13F filings can be revealing, especially when looking at industries they’ve been hot on or comparing one holding period to another.
Wednesday 10/16
11:00 AM ET, The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) creates a statistic from several mortgage loan indexes. The Mortgage Applications index measures applications at mortgage lenders. It’s considered a leading indicator and is especially important for single-family home sales and housing construction. Both are considered foundational in a strong economy. Last week the Purchase Index was 162.6.
11:00 AM ET, The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) also provides an average 30-year mortgage level which is consistently calculated so that it is an oranges-to-oranges comparison from previous periods. Last period the rate was 7.14%.
12:30 PM ET, Export Prices (MoM), this data set reflects changes in prices of goods and services that are produced in and exported from the United States in the given month compared to the previous one. Last reading, this came in at a negative 0.8%.
12:30 PM ET, Import Prices (MoM) The import price index m/m measures the price changes of the respective month compared to the previous month. Last month they fell 1.2% (not adjusted for fx), this month, expectations are for a decline of 0.5%.
12:30 PM ET, U.S. Retail Sales have been flat, neither rising nor falling. As we head toward Thanksgiving and Black Friday sales levels, the market will be taking more and more interest in how strong the consumer is. Expectations for October are for a rise of 0.8 percent overall, an increase from 0.0 percent. When excluding vehicles, the projection is for an increase of 0.4%, up from 0.1%. and up 0.4 when also excluding gasoline.
1:15 PM ET, Capacity Utilization is expected to remain unchanged at an 80.3% use of available manufacturing capacity. Reading well above, this may be considered inflationary as production could be using less efficient means.
1:15 PM ET, Industrial Production is expected to have been weaker at a 0.2% increase compared to a 0.4% increase.
2:00 PM ET, NAHB Housing Market Index this is expected to continue weakening, the October number was 38.
2:00 PM ET, Business inventories are expressed in dollar value held by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. The level of inventories in relation to sales is an important indicator of the near-term direction of production activity. Rising inventories can be an indication of business optimism that sales will be growing in the coming months. However, if unintended inventory accumulation occurs, then production will probably have to slow while those inventories are worked off. Last month’s inventories increased by 0.8%.
Thursday 10/17
12:30 PM ET, Housing Starts, last month housing starts had declined for the seventh consecutive month by 8.7%.
Friday 10/18
2:00 PM ET, Leading Economic Indicators are expected to show a decline of 0.3% vs. a decline of 0.4% the prior month.
What Else
The focus on signs of economic weakness or receding inflation will be high, and reactions may be extra sensitive. The following week is shortened in terms of trading. The focus will be on how strong the consumer shows they will be for the holidays.
Factors Still Point to Higher Oil Prices and Sizeable Bets on Crude
There are many factors impacting why traditional energy prices and producers may have a hurricane-force tailwind heading into the holidays and next year.
A boost in demand for oil is expected as China just announced that it is lowering its quarantine requirements for visitors from outside the country. But Chinese Covid policies aren’t the only impetus pushing up oil demand – around the globe, there are supply challenges that are playing out. Oil hasn’t risen above $100 a barrel since early Summer, some traders are speculating it will rise above $200 in the coming months. Here’s why.
China
In addition to the announcement that the CPR was cutting the required quarantine period for the country (to five days from seven, with three days of home isolation), the required PCR test hurdle is being lowered as well. And airlines no longer run the risk of being suspended if the travelers they bring in that test positive is five or more.
Europe
The European Union has agreed to stop all oil imports from Russia on Dec. 5. The plan is to cap the prices at which EU nations would buy oil from Russia, that price is expected to be near $60 per barrel. Russia has reacted by increasing exports to Asia, but the price cap is expected to reduce its exports and lower total supply by up to one million barrels per day.
United States
Back in May, the U.S. took the drastic step of increasing available supply by selling oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a rate of nearly one million barrels per day starting in May. The increased supply has kept oil prices down. But the sales are unsustainable and expected to be reduced. Congress has allowed another sale of 26 million barrels that are expected to carry through to October 2023. This is a much slower pace of oil releases from the reserves. Plus, the reserves will need to be replenished.
After the Congressionally approved release, the reserve will be down to 348 million barrels, this is half the quantity compared to January of this year —the lowest since 1983. Congress has said that the reserve must stay above 252.4 million barrels, and the incoming Congress is expected to be more conservative when it comes to using these strategic assets to control prices.
Production growth overall in the U.S. has stalled after having increased through most of the year. Government data show that U.S. production dropped to 11.9 million barrels per day last week, this is tied for the lowest level in several months. Supplies of products such as diesel and heating oil in the U.S. are at multiyear lows. So there is not abundant supply should a weather-related or some other fuel-demanding crisis surface.
Oil is now trading between $92 and $93 a barrel. It had reached a high above $130 in March, shortly after the war began, and hasn’t seen the $100 a barrel level since late June.
Trading this week showed significant flows into an options contract that speculates that $200 per barrel may be in store. The most actively traded Brent crude options contract on Thursday was an option to buy Brent at $200 in March 2023. This was the most active oil contract of the day.
How significant is this bullish activity surrounding oil prices? The ratio of bullish to bearish bets in the options market is wider than at any time in recorded history, according to Bloomberg. Oil options traders are positioned more aggressively than ever before.
Take Away
Oil demand could rise soon in China as travel restrictions are lessened. Elsewhere in the world, oil demand is expected to increase as supplies remain the same or decrease. Demand remained elevated globally despite slower economies.
With supply likely to drop and demand ramping up, $200 by the third week in March is one price expectation for a record number of trades transacted at recently. More than doubling in a few months sounds unthinkable, but the massive trades were transacted by experienced institutional traders.
Federal Reserve President Speeches With Elections and CPI to Shape the Week’s Trading
Yes, the stock markets are open on Veterans Day (Friday). But bond trading, which the stock market has been more keenly focused on this year, will be taking the day off along with other U.S. government services. Equity traders can get a sense of interest rate sentiment on Friday by turning to the Chicago Board of Options and viewing tickers ZF=F (5 yr. USTN), ZN=F (10 yr. USTN), ZB=F (30 yr. USTB).
All markets are open on Election Day, and the outcome, as measured by House seats and Senate seats distributed among the major political parties, has the potential to be market-moving.
It’s a quiet week for economic numbers, except for Thursday, when the CPI report is released. This has the potential of changing those calling for a 50 bp hike at the next meeting to up their expectations or those still forecasting 75bp to lower their call. Certainly, the Fed governors will be watching this and all measures of inflation up to the December 14-15 meeting. There are a number of Fed governors speaking this week; this could alter the tone; however, the next meeting is far out into the future.
Election Day.
Monday 11/7
3:00 PM ET the amount of consumer installment credit for September, including credit cards, auto loan, and student loans outstanding, indicate current consumer spending and borrowing patterns. The markets tend to ignore this number as we are already in November and this report measures September
3:40 PM ET, the Federal Reserve Bank Presidents Mester (Cleveland) and Collins (Boston), will be speaking. Both are considered fairly hawkish.
6:00 PM ET, the Federal Reserve Bank President Harkey (Philadelphia) will be speaking.
Tuesday 11/8
Election Day.
Meet the Management; Noble Capital Markets hosts Management of Entravision Communications (EVC) in West Palm Beach, FL. This is a no-cost-to-attend, in-person breakfast meeting with investors. If interested, click here.
Meet the Management, Noble Capital Markets hosts Management of Entravision Communications (EVC) in Boca Raton, FL. This is a no-cost-to-attend, in-person lunch meeting with investors. If interested, click here.
Wednesday 11/9
It can be expected that the newswires will be filled with Election Day outcomes and market-moving conjecture.
7:00 AM ET Mortgage Applications. The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) creates a statistic from several mortgage loan indexes. The Mortgage Applications index measures applications at mortgage lenders. It’s considered a leading indicator and is especially important for single-family home sales and housing construction. Both are considered foundational in a strong economy.
10 Year Treasury Note Auction is held in the middle of each month and settles on or around the 15th (depending on weekends). The yield is a benchmark for 30-year mortgages and has recently been noted by investment markets because it has been trading at a yield lower than shorter maturities. This inversion of the yield curve has some market players suggesting a recession is expected in the future. Any surprises at the auction will reverberate through the stock market.
10:30 AM ET, EIA Petroleum Status Report.
11:00 AM ET, Federal Reserve President Barkin (Philadelphia) speaks.
Meet the Management; Noble Capital Markets hosts Management of Entravision Communications (EVC) in Winter Park, FL. This is a no-cost-to-attend, in-person breakfast meeting with investors. If interested, click here.
Meet the Management; Noble Capital Markets hosts Management of Entravision Communications (EVC) in Orlando, FL. This is a no-cost-to-attend, in-person lunch meeting with investors. If interested, click here.
Thursday 11/10
8:30 AM ET, U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the inflation indicator most widely broadcast. With inflation being a primary focus, this will be the big number coming out this week. The number represents a basket of goods considered typical for an urban consumer and is taken as the change in the cost of that basket of goods. A percentage is derived from the change. CPI is also reported with food and energy removed as it is considered that other non-economic factors influence these prices. The September report indicated CPI rose 0.4% for the month and 8.2% YOY. Expectations are for an increase to 0.7% for October and a YOY rate of 8.0%.
8:30 AM ET U.S. Jobless Claims which represent the prior week’s employment are expected to have increased to 221,000 from 217,000. From jobless claims, investors can gain a sense of how tight or how loose the job market is. If wage inflation takes hold, interest rates will likely rise, and bond and stock prices will fall. Remember, the lower the number of unemployment claims, the stronger the job market, and vice versa.
10:30 AM ET, EIA Natural Gas Status Report.
Friday 11/11
Veterans Day, the stock market is one, the futures markets are open, and the bond market and other U.S. government-related offices are closed.
10 AM ET Consumer Sentiment, November (preliminary). This barometer, reported by the University of Michigan, questions households each month on their assessment of current conditions and expectations of future conditions. This “preliminary” release is for the month of November and is expected to have fallen to 59.6 versus 59.9 last month.
What Else
It is a light week for economic releases and Fed governor addresses, but the election outcome and CPI have the potential to whip markets around.
We’re entering the holiday shopping season when there will be a number of measures that investors focus on that will give a hint as to how strong the consumer is in the current economy.
US Sailors, Coastal Riverine Group, Restoring Command Anchor with Gold Paint, Credit: US Pacific Fleet (Flickr)
Can the Dollar Once Again Be Anchored by Gold? One Congressman Believes It Can
On October 7, 2022, US congressman Alex Mooney (a Republican from West Virginia) introduced a bill (the Gold Standard Restoration Act, H.R. 9157) that stipulates that the US dollar must be backed by physical gold owned by the US Treasury. The initiative clearly indicates that the increasingly inflationary US dollar is triggering efforts to get better money.
It should be noted that there have already been many legislative changes to make precious metals more attractive as a means of payment in recent years: in many US states, the value-added and capital gains taxes on gold and silver, but also on platinum and palladium, have been abolished. Mr. Mooney’s proposal is divided into three sections.
The first section of the bill establishes the need for a return to a gold-backed US dollar. For example, it is said that the US dollar—or more precisely, the bill refers to “Federal Reserve Notes”—that is, banknotes issued by the US Federal Reserve (Fed)—has lost its purchasing power on a massive scale in the past: Since 2000, it has dropped by 30 percent, and since 1913 by 97 percent. The bill also argues that with an inflation target of 2 percent, the Fed will not preserve the purchasing power of the US dollar but will have it halved after just thirty-five years. Moreover, the bill points out that it is in the interest of US citizens and firms to have a “stable US dollar.” The bill highlights that the inflationary US dollar has been eroding the industrial base of the US economy, enriching the owners of financial assets, while endangering workers’ jobs, wages, and savings.
The second section of the bill describes in more detail the technical process for re-anchoring the US dollar to the US official gold stock. It states that (1) the US secretary of the Treasury must define the US dollar banknotes using a fixed fine gold weight thirty days after the law goes into effect, based on the closing price of the gold on that day. The Fed must (2) ensure that the US banknotes are redeemable for physical gold at the designated rate at the Fed. (3) If the banks of the Fed system fail to comply with peoples’ exchange requests, the exchange must be made by the US Treasury, and in return, the Treasury takes the Fed’s bank assets as collateral.
The third section specifies how a “fair” gold price in US dollar can develop in an orderly manner within thirty days after the bill has taken effect. To this end, (1) the US Treasury and the Fed must publish all of their gold holdings, disclosing all purchases, sales, swaps, leases, and all other gold transactions that have taken place since the “temporary” suspension of the redeemability of the US dollar into gold on August 15, 1971, under the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944. In addition, (2) the US Treasury and the Fed must publicly disclose all gold redemptions and transfers in the 10 years preceding the “temporary” suspension of the US dollar’s gold redemption obligation on August 15, 1971.
What to Make of This?
The bill’s core is the idea of re-anchoring the US dollar to physical gold based on a fair gold price freely determined in the market. (By the way, this is an idea put forward by the economist Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) in the early 1950s.) In this context, the bill refers to US banknotes. However, banknotes only comprise a (fractional) part of the total US dollar money supply. But since US bank deposits can be redeemed (at least in principle) in US banknotes, not only US dollar cash (coins and notes) could be exchanged for gold, but also the money supply M1 or M2 as fixed and savings deposits could be exchanged for sight deposits, and sight deposits, in turn, could be withdrawn in cash by customers, and the banknotes could then be exchanged for gold at the Fed.
As of August 2022, the stock of US cash (“currency in circulation”) amounted to $2,276.3 billion. Assuming that the official physical gold holdings of the US Treasury amount to 261.5 million troy ounces, and the market expected US cash to be backed by the official US gold stock, a gold price of about $8,700 per troy ounce would result. This would correspond to a 418 percent increase compared to the current gold price of $1,680. If, however, the market were to expect the entire US money supply M2 to be covered by the official US gold stock, then the price of gold would move toward $83,000 per troy ounce—an increase of 4.840 percent compared to the current gold price. Needless to say, such an appreciation of gold has far-reaching consequences.
All goods prices in US dollars can be expected to rise (perhaps to the extent that the price of gold has risen). After all, the purchasing power of the owners of gold has increased significantly. Therefore, they can be expected to use their increased purchasing power to buy other goods (such as consumer goods, but also stocks, houses, etc.). If this happens, the prices of these goods in US dollar terms will be pushed up—and thus, the initial purchasing power gain that the gold dollar holders have enjoyed by being tied to the increased gold price will melt away again. Moreover, if US banks were willing to accept additional gold from the public in exchange for issuing new US dollar, reanchoring the US dollar in gold would increase the upward price effect.
A re-anchoring of the US dollar in the US official gold stock will result in a far-reaching redistribution of income and wealth. In fact, it would be fatal for the outstanding US dollar debt: US dollar goods prices would rise, caused by a rise in the US dollar gold price at which the US dollar is redeemable for physical gold, thereby eroding the US dollar’s purchasing power. In the foreign exchange markets, the US dollar would probably appreciate drastically against those currencies that are not backed by gold and against currencies which are backed by gold, not as fine compared to the fineness of the gold backing of the US dollar. The purchasing power of the US dollar abroad would increase sharply, while the US export economy would suffer. US goods would become correspondingly expensive abroad, while foreign companies gain high price competitiveness in the US market.
Once the US dollar is re-anchored in gold, today’s chronic inflation will end; monetary policy–induced boom-and-bust cycles will come to an end; the world will become more peaceful because financing a war in a gold-backed monetary system will be very expensive, and the general public will most likely not want to bear its costs. However, there is still room for improvement. A “Gold Standard Restoration Act” will deserve unconditional support if and when it paves the way toward a truly “free market for money.” A free market in money means that you and I have the freedom to choose the kind of money we believe serves our purposes best; and that people are free to offer their fellow human beings a good that they voluntarily choose to use as money.
In a truly free market, people will choose the good they want to use as money. Most importantly, in a truly free market in money, the state (as we know it today) loses its influence on money and money production altogether. In fact, the state (and the special interest groups that exploit the state) no longer determine which kind of gold (coins and bars, cast or minted) can be used as money; the state is no longer active in the minting business and cannot monopolize it anymore; there is no longer a state-controlled central bank to intervene in the credit and money markets and influence market interest rates. That said, let us hope that the Gold Standard Restoration Act proposed by Mr. Mooney will pave the way to reforming the US dollar currency system—and that it will eventually move us toward a truly free market in money.
About the Author
Dr. Thorsten Polleit is the Chief Economist of Degussa and an Honorary Professor at the University of Bayreuth. He also acts as an investment advisor.
Philippe Petit walks Tightrope between buildings one and two of WTC, Manhattan, 1974 – Robert.Dearie (Flickr)
Analyst Team Point Out Asset Classes that Slingshotted in the 1970s
While the traditional fine print usually says, “past performance is no guarantee of future results,’ we all know trading decisions, whether the stocks are to be held for seconds, or decades, are based on probabilities. And market probabilities are rooted in past performance. What does past performance tell us about the chances that the markets can survive high inflation and low growth? Well, if the stagflation of the 70s repeats, there may be a small section of the markets to keep a solid footing.
Michael Hartnett is the chief investment strategist at Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. Hartnett sees in our current economy the ingredients in the macroeconomic picture that lead to the difficult economic combination of high inflation and low growth. His team, in their Flow Show note on Friday, wrote: “Inflation and stagnation was ‘unanticipated in 2022…hence $35 trillion collapse in asset valuations; but relative returns in 2022 have very much mirrored asset returns in 1973/74, and the 70s remain our asset allocation analog for 2020s.”
If the conditions of the 1970s are being mirrored and we are creating a foundation similar to 1973/74, Hartnett and team have a list of assets that could springboard off the stagflation cycle.
The assets with potential include taking long positions in small-caps, value, commodities, resources, volatility, and emerging markets. The group also highlights the short positions that worked well in the 1970s, the note indicates these are larger stocks, bonds, growth, and technology.
Why Small-Caps
As it applies to the smaller companies, the note points out that stagflation persisted through the late 1970s, but the inflation shock had ended by 1973/74, when the small-cap asset class “entered one of the great bull markets of all-time.” The Hartnett team sees small-caps set to keep outperforming in the “coming years of stagflation.”
The current year-to-date status has the Russell 2000 small-cap stock market index (measured by iShares ETF) down 19.8% in 2022. At the same time, the Dow Industrials are down 11%, S&P 500 lost 21%, and the Nasdaq Composite gave back 33%.
The current state of the Fed and Chairman Powell is they continue to be adamant about tightening, Powell said he’d prefer to overdo withdrawing stimulus than do too little. He also knows that until the market believes this, his tightening efforts will have a lower impact.
The BofA team isn’t helping market expectations as they noted, despite Powell’s clear signal that the Fed isn’t ready to declare even a slight victory from its raising rates; the analyst team says, don’t give up on that pivot.
After tightening interest rates through 1973/74 amid inflation and oil shocks, the central bank first cut in July 1975 as growth turned negative, Hartnett points out. A sustained pivot began in December of that year, and importantly, the unemployment rate surged from 5.6% and 6.6% that same month.
The “following 12 months, the S&P 500 rose 31%. The note suggests the lesson learned is that job losses when they occur, will be the catalyst for a 2023 pivot,” said Hartnett and the team.
We’re not there yet. Today’s economic release on jobs showed the U.S. added a stronger-than-expected 261,000 jobs during October. This is a slower pace than the prior month’s 315,000 job gains but still shows the Fed can comfortably notch rates up more and continue reducing its balance sheet.
Take Away
The team of analysts at BofA/Merrill Lynch, reporting to Michael Hartnett, drew conclusions from the stagflation and financial markets’ performance of the 1970s. They shared their thoughts in a research note with investors. Looking at past performance, their expectation is that the Fed will pivot away from aggressively raising rates when it begins to negatively impact job creation. At this point, many markets will have already reacted to inflation expectations and would then react to a more accommodative monetary policy.
The asset sectors to avoid or short are larger stocks, bonds, growth, and technology. The preferred sectors that, in past situations, have done well are small-caps, value, commodities, resources, volatility, and emerging markets.
Be sure to sign-up at no cost for small and microcap company research sent to you each day by Channelchek.
