Category: Opinion

Fed Pivot, Money Supply, and Investment Returns

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Karolina Grabowska (Pexels)

Why Investors Are Obsessed with the Fed “Pivot”

“Investors should not care whether the Fed pivots or not if they analyze investment opportunities based on fundamentals and not on monetary laughing gas,” writes economist Daniel Lacalle, PhD. In his latest article, published below. LaCalle takes on the journalists and economists that see market risk differently than himself. This is a thought-provoking read for anyone who has been living on a diet of mostly CNBC, and Yahoo Finance, as exposure to diverse market viewpoints is considered healthy. – Paul Hoffman, Channelchek

Obsessed Investors

In a recent Bloomberg article, a group of economists voiced their fears that the Federal Reserve’s inflation fight may create an unnecessarily deep downturn. However, the Federal Reserve does not create a downturn due to rate hikes; it creates the foundations of a crisis by unnecessarily lowering rates to negative territory and aggressively increasing its balance sheet. It is the malinvestment and excessive risk-taking fuelled by cheap money that lead to a recession.

Those same economists probably saw no risk in negative rates and massive money printing. It is profoundly concerning to see that experts who remained quiet as the world accumulated $17 trillion in negative yielding bonds and central banks’ balance sheets soared to more than $20 trillion now complain that rate hikes may create a debt crisis. The debt crisis, like all market imbalances, was created when central banks led investors to believe that a negative yielding bond was a worthwhile investment because the price would rise and compensate for the loss of yield. A good old bubble.

Multiple expansion has been an easy investment thesis. Earnings downgrades? No problem. Macro weakness? Who cares. Valuations soared simply because the quantity of money was rising faster than nominal GDP (gross domestic product). Printing money made investing in the most aggressive stocks and the riskiest bonds the most lucrative alternative. And that, my friends, is massive asset inflation. The Keynesian crowd repeated that this time would be different and consistently larger quantitative easing programs would not create inflation because it did not happen in the past. And it happened.

Inflation was already evident in assets all over the investment spectrum, but no one seemed to care. It was also evident in non-replicable goods and services. The FAO food price index already reached all-time highs in 2019 without any “supply chain disruption” excuse or blaming it on the Ukraine war. House prices, insurance, healthcare, education… The bubble of cheap money was clear everywhere.

Now many market participants want the Fed to pivot and stop hiking rates. Why? Because many want the easy multiple expansion carry trade back. The fact that investors see a Fed pivot as the main reason to buy tells you what an immensely perverse incentive monetary policy is and how poor the macro and earnings’ outlook are.

Earnings estimates have been falling for 2022 and 2023 all year. The latest S&P 500 earnings’ growth estimates published by Morgan Stanley show a modest 8 and 7 percent rise for this and next year respectively. Not bad? The pace of downgrades has not stopped, and the market is not even adjusting earnings to the downgrade in macroeconomic estimates. When I look at the details of these expectations, I am amazed to see widespread margin growth in 2023 and a backdrop of rising sales and low inflation. Excessively optimistic? I think so.

Few of us seem to realize a Fed pivot is a bad idea, and, in any case, it will not be enough to drive markets to a bull run again because inflationary pressures are stickier than what consensus would want. I find it an exercise in wishful thinking to read so many predictions of a rapid return to 2% inflation, even less, when history shows that once inflation rises above 5% in developed economies, it takes at least a decade to bring it down to 2%, according to Deutsche Bank. Even the OECD expects persistent inflation in 2023 against a backdrop of weakening growth.

Stagflation. That is the risk ahead, and a Fed pivot would do nothing to bring markets higher in that scenario. Stagflation periods have proven to be extremely poor for stocks and bonds, even worse when governments are unwilling to cut deficit spending, because the crowding out of the private sector works against a rapid recovery.

Current inflation expectations suggest the Fed will pivot in the first quarter of 2023. That is an awfully long time in the investment world if you want to bet on a V-shaped market recovery. Even worse, that pivot expectation is based on a surprisingly accelerated reduction in inflation. How can it happen when central banks’ balance sheets have barely moved in local currency, reverse repo liquidity injections reach trillion-dollar levels every month and money supply has barely corrected from the all-time highs of 2022? Many are betting on statistical bodies tweaking the calculation of CPI (consumer price index), and believe me, it will happen, but it will not disguise earnings and margin erosion.

To cut inflation drastically three things need to happen, and only one is not enough. 1) Hike rates. 2) Reduce the balance sheet of central banks meaningfully. 3) Stop deficit spending. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Investors that see the Fed as too hawkish look at money supply growth and how it is falling, but they do not look at broad money accumulation and the insanity of the size of central banks’ balance sheets that have barely moved in local currency. By looking at money supply growth as a variable of tightness in monetary policy they may make the mistake of believing that the tightening cycle is over too soon.

Investors should not care whether the Fed pivots or not if they analyze investment opportunities based on fundamentals and not on monetary laughing gas. Betting on a Fed pivot by adding risk to cyclical and extremely risky assets may be an extremely dangerous position even if the Fed does revert its pace, because it would be ignoring the economic cycle and the earnings reality. 

Central banks do not print growth. Governments do not boost productivity. However, both perpetuate inflation and have an incentive to increase debt. Adding these facts to our investment analysis may not guarantee high returns, but it will prevent enormous losses.

About the Author

Daniel Lacalle

Daniel Lacalle, PhD, economist and fund manager, is the author of the bestselling books Freedom or Equality (2020), Escape from the Central Bank Trap (2017), The Energy World Is Flat (2015), and Life in the Financial Markets (2014).

Information

Why Rate Increases May be Nearing an End

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Jernej Furman (Flickr)

Arguments Can be Made for Rates Being Too Low and for Rates Being Too High

The Federal Reserve has raised the Fed Funds rate from an average of 0.08% in January 2022 to its current 4.05%, and a likely adjustment to 4.25% to 4.50% tomorrow. Inflation, as measured by CPI and even the Fed’s favorite, the PCE deflator, has been showing a decreasing rise in prices. So investors within all affected markets are asking, how much more will the Fed raise rates?  Ignoring any suggestion that “this time it’s different,” I looked at US interest rates and inflation going back to 1962 and may have found enough consistency and historical norms to help determine what to expect now and why.

Are Increases Nearing an End?

I’ll start with the conclusion. The data suggests that the movement of market rates depends on whether higher current inflation is being caused by temporary or long-lived factors. The 10-year Treasury Note market believes current inflation is mostly temporary. This is shown by its yield, having touched 4.25% in late October, and then falling. The ten-year is now near 3.50%, despite the 0.75% increase in overnight rates implemented on November 2. If the combined wisdom of the Treasury market is reliable, this suggests FOMC rate increases are nearing an end. Perhaps one more smaller hike and then a wait-and-see period. The Fed would then monitor prices while past increases work their way through the economy.

 

Powell’s Concerns

At his last address on November 30th,  Fed Chair Jay Powell indicated he’d rather go too far (with tightening) and then reignite the economy rather than err on the side of not doing enough and having a bigger problem. The markets and the media largely ignored this, but it’s important to know what the Fed Chair believes is prescient and is sharing publicly.  Powell also said, “Given our progress in tightening policy, the timing of that moderation is far less significant than the questions of how much further we will need to raise rates to control inflation, and the length of time it will be necessary to hold policy at a restrictive level.” And then he said something very telling, Powell added, “It is likely that restoring price stability will require holding policy at a restrictive level for some time. History cautions strongly against prematurely loosening policy. We will stay the course until the job is done.”

Market Thinks Inflation is Temporary

But, the markets are overjoyed by the last two months of inflation data. Despite what the nations top central banker is saying. Markets may be right, but if they are wrong (bond and stock markets) spotting it early can help stave off losses. If inflation, which is lower than it had been, but not historically low,  proves more permanent, for example, if employers continue to have to bid up the price of workers, and demand for goods causes commodity prices to rise, then the Fed will have paused too early. This will lead to a more difficult challenge for the Fed as compared to tightening too much.  The data used in this article are from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) maintained by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

Actual and Expected Inflation

The St. Louis Federal Reserve publishes a market estimate of expected average inflation over the next ten years.  It is derived from the 10-year Treasury constant maturity bond and 10-year Treasury inflation-indexed constant maturity bond.  It was first published in 2003.  Over 2003-2021, 10-year inflation expectation averaged 2.0%, the same as GDP deflator inflation.  During the second quarter of 2022, the expected 10-year inflation was 2.7%, or less than 1.0 percentage point above its 2003-2021 average.  In contrast, GDP deflator inflation was 7.6%.  A significant wedge exists between current and expected inflation.

Source: St. Louis Fed

The breakeven inflation rate represents a measure of expected inflation derived from 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Securities (BC_10YEAR) and 10-Year Treasury Inflation-Indexed Constant Maturity Securities (TC_10YEAR). The latest value implies what market participants expect inflation to be in the next 10 years, on average.

Beginning with the end of the last recession on April 1, 2020, the Treasury bond data used in calculating interest rate spreads is obtained directly from the U.S. Treasury Department.

Take Away

The Market’s expectation of 10-year average inflation is dramatically different from current inflation, even at inflation’s new lower pace. This implies the market believes it to be temporary.

If the market’s expectation of inflation is accurate, there is an average difference between Fed Funds and the PCE deflator of 1.6% (since 1962). The last read on PCE was October 2022 at 6%. Reducing this by 1.6 would provide a Fed Funds level of 4.4%. This level is in line with historic averages and likely where we will be after the FOMC meeting wraps up on December 14. This comparatively high rate relative to where we began the year may be considered neutral.

Will the Fed stop at neutral? Are the markets right? Powell said he’d rather err on the side of going beyond what is needed, which suggests the Fed will continue some. As for the markets, being on the side of the markets is how you make money, but getting out before trouble arises is how you keep the money. Markets are not always accurate forecasters and since economic behavior and debt levels tend to adjust slowly, prudent portfolio management suggests it is wise to keep an eye out for today’s interest rates still being too low.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20221130a.htm

https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/search

Vanguard Drops Net Zero Pledge – Will Others Follow?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Jim Surkamp (Flickr)

Will Asset Managers Start Stepping Back from ESG Pledges?

The Net Zero Asset Managers (NAZM) initiative is an international group of 291 asset managers with 66 trillion in combined AUM. They all signed that they are committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. This week the number of asset managers was reduced by one as Vanguard, with $8.1 trillion AUM left the agreement. Vanguard said it made the decision in an effort to better speak for itself on its views and to be certain to balance client’s needs and returns along with climate impact in its funds’ investments.

“Industry initiatives like NZAM can advance constructive dialogue, but they can also create confusion about the views of individual firms. We want to provide greater clarity that Vanguard speaks freely on important matters such as climate risk. After a considerable period of review, we have decided to withdraw from the NZAM in order to provide clarity on what our investors want about the role of index funds and how we think about material risks, including climate-related risk,” said Alyssa Thornton, a spokesperson for Vanguard.

Firms that have signed the NAZM agreement are coming under a lot of pressure from states, pension funds, and others to defend how this is measurably best for the assets left in the care of the manager.

Vanguard, the world’s top mutual fund manager, official statement read, “We have decided to withdraw from NZAM so that we can provide the clarity our investors desire about the role of index funds and about how we think about material risks, including climate-related risks—and to make clear that Vanguard speaks independently on matters of importance to our investors.” Again, the themes are to not be beholden to outside control over its decisions and the company developing its own measurements of material risks from world energy-related moves.

Vanguard, said the change “will not affect our commitment to helping our investors navigate the risks that climate change can pose to their long-term returns.”

Is This Going to Be a Trend?

There is a movement growing with large clients asking investment firms to explain how their energy-investment-related decision is in line with their fiduciary role. Roughly a week ago, Consumers’ Research and 13 state attorneys general asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to review Vanguard’s request to own energy company stocks. “Americans are paying sky-high electricity rates and companies like Vanguard are making the problem worse,” Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, wrote in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

Another issue Hild has with Vanguard is its meddling with strategic decisions and corporate governance at energy firms. Hild wrote, “With more than $7 trillion in assets under management, the Pennsylvania-based investment firm has publicly committed to pressuring utilities to lower their emissions.” Hild then accused, “Vanguard appears to be not only putting America’s critical infrastructure at risk but violating its agreement only to control utility company shares passively. To protect U.S. consumers and safeguard national security, FERC should investigate the company’s conduct.”

Vanguard isn’t the only firm of the 291 that are being questioned by their largest customers.

Today North Carolina State Treasurer Dale Folwell sent a letter to BlackRock’s board of directors calling for Fink to step aside because the CEO’s “pursuit of a political agenda has gotten in the way of BlackRock’s same fiduciary duty” to its investors. “A focus on ESG is not a focus on returns and could potentially force us to violate our fiduciary duty,” Folwell wrote. North Carolina has approximately $14 billion with Blackrock, and $111 billion under management.

But the fiduciary knife can be cut both ways. Those that are more concerned with any impact that continued fossil-fuel use would have on climate and economies stand behind the argument that it is not in anyone’s best interest not to follow a net zero 2050 goal. “It is unfortunate that political pressure is impacting this crucial economic imperative and attempting to block companies from effectively managing risks — a crucial part of their fiduciary duty,” said Kirsten Snow Spalding, a vice president at sustainability nonprofit Ceres and a NZAM founding partner.

Meanwhile in order to be able to best decipher how to view concepts like net zero investing, the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs will hold a hearing on December 15 to discuss the impacts of environmental social governance (ESG) policies on state pensions. The panel has asked Vanguard, BlackRock, StateStreet and ISS to appear and answer questions about their ESG practices. Texas previously asked the four firms to turn over documents in August. The Lone Star state had subpoenaed BlackRock to provide additional documents in person after the firm failed to comply with certain aspects of the initial request.

Take Away

All trends, whether investment related or not go through a vetting period, followed by a continued push and pull to seek balance. Firms that have signed on to NAZM can do their own analysis and develop their own plans that best serve their customers. The NZAM may only get in the way. Yet, they don’t have to back-off of caring about and keeping in mind environmental principles, they can just better tailor them to those they are contracted to invest for. An outside global organization is less likely to understand how to be a fiduciary for a Vanguard fund that may be used in the Louisiana state pension system. And with more investment firms acting independently, more and better opportunities will grow from the competition.

ESG, which is in a related family, will also develop and evolve over time. Down the road, investors, analysts, and organizations providing ESG scoring can get revised measures on impact and adjust scoring based on effectiveness.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

NetZeroAssetMgars (NZAM)

VanguardLeavesNZAM

VanguardPullsOut

VanguardAntiWoke

Is There a Better Drug Patenting System?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Alexandros Chatzidimos (Pexels)

Pharma’s Expensive Gaming of the Drug Patent System is Successfully Countered by the Medicines Patent Pool, Which Increases Global Access and Rewards Innovation

Biomedical innovation reached a new era during the COVID-19 pandemic as drug development went into overdrive. But the ways that brand companies license their patented drugs grant them market monopoly, preventing other entities from making generics so they can exclusively profit. This significantly limits the reach of lifesaving drugs, especially to low- and middle-income countries, or LMICs.

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 Lucy Xiaolu Wang, Assistant Professor of Resource Economics, UMass Amherst

Drug Patents in the Global Landscape

Patents are designed to provide incentives for innovation by granting monopoly power to patent holders for a period of time, typically 20 years from the application filing date.

However, this intention is complicated by strategic patenting. For example, companies can delay the creation of generic versions of a drug by obtaining additional patents based on slight changes to its formulation or method of use, among other tactics. This “evergreens” the company’s patent portfolio without requiring substantial new investments in research and development.

Furthermore, because patents are jurisdiction-specific, patent rights granted in the U.S. do not automatically apply to other countries. Firms often obtain multiple patents covering the same drug in different countries, adapting claims based on what is patentable in each jurisdiction.

To incentivize technology transfer to low- and middle-income countries, member nations of the World Trade Organization signed the 1995 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, which set the minimum standards for intellectual property regulation. Under TRIPS, governments and generic drug manufacturers in low- and middle-income countries may infringe on or invalidate patents to bring down patented drug prices under certain conditions. Patents in LMICs were also strengthened to incentivize firms from high-income countries to invest and trade with LMICs.

The 2001 Doha Declaration clarified the scope of TRIPS, emphasizing that patent regulations should not prevent drug access during public health crises. It also allowed compulsory licensing, or the production of patented products or processes without the consent of the patent owner.

One notable example of national patent law in practice after TRIPS is Novartis’ anticancer drug imatinib (Glivec or Gleevec). In 2013, India’s Supreme Court denied Novartis’s patent application for Glivec for obviousness, meaning both experts or the general public could arrive at the invention themselves without requiring much skill or thought. The issue centered on whether new forms of known substances, in this case a crystalline form of imatinib, were too obvious to be patentable. At the time, Glivec had already been patented in 40 other countries. As a result of India’s landmark ruling, the price of Glivec dropped from 150,000 INR (about US$2,200) to 6,000 INR ($88) for one month of treatment.

Patent Challenges and Pools

Although TRIPS seeks to balance incentives for innovation with access to patented technologies, issues with patents still remain. Drug cocktails, for example, can contain multiple patented compounds, each of which can be owned by different companies. Overlapping patent rights can create a “patent thicket” that blocks commercialization. Treatments for chronic conditions that require a stable and inexpensive supply of generics also pose a challenge, as the cost burden of long-term use of patented drugs is often unaffordable for patients in low- and middle-income countries.

One solution to these drug access issues is patent pools. In contrast to the currently decentralized licensing market, where each technology owner negotiates separately with each potential licensee, a patent pool provides a “one-stop shop” where licensees can get the rights for multiple patents at the same time. This can reduce transaction costs, royalty stacking and hold-up problems in drug commercialization.

Patent pools were first used in 1856 for sewing machines and were once ubiquitous across multiple industries. Patent pools gradually disappeared after a 1945 U.S. Supreme Court decision that increased regulatory scrutiny, hindering the formation of new pools. Patent pools were later revived in the 1990s in response to licensing challenges in the information and communication technology sector.

Patent pools create a one-stop shop for multiple patients, allowing multiple licensees to enter the market. Lucy Xiaolu Wang, CC BY-NC-ND

The Medicines Patent Pool

Despite many challenges, the first patent pool created for the purpose of promoting public health formed in 2010 with support from the United Nations and Unitaid. The Medicines Patent Pool, or MPP, aims to spur generic licensing for patented drugs that treat diseases disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries. Initially covering only HIV drugs, the MPP later expanded to include hepatitis C and tuberculosis drugs, many medications on the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list and, most recently, COVID-19 treatments and technologies.

But how much has the MPP improved drug access?

I sought to answer this question by examining how the Medicines Patent Pool has affected generic drug distribution in low- and middle-income countries and biomedical research and development in the U.S. To analyze the MPP’s influence on expanding access to generic drugs, I collected data on drug licensing contracts, procurement, public and private patents and other economic variables from over 100 low- and middle-income countries. To analyze the MPP’s influence on pharmaceutical innovation, I examined data on new clinical trials and new drug approvals over this period. This data spanned from 2000 to 2017.

The Medicines Patent Pool works as an intermediary between branded drug companies and generic licensees, increasing access to drugs. Lucy Xiaolu Wang, CC BY-NC-ND
i

I found that the MPP led to a 7% increase in the share of generic drugs supplied to LMICs. Increases were greater in countries where drugs are patented and in countries outside of sub-Saharan Africa, where baseline generic shares are lower and can benefit more from market-based licensing.

I also found that the MPP generated positive spillover effects for innovation. Firms outside the pool increased the number of trials they conducted on drug cocktails that included MPP compounds, while branded drug firms participating in the pool shifted their focus to developing new compounds. This suggests that the MPP allowed firms outside the pool to explore new and better ways to use MPP drugs, such as in new study populations or different treatment combinations, while brand name firms participating in the pool could spend more resources to develop new drugs.

The MPP was also able to lessen the burden of post-market surveillance for branded firms, allowing them to push new drugs through clinical trials while generic and other independent firms could monitor the safety and efficacy of approved drugs more cheaply.

Overall, my analysis shows the MPP effectively expanded generic access to HIV drugs in developing countries without diminishing innovation incentives. In fact, it even spurred companies to make better use of existing drugs.

Technology Licensing for COVID-19 and Beyond

Since May 2020, the Medicines Patent Pool has become a key partner of the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, which works to spur equitable and affordable access to COVID-19 health products globally. The MPP has not only made licensing for COVID-19 health products more accessible to low- and middle-income countries, but also helped establish an mRNA vaccine technology transfer hub in South Africa to provide the technological training needed to develop and sell products treating COVID-19 and beyond.

Licensing COVID-19-related technologies can be complicated by the large amount of trade secrets involved in producing drugs derived from biological sources. These often require additional technology transfer beyond patents, such as manufacturing details. The MPP has also worked to communicate with brand firms, generic manufacturers and public health agencies in low- and middle-income countries to close the licensing knowledge gap.

Questions remain on how to best use licensing institutions like the MPP to increase generic drug access without hampering the incentive to innovate. But the MPP is proving that it is possible to align the interests of Big Pharma and generic manufacturers to save more lives in developing countries. In October 2022, the MPP signed a licensing agreement with Novartis for the leukemia drug nilotinib – the first time a cancer drug has come under a public health-oriented licensing agreement.

The “Pilgrims” of Today

Posted on by Admin
Image Credit: AJ Groomes (Pexels)

Entrepreneurial Courage and Perseverance Define the Pilgrims

Originally Published November 27, 2019 (Channelchek)

This week, across the U.S., families and friends, young and old, will gather to celebrate the “most American” of holidays, Thanksgiving. The gatherings will most surely include traditional foods of the holiday while families enjoy their own tradition of sharing and gratitude. Thoughts may also drift to almost 400 years ago when in 1621 a determined group of 102 Pilgrims persevered to achieve a mission they believed in – an accomplishment that has had a positive impact for centuries. They met challenges from the very beginning during their two-month-long voyage on the Mayflower, and they struggled as the first Winter took the lives of half the population of settlers. These resolute individuals share many of the same characteristics as today’s newer business owners who are making sacrifices in their own lives, for a better tomorrow for themselves and their descendants. 

Dictionary.com has four definitions for the word “entrepreneur,” the first reads: “a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk.” It’s not a stretch to call the original settlers of Plymouth Massachusetts entrepreneurs.   Their grit, ingenuity, initiative, and even willingness to learn and rely on others more experienced in their environment, was certainly entrepreneurial.

The Mayflower colonists did not go by the moniker “Pilgrims,” that tag came 200 years after their landing at Plymouth Rock. Instead they referred to themselves as the “Saints”  to indicate their purity and feelings of being special or chosen. This feeling must have been a strong driver as they risked so much in a way that is extreme by any standard in modern America.

Today’s Pilgrims

The risk-takers today, at least those looking to sacrifice more than others for the dream of a better tomorrow, whether for themselves and their families or for the world at large, are the business entrepreneurs. Especially in fields that are “uncharted territory.” Some examples are companies relying on developing technology, scientific breakthroughs, or mineral exploration. As with most “firsts”, there are always unknowns, long lead times before any profit, and a shortage of capital. These are among the reasons building a business today, particularly in a groundbreaking field with unproven outcome, is a path taken by very few. Those that do, and then survive and thrive, have embraced being nimble, building alliances, persistence, belief in themselves, and asking for help when needed.

“All great and honorable actions are accompanied by great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.” – William Bradford, Second Governor, Plymouth Colony

Flexibility

The Pilgrims initially went to Holland, where they expected to be welcomed by people of different religions.  Their main reason for having left England was to worship without constraints. The Pilgrims made their home at first in Holland, but the more secular life they found there was not going to lead to a future that matched their vision. They wanted to build their own colony where they would attract others who believed as they did – even if it meant starting with close to nothing.  As entrepreneurs, they didn’t accept an undesirable outcome; they pivoted, changed their plans and redirected their effort, deciding to establish themselves and their future near Virginia’s Hudson River. While traveling, storms pushed them into Massachusetts, where they decided to rethink their plan once again. They then revised their plan and decided to find an area close to where they landed that would be suitable for farming.

To begin the two-month trip across the Atlantic, the Pilgrims borrowed money that, at the time, was an astronomical amount. The loan from, English capitalists looking to profit off the venture was for 1700 pounds. At the time, the average Englishman earned a tenth of a pound per day. As colonists, they first worked collectively to pay back this loan. They later divided acreage to work individually at farming their own land.

Alliances

After the first brutal Winter, the Pilgrims, who raised money in a business arrangement to finance their journey, again opened themselves up to being helped. This time by native Americans. They learned how to best plant corn, where to fish, and how to trap beaver and other furs.  This helped lead the pilgrims to an abundance just one year later and a profit in their second year. Their debt was fully paid off in 23 years.

There are now over 10 million living Americans who are descendants of the Mayflower passengers. The undeniable traits of the entrepreneurs we now call Pilgrims have impacted the world. Entrepreneurs of today share the same traits and skills of those that came before; intention toward a dream, plan, persevere, adjust, negotiate, orchestrate help, and implement. The impact of entrepreneurs continues to shape the world and continue to have a positive impact on the future with their efforts.

Giving Thanks

Ideas have the ability to change the world. Those ideas  that improve lives and positively impact the world are on the list of things we can be thankful for.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Rail Worker Impasse Likely –  What’s Around the Next Turn?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

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.

Is the Coming Political Gridlock Good for Specific Market Sectors?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Kelly Bell (Flickr)

A Return to Gridlock in Washington Could be Healthy for Stocks

Political gridlock has historically been associated with higher stock market prices. So, while staunch supporters of either political party did not become overjoyed by the Election Day outcome, those invested in stocks may wind up better off. With President Biden (D) in the Executive branch, and at least the House of Representatives in the legislative branch holding a Republican majority, a split government is assured. This is true no matter the final outcome of the Senate races. A split government, with its accompanying gridlock, has been accompanied by positive long-term stock market performance.

A Smoother Road

The battles in Washington may take on a more heated tone with a split government, for investors, the gridlock scenario eliminates a lot of uncertainty. In the inflationary period we are in, a government with less ability to institute spending plans, and a reduced ability to change tax rates in an effort to pay for spending, is far less of a concern to market participants – less change will be enacted.

For businesses, there is more visibility to plan, budget, and implement plans to build their business. A split government should lead toward fewer dramatic changes or government intervention that bolsters one technology or product over another. With a lower risk of playing field changing legislation, tax change, or regulations, businesses are more likely to spend and invest as the risk of change is lower.

Historically, stocks have tended to do better under a divided government when a Democrat is in the White House. The average one-year S&P 500 returns have been 13% in a Republican-held Congress under a Democratic president and 14% when the Congress is split. This compares with 10% when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress.

Under the current situation, less spending on Build Back Better initiatives and a lower likelihood of passage of more plans like The Inflation Reduction Act help reduce spending and stimulus, which may allow the Federal Reserve to end its tightening cycle sooner.

The increase in Republicans could bring more attention to several stock market areas, such as biotech and pharmaceuticals. Their increased presence lowers prospects for price controls on prescription drugs. Big tech stocks could benefit from less of a threat to regulate the industry.

Some Choppiness Ahead

In 2011 the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating over the long gridlock battle that delayed increasing the Federal Debt ceiling. A possible downgrade, or “credit watch” category, could lead to an increase in rates, not just in U.S. government debt but all loans tied to these benchmark rates.

The enhanced power of Republicans could also slow infrastructure outlays, particularly the momentum in spending that has lifted so many alternative fuel stocks. Incentive plans and grants funded through borrowing and taxation have grown dramatically with both the executive and legislative branches under single-party control, those sectors that were expecting the pace to continue may find growth prospects slowing. Marijuana legalization on the Federal level may also be less of a priority now among lawmakers.

Stocks Post Mid-Terms Track Record

The S&P 500 has recorded a gain in each 12-month period after the mid-terms since World War Two. The markets have been clobbered with declining values since 2022 began; perhaps this is the turning point where the unfairly beaten-down sectors and companies begin to make up for lost ground.

Take Away

The election outcome wasn’t overly satisfying for either party but may lead to stronger stock market performance. Also, just getting past the mid-term elections without regard for the outcome has a stellar record of gains. If history is any indicator, a repeat of what the markets have experienced in the past, along with a slight shifting of those more positioned to take advantage of changes, should put investors in a positive mood as we approach year-end and enter 2023.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/futures-steady-midterm-results-roll-2022-11-09/

https://m.economictimes.com/markets/stocks/news/investors-prepare-for-government-gridlock-as-republicans-seen-gaining-in-u-s-midterms/amp_articleshow/95393951.cms

https://www.fidelity.com/news/article/default/202211082056RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_L1N3242PI_1

Why the Bullish Behavior of the Past May Return

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
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.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Source

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20221104397/the-next-big-thing-is-small-get-ready-for-some-bullish-history-to-repeat-with-these-stocks-says-bofa-analysts

How the Fed’s Balance Sheet Trimming Impacts You

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Press conference following November 2022 FOMC meeting – Federal Reserve (Flickr)

Fed Faces Twin Threats of Recession and Financial Crisis as its Inflation Fight Raises Risks of Both

The Fed raising the overnight rate is only half the reason the economy may be driven into a recession and create a financial crisis according to a Mississippi Professor of Finance. He believes the Fed’s interest rate approach, which is most talked about, may create problems, but Professor Blank also points out and defines the Fed’s balance sheet changes and what they could mean for markets, the economy, and the world of finance.

There is wide agreement among economists and market observers that the Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest rate hikes will cause economic growth to grind to a halt, leading to a recession. Less talked about is the risk of a financial crisis as the U.S. central bank simultaneously tries to shrink its massive balance sheet.

As expected, the Fed on Nov. 2, 2022, lifted borrowing costs by 0.75 percentage point – its fourth straight hike of that size, which brings its benchmark rate to as high as 4%.

At the same time as it’s been raising rates, the Fed has been quietly trimming down its balance sheet, which swelled after the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020. It reached a high of US$9 trillion in April 2022 and has since declined by about $240 billion as the Fed reduces its holdings of Treasury securities and other debt that it bought to avoid an economic meltdown early in the pandemic.

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 D. Brian Blank, Assistant Professor of Finance, Mississippi State University.

As a finance expert, I have been studying financial decisions and markets for over a decade. I’m already seeing signs of distress that could snowball into a financial crisis, compounding the Fed’s woes as it struggles to contain soaring inflation.

Fed Balance Sheet Basics

As part of its mandate, the Federal Reserve maintains a balance sheet, which includes securities, such as bonds, as well as other instruments it uses to pump money into the economy and support financial institutions.

The balance sheet has grown substantially over the last two decades as the Fed began experimenting in 2008 with a policy known as quantitative easing – in essence, printing money – to buy debt to help support financial markets that were in turmoil. The Fed again expanded its balance sheet drastically in 2020 to provide support, or liquidity, to banks and other financial institutions so the financial system didn’t run short on cash. Liquidity refers to the efficiency with which a security can be converted into cash without affecting the price.

But in March 2022, the Fed switched gears. It stopped purchasing new securities and began reducing its holdings of debt in a policy known as quantitative tightening. The current balance is $8.7 trillion, two-thirds of which are Treasury securities issued by the U.S. government.

The result is that there is one less buyer in the $24 trillion treasury market, one of the largest and most important markets in the world. And that means less liquidity.

Loss of Liquidity

Markets work best when there’s plenty of liquidity. But when it dries up, that’s when financial crises happen, with investors having trouble selling securities or other assets. This can lead to a fire sale of financial assets and plunging prices.

Treasury markets have been unusually volatile this year – resulting in the biggest losses in decades – as prices drop and yields shoot up. This is partly due to the Fed rate hikes, but another factor is the sharp loss of liquidity as the central bank pares its balance sheet. A drop in liquidity increases risks for investors, who then demand higher returns for financial assets. This leads to lower prices.

The loss of liquidity not only adds additional uncertainty into markets but could also destabilize financial markets. For example, the most recent quantitative tightening cycle, in 2019, led to a crisis in overnight lending markets, which are used by banks and other financial institutions to lend each other money for very short periods.

Given the sheer size of the Treasury market, problems there are likely to leak into virtually every other market in the world. This could start with money market funds, which are held as low-risk investments for individuals. Since these investments are considered risk-free, any possible risk has substantial consequences – as happened in 2008 and 2020.

Other markets are also directly affected since the Fed holds more than just Treasuries. It also holds mortgages, which means its balance sheet reduction could hurt liquidity in that market too. Quantitative tightening also decreases bank reserves in the financial system, which is another manner in which financial stability could be threatened and increase the risk of a crisis.

The last time the Fed tried to reduce its balance sheet, it caused what was known as a “taper tantrum” as debt investors reacted by selling bonds, causing bond yields to rise sharply, and forced the central bank to reverse course. The long and short of it is that if the Fed continues to reduce its holdings, it could stack a financial crisis on top of a recession, which could lead to unforeseen problems for the U.S. economy – and economies around the globe.

A Two-Front War

For the moment, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has said he believes markets are handling its balance sheet rundown effectively. And on Nov. 2, the Fed said it would continue reducing its balance sheet – to the tune of about $1.1 trillion a year.

Obviously, not everyone agrees, including the U.S. Treasury, which said that the lower liquidity is raising government borrowing costs.

The risks of a major crisis will only grow as the U.S. economy continues to slow as a result of the rate hikes. While the fight against inflation is hard enough, the Fed may soon have a two-front war on its hands.

Will Equity Investors Return Back to the Future?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Statue of Liberty Torch, Circa 1882 – Ron Cogswell (Flickr)

Current Technology May Be Leading the Next Shift in Stock Market Investing

Investor exposure to the stock market has grown and evolved through different iterations over the years. There is no reason to believe that it isn’t evolving still. The main drivers of change have been the cost of ownership, technology, and convenience, which are related to the other two drivers. There seems to be a new transformation that has been happening over the past few years. And with each change, there will be those that benefit and those that fall short. So it’s important for an investor to be aware of changes that may be taking place around them.

Recent History

Your grandfather probably didn’t own stocks. If he did, he bought shares in companies his broker researched, and he then speculated they would out-earn alternative uses of his capital – this was expensive. Mutual funds later grew in popularity as computer power expanded, and an increased number of investors flocked to these managed funds – the price of entry was less than buying individual stocks. Charles Schwab and other discount brokers sprang up – they offered lower commissions than traditional brokers. Mutual funds were able to further reduce fees charged by offering easier to manage indexed funds or funds linked to a market index like the Dow 30 or S&P 500. Indexed exchange-traded funds (ETF) took the indexed fund idea one step further – they have a much lower cost of entry than either mutual funds or even discount brokerage accounts. An added benefit to indexed ETFs is they can be traded at intraday prices and provide tax benefits.

Just as Schwab ushered in an era of low-commission trades, Robinhood busted the doors open to no-commission trades, and most large online brokers followed. This change allows for almost imperceptible costs in most stock market transactions. It also changed the concept of a round-lot, or transacting in increments of 100 shares. In fact, the most popular brokers all offer fractional share ownership now.

Are Index ETFs Becoming Dinosaurs?

Funds made sense for those seeking diversification of holdings, it used to take a large sum of money to do that; investors with a $10,000 account or more can easily achieve acceptable diversification with odd-lots and fractional shares ability.

Today investors can create their own index-like “fund,” or as they called it in your grandparent’s day, “portfolio management.”

One big advantage to creating your own portfolio, even if you rely heavily on stocks from a specific index to choose from, is that you can adapt it more toward your sector or company expectations. Indexed funds are stuck with their index holdings, they have no ability to change. One may increase or decrease risk by leaving out stocks or even whole industry groups. Also, it can be managed with greater tax efficiency than an index fund tailored to your situation.

There is also the DIY thrill that one gets from creating anything themselves rather than to just buying one off the shelf. There have been a number of renowned investors like Peter Lynch and Michael Burry warning that indexed funds no longer provide expected diversification and that many of the stocks are valued higher because so many dollars are on “auto-invest” into indexes that the bad has been pushed up with the good.  

An example of what added demand does to the valuation of a company when being added to an index can be seen over the last month when it became clear that Twitter would be leaving an empty slot that would be filled by Arch Capital (ACGL). The added demand for ACGL pushed up the value by an estimated 25%. Was it undervalued before (when stand-alone), or is it over-valued now? Some stocks that are getting more attention because they are in an index could, as Michael Burry warned, be in bubble territory.

Source: Koyfin

Setting Up a Portfolio

The more you do to ensure your portfolio weightings mimic an index, the closer your performance is likely to be to that index. You may want to limit your holdings to names that are actually in the index and shift the weightings for return enhancement. Another concern often cited with indexes is the way that they weight holdings; you may choose to weight your portfolio using the market capitalization of each company to own the same percentage of the company’s value or use another method like pure cost measures or cost per P/E.

Picking Stocks

While studies suggest that market diversification can be achieved by owning as few as five stocks and doesn’t improve much after 30 holdings, the more you own, providing they aren’t overweighted in a sector, it stands to reason the more diversification protection you can achieve.

As a DIY, self-directed investor, it makes sense not to chase after whatever YouTube influencer, loud-mouthed-TV analyst, or Stocktwit tells you. This is your baby, and the results, good or bad, are yours. Do what you can to make informed decisions, even if some turn out unexpected. The benefit of this is you can lean away from stocks that are still in indexes that don’t have good future prospects and lean into more companies that do.

I’m hearing from more of my self-directed investor friends and investment advisors that more people are looking to own companies that have non-financial objectives they, as an investor, support. And for some of them, there is no standard ESG framework that they support. They have decided, because they do care, to do more portfolio management with individual stocks than before. This is so they can individually look under the hood at employee policies, or environmental stature, etc. While ESG funds exist, the investor or client of the investment advisor would prefer not to own anything they oppose if they can avoid it. What better way than being able to say no to $XYZ company because they do this, this, and this that is against my own fabric?

Channelchek is a great resource for any percentage of your personally managed fund that includes stocks in the small-cap or microcap categories. These stocks could add a bit more potential for return but could also change your risk characteristics. Sign-up to get research from FINRA-licensed analysts.

Take Away

Stock investing has evolved and become more inclusive. But the future may be more like the past, with individuals creating portfolios of stocks for themselves. You don’t have to be rich anymore to buy stocks, and you don’t have to own a fund to get affordable diversification on nearly any size account. There’s a trend toward building one’s own personalized, diversified, low-transaction portfolio. Channelchek is helping investors find possible fits with its free research platform.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Here is what the FOMC is Looking At

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Dan Perl (Flickr)

The Many Factors that Come Into a Fed Rate Decision are Mind Boggling

What do the FOMC members look at as they’re changing interest rates and whipping up new policy stances?

The Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, meets eight times a year. There are 12 members; seven are board members of the Federal Reserve System, and five are Reserve Bank presidents, including the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who serves as president of the committee. The group, as a whole, is arguably among the most powerful entities in the world. What is it that this group, that impacts all of us, focus on? And what specifically will they weigh into their decision at the current meeting?

Labor markets and prices are top on the Fed’s list and specifically part of their mandate. Also feeding into the mandate are contributing factors like housing, growth trends, and risks to monetary policy.

Prices (Inflation Rates)

Inflation remains elevated. In September, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) picked up to 0.4%. Energy prices declined in each month of the third quarter, dropping a cumulative 11.3% since June. The Fed will have to discern if this is sustainable or a function of oil reserve releases that will need replacing. Food prices continued high, although at a slower 0.8% increase during September.  

Core CPI inflation (which strips out energy and food) started the third quarter at a somewhat slow pace—increasing just 0.3% in July. The trend went against the Fed as it rose by 0.6% in both August and September. Price growth for services was the largest contributor to an increase in core CPI in the third quarter.

One of the two mandates of the Federal Reserve is to keep inflation at bay. Chairman Powell has said they are targeting a 2% annual inflation level. While nothing that has been reported in price increases since the last meeting has approached that low of a target, the Fed also has to consider their tightening moves do not work to lower demand (especially in food and energy) rapidly.

The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation is the PCE price index; this is the measure they use with their 2% target. The PCE price index typically shows lower price growth than CPI because it uses a different methodology in its calculation, but the drivers of both measures remain similar. Over the year ending September, the headline PCE price index rose 6.2 percent, while the core PCE price index was up 5.1 percent.

Jobs (Employment and Wages)

Labor markets are still tight. The economy has added an additional 3.8 million jobs this year through September. This includes 1.1 million during the most recent quarter. During the third quarter, the U.S. economy exceeded pre-pandemic employment levels. The unemployment rate hasn’t budged much, and as of September, the rate held at a comfortable 3.5 percent rate.

The broadest measure of unemployment—the U-6 rate is a measure of labor underutilization that includes underemployment and discouraged workers, in addition to the unemployed. The U-6 rate has also remained behaved all year. It stood at 6.7 percent in September, the lowest rate in the history of the series (starting in January 1994).

When the Fed pushes on a lever for one of its mandates, in this case it is tightening to reign in inflation, it has to watch the impact on its other mandate, in this case, the job market. So far, there is nothing that has occurred on the employment side that should tell the Fed they have gone too far too fast.

.In fact, the labor numbers may suggest they should discuss whether they have moved nearly fast enough. Competition for employees continued as the economy added an additional 3.8 million through September 2022 (1.1 million during the third quarter). Notably, during the third quarter, the economy surpassed pre-pandemic employment levels as of August 2022.

Image: FOMC participants meet in Washington, D.C., for a two-day meeting on September 20-21, 2022, Federal Reserve (Flickr).

Housing Markets

Housing demand decreased in the third quarter as affordability (lending rates + prices), with economic uncertainty weighed on homebuyers. During September, 90% of all home sales were of existing homes. This pace declined 1.5 percent over the month (down 23.8 percent on a twelve-month basis). New single-family home sales dropped a large 10.9% in September; this was the seventh monthly decline.

Homes available for sale have now risen from all-time lows; this includes new and existing.

Over the past few years, home prices have increased dramatically; this was fueled by Fed policy. Prices still remain above longer-term trendlines. The Case-Shiller national house price index measures sales prices of existing homes; this was up 13% over the year ending August 2022. For reference, for the 12 months ended August 2021, prices rose 20%. The prior year they had only increased 5.8%.

Housing plays a huge role in economic health. The Fed is well aware of all the housing-related inputs to the 2008 financial crisis and the part easy money plays in market crashes. Orchestrating an orderly slowdown to the boom in housing is certainly critical to the Fed’s success.

Other Risks to Economy

Eight times a year, information related to each of the 12 Federal Reserve districts is gathered and bound in a publication known as theBeige Book. This summary of economic activity throughout the U.S. is provided approximately two weeks before each FOMC meeting, so members have a chance to evaluate economic activity over the diverse businesses the U.S. engages in.

U.S. Inflation can arise from conditions outside of the control of the U.S. For example Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has added upward pressure to inflation this year. This impact may have to be determined and netted out of calculations and policy as the Fed can’t fight this inflation pressure with monetary policy.  An example would be the Fed can’t alter global food shortages brought on by war.

Dollar strength or weakness comes from many things. One of the most impactful is the difference in interest rates net of inflation between countries and their native currency. If the Fed raises rates when a competing currency has not, there is a chance there will be more demand for the alternative currency, which would weaken the dollar. Further complicating this for the Federal Resreve is a lower dollar is inflationary as it causes import prices to rise, a stronger dollar can reduce domestic economic activity as exports fall. The U.S. dollar has been rising and is now at its strongest in 20 years.

Commodity Prices were elevated in the first half of this year, mostly by energy.  Although there was some relief from gas prices over the summer, energy is expected to rise into the colder months. They may rise further as the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserves are used less to control prices, this may be curtailed.  The White House’s two goals of sharply reducing Russian revenue and avoiding further disruptions to global energy supplies while at the same time reducing oil use and production within the U.S. are a tanglement the Fed needs to consider. These can be very impactful to costs and economic activity, yet The Fed has no direct levers to impact these economic inputs.  

World economies play a part in our own economic pace. If the Fed were to tighen aggressively while the global business is slowing, the impact of the tightening might be more pronounced than if the world economies are booming. Demand for goods and services impacts prices; the U.S. doesn’t live in a vacuum, and demand for our production and our demand for foreign production all must weigh on the Feds outlook for global economic health.

According to the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook, global growth is expected to slow to 3.2 percent in 2022 and just 2.7 percent in 2023.  At the same time, central banks around the world are tightening monetary policy to fight high global rates of inflation.  In addition, there has been financial instability in some major world economies. These rising risks to the global growth outlook may feed back into the U.S. outlook by weakening international demand for U.S. goods and service exports. On the positive economic side, China is considering easing its Zero-COVID policy, which could eventually ease the supply chain impact to inflation. 

Take Away

The original question was, “What do the FOMC members look at as they’re changing interest rates and whipping up new policy stances?” The answer is they have to look at everything. The recent mix of “everything” shows growth and employment in the U.S. have sustained at an even keel. Will previous rate hikes to calm inflation eventually take their toll? This is probably the big question the FOMC will be evaluating. Other domestic issues, including housing and the financial markets, are certainly to be weighed as well – a  market crash of any magnitude could quickly slow economic activity.

The Fed has little control over what goes on overseas but must be aware of and hedge its policy to allow for.

All told, the Federal Reserve has a very difficult job. The report of the new monetary policy stance should hit the wire at 2 pm ET today (November 2).

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2021/consumer-prices-increase-6-2-percent-for-the-year-ended-october-2021.htm

www.bea.gov

Exploring an Interesting Opportunity in a Traditional Business

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Pamela Silva, Univision (Wikimedia Commons)

The Investment Road Less Travelled Has More Opportunity, But Less Available Information

An expanding customer base has always been a solid reason for further exploration of an investment opportunity. An investor’s expectations of growth potential have the power to create initial intrigue and prompt further exploration. This exploration should, at a minimum, include actual data (not hunches), and outside estimates from experts in the field – along with a review of management’s plans.

One also has to understand competition, direct and indirect, and how that is expected to grow. And, of course, current profit and earnings breakdown with an idea of plans for the future. You may even explore if there is a chance the company is a possible acquisition target and how that may impact stock performance. Then, depending on the company or industry, less cursory digging should be done. This is where self-directed investors or small or mid-sized investment advisors get tripped up. They may not have access to someone knowledgeable enough about the company.

Opportunity to Think About

A co-worker asked the other day what I thought of traditional media companies in the U.S. as an investment, including TV and radio. Without thinking too deeply, I said what most people might say, the industry is spread thin as competition for people’s time and attention keeps growing. While anything is good at the right price, if the audience (customer base) is declining, that “right price” is going to be low.

He asked another question, how many Spanish-speaking people are immigrating to the U.S. each year, and what one product will they likely be using that is generally not consumed by English-speaking residents? Although I didn’t know there was a company that has approximately 65% market share of the Spanish-speaking market, I understood where his line of questioning was going – and became intrigued.

A Few Things I Learned

I did some Googling.

The Census Bureau’s monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) shows that the total foreign-born or immigrant population in the U.S. hit 47.9 million in September 2022. This is an increase of 2.9 million since January 2021.

Immigrants from Latin American countries other than Mexico account for 60 percent of the increase in the foreign-born population since January 2021. The Mexican-born population in the U.S. actually decreased by 4%.

At 143,000, the average monthly growth in the foreign-born population, which is 60% Hispanic, is at an all-time high pace.  

There is a company, Entravision (EVC), which is a diversified Spanish-language media company. They own both television and radio stations to reach Hispanic consumers across the United States.

Entravision owns and/or operates 53 primary television stations and is the largest affiliate group of both the top-ranked Univision television network and Univision’s TeleFutura network. They have television stations in 20 of the nation’s top 50 Hispanic markets. As far as radio, the company also operates one of the largest groups of primarily Spanish-language radio stations in the U.S.

My thoughts are while the business itself is getting fragmented, the rapidly growing demographic that is likely to tune in to an Entravision station is growing at a rapid pace. And there is very little competition.

 

An Interesting Time to Explore Spanish Language Media

While I’m still doing some due diligence and reading thoughts from the multiple analysts that cover EVC, including one whose research of the company is available on Channelchek (see it here), I’m waiting for their earnings report this Thursday (November 3).

If my intrigue is still high after Thursday, Noble Capital Markets is holding two lunches and a breakfast where investors can attend one and meet with management, hear them discuss their company, and ask any questions to clear up unanswered questions.

These meetings are in Florida, one in Boca Raton on November 8 and two in Central Florida (Orlando and Winter Park), on November 9. If you will be in the area and also find Entravision worth exploring, register for a breakfast or lunch meeting here.

Take Away

The investment “road less traveled” is often lined with gold but also requires a lot more digging to find useful information that makes you comfortable making a decision. Discovering actionable ideas and then exploring them is what Channelchek is about.

The In-Person “Meet the Management” Series, put on by Noble Capital Markets and Channelchek, is a good way for investment professionals and individuals to supplement the data and research on Channelchek with an opportunity most investors never get, a discussion over breakfast or lunch with management.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

October’s Stock Market Performance Has a Valuable Lesson

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image Credit: Jordan Doane (500px.com)

Looking Back at October and Forward to Year-End 2022

The stock market for October was a home run for many industries. In fact, only a few market sectors were negative, each by less than one percent. After a losing first three quarters in most categories, investors are now asking, are we out of the losing slump? Did I already miss the best plays? There are still two months left in 2022, and there are a number of expected events that could cause high volatility (up/down). If you’ve been a market spectator, you want to know, should I get on the field and maybe take advantage of this streak? If you’ve been involved and are now at a recent high, you may instead consider taking a seat for the last two months.

Let’s look back and then forward as we enter the final two months of the year. Below we look at the month behind us in stocks, gold, and crypto. There is something that may be unfolding is stocks that is worth steering around.

Major Market Indexes for October

Source: Koyfin

Large industrials, as measured by the Dow 30, had the best comparative performance in October. In fact, the Dow had its best month since 1976. Some investors have been rotating out of large high-tech and into more traditional businesses, like large industrial companies. Another reason it has gotten attention is of the 30 stocks in the Dow Industrials, at least 27 are expected to pay dividends; the lower stock prices from months of decline have raised the expected dividend yields to levels where investors are finding value and doing some reallocating. For example, Dow Chemicals (DOW)with a yield near 5% (plus any appreciations) or Verizon (VZ) at 7% can be appealing, especially for assets of retirees.

The small-cap stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000, weren’t far behind the Dow 30. This group has been lagging for some time and, by many measures, including price/earnings, offers value, while many larger stocks are still considered overpriced. Another thing working in favor of small U.S.-based companies is a likely customer universe that is not hurt by a strong dollar and international trade. In fact, there are small companies that can be shown to have benefitted from a strong native currency and have a competitive advantage with lower borrowing needs. Many analysts expect continued outperformance of the small-cap sector as it offers value and less global disruption.

The top 500 largest stocks, as measured by the S&P 500, had a very good month but are being dragged down by the large weighting of a few huge companies that the market feels have gotten way ahead of where they should be reasonably priced. The Nasdaq 100, shown above as returning only around 3.6%, has been hurt by this index weighting as well. These indexes had once benefitted from these few stocks flying high during the pandemic; the post-pandemic world, as well as global headwinds, are now working against them.

Major Market Indexes Through 10/2022

Source: Koyfin

Investors have been taught that index funds and ETFs provide diversification, but that has never been true of Dow-indexed funds (30 stocks). And the S&P and Nasdaq 100, with heavy weightings in a few companies, only give the illusion of broad exposure. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 relative performance during October may cause more investors to consider hand-selecting companies with lower P/Es, lower global exposure, and higher growth potential.

Sectors Within S&P Index

Source: Koyfin

Oil companies regained their lead as they have been a sector detached from other stocks since late 2019. The industrial sector was second and followed by the only other industry above double digits, finance. Most (not all) financial companies benefit from higher interest rates, and those that take deposits (short-term) and lend money (long-term) do best with a steep yield curve.

On the bottom of the list are consumer discretionary companies, which are hurt by the strong dollar and a weakening economy; this sector is followed by communication. Communication is worth a deeper dive as it exemplifies how the weighting of stocks in popular indexes can hurt index returns – some say high-flying, highly weighted stocks are even in a bubble.

Below the chart compares two names in the S&P 500 that are also represented in the communications index. Meta (META) is 17.70% of the index and is down 30% in October. AT&T (T) is 4.70% of the communications index; it returned nearly 20% for the month. The funds weighting methodology that worked to the advantage of index investors, until it didn’t, has worked against some index investors.

Source: Koyfin

There is a rivalry of sorts between larger, more accepted cryptocurrencies and gold. Gold wants to regain its centuries-old place as the hard asset that best represents safety, even in the worst conditions, and Bitcoin or Ether, which is looking for respect, as the alternative asset that represents safety.

Crypto has been loosely moving in the same direction as stocks all year. October was no exception, as its price per dollar rose significantly during the month. Gold, despite much worry in the world, continued a slow downtrend.

Gold and Bitcoin Performance

Source: Koyfin

Take Away

Stock market participants that held on finally got a month where it was hard not to come out ahead. The question now is, do you take the gains and sit tight while the fed tightening, election, war, and global recession settle? Or do you look at the current dynamics and allocate where the highest probability of success lies? Maybe small-cap value stocks or oil and gas companies.

There is one thing investors have been warned about repeatedly over the years by well-respected investors, including Michael Burry. There is a risk inherent in indexes now that a few extremely “overpriced” stocks represent a large percentage of index funds.

Investors evaluating smaller, individual stocks have found the data and analysis on Channelchek to be indispensable. Be sure to sign-up for Channelchek at no cost to receive unbiased research on companies that are less talked about, but may have a place in your portfolio mix.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1062

https://indexarb.com/dividendYieldSorteddj.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/xlc/holdings