The economic impact of the King Dollar in the summer of 2018

One of the problems of currency analysis is the way that when you are in the melee it is hard to tell the short-term fluctuation from the longer-term trend. It gets worse should you run into a crisis as Argentina found earlier this year as it raised interest-rates to 40% and still found itself calling for help from the International Monetary Fund. The reality was that it found itself caught out by a change in trend as the US Dollar stopped falling and began to rally. If we switch to the DXY index we see that the 88.6 of the middle of February has been replaced by 95.38 as I type this. At first it mostly trod water but since the middle of April it has been on the up.

Why?

If we ask the same question as Carly Simon did some years back then a partial answer comes from this from the testimony of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell yesterday.

Over the first half of 2018 the FOMC has continued to gradually reduce monetary policy accommodation. In other words, we have continued to dial back the extra boost that was needed to help the economy recover from the financial crisis and recession. Specifically, we raised the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/4 percentage point at both our March and June meetings, bringing the target to its current range of 1-3/4 to 2 percent.

So the heat is on and looks set to be turned up a notch or two further.

 the FOMC believes that–for now–the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the federal funds rate.

One nuance of this is the way that it has impacted at the shorter end of the US yield curve. For example the two-year Treasury Bond yield has more than doubled since early last September and is now 2.61%. This means two things. Firstly if we stay in the US it is approaching the ten-year Treasury Note yield which is 2.89%. If you read about a flat yield curve that is what is meant although not yet literally as the word relatively is invariably omitted. Also that there is now a very wide gap at this maturity with other nations with Japan at -0.13% and Germany at -0.64% for example.

At this point you may be wondering why two-year yields matter so much? I think that the financial media is still reflecting a consequence of the policies of the ECB which pushed things in that direction as the impact of the Securities Markets Programme for example and negative interest-rates.

QT

QT or quantitative tightening is also likely to be a factor in the renewed Dollar strength but it represents something unusual. What I mean by that is we lack any sort of benchmark here for a quantity rather than a price change. Also attempts in the past were invariably implicit rather than explicit as interest-rates were raised to get banks to lend less to reduce the supply of Dollars or more realistically reduce the rate of growth of the supply. Now we have an explicit reduction and it has shifted to narrow ( the central banks balance sheet) money from broad money.

 In addition, last October we started gradually reducing the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. That process has been running smoothly.  ( Jerome Powell).

You can’t always get what you want

It may also be true that you can’t get what you need either which brings us to my article from March the 22nd on the apparent shortage of US Dollars. This is an awkward one as of course market liquidity in the US Dollar is very high but it is not stretching things to say that it is not enough for this.

Non-US banks collectively hold $12.6 trillion of dollar-denominated assets – almost as much as US banks…….Dollar funding stress of non-US banks was at the center of the GFC. ( GFC= Global Financial Crisis). ( BIS)

The issue faded for a bit but seems to be on the rise again as the Libor-OIS spread dipped but more recently has risen to 0.52 according to Morgan Stanley. What measure you use is a moving target especially as the Federal Reserve shifts the way it operates in interest-rate markets but they kept these for a reason.

In October 2013, the Federal Reserve and these central banks announced that their liquidity swap arrangements would be converted to standing arrangements that will remain in place until further notice.

Impact on the US economy

The situation here was explained by Federal Reserve Vice-Chair Stanley Fischer back in November 2015.

To gauge the quantitative effects on exports, the thick blue line in figure 2 shows the response of U.S. real exports to a 10 percent dollar appreciation that is derived from a large econometric model of U.S. trade maintained by the Federal Reserve Board staff. Real exports fall about 3 percent after a year and more than 7 percent after three years.

Imports are affected but by less.

The low exchange rate pass-through helps account for the more modest estimated response of U.S. real imports to a 10 percent exchange rate appreciation shown by the thin red line in figure 2, which indicates that real imports rise only about 3-3/4 percent after three years.

And via both routes GDP

The staff’s model indicates that the direct effects on GDP through net exports are large, with GDP falling over 1-1/2 percent below baseline after three years.

The impact is slow to arrive meaning we are likely to be seeing the impact of a currency fall when it is rising and vice versa raising the danger of tripping over our own feet in analysis terms.

What happens to everyone else?

As the US Dollar remains the reserve currency if it rises everyone else will fall and so they will experience inflation in the price of commodities and oil. This is likely to have a recessionary effect via for example the impact on real wages especially as nominal wage growth seems to be even more sticky than it used to be.

Comment

Responses to the situation above will vary for example the Bank of Japan will no doubt be saying the equivalent of “Party on” as it will welcome the weakening of the Yen to around 113 to the US Dollar. The ECB is probably neutral as a weakening for the Euro offsets some of its past rise as it celebrates actually hitting its 2% inflation target which will send it off for its summer break in good spirits. The unreliable boyfriend at the Bank of England is however rather typically likely to be unsure. Whilst all Governors seem to morph into lower Pound mode of course it also means that people do not believe his interest-rate hints and promises. Meanwhile many emerging economies have been hit hard such as Argentina and Turkey.

In terms of headlines the UK Pound £ is generating some as it gyrates around US $1.30 which it dipped below earlier. In some ways it is remarkably stable as we observe all the political shenanigans. I think a human emotion is at play and foreign exchange markets have got bored with it all.

Another factor here is that events can happen before the reasons for them. What I mean by that was that the main US Dollar rise was in late 2014 which anticipated I think a shift in US monetary policy that of course was yet to come. As adjustments to that view have developed we have seen all sorts of phases and we need to remember it was only on January 25th we were noting this.

The recent peak was at just over 103 as 2016 ended so we have seen a fall of a bit under 14%

Back then the status quo was

Down down deeper and down

Whereas the summer song so far is from Aloe Blacc

I need a dollar, dollar
Dollar that’s what I need
Well I need a dollar, dollar
Dollar that’s what I need

Me on Core Finance

 

 

 

Advertisements

What is driving bond yields these days?

Yesterday brought us an example of how the military dictum of the best place to hide something is to put it in full view has seeped into economics. Let me show you what I mean with this from @LiveSquawk.

HSBC Cuts German 10-Year Bond Yield Forecast To 0.40% By End-2018 From 0.75% Previously, Cites Growth Worries, German Political Tensions Among Reasons – RTRS

Apart from the obvious humour element as these forecasts come and go like tumbleweed on a windy day there is the issue of how low this is. Actually if we move from fantasy forecasts to reality we find an even lower number as the ten-year yield is in fact 0.34% as I type this. This poses an issue to me on a basic level as we have gone through a period of extreme instability and yet this yield implies exactly the reverse.

Another way of looking at this is to apply the metrics that in my past have been used to measure such matters. For example you could look at economic growth.

Economic Growth

The German economy continued to grow also at the beginning of the year, though at a slower pace……. the gross domestic product (GDP) increased 0.3% – upon price, seasonal and calendar adjustment – in the first quarter of 2018 compared with the fourth quarter of 2017. This is the 15th quarter-on-quarter growth in a row, contributing to the longest upswing phase since 1991. Last year, GDP growth rates were higher (+0.7% in the third quarter and +0.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017). ( Destatis)

If we look at the situation we see that the economy is growing so that is not the issue and furthermore it has been growing for a sustained period so that drops out as a cause too. Yes economic growth has slowed but even if you assume that for the year you get ~1.2% and it has been 2.3% over the past year. Thus if you could you would invest any funds you had in an economic growth feature which no doubt the Ivory Towers are packed with! Of course it is not so easy in the real world.

So we move on with an uncomfortable feeling and not just be cause we are abandoning and old metric. There is the issue that we may be missing something. Was the credit crunch such a shock that we have yet to recover? Putting it another way if Forbin’s Rule is right and 2% recorded growth is in fact 0% for the ordinary person things fall back towards being in line.

Inflation

Another route is to use inflation to give us a real yield. This is much more difficult in practice than theory but let us set off.

 The inflation rate in Germany as measured by the consumer price index is expected to be 2.1% in June 2018. ( Destatis)

So on a basic look we have a negative real yield of the order of -1.7% which again implies an expectation of bad news and frankly more than just a recession. Much more awkward is trying to figure out what inflation will be for the next ten years.

This assessment is also broadly reflected in the June 2018 Eurosystem staff macroeconomic projections for the euro area, which foresee annual HICP inflation at 1.7% in 2018, 2019 and 2020.  ( ECB President Draghi)

That still leaves us quite a few years short and after its poor track record who has any faith that the ECB forecast above will be correct? The credit crunch era has been unpredictable in this area too with the exception of asset prices. But barring an oil price shock or the like real yields look set to be heavily negative for some time to come. This was sort of confirmed by Peter Praet of the ECB on Tuesday although central bankers always tell us this right up to and sometimes including the point at which it is obviously ridiculous.

well-anchored, longer-term inflation expectations,

 

The sum of short-term interest-rates

In many ways this seems too good to be true as an explanation as what will short-term interest-rates be in 2024 for example? But actually maybe it is the best answer of all. If like me you believe that President Draghi has no intention at all of raising interest-rates on his watch then we are looking at a -0.4% deposit rate until the autumn of 2019 as a minimum. Here we get a drag on bond yields for the forseeable future and what if there was a recession and another cut?

QE

This has been a large player and with all the recent rumours or as they are called now “sauces” about a European Operation Twist it will continue. For newer readers this involves the ECB slowing and then stopping new purchases but maintaining the existing stock of bonds. As the stock of German Bunds is just under 492 billion Euros that is a tidy sum especially if we note that Germany has been running a fiscal surplus reducing the potential supply. But as Bunds mature the ECB will be along to roll its share of the maturity into new bonds. Whilst it is far from the only  player I do wonder if markets are happy to let it pay an inflated price for its purchases.

Exchange Rate

This is a factor that usually applies to foreign investors. They mostly buy foreign bonds because they think the exchange rate will rise and in the past the wheels were oiled by the yield from the bond. Of course the latter is a moot point in the German bond market as for quite a few years out you pay rather than receive and even ten-years out you get very little.

Another category is where investors pile into perceived safe havens and like London property the German bond market has been one of this. If you are running from a perceived calamity then security really matters and in this instance getting a piece of paper from the German Treasury can be seen as supplying that need. In an irony considering the security aspect this is rather unstable to say the least but in practice it has worked at least so far.

Comment

We find that expectations of short-term interest-rates seem to be the main and at times the only player in town. An example of this has been provided in my country the UK only 30 minutes or so ago.

Britain’s economic strength shows a need for higher interest rates, Mark Carney says. ( Bloomberg)

Mark Carney prepares ground for August interest rate hike from Bank of England with ‘confident’ economic view ( The Independent).

The problem for the unreliable boyfriend who cried wolf is that he was at this game as recently as May and has been consistently doing so since June 2014. Thus we find that with the UK Gilt future unchanged on the day that such jawboning is treated with a yawn and the ten-year yield is 1.28%. If you look at the UK inflation trajectory and performance than remains solidly in negative territory. So the view here is that even if he does do something which would be quite a change after 4 years of hot air he would be as likely to reverse it as do any more.

The theory has some success in the US as well. We have seen rises in the official interest-rate and more seem to be on the way. The intriguing part of the response is that US yields seem to be giving us a cap of around 3% for all of this. Even the reality of the Trump tax cuts and fiscal expansionism does not seem to have changed this.

Is everything based on the short-term now?

As to why this all matters well they are what drive the cost of fixed-rate mortgages and longer term business lending as well as what is costs governments to borrow.

 

 

Trade Wars what are they good for?

This week trade is in the news mostly because of the Donald and his policy of America First. This has involved looking to take jobs back to America which is interesting when apparently the jobs situation is so good.

Our economy is perhaps BETTER than it has ever been. Companies doing really well, and moving back to America, and jobs numbers are the best in 44 years. ( @realDonaldTrump )

This has involved various threats over trade such as the NAFTA agreement primarily with Canada and Mexico and of course who can think of Mexico without mulling the plan to put a bit more than another brick in the wall? Back in March there was the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP. From Politico.

While President Donald Trump announced steel and aluminum tariffs Thursday, officials from several of the United States’ closest allies were 5,000 miles away in Santiago, Chile, signing a major free-trade deal that the U.S. had negotiated — and then walked away from.

The steel and aluminium tariffs were an attempt to deal with China a subject to which President Trump has returned only recently. From the Financial Times.

Equities sold off and havens firmed on Tuesday after Donald Trump ordered officials to draft plans for tariffs on a further $200bn in Chinese imports should Beijing not abandon plans to retaliate against $50bn in US duties on imports announced last week.

According to the Peterson Institute there has been a shift in the composition of the original US tariff plan for China.

 Overall, 95 percent of the products are intermediate inputs or capital equipment. Relative to the initial list proposed by the Office of the US Trade Representative on April 3, 2018, coverage of intermediate inputs has been expanded considerably ……….Top added products are semiconductors ($3.6 billion) and plastics ($2.2 billion), as well as other intermediate inputs and capital equipment. Semiconductors are found in consumer products used in everyday life such as televisions, personal computers, smartphones, and automobiles.

The reason this is significant is that the world has moved on from even the “just in time” manufacturing model with so many parts be in sourced abroad even in what you might think are domestic products. This means that supply chains are often complex and what seems minor can turn out to be a big deal. After all what use are brakes without brake pads?

Thinking ahead

Whilst currently China is in the sights of President Trump this mornings news from the ECB seems likely to eventually get his attention.

In April 2018 the euro area current account recorded a surplus of €28.4 billion.

Which means this.

The 12-month cumulated current account for the period ending in April 2018 recorded a surplus of €413.7 billion (3.7% of euro area GDP), compared with €361.3 billion (3.3% of euro area GDP) in the 12 months to April 2017.

 

 

So the Euro area has a big current account surplus and it is growing.

This development was due to increases in the surpluses for services (from €46.1 billion to €106.1 billion) and goods (from €347.2 billion to €353.9 billion

There is plenty for the Donald to get his teeth into there and let’s face it the main player here is Germany with its trade surpluses.

Trade what is it good for?

International trade brings a variety of gains. At the simplest level it is access to goods and resources that are unavailable in a particular country. Perhaps the clearest example of that is Japan which has few natural resources and would be able to have little economic activity if it could not import them. That leads to the next part which is the ability to buy better goods and services which if we stick with the Japanese theme was illustrated by the way the UK bought so many of their cars. Of course this has moved on with Japanese manufacturers now making cars in the UK which shows how complex these issues can be.

Also the provision of larger markets will allow some producers to exist at all and will put pressure on them in terms of price and quality. Thus in a nutshell we end up with more and better goods and services. It is on these roads that trade boosts world economic activity and it is generally true that world trade growth exceeds world economic activity of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth.

Since the Second World War, the
volume of world merchandise trade
has tended to grow about 1.5 times
faster than world GDP, although in the
1990s it grew more than twice as fast. ( World Trade Organisation)

Although like in so many other areas things are not what they were.

However, in the aftermath of the global
financial crisis the ratio of trade growth
to GDP growth has fallen to around 1:1.

Although last year was a good year for trade according to the WTO.

World merchandise trade
volume grew by 4.7 per
cent in 2017 after just
1.8 per cent growth
in 2016.

How Much?

Trying to specify the gains above is far from easy. In March there was a paper from the NBER which had a go.

About 8 cents out of every dollar spent in the United States is spent on imports………..The estimates of gains from trade for the US economy that we review range from 2 to 8 percent of GDP.

Actually there were further gains too.

When the researchers adjust by the fact that domestic production also uses imported intermediate goods — say, German-made transmissions incorporated into U.S.-made cars — based on data in the World Input-Output Database, they conclude that the U.S. import share is 11.4 percent.

So we move on not enormously the wiser as we note that we know much less than we might wish or like. Along the way we are reminded that whilst the US is an enormous factor in world trade in percentage terms it is a relatively insular economy although that is to some extent driven by how large its economy is in the first place.

Any mention of numbers needs to come with a warning as trade statistics are unreliable and pretty universally wrong. Countries disagree with each other regularly about bilateral trade and the numbers for the growing services sector are woeful.

Comment

This is one of the few economic sectors where theory is on a sound footing when it meets reality. We all benefit in myriad ways from trade as so much in modern life is dependent on it. It has enriched us all. But the story is also nuanced as we do not live in a few trade nirvana, For example countries intervene as highlighted by the World Trade Organisation in its annual report.

Other issues raised by members
included China’s lack of timely and
complete notifications on subsidies
and state-trading enterprises,

That is pretty neutral if we consider the way China has driven prices down in some areas to wipe out much competition leading to control of such markets and higher prices down the road. There were plenty of tariffs and trade barriers long before the Donald became US President. Also Germany locked in a comparative trade advantage for itself when it joined the Euro especially if we use the Swiss Franc as a proxy for how a Deutschmark would have traded ( soared) post credit crunch.

Also there is the issue of where the trade benefits go? As this from NBC highlights there were questions all along about the Trans Pacific Partnership.

These included labor rights rules unions said were toothless, rules that could have delayed generics and lead to higher drug prices, and expanded international copyright protection.

This leads us back to the issue of labour struggling (wages) but capital doing rather well in the QE era. Or in another form how Ireland has had economic success but also grotesquely distorted some forms of economic activity via its membership of the European Union and low and in some cases no corporate taxes. Who would have thought a country would not want to levy taxes on Apple? After all with cash reserves of US $285.1 billion and rising it can pay.

So the rhetoric and actions of the Donald does raise fears of trade wars and if it goes further the competitive devaluations of the 1920s. But it is also true that there are genuine issues at play which get hidden in the melee a bit like Harry Kane after his first goal last night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are interest-rates on the rise now?

As we find ourselves heading into the second decade of the credit crunch era we find ourselves observing an interest-rate environment that few expected when it began. At the time the interest-rate cuts ( for example circa 4% in the UK) were considered extraordinary but the Ivory Towers would have been confident. After all they had been busy telling us that the lower bound for interest-rates was 0% and many were nearly there. Sadly for the Ivory Towers the walls then came tumbling down as Denmark, the Euro area , Sweden, Switzerland and Japan all entered the world of negative official interest-rates.

Even that was not enough for some and central banks also entered into sovereign and then other bond purchases to basically reduce the other interest-rates or yields they could find. Such QE ( Quantitative Easing) purchases reduced sovereign bond yields and debt costs which made politicians very happy especially when they like some official interest-rates went negative. When that did not work either we saw what became called credit easing where direct efforts went into reducing specific interest-rates, In the UK this was called the Funding for Lending Scheme which was supposed to reduce the cost of business lending but somehow found that  instead in the manner of the Infinite Improbability Drive in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy  it reduced mortgage interest-rates initially by around 1% when I checked them and later the Bank of England claimed that some fell by 2%.

What next?

Yesterday brought a reminder that not everywhere is like this so let me hand you over to the Reserve Bank of India.

On the basis of an assessment of the current and evolving macroeconomic situation at its
meeting today, the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) decided to:
• increase the policy repo rate under the liquidity adjustment facility (LAF) by 25 basis
points to 6.25 per cent.
Consequently, the reverse repo rate under the LAF stands adjusted to 6.0 per cent, and the
marginal standing facility (MSF) rate and the Bank Rate to 6.50 per cent.

There are two clear differences with life in Europe and the first is a rise in interest-rates with the second being that interest-rates are at or above 6% in India. It feels like another universe rather than being on the sub-continent but it does cover some 1.3 billion people. Sometimes we over emphasise the importance of Europe. As to why it raised interest-rates the RBI feels that the economy is going well and that inflation expectations are rising as domestic inflation ( official rents) has risen as well as the oil price.

The US

This has moved away from zero interest-rates and now we face this.

to maintain the federal funds rate in a target range of
1½ to 1¾ percent

It seems set to raise interest-rates again next week by another 0.25% which has provoked Reuters to tell us this.

With inflation still tame, policymakers are aiming for a “neutral” rate that neither slows nor speeds economic growth. But estimates of neutral are imprecise, and as interest rates top inflation and enter positive “real” territory, analysts feel the Fed is at higher risk of going too far and actually crimping the recovery.

Personally I think that they do not understand real interest-rates which are forwards looking. So rather than last months print you should look forwards and if you do then there are factors which look likely to drive it higher. The most obvious is the price of crude oil which if we look at the West Texas Intermediate benchmark is at US $65 per barrel around 35% higher than a year ago. But last month housing or what the US callers shelter inflation was strong too so there seems to be upwards pressure that might make you use more like 2.5% as your inflation forecast for real interest-rates. So on that basis there is scope for several more 0.25% rises before real interest-rates become positive.

One point to make clear is that the US has two different measures of inflation you might use. I have used the one that has the widest publicity or CPI Urban ( yep if you live in the country you get ignored…) but the US Federal Reserve uses one based on Personal Consumption Expenditures or PCE. The latter does not have a fixed relationship with the former but it usually around 0.4% lower. Please do not shoot the piano player as Elton John reminded us.

If we move to bond yields the picture is a little different. The ten-year seems to have settled around 3% or so ( 2.99% as I type this) giving us an estimated cap for official interest-rates. Of course the picture is made more complex by the advent of Quantitative Tightening albeit it is so far on a relatively minor scale.

The Euro area

Here we are finding that the official line has changed as we await next week’s ECB meeting. From Reuters.

Money market investors are now pricing in a roughly 90 percent chance that the European Central Bank will raise interest rates in July 2019, following hawkish comments from the bank’s chief economist on Wednesday.

In terms of language markets are responding to this from Peter Praet yesterday.

Signals showing the convergence of inflation towards our aim have been improving, and both the underlying strength in the euro area economy and the fact that such strength is increasingly affecting wage formation supports our confidence that inflation will reach a level of below, but close to, 2% over the medium term.

For newer readers he is saying that in ECB terms nirvana is near and so it will then reduce policy accommodation which is taken to mean ending monthly QE and then after a delay raising interest-rates.

So it could be a present from Mario Draghi to his successor or of course if he fails to find the switch a job he could pass on without ever raising interest-rates in his eight years as President.

Comment

Before I give my opinion let me give you a deeper perspective on what has been in some cases all in others some of our lives.

Since 1980, long-term interest rates have declined by about 860 basis points in the United States, 790 basis points in Germany and more than 1,200 basis points in France. ( Peter Praet yesterday)

On this scale even the interest-rate rises likely in the United States seem rather small potatoes. But to answer the question in my title I am expecting them to reach 2% and probably pass it. Once we move to Europe the picture gets more complex as I note this from the speech of Peter Praet.

the underlying strength in the euro area economy

This is not what it was as we observe the 0.4% quarterly growth rate in Euro area GDP confirmed this morning or the monthly and annual fall in manufacturing orders for Germany in April. Looking ahead we know that narrow money growth has also been weakening. Thus the forecasts for an interest-rate rise next June seem to be a bit like the ones for the UK this May to me.

Looking at the UK I expect that whilst Mark Carney is Bank of England Governor we will be always expecting rises which turn out to be a mirage. Unless of course something happens to force his hand.

On a longer perspective I do think the winds of change are blowing in favour of higher interest-rates but it will take time as central bankers have really over committed the other way and are terrified of raising and then seeing an economic slow down. That would run the risk of looking like an Emperor or Empress with no clothes.

 

 

 

 

What are the prospects for the US economy?

As we progress through 2018 we find eyes as ever turning regularly to the US economy. Not only to see what the world’s largest economy is up to but also to note any changes. The economic growth news for the first quarter was pretty solid. From the Bureau of Economic Analysis or BEA.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the first quarter of 2018
according to the “advance” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the
fourth quarter, real GDP increased 2.9 percent.

So whilst we see a slowing it is exacerbated in feel by the way the numbers are annualised and is much lower than that seen in the UK and much of Europe. Also the US has developed something of a pattern of weak first quarter numbers so we need to remind ourselves that the number is better than that seen in both 2016 and 2017. As to the detail the slowing was fairly general. If we were looking for an estimate of the recovery since the credit crunch hit then we get it from noting that if we use 2009 as out 100 benchmark then the latest quarter was at 120.58.

Let us move on with a reminder of the size of the US economy.

Current-dollar GDP increased 4.3 percent, or $211.2 billion, in the first quarter to a level of $19.97
trillion.

Looking ahead

There was something potentially rather positive tucked away in the Income report that was released with the GDP data.

Disposable personal income increased $222.1 billion, or 6.2 percent, in the first quarter, compared with
an increase of $136.3 billion, or 3.8 percent, in the fourth quarter. Real disposable personal income
increased 3.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.1 percent.

At a time of weak wages growth considering the economic situation that was a strong reading which may feed forwards into future consumption numbers. I wondered what drove it but in fact it was pretty broad-based across the different sectors with the only fall being in farm income. As an aside the personal income from farming was surprisingly small considering the size of the US farming sector at US $27.9 billion.

Moving onto the Nowcasts of GDP the news has also been good. From the Atlanta Federal Reserve.

The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2018 is 4.0 percent on May 3, down from 4.1 percent on May 1.

They start the series in optimistic fashion so let us say that around 3% may well be where they end up unless something fundamental changes.

Moving onto the business surveys we saw this yesterday.

April survey data indicated a strong expansion in
business activity across the U.S. service sector.
However, although the rate of growth accelerated, it
remained below the series’ long-run average.
Meanwhile, the upturn in new business quickened
to a sharp rate that was the fastest since March
2015. ( Markit PMI ).

Which added to this from May Day.

April survey data signalled a steep improvement in
operating conditions across the U.S. manufacturing
sector. The latest PMI reading was the highest since
September 2014, supported by stronger expansions
in output and new orders. Moreover, new business
rose at the sharpest pace in over three-and-a-half
years. ( Markit PMI)

Thus the summary for the start of the second quarter is so far so good which again means the US is in better shape than elsewhere at least for now.

Inflation

Earlier this week I note that the US Federal Reserve was for once on target. What I mean by that was that the PCE ( Personal Consumption Expenditure) inflation rate rose by 2% in March compared to a year before. Expectations of this are what caused the addition of the word I have highlighted in Wednesday’s Fed statement.

The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal.

There has been a lot of debate over this much of it misinformed. Firstly central bankers virtually never mean it and secondly they are hinting at a possible run higher after a long period when it has been below the 2% target.

Such a likelihood was reinforced by the Markit PMI surveys.

On the price front, input cost inflation picked up in
April. The rate of increase was strong overall and
the second-quickest since June 2015. (services)

Meanwhile, average prices charged rose at the
quickest pace since June 2011, with the rate of
inflation accelerating for the fourth successive
month. Survey respondents commonly noted that
higher charges were due to increased costs being
passed on to clients. (Manufacturing)

Of course having begun the process of raising interest-rates without the most common cause of it these days ( a currency collapse) the US Fed is not in that bad a place at least in its own mind should inflation overshoot the target in the summer. Although of course as I have pointed out before in terms of logic it should have been more decisive rather than dribbling out increases along the lines expected for the rest of 2018 by Reuters.

While the Fed left interest rates unchanged on Wednesday, it is possibly set to raise them by a total of 75 basis points this year.

King Dollar

This was summarised by Reuters thus.

In just two weeks the dollar has surged nearly four percent against a basket of the most traded currencies, erasing all the losses it had suffered since the start of 2018 .DXY.

Against a broader group of currencies, including those from emerging markets, the greenback is now in positive territory against half of them.

This brings us back to the topic of yesterday where the US Dollar rebound has hit the weaker currencies such as the Turkish Lira and the Argentine Peso hard. Following on from the change of heart of the unreliable boyfriend in the UK it has seen the UK Pound £ dip below US $1.36 and the Euro is below US $1.20.

Is this a return to the interest-rate differentials that had up to then been ignored? Maybe a bit but perhaps the reality is more that the modern currency trade seems to be to follow the economic growth and as we have observed above at the moment the US economy looks relatively strong.

Comment

So in terms of conventional economic analysis things look pretty good for the US economy as we stand. The danger might be highlighted this afternoon from the wages data in the non farm payrolls release. This is because rising inflation will chip away at real wages if the rate of wages increase stays at 2.7%. Of course that reminds us of the issue of the fact that wages growth is only at that level with an unemployment rate at 4% leading many economists to scrabble through Google searches trying to redact references to full employment at a higher rate.

Elsewhere there are potential concerns of which one is debt. Should growth continue on its current path then it will help the national debt withstand the pressure placed on it by the Trump tax plan. On the private-sector side though familiar fears are on the scene.

 

Yahoo Finance helpfully updates us with this.

They’re also safer than junk bonds, at least in theory, with lenders getting repaid before creditors when firms get into trouble

What could go wrong?

Finally in spite of the recent dollar strength the Yen has pushed its way back to 109 leaving me with this from Carly Simon.

Why does your love hurt so much?
Don’t know why

 

 

 

How soon will the US national debt be unaffordable?

It is time to look again at a subject which has been a regular topic in the comments section. This is what happens when national debt costs start to rise again? We have spent a period where rises in national debts have been anesthetized by the Quantitative Easing era where central bank purchases of sovereign debt have had a side effect of reducing debt costs in some cases by very substantial amounts. Of course  it is perfectly possible to argue that rather than being a side effect it was the real reason all along. Personally I do not think it started that way but once it began like in some many areas establishment pressure meant that it not only was expanded in volume but that it has come to look in stock terms really rather permanent or as the establishment would describe it temporary. Of the main players only the US has any plan at all to reduce the stock whereas the Euro area and Japan continue to pile it up.

So let us take a look at projections for the US where the QE flow effect is now a small negative meaning that the stock is reducing. Here is Businessweek on the possible implications.

Over the next decade, the U.S. government will spend almost $7 trillion — or almost $60,000 per household — servicing the nation’s massive debt burden. The interest payments will leave less room in the budget to spend on everything from national defense to education to infrastructure. The Congressional Budget Office’s latest projections show that interest outlays will exceed both defense discretionary spending and non-military discretionary spending by 2025.

The numbers above are both eye-catching and somewhat scary but as ever this is a case of them being driven by the assumptions made so let us break it down.

US National Debt

It is on the up and up.

Debt held by the public, which has doubled in the past
10 years as a percentage of gross domestic product
(GDP), approaches 100 percent of GDP by 2028 in
CBO’s projections.

Those of you who worry we may be on the road to World War III will be troubled by the next bit.

That amount is far greater than the
debt in any year since just after World War II

As you can see the water has got a bit muddled here as the CBO has thrown in its estimates of economic growth and debt held by the public so let us take a step back. It thinks that annual fiscal deficits will rise to above US $1 Trillion a year in this period meaning that from now until 2028 they will total some US $12.4 billion. That will put the National Debt on an upwards path and the amount held by the public will be US $28.7 Trillion. Sadly they skirt the issue of how much the US Federal Reserve will own so let us move on.

Deficits

These have become more of an issue simply because the CBO thinks the recent Trump tax changes will raise the US fiscal deficit. The over US $1 Trillion a year works out to around 5% of GDP per annum.

Bond Yields

These are projected to rise as the US Federal Reserve raises its interest-rates and we do here get a mention of it continuing to reduce its balance sheet and therefore an implied reduction in its holdings of US Treasury Bonds.

Meanwhile, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes increases from its average of 2.4 percent in the latter part of 2017 to 4.3 percent by the middle of 2021. From 2024 to 2028, the interest rate on 3-month Treasury bills averages
2.7 percent, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes,
3.7 percent.

Currently the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.83% so the forecast is one to gladden the heart of any bond vigilante. If true this forecast will be a major factor in rising US debt costs over time as we know there will be plenty of new borrowing at the higher yields. But here comes the rub this assumes that these forecasts are correct in an area which has often been the worst example of forecasting of all. For example the official OBR forecast in the UK in a similar fashion to this from the CBO would have UK Gilt yields at 4.5% whereas in reality they are around 3% lower. That is the equivalent of throwing a dart at a dartboard and missing not only it but also the wall.

Inflation

This comes into the numbers in so many ways. Firstly the US does have inflation linked debt called TIPS so higher inflation prospects cost money. But as they are around 9% of the total debt market any impact on them is dwarfed by the beneficial impact of higher inflation on ordinary debt. Care if needed with this as we know that price inflation does not as conventionally assumed have to bring with it wage inflation. But higher nominal GDP due to inflation is good for debt issuers like the US government and leads to suspicions that in spite of all the official denials they prefer inflation. Or to put it another way why central banks target a positive rate of consumer inflation ( 2% per annum) which if achieved would gently reduce the value of the debt in what is called a soft default.

The CBO has a view on real yields but as this depends on assumptions about a long list of things they do not know I suggest you take it with the whole salt-cellar as for example they will be assuming the inflation target is hit ignoring the fact that it so rarely is.

In those years, the real interest rate on
10-year Treasury notes (that is, the rate after the effect of
expected inflation, as measured by the CPI-U, has been
removed) is 1.3 percent—well above the current real rate
but more than 1 percentage point below the average real
rate between 1990 and 2007.

Economic Growth

In many ways this is the most important factor of all. This is because it is something that can make the most back-breaking debt burden suddenly affordable or as Greece as illustrated the lack of it can make even a PSI default look really rather pointless. There is a secondary factor here which is the numbers depend a lot on the economic impact assumed from the Trump tax cuts. If we get something on the lines of Reaganomics then happy days but if growth falters along the lines suggested by the CBO then we get the result described by Businessweek at the opening of this article.

Between 2018 and 2028, actual and potential real output
alike are projected to expand at an average annual
rate of 1.9 percent.

The use of “potential real output” shows how rarefied the air is at the height of this particular Ivory Tower as quite a degree of oxygen debt is required to believe it means anything these days.

Comment

The issue of the affordability forecast is mostly summed up here.

CBO estimates that outlays for net interest will increase
from $263 billion in 2017 to $316 billion (or 1.6 percent
of GDP) in 2018 and then nearly triple by 2028,
climbing to $915 billion. As a result, under current law,
outlays for net interest are projected to reach 3.1 percent
of GDP in 2028—almost double what they are now.

This terns minds to what might have to be cut to pay for this. However let me now bring in what is the elephant in this particular room, This is that if bond yields rise substantially pushing up debt costs then I would expect to see QE4 announced. The US Federal Reserve would step in and start buying US Treasury Bonds again to reduce the costs and might do so on a grand scale.. Which if you think about it puts a cap also on its interest-rate rises and could see a reversal. Thus the national debt might remain affordable for the government but at the price of plenty of costs elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

How much will interest-rates rise?

The issue of interest-rate rises has suddenly become something of a hot topic and let me open with the words of Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan. From the Financial Times.

Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan Chase, has warned that the US economy is at risk of overheating, raising the prospect that the Federal Reserve may soon need to slam on the brakes to prevent wages and prices from rising too quickly.

There are more than a few begged questions here but let us park them for now and carry on.

“Many people underestimate the possibility of higher inflation and wages, which means they might be underestimating the chance that the Federal Reserve may have to raise rates faster than we all think,” he wrote. “We have to deal with the possibility that, at one point, the Federal Reserve and other central banks may have to take more drastic action than they currently anticipate.”

Okay let us break this down. Firstly we are back to output gap theory again which of course has been wrong,wrong and wrong again in the credit crunch era. If there are signs of overheating then they are to be found in asset markets where we have seen booming bond prices and house prices and until recently all-time highs for equity markets. Only on Tuesday we looked at US house price growth of 6% or 7% depending which data you use.

Wages

I have picked this out because there has been quite a swerve from Jamie Dimon as for so long nearly everyone has been hoping for higher wages. Now suddenly apparently a rise is a bad thing? The Financial Times article implicitly parrots this line.

The prospect of an overheating economy has spooked the financial markets as recently as February, when stronger-than-expected US wage growth sparked the worst Wall Street sell-off in six years.

In terms of numbers a rise in average earnings growth per hour to 2.9% was hardly groundbreaking and of course it has since faded away showing the unreliable nature of one month’s data. In reality to return to old era trends we would need wages growth of 3.5%+ for a while. But in Jamie’s world that seems to be a bad thing although apparently not always. From Bloomberg.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon received $29.5 million in total compensation for his work in 2017, an increase of 5.4 percent from a year earlier.

So we are left mulling a view where what was supposed to be good would now be bad! Although those of you who in the comments section have argued we will not see major interest-rate rises until wage rises for the ordinary person picks up are permitted a wry smile at this point.

What is expected?

From the FT article.

Prices of Fed funds futures suggest few expect the Fed to raise rates by more than three times this year, as policymakers have indicated. Longer-term market measures also indicate that investors expect inflation and bond yields to remain subdued for years to come.

I put the second sentence in because it is positively misleading. What those measures are provide a balancing of markets now and usually have very little to do with what will happen. Returning to interest-rates we got a view this week from former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen.

At Monday’s larger forum for Jefferies clients, she expressed the view that three or four rate rises were likely this year, and that recent U.S. tax cuts and a boost in government spending posed at least some risk of running the economy hot, according to the first source, who requested anonymity. ( CNBC)

This is the awkward bit about the Jamie Dimon claim which is that the existing and likely moves in US interest-rates are a response to expected higher inflation anyway as of course as we have looked at many times it is still below the target. Back to Janet.

Later, over dinner at the Manhattan penthouse of Jefferies’ chief executive, Yellen told executives from hedge funds, private equity firms and other companies that she considered inflation to be in check and unlikely to spike, so rates would stay relatively low, according to a second person familiar with the discussion.

Take that as you will as of course we discovered in her time that she does not really understand inflation.

The Bank of England

So how will it respond as traditionally it follows the US Federal Reserve?

We’re pleased to announce that singer-songwriter will be joining us for a event on 19 April, delivering his talk ‘The Struggle for Accountability in the Digital Age’ followed by a Q&A. Find out more and apply for free tickets.

Oh sorry not that one. Let us move onto its favourite publication the Financial Times.

Policymakers at the Bank of England are debating whether to be more forthcoming about their future plans for interest rates, as they gear up for a crunch vote on the cost of borrowing next month.

This is fascinating stuff because it both implies and suggests they know what their forecasts are! Let me give you an example reviewed favourably by Chris Giles the economics editor of the FT.

But last month Gertjan Vlieghe, an external MPC member, broke ranks with his colleagues on the nine-member committee when he said that rates could rise above 2 per cent over the same period.

Actually if we remove the rose-tintin ( sorry but he is Belgian) he seems an excitable chap as this from the Evening Standard in April 2016 reveals.

Vlieghe’s answer is intriguing: “Theoretically, I think interest rates could go a little bit negative.”

The long discussion on negative interest-rates that took place was clearly a hint of expected policy and means that Gertjan was wrong which poses a question over why we should listen this time? Although Chris Giles has a very different view.

Not sure it matters if people believe them.

I think it matters a lot. Oh and as the Swedish Riksbank has found it.

The Riksbank has had some difficulties with its predictions.

But to be fair Chris Giles does have a sense of humour ( I think).

But there remains concern that the BoE could undermine trust in it as an institution running an important public policy if it makes predictions about interest rates that do not come to pass.

Comment

Let me open with a rather good reply to this from GreaterFool.

Any shreds of credibility that the BoE once had disappeared into smoke after the forward guidance experiment. Telling people that you’ll raise rates after unemployment falls below 7% and then dropping them again when unemployment is below 5% will do that.

In fact the hits keep coming as though in this instance from Felix2012

There are quite a few commenters here who still take MPC seriously, unfortunately.

As to clarity well we did get that from Governor Carney back in June 2014.

There’s already great speculation about the exact timing of the first rate hike and this decision is becoming more balanced….“It could happen sooner than markets currently expect.

That was taken as a clear signal back then and the next day saw a lot of market adjustments which later led to losses as it never happened. Of course the road to a Bank Rate cut after Governor Carney hinted at it was both real and fast as we discovered 3 years later.

So what can we expect? The Bank of England has rather committed itself to a May Bank Rate rise which if you look at falling inflation and some weaker economic news looks out of touch. We have seen signs of slowing in Europe too as German industrial production has shown already today. The US Federal Reserve will no doubt carry on course unless there is a shock stateside although not everyone even thinks we need any tightening. BoI is the Bank of Italy.