Month: November 2022

China Protest context, changes, and market risks: Week Ahead Special Episode

Post author By admin
Post date November 30, 2022

Explore your CI Futures options: http://completeintel.com/inflationbuster

The last couple of weeks has seen rising levels of unrest in China. This seemingly started in a Zhengzhou iPhone factory after the deaths of seven workers and has rapidly spread after Covid lockdowns contributed to the deaths of a family of 12 in Urumqi. Some are even saying the World Cup contributed to domestic unrest. But there’s no getting around the fact that people are just tired of lockdowns.

There’s an old Chinese saying – often attributed to Mao Zedong: “A single spark can start a prairie fire.”

What started this prairie fire and what does it mean for China and the world? We discuss that in this special episode with Dexter Roberts, Isaac Stone Fish, and Albert Marko.

Dexter talks about his retweet of a note from Lingling Wei.

Isaac talks more about this unrest potentially leading to the downfall of Xi Jinping. That seems optimistic, especially for the West. What are some of the probable outcomes?

And on the ongoing risks and market impact, Albert shares his knowledge on the issue. We’ve talked a lot about Chinese markets and the CNY. How will the markets react in the coming weeks? And how Western companies will respond to these protests and the aftermath?

Key themes:
1. Protest Context – Spark and prairie fire
2. Will anything change? “
3. Risks and market impact

This is the 43rd episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Dexter: https://twitter.com/dtiffroberts
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Isaac: https://twitter.com/isaacstonefish

Transcript

Tony

Hi everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. This Special Week Ahead, talking about China protests.

I’m Tony Nash, and today we’re joined by Dexter Roberts. Dexter is an author. He’s member of the Atlantic Council, the Mansfield Center. He’s a former Bloomberg Business Week China bureau chief, among many, many other things. Dexter, this is your first time. We really appreciate that you joined us. Isaac Stone Fish is also joining us again. Isaac is a CEO of strategy risks. He’s also Atlanta council member. He’s a China-based journalist for Newsweek and has was there for a lot of years. And we’re also joined by Albert Marco, who is a geopolitical maven and knower of all things. So guys, thanks for joining us today.

The key themes today is really what’s the context of the protest? There’s the old saying of a “spark and a prairie fire,” which we’ll go into. Really want to understand that context. Want to understand will anything change? And also what will be the impact on markets? That’s kind of hard to tell, but we’ll walk through that the last couple of weeks.

Obviously, we’ve seen rising levels of unrest in China, particularly over the weekend we started seeing quite a lot more. This seemingly started in a Zhengzhou iPhone factory after the deaths of seven workers. There’s a long story. There are a lot of videos on the internet about that, and you can do a little background on that if you want. And it spread rapidly about a week ago after there were deaths of a family of twelve in Ürümqi in an apartment fire. Again, there’s a lot of background on the internet that I’m sure you guys have seen. Some people are even saying that the World Cup contributed to the domestic unrest as Chinese families saw other people in other parts of the world out celebrating.

But there’s no getting around the fact that people are just tired of Covid lockdowns. There’s an old Chinese saying, it’s often attributed to Mao because it was a title of one of his essays called a Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire. And we’re trying to figure out what started the prairie fire and what does it mean to China and the world. I want to look at that with some experts, which is why we have this amazing panel today.

Hi, everyone. I wanted to let you know about a promo we’re having for our CI Futures subscription product. This is our Inflation Buster sale. We know that prices are hitting you everywhere and it’s holiday time, so I want to give you a big break on our CI Futures product.

CI Futures has thousands of assets that we forecast every month. We do commodities, currencies and equity indices every single week. On Monday morning, there are hundreds, almost 800 of those that we forecast every week, updated on Monday morning. We forecast economics variables every month. Those are available on the first of every month. In total, it’s thousands of assets.

We show our error. We are the only product out there, the only forecasting product out there that actually discloses our error. You can see our historical error, and you can see a year’s forecast at monthly intervals. Right now, we’re offering 50% off of CI futures.

You can actually get it for as low as $25 a month. We have different arrangements based on the commitment. You want a full year or say, going month to month. So you can get anywhere between $25 a month and $50 a month with our current offering.

So please check it out. Please click on the site. If you need a demo, let us know. Thanks very much.

So, Dexter, welcome. I really appreciate that you joined us. Thank you. You’ve retweeted quite a bit this week about the protests, and you retweeted this one from Ling Ling Wei, talking about kind of some of the origins of the protests.

Can you talk to us a little bit about kind of what are the sparks? Are there things that we’re not seeing on this side of the world that have led to this in China?

Dexter

Yeah. Well, thanks so much for having me and really appreciate it. Great to be in such a great company here.

So, obviously, we all know that there’s tremendous frustration about Covid Zero, the intermittent lockdowns, the unpredictability of life for so many people in China today. And that’s very real, and it’s a huge part of the spark, if you will, that caused the protests. I do think that less remarked upon is the very, very deep economic malaise, which is also a really important cause of this.

In particular, we’re seeing for young people a far less rosy future, if you will, and they are starting to realize that. So we’ve got the obvious economic indicators that are very bad, like the 18% plus youth unemployment rate. And then you look further than that, and I think there’s this sense, particularly amongst young people, probably amongst everyone but the young people that have taken to the streets protesting that the future is simply just not going to be what they had expected it to be.

I’d actually go one step further and say that for them, they feel like the social contract that they grew up under that really has been in place since Dung Xiaoping launched reform and opening in the late 70s.

This idea that your life will always get better, your children’s life will be better than yours, you’ll make money, you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and do better in China if you work hard. I don’t think people feel that’s necessarily the equation anymore.

Some of the things if you just look at what’s happened in the property sector, that people have become very used to rising values in the property sector, going up and up and up, making a good career, including in the private sector, in the big tech companies, all these things are really in question in Xi’s China.

Xi has shown an attitude that is very, very different from his predecessors about the private economy. And I think this is sort of starting to become something that young people are very aware about. Then you have, of course, you have the isolation of the country, which I think is deeply distressing to a lot of young people as well. It’s a much, much different social contract that they’re being told that they need to be part of if they want to be important in the future of China.

Tony

It’s interesting you mentioned the social contract under Dong. I think it was in 1980. He talked about unifying China because there were all the fractions after the Cultural Revolution. Do you feel like Xi Jinping has continued to unify China? Has he done things to really break that up?

Dexter

I think his idea of how to unify China, he has a very ambitious idea of how to do that. It has a lot to do with nationalism. It has to do with taking pride in the ancient traditions of China. It has to do with taking pride in the earlier communist, the Mao era as well. Look where Xi Jinping took his new standing committee of the Polit Bureau right after the 20th party Congress. He took them out to Yenan, which is all about emphasizing frugality and sacrifice, self-reliance, as Xi Jinping likes to say, the old Mao expression.

So I think he believes that those can be unifying in some way. I don’t think the young people of China feel that that’s very unifying at all. It’s much more collectivist. Anti-individualistic has an almost negative attitude towards making money towards the private sector. And these are all, I think, a bit of a shock for young people in China today.

Albert

Tony, it’s interesting because trying to unify a billion people is not going to be an easy task under any system, whether it’s socialist, communist, capitalist, whatever you want to throw out there. But Xi moving into a more nationalistic arena, specifically with the private sector, has just taken the Western companies out of the equation. They’re all leaving out of China. And what Dexter is saying, what future did they possibly see with everyone leaving, especially the tech sector and the manufacturing sector? They’re just leaving. This is something Isaac can talk about, because I believe this is…

Tony

Yeah, Isaac, what are you saying about that? Are you seeing young Chinese kind of giving up on their careers? Are they frustrated by that?

Isaac

There’s such a wide range of views. And I think one of the things these protests are showing is that you can’t, nor should you try to unify any large population, because then you just squelch out the diversity of opinions. I think the protests are a real sign that a lot of people have been a lot more frustrated with communism in the Communist Party and China’s economic situation and COVID than we had thought. There’s no good polling on any of these issues. There never will be until the party relinquishes. The question of foreign businesses. It’s definitely a trend moving in the direction of reducing exposure to China. However, your average Fortune 500 company is still incredibly exposed to China and to the Chinese market.

Tony

And dependent, right?

Isaac

Yes. Especially dependent both on a revenue perspective, but also a supply chain perspective or regulatory perspective for some of the investors.

And one of the things companies are very slowly waking up to is that, on the one hand, China is not Russia. There’s so many differences between the two countries. On the other hand, there’s a lot of things that have happened in Russia that could be templates for how the future unfolds with China. Most noticeably, the situation in Taiwan.

So, three years ago, US traded 25 times more with China than we did with Russia. The numbers are starker today, but if China invades Taiwan and the US gets involved militarily, companies better have a plan for what they’re going to do with the immediate cessation of their business or the nationalization of their assets, and frankly, how they’re going to protect their Chinese and American staff.

Tony

Yeah, I’m curious about with protests like this, could it become nationalistic like it was against Japanese companies in 2012? Could we see the central government try to pivot to that type of venting?

Isaac

It’s tough to say because the party wants things to be at lower levels where you can be very nationalist because you’re cleaning up the party. And probably the most worrying thing are the calls for the downfall of the party and the calls, the rare for the downfall of Xi. And the strategy seems to be, hey, the center, Beijing is taking care of you. It’s just some local officials or some local jurisdictions are having the problem. So you can be pro-China, but anticorruption or anti what’s happening in HubeiNanchang or nonchang or wherever they decide.

Tony

Right. So let’s go to the next section, which is really looking at what are likely impacts. You talked about people calling for the downfall of Xi Jinping. I think Westerners are making a lot more of that than is on the ground. Is that what you’re seeing as well?

Isaac

I think and I’m really curious to your thoughts on this too. It’s so hard to know fully what’s happening on the ground. There’s so many fewer journalists. Even with the videos that we’re seeing on the Internet, it’s hard to know always how accurate those are and what we’re missing. And it does feel like a small, small number of people calling for the downfall of Xi Jinping is incredibly significant. And at the same time, it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be any sort of downfall of said man.

Dexter

Yeah, no, I think you’re absolutely right. It is very significant that right there in the heart of Beijing, right next to where I used to live, actually in the Taiyuan diplomatic compound, you had those protests. I guess the calls for Xi to step down were down in Shanghai. But having those kinds of very angry people and in some cases saying something from the Chinese Communist Party perspective as extreme as the leader should step down. I think is very notable.

Yeah, I don’t think that’s a widespread sentiment. I think it more has to do with a sense amongst young people that the party and Beijing is less fallible. It’s not infallible that they’re not quite as competent as people thought. And I think Covid Zero has really demonstrated that to people that the economy is a mess. The IMF is now saying, I guess, 3.2% growth for the year. It’s just almost as bad as we saw in 2020.

The script, they’ve gone badly off script. There was this great stirring narrative of how China survived the initial COVID outbreak, struggled when the rest of the world was still doing okay, and then emerged victorious and kept society, the economy recovered.

Only major economy to see, significant growth, I think a year later. Well, everything’s gone wrong now. So I think this sense amongst and again, it’s so hard, as Isaac says, to know actually what people are thinking. But from what I hear and from some conversations I’ve had, it seems as if there’s this feeling that the Party has really badly screwed up and they need to take some responsibility for it.

I think also it’s notable that they’re saying Beijing because as we were saying earlier, for years the party has got by on the argument that we’re good here in Beijing. There’s all these evil local officials, they’re abusing workers, they’re creating polluting factories. All we got to do is appeal to the right people in Beijing and they’ll solve our problems because ultimately the party has our interests in hand.

Now, if we are starting to see, and I think we are, this feeling that the Party, even at the center, has screwed up badly. And of course, the gentleman who’s in charge of everything but the chairman of everything, Xi Jinping, then that is very notable.

Tony

Yeah. So first of all, I don’t believe it’s possible for one guy to control all that stuff. So in the west, people way oversimplify and act like China is a monolithic government and there’s one guy at the center, it’s just not possible for one guy to control all that stuff. Do you guys think he really is the only guy making decisions, the only guy making policy?

Albert

No. I have a contrarian point, though. For my take of this, the question has to be why is China even allowing these videos to leak? Why are they even allowing these protests to get this big? In my opinion is they want to show the world that they are done with this COVID they need a reason to be done with COVID Zero. It’s been hampering their economy and they need to move on. They’re done working with the United States on combating inflation and this is their signal to the rest of the world saying, look, we can’t do this anymore.

Tony

So when you say “they,” who is they?

Albert

When you say they and his cohorts on the CCP, they’re done with this, they’re done with helping the Fed and Yellen combat inflation globally.

Dexter

I have to just push back a little bit. I think they are aware, and I think it’s the reality that if they do, they’re in a really difficult spot, because if they were to actually pull away and all controls, they’re just not prepared, I think, for the outbreak of the pandemic that China would see. They have very little herd immunity. They’re victims of their own success to a degree there. As we all know, and we’ve heard a lot about the there’s low levels of vaccination for the elderly. They have a very fragmented healthcare system. I think ending COVID Zero with one stroke is a recipe for huge problems in China and I think that the leadership knows that, or at least they fear that. I think they’re in a very difficult spot. They do want to move beyond it. I agree. It’s not easy.

Albert

Yeah, I don’t think they’re going to move as the one full stroke and just open up everything. I do think it’s going to be a staged open, but from what I heard, my contacts there said March was the date that they’re going to end COVID Zero, whether it be stages or one full stroke as a debatable thing. But at this point, I don’t think they can last that long. I think now it’s looking more like end of January, early February.

Dexter

I’m going to say really quickly, I mean, the other huge issue is Xi Jinping has associated himself so much with what he sees as a successful, I mean, what had been until not too long ago, it seemed like a successful COVID Zero policy. It turned out it wasn’t successful at all. We know in hindsight, but they have really defined themselves in opposition or in contrast to the rest of the world. So if you watch the Chinese media, the staterun media, every time we’ve reached a new level of mortality, more than a million people have died. These things are top of the news in China and I think the party has tried to tell the Chinese people, you’re safe here, in contrast to the chaotic rest of the world and particularly chaotic America. This is their argument. And if they lift Covid Zero now and they do have the pandemic rips through the population and they do have high mortality, there goes out the window Xi Jinping’s narrative of the grand success of the CCP with COVID Zero.

Isaac

The Spring festival in January, February, where hundreds of millions of people normally travel, would be a super spreader event, like nothing we’ve ever seen before. So one imagines if they do loosen, it’ll be after that. And the record, I do want them to loosen up, and the draconian and arbitrary lockdowns have such a massive toll, but I think Spring Festival will be a big piece of their consideration.

Tony

Okay, that’s a great point. I think you and Albert kind of agree on that generally, in terms of the time frame. So let me ask you, what else will change? Will we see, say, some local leaders go down saying they overly aggressively enforced it or something like that? There is typically some sort of accountability, whether it’s well placed or misplaced in China. So will we see somebody or a group of people or many, many people go down? And I’ll tell you why I asked that.

I referred to this on social media. This reminds me of the April 5 incident in 1976, when Zhou Enlai died and Mao didn’t attend a funeral and didn’t want people to recognize that Zhou Enlai died. So people started protesting and expressing their, you know, their sadness that Zhou Enlai died. Thousands of people went to jail. Right. And somebody had to pay. It was an outburst like we’re seeing now across China, and it really took two or three years for those people to be let out of jail. Right. So it seems to me a discreet event like that, and it seems to me that the response back then was thousands of people going to jail, and then a few years later, under new leadership, saying, “oops, that was a mistake, let everyone out.” Will it be something like that?

Isaac

I don’t think so. I’d say the base case is quiet arrests and harassment where people disappear or people aren’t seen for a brief period of time, and there’s not enough that people can hang their hat on. I think one of the easiest ways to make this into a movement is to create martyrs. So if a local policeman screws up and shoots into a crowd of protesters, this could really, really spiral. It’s so hard to know. I mean, it’s impossible to predict whether or not that’s going to happen. That could be a history changing moment. I think right now we are before the tipping point, and I think the most likely outcome is these protests subside. We see some more of them this weekend, but they’re not as well attended. And this is basically the high point of that. And there’s probably a couple hundred arrests, but we don’t really know. There’s no good statistics on it. And COVID slowly opens up, and several provincial level officials lose their job in ways that people loosely tied to this event.

Tony

Yeah, I think that’s fair. Dexter, does that make sense to you generally?

Dexter

Yeah, it does. It reminds me of I covered the labor movement before Xi Jinping ultimately destroyed it around 2013, and going back to even the first big labor protest in the northeast of China in places like Dai Qing and Lio Yang. And back then, what they would always do is they would arrest or maybe they would create the ringleaders of the protests. So they put a couple of highprofile people in jail as a warning to the others and then they would do a lot to try to meet the frustrations of the protesters. So then it was about local corrupt officials or corrupt factory managers stealing the pensions or whatever it might have been, and they would announce that. I see sort of yeah, something like, as Isaac was saying, well, they’ll do more. They will loosen on COVID Zero when they can. You already had a statement. I’m trying to remember if it was the Health Ministry or something that seemed to be sort of it didn’t go very far, but it seemed to be sort of saying, we understand the frustrations of the people just in the last day or so. I think they’ll do that.

Dexter

The arrests, of course, they’ve already started talking about the hostile foreign forces that are involved, which is not a surprise. They’ll probably heat that up a bit and blame. They’ll try to make the argument that the young people have been misled by bad people overseas, which they always do. And they did that in Hong Kong and they’ve done that in Xinjiang and so on. But, yeah, I think I do agree with Isaac. I think that’s probably most likely. They definitely don’t want to make martyrs.

Tony

Great. Okay, then let’s move on to kind of the markets impact. So it sounds to me like the general consensus is not a lot. This is not a revolutionary event. We’re not going to see the deposing of Chinese leadership, despite the kind of Western sharing, all that sort of thing. So in terms of the risks and the market impact, Albert, can you just start us on that? Do you see markets impact? Do you see Chinese markets rallying or falling? Do you see CNY devaluing or appreciating? What do you generally expect?

Albert

Well, as I said before, I think this is a signal to say that China is definitely going to be moving beyond COVID Zero. Data is debatable, but they have just an enormous amount of stimulus to unleash. They just did a little bit overnight talking about helping out the property sector and KWEB and Baba and everything is up 7%. It’s uncanny. So, yeah, this is definitely a signal to the US or Europe and say, hey, we’re almost about to open for business. Get your stuff in gear, because when it does, it’ll be a tsunami of money coming in and the markets will rally on it, for sure it will.

Tony

So this is generally could be good for Western markets and Asian markets because China’s lockdown is really I mean, I don’t I don’t mean to be overly simplistic, but I’m going to do it. Ending China’s lockdown is really the most important issue in Asia right now, I think. And it’s the most important issue in markets right now.

Albert

But it’s not good for the west. It’s not good for the United States specifically because it’s going to take inflation back up to where was six months to eight months ago. When China starts moving, commodities start rallying.

Tony

Which is at 78 right now, or something up to?

Albert

110 or 120 easy. That point. On top of that, money from the United States will end up flowing out back into China, in Asia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea. Name your manufacturing sector, but that’s the reality of it. The Fed right now has 60 days to get things sorted out with two Fed meetings coming up.

Tony

Okay, Isaac, what do you see on the risk side as this plays out? Is it just going back to business as usual, no problem, everything’s great, or do you see are there some risks that we’re not kind of aware of?

Isaac

Geopolitical tensions are so much higher than they were preCovid lockdowns in China, and the looming specter of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan still not the base case, but still very likely increased tensions with Japan or India or in the South Sea or the East Sea. These protests, I think really the right assumption is that they don’t lead to further instability, but they certainly could, or certain other areas of disturbance or frustration with the leadership could really bubble up, and that could have very severe economic consequences.

I think there’s also the really important point of the strong leftward turn that China’s economy is taking. It’s becoming a lot more statist and with more investments, more JVs, a flowing of capital into China. This is going to be done under different rules than it was under Hu Jintao or under early Xi Jinping. It’s going to be with a much heavier state footprint, and that’s going to make things a lot more complicated. It’s going to be a different set of rules, even for companies that have been doing this for a very long time.

Tony

So what you’re saying is we are who they thought we were a few weeks ago in the part of Congress, right? There was this ominous feeling coming out of that. And then there was this event, I think, last week in ASEAN where it felt like there was some shine put back on Xi Jinping. And now it feels like that it’s coming back to be kind of who we thought they were.

Isaac

And the narratives keep shifting so rapidly, and they’re going to continue to shift and evolve. I think people need to understand. There’s an old saying, if you’re going to have to remind me how this went, but it’s something that in China, the only thing you know about the impossible is that it happens all the time, and it’s very difficult to know what we’re going to see. But we do have I think Taiwan is the best example of that. We do have a very clear possibility that China invades Taiwan, and that may start World War Three. And we can predict that now, so people can plan not, hey, this is definitely going to happen, but, hey, this is a very real risk, so how do I plan accordingly?

Tony

Okay, so protest not a big deal, but World War Three possible? That’s kind of what

Isaac

That’s the summary. Yeah, put that on my tombstones.

Tony

Very good. Any other thoughts?

Dexter

Yeah, well, Isaac just brought up a big one, which is this increasing status nature of the economy. I think as multinationals going forward, they’re going to do business in a very different environment. We heard that, of course, with Xi Jinping’s 20th Party Congress speech, which, as we all know, mentioned security, whatever it was, 91 times, and market a small fraction of that. There’s a new emphasis. Xi Jinping has made it very clear that he’s willing to make economic sacrifices, productivity growth sacrifices, in order to make sure that the party is secure and China is secure and is on a path that he thinks is correct. He’s got that whole line about that. He’s been saying for years about how we can’t use the second 30 years of China’s history to negate the first 30 years. Meaning we moved too far in saying that reform and opening was the end all to be all and negating the earlier the historical neolism that Y’all talks about, which is negating the Mao era. He thinks there’s important lessons for the Mao era. He’s not a Maoist at all, and he certainly doesn’t believe in bottom up revolution. He’s a very top down sort of guy.

But I do think he has a very different vision for the economy. I do think he’s willing. We saw with the private education sector, he seemingly didn’t lose much sleep over completely wiping out a major industry, forcing markets around the world to shed tens of billions of dollars and sending huge numbers of young Chinese into unemployment with this crackdown on private education and tech. And I think ultimately that’s cheap. I don’t believe I think he’s a very different breed. When I showed up in China, it was Zhang Zumin and obviously Jung Zumin and Zhu Rong Xi.

Very different than Hujing Tao and Win jabao. And then today, and I myself was astonished by who Xi Jinping is. I think he’s deeply ambitious and has very different ideas about where China will go, how it will get there, and those have very big economic implications.

Tony

Wow. I’d love to have a two hour conversation with you guys. Let’s just keep it quick. Thank you so much for this time. I think we can maybe do, if things take a different turn, let’s do another conversation in a couple of weeks or something. But I really appreciate your time and thanks, guys. Really. Thank you very much.

Podcasts

Softer Fed Tone But Don’t Get Too Excited

Post author By admin
Post date November 24, 2022

This podcast is originally published on https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/fed-rate-hikes-earnings-downgrade-outlook-for-2023

The released Fed minutes show that most officials are backing a slower pace of interest rate hikes. Markets reacted positively but this is false optimism as the terminal Fed Funds Rate may eventually be higher. The 3Q reporting in the US is also coming to a close and 75% of corporates experienced downgrade in earnings. Have the cut in earnings by analysts been adequate or will there be further downside, with 2023 outlook still uncertain? For answers, we speak to Tony Nash, CEO, Complete Intelligence.

Transcript

BFM

BFM 89 Nine. Good morning. You’re listening to the Morning Run at Thursday. It’s Thursday, the 24 November November Friday, junior, as we like to call it. Here. I’m Shazana Mokhtar with Wong Shou Ning and Chong Tjen San. As always, let’s kickstart the morning with a look at how global markets closed overnight.

All key US markets showed gains as most members of the Fed said the pace of rate hikes will slow down. So the Dow was up 0.3%. The S&P500 was up 0.6%, and Nasdaq was up 1%. In Asian markets, the Nikkei and Hang Seng was up by 0.6%. The China Composite was up by 0.3%. The Straits Times Index was down by 0.1%, and our very own FBMKLCI was up by 0.2%.

Joining us on the line now for more on what’s moving markets, we speak to Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Hi, Tony. Good morning. Now, let’s start with just some reactions on the Fed minutes that were released. It showed that most officials are backing a slower pace of interest rate hikes, but that the terminal rate might need to be higher. What do you think? Are we seeing a relief rally? And is that sustainable in the short term?

Tony

Yeah, I think the ultimate destination is probably the same, but the pace of getting there is slower than many people thought a couple of weeks ago. So I think what it means is we’ll see more, say, 50 and 25 basis point hikes. That’s the expectation. It’s still possible we’ll see a 75 if Powell really pushes hard for December, but we’re still going to see a 5, 5.5 terminal rate, depending on really how things end up for CPI and PPI next month. But it’s just the pace and markets are more comfortable with a gradual adjustment to higher rates than the continued kind of shock treatment.

BFM

And Tony, the US reporting period is coming to a close. How would you assess the quality of corporate earnings release so far? How well have they tracked market expectations?

Tony

They’re OK, they’re pretty weak, actually. Compared to 2021, we had, I think, 25% earnings growth in ’21 about this time last year. They’re just over 3%. So it’s not even near where it was last year.

Something like 75% of companies are seeing estimates for their downgrade. So people expecting inflation to endure longer than they thought. If you remember a year ago, people were saying inflation was transitory, so they’re saying inflation will endure longer and rate hikes will continue.

So with credit tighter, businesses and consumers are not expected to spend as much.

So going forward, there is a fear that wallets will be more closed than they are now and earnings will continue to be tight.

BFM

Which just confuses me, Tony, because if the Fed stops their rate hikes at least decelerates the pace of it. And at the same time, corporate earnings aren’t going to be as robust as ever. Then why is the S&P500 above 4000 and the Dow Jones at 34,194 points? I mean, they’re just in fact, the Dow is only down 6% on a year to date basis and the S&P down 15%. Shouldn’t markets be actually more bearish than they are now?

Tony

Well, I think there are a couple of things happening there. I think first, there really is consumers have continued to spend and businesses have continued to spend in the US. Although we’ve seen economic growth slow dramatically, we’ve had spending continue to push forward. So if the Fed slows its tightening cycle, and keep in mind, they haven’t really started quantitative tightening, meaning getting things out of their balance sheet. They’re only, I think, $200 billion off of their high.

But if the Fed continues to tighten at an accelerated pace, then markets are worried. But again, if they slow it down, the feeling is that spending will move in stride. It won’t necessarily be too shaken up.

Also, on inflation, don’t forget inflation didn’t really start on an accelerated basis until November of ’21. So we had inflation, but fairly muted inflation then. And so what we get after November, well after this month, is what’s called a base effect.

So we’ll likely continue to see inflation rise, but not necessarily at the pace that it’s been over the past, say six to nine months. So does that mean inflation is peak? No, not at all. But it means the pace of the rise of inflation is likely going to slow on base effects.

So if that happens, we’ll have a lot of people declare victory over inflation, but I think that there is an expectation that that rate will slow as well.

BFM

Can you look at the prospects of retailers like Best Buy? We see Abercrombie and Fitch. These names are defying inflationary trends and higher rates to post better results than expected. So why has this sector been the exception to the norm?

Tony

Yes, the quick answer is most of those guys have been pushing price. So they’ve been passing along their higher labor and goods costs onto consumers.

Now they’ve been pushing price while sacrificing volume. So they’ve been pushing 8 to 10 to 15% price hikes in many cases. But they’ve had fewer transactions between one and say 6% fewer transactions.

Regardless, they’re earnings have risen. So they’re not as worried about fewer transactions. They’re focused on keeping their margins up.

And so when you look at retailers like Walmart, which has mixed, say, general goods and food, they’ve done very well. They had a very difficult Q2, but they did very well this past quarter.

Home Depot, which is a DIY store, has done very well because they pushed price Cracker Barrel has done very well.

Cracker Barrel. These are not these are not retailers that are at the high end of the market either. These are mid and even, say lower end companies, but they’re pushing price on the middle and lower end of the market.

Higher end of the market? They’re doing great. So it’s tough to be a consumer in this market because price definitely continues to be pushed and we expect price to continue to be pushed through probably Q2 of next year.

BFM

And Tony, with potentially slower pace of interest rate hikes, how do you expect the technology sector to do? Is there more pain to come for the likes of Amazon and Meta?

Tony

For sure. Amazon, Meta and technology companies generally do very well in very low interest rate environment, where the money is effectively free or negative real interest rates.

As you have to pay for that money, it becomes tougher for those companies to do well because their core investment is in technology. And we had things like Mark Zuckerberg at Meta really went off the rails with some of his spending and investment.

It’s not to say that the Metaverse investment is not ever going to happen, but much of that stuff really went way overboard. Same thing with, say, Amazon with some of their infrastructure investments and delivery investments.

So we do expect HP today, I think announce 6,000 jobs to be lost over the next, I don’t know, twelve months or something. So we do expect much more pain in tech. We expect that to continue until at least the end of Q1, if not a little bit further.

BFM

And Tony, let’s talk about oil because WTI for futures delivery in January, $77 a barrel. And we know that there’s an upcoming OPEC meeting in December. What are your expectations in terms of oil price then?

Tony

Yeah, it’s tricky, right? Because oil prices are kind of in that zone where a lot of people are comfortable. And so the question is, is this acceptable to OPEC members? So Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq and Kuwait have already come out and said they’re going to stick to the current plan, the current cuts that were already announced last month.

But we have things like the Russian price caps coming into play. And you know, our view is the price caps are pretty meaningless actually, because Europeans are pretty good at circumventing the kind of emotional embargoes they put in place.

I’m sorry to put it that way, but they put these laws in place and then they circumvent them pretty well. A lot of this is theater. So that’s not the price caps are not going to have as much of an impact as many people thought. So it’s possible if we get into next week and crude prices start coming back pretty strongly, or sorry, if we get into next week and crude prices are as weak as they are now, we may see a 500,000 barrel per day cut. I think that’s a possibility, but it’s likely they’ll stay on what’s already been announced.

BFM

Tony, thanks very much for speaking with us. And since it’s Thanksgiving eve. Happy Thanksgiving to you. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his take on the trends that he sees moving markets in the days and weeks ahead.

All eyes, of course, on that all-important inflation number and how that will affect how the Fed raises hikes moving forward.

I think the key takeaway for me was he mentioned that 75% of corporates in the US had downgrades, which I feel it’s a good thing as it brings expectations lower and more in line with future expectations and it also gives perhaps some room to surprise on the upside.

Yeah, well, markets seem to be at crossroads, but a little bit cheered by the fact that the Fed isn’t going to raise rates as aggressively as they have in the past. But I want to keep my eye on corporate earnings. I think that if you see continuous downgrades by the analyst community, you see the messaging coming out of US corporates that things aren’t looking as rosy as they are, then it’s just going to be hard for the Dow, S&P500 to actually break through their current resistance levels. So I think it’s something we have to keep an eye on.

Week Ahead

Liquidity Drain and QT, Copper Gap, & Retail and the US Consumer w/ Daniel Lacalle

Post author By admin
Post date November 19, 2022

This Week Ahead, we’re joined by Daniel Lacalle, Tracy Shuchart, and Sam Rines.

First discussion is on liquidity drain and quantitative tightening (QT). How difficult is it?

Rate hikes get a lot of the headlines, but QT peaked at just under $9 trillion in April of this year. The Fed has pulled just over $200 billion from the balance sheet since then, which isn’t nothing, but it’s not much compared to the total.

Where do we go from here? Most of the Fed’s balance sheet is in Treasuries, followed by Mortgage-backed securities. What does the path ahead look like – and where is the pain felt most acutely? Daniel leads on this discussion.

We also look at the copper gap with Tracy. We don’t really have enough copper over the next ten years to fill the demand. Despite that, we’ve seen copper prices fall this year – and Complete Intelligence doesn’t expect them to rise in the coming months. Tracy helps us understand why we’re seeing this and what’s the reason for the more recent fall in the copper price. Is it just recession? Will we see prices snap upward to fill the gap or will it be a gradual upward price trend?

We’ve had some earnings reports for retail over the past couple of weeks and Sam had a fantastic newsletter on that. On previous shows, we’ve talked about how successful US retailers have pushed price (because of inflation) over volume.

Costco and Home Depot have done this successfully. Walmart had serious inventory problems earlier this year, but their grocery has really saved them. Target has problems, but as Sam showed in his newsletter, general merchandise retailers have had a harder time pushing price. What does this mean? Is Target an early indicator that the US consumer is dead?

Key themes:
1. Liquidity drain and QT
2. Copper Gap
3. Retail and the US Consumer
4. What’s up for the Week Ahead?

This is the 42nd episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Daniel: https://twitter.com/dlacalle_IA
Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

Transcript

Tony

Hi, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I am Tony Nash. And this week we’re joined by Dr. Daniel Lacalle or Daniel Lacalle. Daniel is a chief economist, he is a fund manager, he’s an author, he’s a professor. Kind of everything under the sun, Daniel does.

Daniel, thank you so much for joining us today. I know you have a very busy schedule. I appreciate you taking the time to join us. We’re also joined by Tracy Shuart. Tracy is the president at Hightower Resources, a brand-new firm. So pop over and see Tracy’s new firm and subscribe. We’re also joined by Sam Rines of Corbu. Thanks all of you guys for taking the time out of today.

Before we get started. I’m going to take 30 seconds on CI Futures, our core subscription product. CI Futures is a machine learning platform where we forecast market and economic variables. We forecast currencies commodities, equity indices.

Every week markets closed, we automatically download that data, have trillions of calculations, have new forecasts up for you Monday morning. We show you our error. You understand the risk associated with using our data. I don’t know if anybody else in the market who shows you their forecast error.

We also forecast about two thousand economic variables for the top 50 economies globally, and that is reforcast every month.

There are a few key themes we’re going to look at today. First is liquidity drain and quantitative tightening, or QT. Daniel will lead on that and I think everyone will have a little bit to join in on that.

We’ll then look at copper gap, meaning we don’t really have enough copper over the next, say, ten years to fill the needs of EVs and other things. So Tracy will dig into that a little bit.

We’ve had some earnings reports for retail over the past couple weeks and Sam had a fantastic newsletter on that this week. So we’ll dig into that as well. Then we’ll look at what we expect for the week ahead.

So Daniel, thanks again for joining us. It’s fantastic. You’ve spoken to our group about a year ago or so. It was amazing.

So you tweeted out this item on screen right now about the liquidity drain.

You sent that out earlier this week and it really got me thinking about the complexities of draining liquidity from global markets, especially the US. Since I guess global markets are hypersensitive to draining in the US.

Of course, rate hikes get a lot of headlines, but you mentioned QT, so it’s a bit more complicated. Obviously, QT peaked in April of this year. There’s a chart on the screen right now at just under $9 trillion.

And the Fed’s put about $200 billion back from their balance sheet, back in the market from their balance sheet, which isn’t nothing, but it’s really not much compared to the total.

So I guess my question is, where do we go from here? Most of the Fed’s balance sheet is in Treasuries as we’re showing on the screen right now, followed by mortgage backed securities.

So what does this say about the path ahead? What do you expect? How quickly do you expect? Does it matter that much?

Daniel

Thank you very much, Tony. I think that it’s very important for the following reason. When people talk about liquidity, they tend to think of liquidity as something is static, as something that is simply there. And when central banks inject liquidity, it’s an added. And when they take liquidity away from the system, that simply balances the whole thing. And it doesn’t work that way.

Capital is either created or destroyed. Capital is not static. So when quantitative easing happens, what basically happens is the equivalent of a tsunami. Now, you basically add into the balance sheet of central banks trillion, whatever it is, of assets, though, by taking those assets away from the market, you generate an increased leverage that makes every unit of money that is created from the balance sheet of the central bank basically multiplied by five, six, we don’t know how many times. And it also depends on the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, which is at the end of the day, what the reason why central banks do QE is precisely to free up the balance sheet commercial banks so that they can lend more.

Tony

Let me stop you there. Just to dig into so people understand what you’re talking about. When you talk about transmission mechanism, and the Fed holds mortgage backed securities, the transmission mechanism would be through mortgages taken out by people because mortgages are cheaper, because the Fed is buying MBS. Is that fair to say?

Daniel

Not cheaper. They don’t necessarily have to be cheaper. They have to be more abundant. Ultimately…

Tony

That’s fair. Yeah. Okay.

Daniel

Ultimately, this is why when people talk so much about rate hikes, rate hikes or rate cuts are not that important. But liquidity injections and liquidity training are incredibly important for markets because rate hikes or rate cuts do not generate multiple expansions. Yet liquidity injections do create multiple expansion, and liquidity draining is much more severe than the impact of the rate hike.

Tony

Okay, so when you say multiple expansion, you’re talking in the equity markets?

Daniel

In equity markets or in the valuation of bonds price. That means lower bond yields or in the valuation of private equity. We saw, for example, in the period of quantitative easing, how the multiples of private equity transactions went from ten times EV to even to 15 times easily without any problem.

So what quantitative tightening does is much worse than what quantitative easing does, because the market can absorb an increase of liquidity through all these multiple assets. However, when quantitative tightening happens, the process is the reverse. Is that the first thing that happens, obviously, is that the treasury, the allegedly lowest risk asset, becomes more cheap, ie, the bond yield goes up, the price goes down, the bond yield goes up, and in turn it creates the same multiplier effect, but a larger dividing effect on the way out.

Tony

So the divisor is greater than the multiplier.

Daniel

The divisor is greater. And I tell you why. In the process of capital creation, there is always misinformation that leads to multiple expansion. Okay? So one unit of capital adds two more units of capital plus a certain excess valuation, et cetera. Now from that point, if you reduce one unit of the balance yield of the central bank, the impact down is much larger. So where it goes to, this is the problem that we as investors find it very difficult to analyze is where is the multiple at which equities, bonds, certain assets are going to stop because it is very likely to be below the level where they started.

The challenge of quantitative tightening is even worse when the process of quantitative easing has been prolonged, not just in period of compression of economic activity or recessions, but also in the periods of growth.

Tony

Okay?

Daniel

Because the level of risk that investors take becomes not just larger but exponential under QE. Under QT. Under QE, you get Bitcoin going from 20 to 60 under QT, you get bitcoin going from 60 to maybe zero.

I don’t know. I don’t know.

Tony

The comments are going to be full of angry bitcoin people.

Daniel

I just want people to understand that just like on the way up in a roller coaster, you go slowly and it seems that everything is going relatively smoothly. When you start to go down, you go down really fast and it’s truly scary.

Tony

Okay, so let me ask you this, because when you talk about multiple expansion, I’m sure we’re going to get some comments back about tech firms because we’ve seen tech firms multiple expansion decline pretty dramatically in the past, say six months, certainly past year, for companies like Meta. So although we’ve only seen $200 billion in quantitative tightening, how does that reconcile with your statement about interest rates not necessarily impacting valuations.

Daniel

No, interest rates impact valuations, but not as aggressive as quantitative tightenint. They do, particularly in tech for a very simple reason. I think that all of us can understand that a technology company is in the process of money creation. A technology company is one of the first recipients of newly created money because it absorbs capital quicker and it obviously benefits enormously from low interest rates, obviously.

But the process of multiple expansion tends to happen in the early stages of those companies. Now the process of multiple compression is much more viscious because I would be genuinely interested to have a discussion with, I don’t know, with people that invest in nonprofitable tech, but I would really like to understand how they get to the current levels of valuation comfortably.

The biggest problem I see of quantitative tightening is the same problem I see of the hidden risks of quantitative easing is that central banks cannot discern which part of the wealth effect comes from the improvement in the real economy or simply from bubbles. And the creation of bubbles obviously, we can imagine that something is a bubble, but we don’t really know until it bursts.

So it’s going to be very problematic for a central bank to achieve almost one thing and the opposite, which is what they’re trying to do. What they’re trying to do is to say, okay, we’re going to reduce the balance sheet. Hey, we’re going to reduce the balance sheet by 95 billion a month and think that that will have no impact on the bond market, on the equity market, and on the housing market. The housing market is already showing.

Tony

Yeah, I don’t necessarily think they’re saying that will have no impact on that stuff. Sam, from your point of view, is that their expectation that QT would have no impact on asset prices?

Sam

I wouldn’t say it’s their expectation that it wouldn’t have an impact on asset prices. I think they understand that there’s an impact on asset prices from just the narrative of tightening generally. But to the point, I think it is very difficult to parse what portion of their tightening is doing what particularly for them.

You look at some of the research on coming out of the Fed, on what QT is expected to do and what QT does, and you come out of it thinking they have no idea. I think that they would probably say that quietly behind closed doors, without microphones. But to the point, I would agree that there is an effect and that the Fed likes to say set it and forget it, because they don’t really understand what the actual impact is on either the real economy or the financial economy. Come up with our star-star, which is some stupid concept that they decided to come up with to rationalize some of their ideas. But I would say no, that makes perfect sense, that they really don’t understand exactly how much it is. Which is why they say we’re just going to set it, forget it, and we’re not really going to talk about it.

Because if you listen to the Fed, their concentration is on the path to the terminal rate and the length of holding the terminal rate there. And if you Google or try to find any sort of commentary about quantitative tightening within their speeches and their statements, it’s actually pretty hard to find.

Daniel

Yeah. So just to clarify one thing, just to clarify. In the messages from, for example, of the ECB and the Bank of Japan, less so of the Fed. And I would absolutely agree with that because the Fed is not so worried because they know that they have the world reserve currency, but the ECB and the Bank of Japan certainly expect very little impact on asset prices. For example, the ECB are just saying right now that they’re expecting to reduce the balance sheet in the next two years by almost a trillion euros without seeing spreads widening in the sovereign market. That is insane to be fairly honest. So that is what I’m trying to put together is that the same… A central bank that is unable to see that negative bond yield and that compressed spreads of sovereign nations relative to Germany is a bubble. It’s certainly not going to see the risk of tightening.

Sam

I would start with saying that if the ECB thinks they are going to take a trillion off the books in a couple of years, that’s the first insane part of that statement.

Tony

Good. Okay. So what I’m getting from this is taking liquidity out of markets can be really damaging and the guys who are doing it don’t really know the impact of their actions. Is that good top level summary?

Daniel

Absolutely. That is the summary.

Tony

Okay, so since they’ve only taken 200 billion off, I say “only,” but compared to 9 trillion, it’s not much. Since they’re pulling the interest rate lever now at the Fed and they’re kind of tepidly moving forward on the balance sheet, do we expect them to finish the interest rate activities before they aggressively go after the balance sheet or are they just going to go march forward with everything?

Daniel

No, I think that’s.. They want to see the impact of interest rates first before they make a drastic action on the balance sheet. Particularly in the case of the Fed with mortgage backed securities, and the case of the Bank of Japan with ETFs because the Bank of Japan is going to kill the Nikkei if it starts to get rid of ETFs. And certainly the Fed is going to kill the housing market with mortgage backed securities are warranted.

Tony

Yup.

Sam

And then it’s kind of interesting because there’s two dynamics that I think are intriguing here. One is that the Fed’s balance sheet is getting longer in duration as interest rates rise because those mortgage backs are just blowing out to the right because you’re not going to have to have the roll down and you’re not going to have the prepays on those mortgages anytime soon. So the Fed is putting themselves in a position where hitting those caps on mortgage backs is just simply not going to happen on a mechanical basis. And they’re either going to have to sell or they’re going to have to say, we’re just not going to hit we’re not going to hit our cap on mortgage backed securities for the next 20 years.

Tony

Yup. So I get to put those to maturity like they’re doing with all the treasury debt.

Sam

Yeah, they’re just letting them roll off, which means they’re not going to have mortgage backs rolling off with a six and a half percent refi rate.

Daniel

Yeah, I agree with that.

Tony

Wow. It’s almost as if QT potentially is a non issue for the longer duration debt? Are you saying they’ll continue holding? Sam you’re saying , “No.” So what am I missing? What I’m hearing is they may just hold the longer duration stuff. So if that’s the case, is it kind of a non issue if they just hold it?

Daniel

It’s not a non issue. They are in conversations all the time with the Bank of Japan to do this composite yield curve management, which in a sense means playing with duration here and there on the asset base. But it doesn’t work when the yield curve is flattening all over the place and when you have a negative yield curve in almost every part of the structure.

So the point is that by the time that markets realize the difficulty of unwinding the balance sheet, the way that central banks have said, probably the impact on asset prices has already happened because commercial banks need to end margin calls, et cetera, margin calls become more expensive. Commercial banks cannot lend with the same amount of leverage that they did before. Capital is already being destroyed as we speak.

Sam

Into the point. As soon as you had the Bank of England announce that they were going to have an outright sale of Gilts, you saw what happened to their market. They broke themselves in two minutes.

Tony

Right. Okay. So that’s what I’m looking for. So it’s a little muddy. We’re not exactly sure. Right. QT is complicated. It’s really complicated. And liquidity is dangerous, as you say, Daniel. It’s easy on the way up. It’s really hard coming down from it. And that’s where…

Daniel

I think it was Jim Grant recently who said how easy it is to become a heroin addict and how difficult it is to get out of it.

Tony

Sure, yeah. I mean, not that I know, but I can see that.

Daniel

We don’t know it, obviously. None of us do. But it’s a very visual way of understanding how you build risk in the system and how difficult it is to reduce that risk from the system.

Tony

Yeah, just stopping adding liquidity is a good first step, and then figuring out what to do after that is I think they’re right. A lot of people like to knock on the Fed, but doing one thing at a time is, I think, better than trying to reconcile everything at once.

Okay, great. Since we’re taking a little bit of longer term view on things with some of that mortgage backed security debt, I just also was in a longer term mood this week and saw something that Tracy tweeted out about copper consumption and demand.

This was looking at long term demand, say, by 2030, and there’s a gap of what, 20 no, sorry, 10 million tons. Is that right, Tracy?

Tracy

8.1 million tons.

Tony

8.1 million tons. Okay. Now, when we look at copper prices right now, we’ve seen copper prices fall. We don’t really have an expectation of them rising on the screen as our Complete Intelligence forecast of them rising in the next few months.

So why the mismatch, Tracy? What’s going on there? And why aren’t we seeing the impact on copper prices right now?

Tracy

Well, I think if we look at basic industrial metals really as a whole, except for, say, lithium, really, we’ve seen a very large pullback in all these prices in these specific metals that we are going to need for this green transition.

Now, part of that is, I think, part of that is QT, we’re just saying money liquidity drained from the system. But I also think that we have overriding fears of a global recession. We also have seen people are worried about Europe because with high natural gas prices, a lot of their smelting capacity went offline.

And one would think that would be bullish metals, but it’s scaring the market as far as global recession fears. And then, of course, you always have China, which is obviously a major buyer of industrial base and industrial metals. They’re huge consumer as well as producer of the solar panels. Wind turbines and things of that nature.

So I think that’s really the overriding fears and what I’ve been talking about even for the last couple of years, that I think metals is really going to be more of H2 2023 into 2024 story. I didn’t really expect this year for that to be the real story.

I know you thought that energy was still going to be the focus. And I think even though we’ve seen prices come off, energy prices are still very high. And I think energy prices we’re going to see a resurgence of natural gas prices again in Europe as soon as we kind of get past March, when that storage is kind of done. Because we have to realize that even though the storage is still this year, 50% of that did still come from piped in natural gas from Russia.

I think we’ll start to see natural gas prices higher. Oil prices are still high. Even at $75, $80, it’s still traditionally high. So the input cost going into metals to bring it all together, the input cost going in metals, we are going to need a lot of fossil fuels. It’s very expensive. We also see mining capex suffers from the same problem that oil does is that over the last seven years, we’ve seen huge declines. And then when we look at copper in particular, we really haven’t had any new discoveries since 2015. So all of those are contributing factors. But again, I don’t think that’s really a story until last half of 2023 and 2024 going forward.

Tony

Okay, so to me, the copper price tells me, and I could be, tell me if I’m wrong here. Copper rise tells me that markets don’t believe China is going to open up fully anytime soon, and they don’t believe China is going to stimulate anytime soon. Is that a fair assessment?

Tracy

Yes, absolutely. I think we kind of saw metal prices. We’re bouncing on some of the headlines back and forth, but really we haven’t seen anything come to fruition, and I think most people are not looking until probably spring for them to open up. And I think China really hasn’t changed its stance, right. As far as. There Zero Covid policy, they’re still on that. So I think markets have been digesting that over the last couple of weeks or so. And that’s also another contributor to seeing a pullback in some of these metals in the energy sector.

Tony

Yeah, if you look at the headlines over the past week, you definitely see a softer tone towards China, with Xi Jinping coming out in the APEC meeting sorry, not the APEC meeting, the ASEAN meeting. And he’s a real human being and all this stuff, and he’s talking with Biden and he’s talking with European leaders and Southeast Asian leaders.

So I think there’s been a softer tone toward China and this belief that good things can happen in the near term, but I don’t think most investors will believe it until they see it, first of all. And I think places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, US. Other places, maybe not. The Germans are also a little bit worried about short term sentiment in China. Things could turn pretty quickly. So, like you say, I think base metals prices are down on that. But over the long term, obviously, it doesn’t seem like there’s enough capacity right now. So, anyway, we’ll see. So for bringing that up. Sorry. Go ahead, Sam.

Sam

Yeah, I think there’s just two things to add there. One, if you didn’t have investment in base metals and energy at zero interest rates, you’re not going to get it at five. Let’s be honest. That’s point number one, this isn’t a short term thing. This is a much longer term thing. And you need to have much higher prices for commodities broadly in order to incentivize any sort of investment, because they’re, one, very capital intensive, and two, capital is very expensive right now. So I think that’s also something to keep in mind over the medium term, is we’re not solving this problem at five and a half percent interest rates here. That’s clearly not going to happen. And the other thing is you haven’t seen the Aussie dollar react in a positive way. So if the Aussie dollar is reacting, China is not reopening. It’s just that simple.

Tony

Yeah, that’s a very point.

Daniel

If I may, I would also like to point out that the bullish story for copper, lithium, cobalt is so evident from the energy transition and from the disparity between the available capacity and the demand. But when the gap is so wide between what would be the demand and the available supply, what tends to happen is that the market, rightly so, sees that it’s such an impossibility that you don’t even consider, at least as a net present value view, that bullish signal as Tracy was mentioning until 2023 or 2024, when it starts to manifest itself.

Right now, it’s so far between the reality of the available supply and the expectation of demand that it looks a little bit like what happened with Solar in 2007, 2008. We just saw bankruptcy after bankruptcy because you didn’t match the two. And on top of it, Tracy correct me. But this is the first year in which you had a massive bullish signal on prices, in energy and in metals, yet you’ve seen no response from a capping.

Tracy

Exactly. Nobody’s prepared, nobody wants to really still spend that kind of money, particularly not the oil industry when they’re being demonized by everybody in the west in particular. So you know, you’re not going to see a lot of, nobody wants to invest in a project when they’re saying we want to phase you out in ten years.

Tony

What’s really interesting though also is BHP bought a small midsized copper miner in Australia this week, so I forget their name, but the miners are seeing opportunities, but they’re just not seeing the demand there yet. So we’ll see what happens there. So anyway, thanks guys for that. That’s hugely valuable.

Sam, you wrote on retail this week and you have really brought out some interesting dynamics around pushing price versus volume within stores over the past several months. And your newsletter looked at Target, Walmart, Costco, Home Depot. Earnings across retail sectors.

So Costco and Home Depot seem to have pushed price successfully. Walmart, as you say, had serious inventory problems earlier in the year, but their grocery business seemed to have really saved them. But Target really has problems and their earnings report this week was a mess. So we’ve got on screen a table that you took out of some government data looking at, has made a change of sales for different types of retail firms, building materials, general merchandise and food services. And things seem to be going very well for everyone except general merchandise stores like Target.

So can you help us understand why is that the case for, I mean, maybe Target is just terribly wrong, but why is that the case for general merchandise specifically and what does this say about the US consumer? Is the US consumer kind of dead in some areas?

Sam

No. US consumers is not dead, which is the strangest part about this earning season to me is everybody kind of read into Targets reporting was like, wow, this is horrible. It’s bad, it’s bad. Target is its own problem. Their merchandising, horrible. Their executive team, horrible. I mean, I don’t know how you survive this. With Walmart putting up huge comp numbers on a relative basis. I mean, they pounded Target and to me that was single number one. That’s Target’s issue.

The general merchandise store. We bought a whole bunch of stuff during COVID that we don’t really need to buy at 17 of right? We bought it during COVID You could get Walmart and Target delivered to you, that was a boom for their business and that’s just not being repeated. Same thing with if you look at Best Buy and electronic stores not doing great because we all bought TVs during COVID and computers, we needed them at home. These are just pivots. When you look at the numbers for restaurants, when you look at it for grocery, I mean, again, a lot of it is pushing price onto the consumer, but the consumer is taking it.

And those are pushing revenues higher. Look at something, the company that controls Popeyes and Burger King, absolute blowout, same store numbers. I mean, these are restaurants that are pushing price. They’re still having traffic and they’re not getting enough pushback.

Home Depot pushed 8% pricing, well, almost 9% pricing in the quarter. They didn’t care about foot traffic, but traffic was down mid 4%. They didn’t care about the foot traffic. They got to push the price and they, guess what, blew it out? Loads had a decent quarter. These are housing companies, at least home exposed companies and building exposed companies that had great third quarters that were supposed to be getting smashed, right? The housing is not supposed to be the place that you’re going to right now. And somehow these companies could push in a price.

There’s something of a tailwind to the consumer where the consumer is kind of learning to take it in certain areas and just saying, no, I don’t need another Tshirt or I don’t need to make another trip to Target. I think that it’s pretty much a story of where the consumer spending not if the consumer spending.

That retail sales report, it will get revised, who knows by how much, but the retail sales report, even if it gets knocked down by a few bips called 20 basis points, 0.2%, it’s not going to be a big deal. It’s still blowing number. These are not things you want to see.

If you’re the Fed thinking about going from 75 to 50, 2 reasons there. One is that pricing little too much. And if it begins to become embedded, not necessarily in the consumer’s mind, but also in the business’s mind, I can push price. I can push price. I can push price. That’s a twosided coin where the consumer’s willing to take it and businesses are willing to push it. That is the embedding of inflation expectations moving forward.

Going back to I think it was last quarter, Cracker Barrel announced during like, yeah, we’re seeing some traffic flow, but we’re going to push price next year, and here’s how much we’re going to push it by. These companies aren’t slowing down their price increases, and they’re not seeing enough of a pushback from consumers.

Tony

Cracker Barrel and Walmart are not topend market companies. They’re midmarket companies. And if they’re able to push price at the mid market, then it says that your average consumer is kind of taking it. But the volume is down. So fewer people are buying things, but the ones who are buying are paying more. Is that fair to say?

Sam

It’s fair to say. Fewer trips, more expensive. It’s fair to say. But there’s also something to point out where Macy’s, their flagship brand, kind of had a meh quarter. Bloomingdale’s, heirt luxury? Blew it out.

Tony

Okay.

Sam

So you’re seeing even within general merchandise stores, you’re seeing a significant difference between, call it luxury, middle, and low.

Tony

Okay. So what is it about, say, Target and Macy’s? I’ll say Target more than Macy’s, but is it just the management, or is it the mech?

Sam

It’s merchandising and it’s the Mexican.

Tony

Right, okay.

Sam

And if you don’t have the right stuff that you can push price on, you’re not going to make it.

Tony

So will we see some of these general merchandisers move into other sectors? Grocery or whatever?

Sam

I mean, Target has grocery. TVs closed. They have everything. It’s a question of do you have the right thing to sell right now in terms of that? So I don’t really think you’ll see many big moves, mostly because they already have too much inventory. So their ability to pivot is zero at this point. So it’s going to be a tough holiday season. I think it’s going to be a pretty tough holiday season to Target. But I didn’t see Walmart taking down numbers for the Christmas season. We’ll see with Amazon, but cool.

Tony

It seems healthy. Just observationally. They seem pretty healthy.

Sam

Yeah. And the other thing to mention, just as a side note, there’s a lot of this consternation around FedEx and UPS and their estimated deliveries for Christmas. This is the first year that Amazon has had a very, very large fleet going into the Christmas holiday season where they don’t have to send packages through FedEx and UPS only. They have a very, very large in house fleet of vehicles to do so with, and they built that out massively over the past 18 months. So I would read a lot less into that for the Christmas season, et cetera, than people are. That’s something I think it’s kind of taking the big picture and missing the finer points.

Tracy

I had a question really just on that same vein. I’ve seen a lot of the freight companies that report on freight, like Freight Waves, have been screaming at the top of their lungs, loadings are falling. People are going out of work. They’re firing everybody. Nobody’s delivering anything. Nobody’s delivering any goods. Do you think that’s sort of cyclical or because it seems like there’s a mismatch right now. There’s a lot of goods out there to be delivered, but for some reason, these guys can’t get loading.

Sam

I think it’s two things. One, everybody double ordered in spring and summer. So I think Freight Waves and a lot of other companies saw a lot of livings that they wouldn’t have seen otherwise. And you spread those out, and I think that’s point number one. Point number two is these retailers are stuffed with inventory. Target, even Walmart is somewhat elevated. They don’t have that big problem. They have the inventory. I would say it’s much more of a timing issue. You’ll probably see Freight Waves have too many loadings, called it in the spring and summer of next year because people are playing catch up and trying to get the right merchandise, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it’s just more of a Covid whipsaw than anything else.

Tracy

Makes sense, right?

Tony

Okay, so bottom line, us. Consumer is still taking it, right? They’re still spending, they’re still okay. Despite what bank deposits and other things tell us, things are still moving. And is that largely accumulating credit or how is the US consumer still spending? They’re accumulating credit?

Sam

A couple of things. One, they have their bank deposits are fine, particularly at the middle and upper levels. They’re still relatively elevated. Two, you’re getting a much higher wage. So your marginal propensity to consume when you see a significant pay raise, even if prices are higher, is higher, right. So you’re going to spend that dollar.

So you’re getting paid more. You’re switching jobs a lot more. Your switchers are getting something like a double digit pay increase. These are rather large chefs, so I would say the consumer feels a lot more comfortable with taking the inflation because they’re getting paid a lot more. Unemployment is sub 4%, so they’re not afraid of losing their job unless they’re at Twitter. So the consumer is sitting there like, all right, I’m not losing my job. I’m getting paid increases. Why would I stop spending? I think it’s that simple.

Tony

Great.

Sam

Yeah, they have credit cards.

Daniel

That is a very important point. What you just mentioned, employment. Employment makes all the difference. The pain threshold of consumers is always being tested. Companies raise prices. Volumes are pretty much okay. So they continue to raise prices to maintain their margins. And that works for a period of time.

I think that what is happening both in the Eurozone and in the United States is that after a prolonged period of very low inflation, consumers also feel comfortable about the idea that inflation is temporary. Basically everybody and actually I have this on TV this morning, we’re talking about everybody is saying, okay, so prices are rising a lot, but when are they coming down? But I’m still buying.

The problem, the pain threshold starts to appear when employment growth, wage growth, starts to stop, and at the same time, prices go up. And obviously the companies that feel comfortable about raising prices start to see their inflation rate, rise. So it’s always difficult because we never know. There’s a variable there that we’re very unsure of, which is credits. How much credit are we willing to take to continue to consume the same number of goods and services at a higher price?

But it is absolutely key what you’re saying, which is as long as even though wage growth in real terms might be negative, but you’re getting a pay rise and you still feel comfortable about your job, you feel comfortable about your wealth to a certain extent and credit keeps you safe, consumption in the United States is not going to crack.

However, where do you see it cracking? And we’re seeing it cracking in the eurozone. In Germany, where you don’t get the pay rise, you don’t get the benefit of taking expensive credit from numerous different sources or cheap credit from different numerous sources and at the same time you get elevated inflation. Consumption is actually going down the drain. The way that I see it is that the problem, the consumption, not collapsed, but certainly the consumption crack is very likely to happen more north to south in the eurozone than in the United States at the rate at which the economy is growing.

Tony

Yes, yes, very good. Thanks for that, until on Europe, Daniel, that was really helpful.

Okay, let’s do it very quick. What do you expect for the same week or two weeks ahead? We have a Thanksgiving holiday here in the US, so things are going to be kind of slow. But Tracy, what are you looking for, especially in energy markets for the next couple weeks? We’ve seen energy really come off a little bit this week. So what’s happening there?

Tracy

Yeah, absolutely. Part of the reason of that, besides all the global factors involved, the recession didn’t help UK him out and said they were already in the recession. That then sparked fears. We have pipeline at reduced capacity right now, which means that’s going to funnel some more crude into cushion, TWI contract is actually cushing. So that’s putting a little bit of pressure. I think holidays, obviously I think this next week we’re not really going to see much action as usual. So really looking forward to the following week is we have the Russian oil embargo by the EU and we also have the OPEC meeting and I would suspect that at these lower prices they would probably, they might be considering cutting again. So that’s definitely those two things. I’m looking forward to in that first week in December.

Tony

Great, thanks. Daniel, what are you looking for in the next week or two?

Daniel

The next week or two are going to be pretty uneventful, to be fairly honest. We will see very little action or messages that make a real difference from Fed officials or from the ECB. On the energy front, there’s plenty of news that we pay attention to Tracy’s Twitter account. But in Europe we will get quite a lot of data, quite a lot of data that is likely to show again this slow grind into recession that we’ve been talking and very little help. I think that from here to December, most of the news are not going to change where investors are and that will probably start to reconfigure our views into the end of the trading season, 27 to 28.

Tony

Okay, very good. And Sam, what do you see next week? The week after?

Sam

I’ll just be watching Black Friday sales that are coming in. Honestly, I think that will be a pretty important sign as to how things are developing into the holiday season and begin to set the narrative as we enter in December. Again, there’s no real interesting Fed talk coming out next week, but we’ll begin to have some pretty good data coming from a number of sources on Black Friday, foot traffic, internet traffic, etc. Tuesday and Wednesday.

Tony

Very good.

Sam

The following week. That’s all I care about.

Tony

Excellent. Really appreciate that. For those of you guys in the States, have a great Thanksgiving next week. Daniel, thank you so much. Have a fantastic weekend. Always value your time, guys. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

Sam

Thank you.

Daniel

Have a good weekend. Bye bye.

Sam

Thank you.

Week Ahead

FTX, crude & crypto, CPI & inflation: The Week Ahead – 14 Nov 2022

Post author By admin
Post date November 12, 2022

Emma Muhleman, Boris Ryvkin, and Albert Marko join us for this Week Ahead episode. We talk about FTX and why it happened. FTX transferred about $8 billion of customer deposits to a trading arm called Alameda, and they lost it. FTX was assumed to be a regulated institution. It wasn’t. So customer deposits evaporated. There was a desperate attempt to merge with Binance. That didn’t happen. FTX filed Chapter 11 on Friday, and then Sam Bankman-Fried apologized as if that just absolves him and makes everything better.

Albert, Emma, and Boris help us understand what happened here and what it means not just for FTX executives, but for markets in the week ahead.

We also saw some selling in crude markets as FTX collapsed. Emma talks us through that and tells us how long the crypto unwinds will impact commodity markets.

Based on the market reaction to Thursday’s CPI print, you may think inflation is solved. CPI seemed to override FTX worries and there was this huge sigh of relief in markets. Not so fast. Boris, Emma, and Albert talk us through the CPI print and where we’re seeing persistent inflation (diesel, food, etc). Will the Feds raise by 50 in December followed by some 25s? How will this affect layoffs across the economy?

This is the 41st episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Emma: https://twitter.com/EmmaCFA1
Boris: https://twitter.com/BRyvkin

Transcript

Tony Nash: Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Emma Muhleman. She’s a macro strategist and if you don’t know her, you’re not on social media. We’re also joined by Boris Ryvkin. He’s with Montefly Holdings. He’s also a former M&A attorney with Skadden and a bunch of law firms, and he was National Security Advisor in Capitol Hill. And Boris has an amazing perspective on macro, on history, on markets. It’s really great to have both of you guys. And we have Albert Marko. You guys know Albert. So it’s just great to have you guys. Thanks so much for being here.

Before we get started, I’m going to take 30 seconds on CI Futures. Our core subscription product. CI Futures is a machine learning platform where we forecast market and economic variables. We forecast currencies, commodities, equity indices. Every week markets closed, we automatically download that data, have trillions of calculations, have new forecasts up for you Monday morning. We show you our error. You understand the risk associated with using our data. I don’t know if anybody else in the market who shows you their forecast there. We also forecast about 2000 economic variables for the top 50 economies globally, and that is reforecast every month.

So we had a lot going on this week, particularly kind of in the second half of the week with FTX. Unless you’ve been kind of on vacation or away, you probably know about this already, but I’ll recap a little bit.

FTX transferred, I think, something like $8 billion of customer deposits to a trading arm, Cart Alameda, and they lost it. FTX was assumed to be a regulated institution. It wasn’t. So the customer deposits evaporated.

There was a desperate attempt to merge with Binance. That didn’t happen. FTX filed Chapter 11 on Friday, and then Sam Bankman-Fried apologized. We’ve got his tweet from Thursday on the screen. He sent another apology out today. And if that just absolves him and makes everything better.

So, Albert, I know you’re a huge fan of crypto, so can you help us understand kind of what happened here? And really, what does it mean not just for Sam, but what does it mean kind of for markets going into next week?

Albert Marko: Well, for Sam, you can look at my shirt. That’s I purpose wore stripes, because that’s where he needs to go to. He needs to go to prison. The crypto space has been just littered with fraud. I mean, just incredible fraud. This guy had the nerve to go up into Congress and talk about transparency and central banks are illiquid and there’s no transparency.

Meanwhile, he’s taking customer deposits, not only just setting it to Alameda, right. But then now there’s a political component of it because he was spreading it around to super PACs for the Democratic, for Democrats.

This is a bigger story than people are alluding onto. On top of that, you had a bunch of Republicans come out and say, why was Gary Gesler helping him get through loopholes in the system?

TN: Was that actually happening? Because I saw that gossip on Twitter, but I’m just not sure if that was actually happening.

AM: Well, yeah, this is political season, so I’m not sure if it actually happened. But you don’t just come say something like that, right? You don’t just make those kind of accusations out of nowhere.

So there’s definitely going to be congressional hearings on this. SBF could be in jail at some point in time.

Concerns of where the customer’s money is. This is not funny. As much as I just absolutely despise crypto, this is not funny when you take people’s hard earned money and put it into different outfits without

any transparency whatsoever.

TN: I hear a lot of comparisons of this to Corzine from, like, 15 years ago. Are there similarities between what Jon Corzine did and what Sam did?

AM: That’s a really good question. I don’t think I can really answer that because we know exactly what FTX actually did with all these funds, where they’re at. Because there are stories that there’s penthouses and condos all over the Bahamas and the Caribbean that they can’t even touch yet. We’d have to find out a little bit more detail of what went on, what transpired into FTX.

Emma Muhleman: Because a lot of the deposits don’t invest in them in illiquid private equity investments, including VC funds that were invested in FTX.

AM: Like Sequoia put in a little bit of money and then they get 500 million back.

EM: Sequoia put in like $420 million that they wrote down to zero.

TN: And they got 500 back? It’s a great deal.

Boris Ryvkin: What was interesting was that Kevin O’Leary, he had a Jim Cramer moment with FTX. He said, if there’s one place where I could feel totally safe and fine, it’s FTX, apparently, because he was confident in their compliance capabilities. Because apparently the CEO was like his parents were like compliance lawyers or something. And he’s probably that’s not one of Mr. Wonderful’s more wonderful calls, I think.

AM: Well, when your parents are compliance lawyers, it just means that they’re going to teach them how not to be compliant and not get caught. That’s what happens when that occurs.

TN: Okay, so what does this mean for crypto generally? I know you’ve been not been a crypto fan for a long, long time. So is this an FTX issue or is this a crypto issue?

AM: This is a crypto issue. This ruins the credibility of any crypto that’s even valid in people’s eyes at the moment. Even Bitcoin is the 800 pound gorilla. There’s other cryptos that are trying to be stable and compliant and everything, and it kills.

TN: Do you know how many crypto pages we’re going to get in the comments to this?

AM: I bring it on because I’ve been telling these people for years that the space has been just a positive scheme after another.

TN: So does this permanently kind of impair crypto, or do you think there’s a time that two or three months from now, everyone forgets about it and people are back in and crypto is back on?

I just think that the crypto excitement is so persistent that I’m just not sure that this hurts it for the long time. They haven’t had that moment yet.

AM: No, not yet. It doesn’t hurt it. Actually, I want to say it actually kind of makes it better because it is weeding out the real problems and showing the problems that are in the space.

But the bigger problem that they have now is one side of credibility is getting retail money into the space. Retail money is just not going to get into the space, and even institutional money is going to have to think ten times more about getting an investment in the future.

TN: So what was it, thanksgiving of 2019, I think, when all the retail money went into the space Something like that, right? We got Thanksgiving coming up here in the States, and we’re probably not going to have the same effect this year.

AM: Oh, God, no.

TN: Are there any other players, do you think, that are likely to fail as spectacularly as FTX has failed?

AM: I don’t think so. At this point, I think that the FCC is going to have to really crack down on the entire crypto space and really force these guys to be compliant with, your know your customer rules and whatnot. So that’s something, actually, Boris could talk about, but I think they’re going to have to do something drastic here with the whole space.

TN: Boris, I guess from a legal perspective, how much do these guys have to worry? Do you think Sam can get away with this?

BR: I just don’t. No, I don’t. I think that, you know, the issue, of course, is just going to be the chain of ownership, first of all, of all, these shell companies. Where’s the money? Where did the money go? Because the money’s gone. I think it was something I know that there were a lot of jokes. He went from 16 billion net worth to a dollar, and he can’t afford his verification badge on Twitter now.

I think there was specifically because he’s now requesting, what, 94 billion as a rescue package. Once you’re already, and today he officially announced today was that they were filing for Chapter Eleven. So that was the official name today after requesting 94 billion, which was already I mean, when you’re already at that point, it means that nobody’s keeping the book.

So first of all, just in terms of any kind of account, whoever the accountant is, if there even was an accountant tied to this, whoever was signing off on this needs to worry a great deal. It’s not just Sarbanes Oxley and everything related to that, but it’s just simply who are these accountants and who was actually keeping these books? Because these numbers that were being thrown out, putting aside that it was impossible for him to get any kind of rescue package that quickly. But that number, it’s a number that is simply not credible.

TN: I’m going to get really boring on you for a second. Most companies have a DOA delegation of authority, right? And so I would think that to transfer $8 billion, the delegation of authority would go up to the board level. Is that fair to say?

BR: Well, I mean, it should, because again, it depends how these companies are actually managed, right? Because these could be not under US law managed, board managed, or there could be LLCs involved here which are member managed or have separate managers or what have you. It should go to the board level.

And in any event, you should have the senior management sign off on the accounts, not just the account. Even though that’s the position with public companies now since Starbucks and everything else. But even when it comes to private companies, to have for sufficient transparency, to really have investors comfort, you would need to have that chain of control.

So the DOA would have to come depending on who actually the board would have to authorize the management to give the DOA either broadly upfront or specifically for a specific transaction as it would happen.

TN: Because of $8 million, that’s still a fair bit of money, right?

EM: There were several acquisitions that he made that were private companies with the tune of over a billion each. So I guess you got like two $1.5 billion private investment, 500 million here. So I guess that’s how that all works out.

TN: You would guess that those have to have board approval at some point, I would think.

BR: I’ve done in the past very discreet deals where it’s sort of like, we’ve already transferred 100 million for this property. Please paper all of that over retroactively.

I’m sure that that’s what happened here. In other words, there was a lot of money moving around, nobody papered over what they needed to paper over. And I would be surprised if there’s actually a chain where all of the documentation that was needed at each stage of the transfer was actually put in place.

I’m certain that money just moved around all over the place, which makes it now very hard to track because there’s going to be a very limited paper trail to find, which is going to be a problem for him and everybody who’s authorized per the corporate documents of these companies for having to move the money around. So it’s going to be multiple levels of potential liability.

TN: Okay, so I would guess also that everyone in every crypto company is probably also coming up with their policies, if they didn’t have them already.

BR: So what are the investors are going to start calling to talk major policies. But I think the bigger issue, and Albert sort of touched on this, is the fact that this is an exchange, fundamentally.

So the issue isn’t we’re talking about Bitcoin as a currency, but if you can’t trust one of the largest exchanges and I forgot that was it, it wasn’t Coinbase, it was one of the others that pulled out of an attempt to that’s a last minute shotgun. Binance. And that has a second and third order effect. So not only did this huge exchange fail, it was such a disaster that the Binance, which is one of the more credible exchanges like Coinbase and what have you, just simply said, you know, this is beyond saving.

So it could really have a cascade effect. I know some are calling it the Lehman moment for crypto, although Albert would say there have already been five or six of those.

TN: Right, well, and before we get too critical of FTX as an exchange, let’s look at the LME and the credibility of kind of traditional exchanges. So, I mean, it’s easy to point the finger at crypto exchanges, but the LME has done some pretty screwy stuff over the years. So I think we need to be really careful

of just saying, well, I know you didn’t say this Boris, but crypto exchanges do screw things. Other exchanges do screw things as well.

EM: might I mention, though, with the LME, they are now under the control of the Communist Party of China via HVX. Great. Who is running the show? Real competent folks at the CCP. Binance is even shiftier if you ask me, but we’ll see.

TN: Speaking of markets and crypto, Emma, can we talk a little bit about kind of markets and correlations? How are we seeing this crypto activity and how do we expect this crypto activity to kind of flow through into other markets, equities, commodities, other things? Obviously it didn’t hit equities yesterday and today, but it seemed to be hitting earlier in the week.

EM: Yeah, just as it was all falling apart, we saw a big risk off move in equities. We saw the Nasdaq coming down, we saw some weakness in oil that may have not had anything to do with the

fundamentals in the oil market. I would venture to guess or argue that it had more to do with the FTX sell off because there were several companies, including pension funds, that had significant exposures in FTX. So that oil related selling around the time that FTX all this broke. It may not have to do with the report, this actual EA report.

TN: So I’ve got a graphic from Tracy’s newsletter earlier this week where she talks about the funds and the investors that were deleveraging in oil because of FTX. BlackRock, Ontario Pension Fund, Sequoia, Tiger Global, et cetera, et cetera.

So there were some big players impacted by this and I can’t believe that it just impacted oil. I also have a hard time believing that it was a one time, say, 48 hours event.

EM: Yeah, I would think that. Not having done any diligence for a pension fund, Ontario Pension Fund,

like for BlackRock. I mean, I don’t want to call out too many names. We all know what SoftBank is about. They were intimately involved. There’s going to be a lot of problems and a lot of spillover that we’ll just have to wait.

TN: At the end of the day, I hate to say “only”, but in terms of global fund flows, it’s only $8 billion of retail money that was lost. It’s I say “only”, but, you know, it’s not a huge amount in terms of flows, but I just don’t know how much is in these funds themselves.

AM: Yeah, you don’t know how much the funds have lost and what they’re trying to make up and like yeah, sure, 8 billion doesn’t sound a lot, but in a market that’s so illiquid with a lot of these funds blowing up right now, it can be a lot. You don’t know what they’ve leveraged off of it.

EM: And what they might be being forced to sell as a result.

TN: So we probably haven’t seen the end of that. Fair to say?

EM: We’ll see a long restructuring or not restructuring Chapter Eleven. Not a restructuring, but a liquidation.

TN: Yeah, it’ll be liquidation.

AM: Discovery will be fun. See where all this money went to.

TN: Great, that’d be great. Okay, perfect. Anything else on markets and FTX and crypto? Are we looking at is this impacting, say, European markets or Asian markets? Since crypto has been so big in Asia, are we seeing impacts in Asian markets, like in China?

AM: I don’t think so. I think that’s really Binance’s territory at the moment. Right now, I think FTX was solely the US and Western Europe.

EM: I would think you would see an impact on Japanese investors as well, who own a lot. But just like, not the kind that puts out life insurance companies or puts you a lot of business, but more like retail investors getting screwed.

AM: retail investors have just been taking it on the chin for the last 18 months. It doesn’t stop. 30 years.

BR: Except for Warren Buffett and those who invest with him because yet again, everyone’s underwater, he’s up like 2.3%.

TN: Boris, say, can you talk us through the CPI print this week? Because it seems like CPI, the rate of rise of CPI slowed. CPI didn’t slow, but the rate of rise of CPI slowed. And so it feels like it kind of overrode the FTX worries and there was this huge cyber relief in markets for the past couple of days that we’ve kind of conquered inflation. And the Feds only going to raise by 50 in December, and then after

that we have some 25s. What’s your sense of that? Do you feel like kind of inflation is conquered? Is that base effects? Is that kind of core inflation coming down? What does that seem like to you?

BR: Yeah, I don’t think that it’s conquered. I mean, what’s interesting to me is sort of the degree to which all that matters is what the Fed may or may not do and trying to price in factional differences within the Fed. That’s how granular it’s now become. Because I think the markets were waiting for any reason, anything, to cling onto for Powell to reverse course and to after his very hawkish last meeting, where he said, ignore all of the pivot talk.

Essentially, you know, we’re going to continue to do this as effectively as long as it takes to see a sustained reduction in inflation over that’s defined. So he essentially was very angry and Albert and I were talking about this as well, that he was very angry by some of the Pivot talk from brainer than some other people yelling, was saying certain things. It looked like some of the more devastated member. And then Powell comes out and basically says, I don’t know what you’ve heard about any Pivot talk, we’re going to stay the course until we see more evidence of multi quarter reductions and declines in inflation.

But it looked like the market really was desperate to find a reason to not believe them and to hope that anything that might persuade him to in other words, the market is looking for anything to latch onto to have a pivot, even if we don’t actually get one.

So initially it was the official position, if you were even to read the kind of the superficial financial media was they were worried if we focused on the red wave, that was what was going to get the relief rally. Then we forgot about what was happening with the midterms. And now we have this softer inflation report that as you said, to slowed the rate while most of the slowdown was because of on energy, used cars and a couple of these other, in my view, short term fluctuations which are, I mean, to the extent that CPI has already been massaged to death.

Obviously the listeners of this podcast of course know that very well. If we measure inflation how it used to be measured from the 1970s on, we’d be in double digits. I mean, that’s just a fact. So taking even to the extent that they were able to massage it, what I saw here was the market latching onto the top line figure, hoping that this would block the Fed into doing what the markets want the Fed to do, rather than actually looking at what’s happening to the core and actually looking below the hood and the underlying trend.

That’s what I’m seeing. You also can’t have to take into account biden’s political depletion of strategic petroleum reserve. You have to take into account the unseasonably milder sort of late fall that we’ve been having, I think that’s been having an impact on natural gas prices which have this very sharp decline and now have rebounded a little bit.

Certainly that’s coming out of Europe as well, but I’m not seeing anything fundamental that would actually allow us to conclude peak inflation and sustained reduction inflation has been achieved. So I’m not saying that when it comes to energy, I’m not seeing that when it comes to food, I’m not saying that. I mean, the housing market is not doing well. I’m not seeing any fundamental changes in the housing market. Really. This to me seems like a short term story and the market overreact, in.

TN: My view at least, this is that’s great. So I’ve got on screen Sam’s from Sam Rines newsletter, the core CPI and all CPI items, just showing a bit of turnover there. So it could be encouraging to people who like lines. Right.

But if we look at the target rate probabilities for the Fed, which is the second item on the screen, it does look like we have from a 4.5 almost to a 5.5 target rate.

So that shows there may be ongoing tightening, say maybe into Q one, if we don’t see a dramatic continued decline in the rate of rise of inflation. Is that fair to say?

BR: Yeah, I think so. I think that it seems that the growing chorus is shifting from do what continue as long as it takes to fear of overtightening, at least outside of Powell and maybe one or two other people. And Albert really, I think, is the resident expert on FOMC, inside of baseball on that and sort of thinking, et cetera.

But once that rhetoric shifts to fear of overtightening, that tells me that they’re looking for any excuse to stop and to begin moving back. And that will just bring the inflation genie back out. Because again, these policies are being set by people who don’t fundamentally understand what inflation is and isn’t and what’s causing the inflation. So they’re looking at the wrong things still, in my opinion.

So none of the fundamentals that I’m seeing, as I said, that would really drive a sustained reduction in inflation have changed in that direction. And once if they do decide, as you said, Tony, if they do continue to tighten into the first quarter and then decide to do a sharp 180, that’s going to just bring everything back, if not make the situation even worse.

So they’re in a very difficult position and I think, as I said, there’s a lot of political pressure for them to move back, especially given what’s happening with these midterms, certainly on the part of Yellen and the bike administration. But I think maybe Albert can also chime in.

TN: Let’s talk about the Yellen Fed factor and also since she’s a labor economist, Albert, let’s wrap some of these layoffs that happened this week into that discussion.

AM: How coincidental that these layoffs come right after Midterms and after Yellen has done everything in her power to keep equities up so they don’t have to have layoffs until now. Well, now all the layoffs are coming. Like we’ve talked before, they’ll do this right before Christmas.

But also on the CPI and the inflation front, there are two glaring problems that they’re staring at the moment right now. How’s y’all going to deal with the Chinese reopening in March? Because that’s going to be really announced in February. They did a little bit about real estate today. They talked a little bit about real estate supporting the real estate market. And every Chinese name that was on my screen was up by 7%.

And then you talk about oil and then we have a big diesel shortage in New England at the moment and it’s leaking down all the way into the Southeast. And those are just going to add to costs across the board. And I don’t think that they understand how bad inflation can really get. They can only suppress it for so long with SPR releases and whatnot. But it’s coming to a head and I don’t think that Paul is going to be able to release. I think he’s going to have to do another 75 again.

EM: The thing that’s just disturbing to me about that is that, like, for instance, we are going to have a serious diesel shortage coming here currently and it’s only getting worse. Powell cannot fix that problem. So let’s just shoot the consumers even more like his policies. They’re not helping. Unless you want to completely destroy the economy and have a complete disaster blow up with Deleveraging and the whole shebang.

TN: Default rate in auto loans this week. Right. I can’t remember the percentage of people who were two months behind in auto loans.

AM: Skyrocketing wastelouses start kicking into that, too. Started kicking in. But just to touch on what Emo is saying about Powell trying to kick the teeth into the consumers from his perspective, he’s trying to do the right things, but he’s just not getting any help from yelling or other members coming out there talking about pivots.

TN: What would that look like? Help from Yellen. What would that look like?

AM: Well, she can drive the dollar down to Dixie. That rallies the markets pretty easily.

EM: Well, he doesn’t want a market rally, right? She can help.

AM: Powell does not want a market rally. Brainer and yelling did want to market rally for the midterms. So this is the problem that they have. There’s a civil war within the Fed and treasury that is just making these policies look even stupider than usual. And I know Powell is going to get the brunt of it because he’s the Fed chair, but he only has two other members that are on his side. The rest of them are against them. So he doesn’t really have much of a choice. He’s going to have to do 75 in December.

TN: Well you say he’s going to have to do 75 in December.

AM: He’s going to have to do 75 because we have a CPI print coming out December 14. It’s probably not going to be as nicely massaged as this one was. And on top of that he’s running out of time because the Chinese look like they’re going to stimulate in February, March.

TN: Yeah, you’re right. I agree with the timing on China opening and Chinese stimulus in the meantime is going to be really ugly in China. Do you think that it’s possible that there’s some sort of regulatory relief especially for energy that allows, eventually allows more US. Supply, this sort of thing? Or are we too far down that path with the current administration?

AM: Me and Boris are bred from DCP, the Beltway guys, we’ll just laugh at anyone with the notion that think that anything is going to get done legislatively in the next two years.

TN: Okay, but nothing getting done legislatively is not terrible, right? At least we know the rules of the game and their content.

AM: Yeah, it’s not if there wasn’t problems but there’s glaring problems everywhere and things need to get fixed. So you need something from progress.

TN: Okay, let me throw this out to you guys. We have seen a little bit of move on CPI, whether it manipulated or not. We all kind of know it’s always in there a little bit. But what’s the timing on inflation coming back into a reasonable area? Let’s say five to six, I don’t know. Are we a year, two, three years from that, six months from now? What do you guys think? Emma, what do you think?

EM: If we’re ignoring energy and then we’re ignoring fertilizer prices and food prices, we’re looking at goods, those we may see services come down and wait the wage issue come down a little bit. Just like we’ve seen with auto delinquencies, used cars, these sort of things. You see numbers starting to roll over as demand destruction and liquidity has been pulled.

But I think you’re going to see the opposite in energy and you’re going to see diesel shortages which pushes goods prices up. Right. If every trucker in the nation has to spend a time for every time they fill up with diesel and they can’t even fill up enough, then there’s going to be not only a shortage of goods but goods prices will less go up.

I don’t see how we fix that situation. We only have extra finding capacity. It takes like 30 years to build a new one so I don’t see how that gets fixed. So that’s something that really looks like it would push inflation upwards. So if we add all that together, I’d say we’re going to have a problem with inflation for good at least another year if we include energy and food.

TN: OK, let me ask this. That’s a great answer. Let me ask this divorce, because I know I’m going to get an answer that doesn’t agree with what I think is there pressure to broker a Russia Ukraine piece? And if that happened, would that alleviate some of these diesel price issues?

BR: I think that there is. I know that Orban, for example, and Erdogan met and basically said to Zelensky’s, time to use this window of opportunity to start negotiating. So they liberated Kirstan today, which was.

They liberated Kirsten today, which was the one major city that the Russians were able to occupy and they were offensive earlier the year. So this is kind of a huge move with the Russians on the back foot. And these are people who are everyone is playing all sides.

And Orban, of course, is more kind of the one European leader that’s closest to Putin major leader. But I don’t think that the US is. I know that there was some discussion from the Biden administration about don’t be so categorical about Zelensky, about saying you’re not going to negotiate with Putin. It’s irritating African countries, South America, et cetera.

You have to start taking advantage. I don’t think there’s any pressure and will be in the near term, and especially after these midterm results, I think that the risk of any major, immediate cutoffs in military economic aid from the US to Ukraine are going to be somewhat subdued now, given the kind of the risk from right and left. So I don’t think there’s going to be any nearterm pressure on the Ukrainians right now to start looking at essentially trading land for some kind of an intermediate piece.

But as a side issue, there was some in terms of alleviating the diesel and the gas problems, especially in Europe, there was some discussion about Erdogan purchasing Russian gas at a discount and essentially creating an alternative for the Europeans through that pipeline that was being built basically through the Black Sea, et cetera.

And there was a lot of kind of talk in the US and some European capitals like Erdogan is going to save us because he’s playing everybody and he’s going to create a new gas hub in Turkey, as he declared with the Russian gas. What he’s actually going to do, and Albert and I were talking about this too, in my opinion, is because of Turkish elections next year, he’s going to keep the discounted gas, sell it at home, domestically cheaply, in order to drum up support for his reelection next year. He’s not going to resell that to the European.

So that life raft is not going to be sailing. So therefore, I think that unless there is some relief from the weather, I’m not seeing any, because I know that at that moment, because the weather was unseasonably warm to a large extent, you have this natural gas flood in Europe now, which has driven down natural gas price, at least in the short term.

Dutch and et cetera, the benchmark. But I don’t think that’s necessarily going to sustain. I think we could have a colder winter and Erdaman is not going to provide that relief. I know the Ukrainians are looking at alternatives themselves, but the Ukrainian economy doesn’t exist anymore, really.

Right now, we’re basically balancing their budget through direct cash transfers at the moment. I think it’s only going to be bad news and it will reinforce what Emma has said about her predictions about the diesel shortage and about just energy in general and how that would impact inflationary changes. So I’m not seeing any major improvement.

And also, in terms of the broader discussion on inflation, I also agree that, again, kind of what I said before to dovetail off of that, like, none of the fundamentals to reduce inflation have improved, have changed markedly. So we could be, it’s really, to me, a risk tolerance for recession on the part of the Fed.

When will the Fed decide that if they’ve given up on a soft landing, then we’re going to have one projection in terms of when inflation is going to start coming down dramatically. If they still are insisting on the fantasy of a soft landing, then there will come a point where they might decide.

Regardless of what happens with inflation, recession is a much bigger problem. And we’re going to have to, sooner than we had hoped, begin to pivot, which is probably not something that Powell would want to do, but that’s a recession versus a soft landing versus hard landing balancing act that they’re, I think, going to have to perform over the next couple of quarters.

And I think that’s sort of their near term focus and to kind of close that point off. Right. I mean, I think that the layoffs and I mean, the fundamentals are cooling, the economy is slowing. We’re seeing that with the layoffs, the housing market is going to get worse, in my opinion. Oh, yeah, it’s a disaster.

TN: Look at the MBS holdings at the Fed. They’ve just started to tighten them. They’ve just started. Right.

BR: But then you also have to take we talked about you said auto defaults for auto loans. What about credit card debt, consumer credit card debt? And also, what about the leverage that’s on the books of these companies? Why is the tech, which is tech at the tip of the spear? Why are we seeing all of them down 70%, 60, 70% on the year? Why are we seeing the layoffs hit tech massively? First, because they grew too much too quickly and are over level.

EM: They did refinance in 2021 when they had a chance. So they’ve got like a couple of years.

BR: I don’t know who’s advising Zuckerberg here and his colleagues. I think what we’re going to do is we’re not going to refinance, we’re going to double down on Meta, which we don’t really know what to do with and we’re going to double up on the head count dealing with Meta, on the Metaverse thing, that isn’t getting adopted the way that we would want it adopted. It’s like everything, every mistake that could possibly have been made from the financing to the head count to the rollout, and that’s happening across the tech sector, but we’re financing.

TN: Would you have done differently? I would have taken on all that too, because it was fun. I’m kidding. But I actually think that there are more rounds of layoffs in tech coming. I don’t think this is the only round. I think that in the auto sector, tony and auto and other guys.

So I think I was in Silicon Valley in 1998 to 2001. I know that’s ancient history, but my company went through six rounds of layoffs. I didn’t know when I say my company, the company I worked for, they went through six rounds of layoffs.

So I think all these stories about people at Meta thinking they were going to dodge it and all this stuff, I don’t think that I don’t think this is the only one. I think they’re going to have to do more in three to four months.

I think you’re going to see more companies bandwagon on top of this to say, hey, Meta is doing it and Stripes done it and all these other guys are doing it. So let’s use this opportunity to become more productive and we’re going to see a flood of these before the end of the year. Just a flood. I think the tech sector is going to be wrecked in terms of employment.

AM: Oh, yeah, without question. Even going back to your previous point about the Ukrainians and the Russians getting some kind of peace agreement, even if they did, that would solve the diesel problem overnight.

Even if they did that today, it would take a year, maybe 18 months until all that got rolling in again if they looked at the sanctions, because they still have to go through that whole process for all the countries.

EM: Russia doesn’t send us diesel heavy crude and then we have to process it at refineries, which are running at max capacity. Hence the crack spreads being so wide, we can only convert so much crude into distillates, which diesel of which is one of which jet fuel for planes is another, but both things that cost a lot of money when the prices of the input key input goes up.

TN: Okay, great. Let’s do just a really quick round the week ahead. What are you guys looking for for next week? Albert, you go first.

AM: I’m actually going to look at to see what the House majority and Senate majority makeup comprises of and whether the markets are going to react negatively towards it. Because if the Republicans, I know they’re going to take it, but when they get announced that they take the House, the stimulus packages all but die at that point for two years. So I’m very curious to see how the markets react to that.

EM: I’ll be continuing to watch what’s going on in Crypto to see if anything’s happening with Bitcoin ethereum, because we’ve already seen a lot of other tokens just literally, basically go to zero. So just see how that continues to play out.

TN: Great. My $20 a DOJ is still at, like, three times where I bought it at, so I’m just holding on to it just to see where it goes.

EM: And then I’ll also, obviously, as usual, be watching China and certainly the bank of Japan and just the end period.

BR: Yeah, like Albert, the makeup in Congress and also going to be looking at some of the emerging markets. I think maybe if we’re going to get more evidence out of China as to when they’re still pursuing COVID Zero, I think they’re now recording again, like, a record high number of cases from April. It’s not working yet. They’re continuing to double down and reward everybody who’s pursuing that.

So I want to see if they’re going to continue with that and they’re going to be on track for what Albert said to reopen early next year or if it’s just going to get worse. So that’s what I’m going to be focused on.

TN: Yeah. You’ve heard of the great league forward, right? I mean, these don’t really take sound policy advice. When they get their mind on something, they just push it and push it and push it until it harms everybody they can.

EM: I often when you’re trying to when you have, like, the worst debt crisis ever and the population that’s, like, you know, put the equivalent of $50,000 down on apartments, like, millions of people have done that, and they’ve got nothing to show for it, and you want to keep them from acting out and protesting in the streets. It’s pretty convenient to have them all segregated where they’re not communicating. I wonder really what the motivation behind COVID Zero is. And so I don’t know if I buy that it’ll ever end until it’s convenient for it to end economy wise, where she feels no threat.

TN: I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think things in China don’t necessarily end until they want them to end. Right. And if you look at exports from China to the US. They’re back up to preCOVID levels now. So in terms of that export machine in China, it’s humming, right? So there’s not feeling economic pain, at least in terms of trade.

So if they’re comfortable feeling the domestic economic pain, then why would they stop? So I think what Albert talked about is Code Zero ending in March, and he and I’ve talked about that a couple of months ago as well. I think that’s the best case. So I think there’s a best case that they end it and they stimulate in March, but it’s quite possible it continues going on because there may be social reasons, there may be other reasons to not open up.

So I don’t think, as westerners, we can look at the Chinese government necessarily and understand the perspective they have on policy and the reasons they have for policy. There is so much inside of Jungkonghai and all of the different things that happen that we just can’t look at it rationally and say they should do A, then B, then c, and very few Americans can look at that and understand why and how it’s happening. You may be exactly right.

EM: Yeah. It’s not a logical I mean, it’s more like if I’m she or if I’m trying to do this, it’s not really like what westerners typically associate as logical things to do economically. It’s more like it’s possible.

TN: Yeah. Anything’s possible. Guys, thank you so much. I really appreciate the time you took to talk through this. Have a great weekend. And have a great weekend. Thank you so much.

Podcasts

US midterms: An opportunity for voters to choose their economic future

Post author By admin
Post date November 9, 2022

This podcast was originally published by the BBC here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172ydq57tyy2z0

The midterms decide who controls Congress as well as state legislatures and governor’s offices. Rahul Tandon is joined by Dianne Brady, assistant managing editor of Forbes from New York and Tony Nash, the founder of Complete Intelligence in Texas.

Billions of US dollars are being spent on the election campaign adverts that voters will be seeing and hearing in the run-up to the elections – but is it worth the investment?

And has the economic situation in the US overshadowed the overturning of Roe v Wade?

Transcript

Rahul

Hello, and welcome to Business Matters here on the BBC World Service. I’m Rahul Tandonin-depth. On the program today, we’re taking an in depth look at the US midterms. As millions of Americans get ready to vote, we’re going to be looking at the economic factors that are going to have a huge impact on their decisions. I’ll be joined throughout the program, as always, by two guests on opposite sides of the world. We have Dianne Brady, assistant managing editor of Forbes, who’s in New York, was on the program just a couple of days ago, but she did so well, we decided to bring her back. Diane, is it exciting in New York? Are people gripped by election fever?

Dianne

Well, yes and no. Let’s just say New York is considered a flyover state by some, so I don’t think this would be considered a swing state. But yes, lots of excitement, of course, as we look around the country, and everything feels high stakes.

Rahul

It does indeed. The laugh you heard there was from Tony Nash, who is the founder of Complete Intelligence, who’s in Texas you need quite a lot of intelligence to understand the midterms. I think, Tony.

Tony

I’ve never heard of New York described as a fly overstate.

Dianne

All right, well, I’m a Canadian turned American citizen, so forgive me all listeners who think I’m being cavalier here, but I think it’s not inaccurate.

Rahul

But I don’t think there’s no need to ask for forgiveness so far in the program.

Dianne

The election is over.

Rahul

Yeah, maybe by the end of it you might need more than forgiveness, but who knows? Tony, for our listeners who will have heard of the midterms, can you try and explain what happens here? Because there’s lots of terms that we’re going to use. The Senate, the House, governors. I mean, what are people voting for?

Tony

Sure. So every four years we have a presidential election where you vote from the president on down to, say, local offices. Like in Texas, it’s people who run your waterboard and judges and your local commissioners. So it’s from the president on down. In between presidential elections, we have what are called the midterms.

Tony

So every two years so in the US. House of Representatives, those representatives have to campaign and be reelected every two years. Senators are reelected every six years. So not every senator is up for election in every election cycle. And then you have governors, and those governor’s terms change by state. They’re not always the same. In some cases, it’s four years. In some cases it’s five years. And I don’t know if there’s other places, but Americans are now voting on kind of everything except the president, and those, say, Senate seats and governorships that are not up for vote.

Rahul

Well, I tell you what. That was pretty impressive, actually. If you ever see a job as a sort of political correspondent, I think you might get one, Tony, I think we’re done here. Real quick.

Dianne

Tony, summer up beautifully.

Rahul

There we go. Should we all go? No. Oh, probably not, Dianne. And this is important, isn’t it? Because at the moment, the Democrats, which is the party of President Biden, they control the House and the Senate, there is a strong possibility that they may lose both, which will have huge implications for President Biden’s ability to pass legislation.

Rahul

I think Diane said there’s a lot to get through and we’re going to try and get through some of that. Let’s start by looking at the key economic issues.

Rahul

Cost of living, Tony, is something that people around the world want tackled. I’m sure that as people begin to cast their votes in a few hours time, when those polls do eventually open up on Tuesday for the midterms, that will be close to the top of the agenda. When we talk about the Democrats and the Republicans, the left and the right, what are the big economic differences between them and tackling this problem?

Tony

Well, I think there was a bill passed about a year ago, the Inflation Reduction Act. Diane, tell me if I’m wrong. I think it was $3 trillion in spending, and I think that was one that many Republicans didn’t want because there was a feeling that that was going to contribute to inflation. And so I think there was. The irony of it is just a year earlier, in the depths of COVID there was a massive stimulus package passed under the Republicans that everyone was happy about. So I think it’s easy to say, while the Democrats are the ones who spend and the Republicans are the ones who don’t, it’s not really the case. It really just depends on what they spend on. Republicans tend to spend on things like defense and security and law enforcement and these sorts of things. Democrats tend to spend on things like social programs. So I don’t know that one is necessarily more disciplined than the other. They just have different spending priorities.

Rahul

When we think of Texas, we think of gas, gas prices. We’ve seen President Biden releasing those strategic reserves of oil to try and bring down the price of gas. Is it that crucial a factor, do you think, in these elections? Will Americans just look at the cost of putting it in their vehicles and say, it’s too high, I don’t want to vote for this government?

Tony

Well, I think I saw a poll earlier today and I think it said that 65% of Americans believe that Biden is responsible for high gasoline prices. And I thought that was really surprising. I think it was from Pew. I can’t remember who it was from, but it was credible polling group. So Americans do see that and they do see that on Biden’s first day, he killed the pipeline, a potential pipeline from Canada, which would have brought heavy sour crude from Canada to fill US refinery.

Rahul

But these are global factors really, aren’t? I mean, of course, there are individual factors that will impact that.

Tony

No, they’re not global factors because the fact is, the sources of the crude that we need for American refineries is heavy sour. And there’s places like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or other places where we could get it. But the most accessible is Canada. And so Americans do pay attention to that stuff, and they do pay attention to what is impacting gasoline prices because it’s such a huge portion of their budget. And so I think policy does lead to the cost of living, and I think it is a big factor. And I think people are looking at the way the different parties have reacted to this. And when that pipeline was canceled, republicans were very unhappy and voiced it. So I think that’s the case. And like I said, I think 60, 65% of Americans believe that Biden does have responsibility for the gasoline price in the US.

Rahul

Tony, one thing that often happens after midterm elections in the US is we begin to get an idea of who the presidential candidates are going to be. Do you think that we are likely to see in two years time a rerun of President Biden against Donald Trump, or do you think it will be other candidates for both parties?

Tony

To be honest, I think it’s too early to tell. I think even if Donald Trump starts campaigning Tuesday or Wednesday, I don’t necessarily think that it’s a done deal because people like Ronda Santos have taken a national profile.

Rahul

That’s the governor of Florida, isn’t it?

Tony

Governor of Florida. That’s right. And so I don’t think that Trump kind of as the Republican candidate is a done deal. I also don’t think that Biden as the Democrat candidate is a done deal. I think we’re very much things are very much in play, and really, anything could happen. I wouldn’t want to put money on, say, Trump or Biden right now because I think two years is a long time.

Rahul

Is it a bit harder for the Democrats? Because we know that with the Florida governor, there is, it seems, a candidate that the Republican Party can get behind if it isn’t President Biden, is there an obvious Democratic candidate at this moment in time? Tony.

Tony

I think there are a lot of people who believe they are, but I think maybe Gavin Newsom in California, but I think his politics are a little bit too far left for most of those independent votes that both Republicans and Democrats really try to get in order to get elected. So I think people like Gavin Newsom in terms of, like, political consultants do, because he looks good on television and all this other stuff, but I just don’t think he’s electable for a nationwide office.

Rahul

What we’re seeing here, Tony, and there’s a large Hispanic community, isn’t it, in Texas who play a significant role in elections there. Are we seeing these communities, whether it’s the Latino voter, whether it’s the black vote saying, don’t take my vote for granted, and that’s a message for all parties.

Tony

Sure, absolutely. If you look, say, on the border in the US. Part of my family lives in Del Rio, Texas, and they’ve never seen the quantity of people crossing the border that they’ve seen before, traditionally Democratic voters. And they’re really questioning their voting intentions because of the things that they’re seeing on the border. We’ve seen Texas border counties really start to swing right because of that. These communities that are small and safe and other things have really had an influx of people, and it’s really threatened, I guess, their way of life on the border. So some of these places that were very, very securely Democratic locations have started to move away from that.

Rahul

Tony, have you been flooded with lots of different political adverts as well across TV, across social media, across everything?

Tony

Yeah, I saw more during the World Series than I had seen in other places, but I just kind of ignore them, to be honest.

Tony

Yeah, I think it can I think a couple of dances on TikTok are probably worthwhile as well, but I think TV advertising is probably worth it.

Rahul

Are there any dancers of Tony Nash on TikTok, by any chance?

Tony

No, but I’ve seen some comments about different candidates kind of dancing on TikTok, and it was kind of silly. But it does get people talking about the candidate, and who knows if it works. I’m not 22 anymore, so it may work on me if I was 22.

Rahul

And when we’re looking at turnout here, we touched on it briefly before we heard John Sadworth saying to us that it was going to be a good turnout here. But the simple fact is, in the midterms, the majority of voters never vote, do they?

Dianne

That’s usually the case. I don’t think that will be the case this time. Tony, what do you think?

Tony

So I went to early vote last week, and I had to stand in line for quite a while to vote. So I think people are really, really engaged this time around, and I think it’s mostly because people’s pocketbooks are hurting and they’re just tired of it. So I think you’re hugely engaged because of the economy.

Rahul

That is interesting. Let us see what those numbers are. We will get them very, very shortly. Tony, if you believe the polls, and often that may not be a sensible thing to do nowadays when we talk about elections, they do seem to indicate that this is not going to be as important an issue. Clearly it’s a very difficult issue for many Americans, but it’s not going to sway voters as much as maybe people thought it was going to sway voters a few months ago.

Tony

It definitely won’t, I think. Look, all the Supreme Court said is that they’re leaving it up to the states, and so there’s no issue for mobility in the US. So people can go to another state to have an abortion if they want. So I think we had the initial emotion after the Supreme Court judgment, but I think when people really realized it’s a state issue and many of the things in the US. Constitution are really devolved to the states, and so this just takes that same issue and puts it up to the states unless the states decide. And so I think most adults, when they read it and they consider that if they really want to have an abortion, they can drive or get on a flight and go to another state, it’s really actually pretty simple.

Rahul

It’s a communicated economy, the US. Isn’t it? Because you look at it and we hear this talk of recession, we hear this talk about the incredible rises in inflation, cost of living, and at the same time, you sort of hear still about a very strong jobs market. Still.

Tony

Yes. But what we are starting to see there was an announcement yesterday, I think, that Meta, Facebook will soon be announcing major job cuts. And so job cuts are starting to hit the tech sector. Companies like Stripe laid off, I think, 18% of their workforce. Twitter had some big layoffs last week, and so tech is really starting to be hit hard with layoffs. So a lot of the discussion about job vacancies and unemployment, say, out of the Fed and the White House, that will start to even out. And the job market by the end of the year will likely be much less strong than it is right now.

Rahul

Yeah, I knew Twitter was going to make its way into the program at some particular point. Okay. Prediction diane. What is what’s going to happen?

Dianne

I think the House will go to the Republican. Senate, will hold Democrat, and Biden will have a tougher time the next two years.

Tony

Tony, Republicans get the House, they get 52 in the Senate, and they pick up a couple of governorships.

Rahul

Okay, well, thank you to both of you for your insights and thoughts on the American midterm elections. Americans will vote on Tuesday for the Senate, for the House, for governors as well. We’ll bring you all the results here on the BBC World Service. You.

Week Ahead

Growing out of stagflation, Fed operating impact & Brazil Risk: The Week Ahead – 7 Nov 2022

Post author By admin
Post date November 5, 2022

Learn more about CI Futures here: http://completeintel.com/futures

In this episode, we are joined by two special guests – Mary Kissel and Travis Kimmel – as well as our regular co-host Albert Marko. Mary is the EVP and senior policy advisor at Stephens. She was the senior-most aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and was on the editorial board for Wall Street Journal. Travis Kimmel is a technology entrepreneur, market philosopher, and spicy tweeter.

First, we dig into the approach to getting out of the current stagflationary model. The Bank of England, the ECB, the Fed, and the BOJ are starting a managed decline. And the real question is, is that really necessary? Mary Kissel walks us through how the Fed may actually be making things worse.

We all know the Fed raised by 75bps and is expected to continue with at least 50bps in December. Raising rates has decimated tech names and made operations significantly more challenging. Travis Kimmel discusses the impact of the whiplash in interest rates on operators, on the people who run companies, and how they run those companies in this type of environment.

And then finally, with Albert, we talk about Brazil. We saw a big election result in Brazil this week with Lula declared the winner. Many Brazilians are not happy.

Also, note that Brazil is one of the largest emerging economies and a huge trade partner for China. Lula has already made comments in support of Russia in the war with Ukraine. What does this mean? Is Brazil a risk for US power in the western hemisphere, given China’s inroads in Venezuela, etc?

Key themes
1. Can we grow out of this stagflationary muddle?
2. Impact of Fed rates whiplash on operators
3. How big of a risk is Brazil?

This is the 40th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Mary: https://twitter.com/marykissel
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Travis: https://twitter.com/coloradotravis

Transcript

Tony Nash: Hi, and welcome to the week ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and I’m joined this week by Mary Kissel, Travis Kimmel and Albert Marko. You all know Albert well.

Mary Kissel is the EVP and senior policy advisor at Stevens. She was the senior-most aide to Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. She was editorial board for Wall Street Journal. Mary is extremely well known. She doesn’t need an introduction.

Travis Kimmel is a technology entrepreneur, market philosopher and a spicy tweeter. So really glad to have you both today. I really appreciate it.

Before we get started, I’m going to take 30 seconds on CI Futures, our core subscription product. CI Futures is a machine learning platform where we forecast market and economic variables.

We forecast currencies, commodities, equity indices. Every week markets closed, we automatically download that data, have trillions of calculations, have new forecasts up for you Monday morning we show you our error. You understand the risk associated with using our data. I don’t know if anybody else in the market who shows you their forecast error. We also forecast about 2000 economic variables for the top 50 economies globally and that is reforecast every month.

Let’s move on. Thanks guys. Thanks very much.

So this week we’re going to move on to some key themes. First, there’s a really interesting concept that Mary brought up. Can we grow out of this Stagflationary muddle? And I really look forward to getting into that a little deeper.

We’re going to also with Travis talk about the impact of the whiplash in interest rates on operators, on the people who run companies and how they run those companies in this type of environment.

And then finally with Albert we’re going to talk about Brazil. We’ve had a big political change in Brazil and it seems more meaningful than we’re being kind of told. So I want to dig a little bit into that.

Mary, first let’s dig into kind of the approach to getting out of this Stagflationary model. So the UK, the Bank of England, the ECB, the Fed, the BOJ, they all seem to be, as you said, starting a managed decline. And the real question is, is that really necessary?

And I’ve got on the screen the balance sheets for the ECB, BOJ and BoE and the Fed of course.

And then we also have a graphic for the CPI versus the money supply. Looking at CPI change and what that is related to the money supply.

Do we in fact need to manage this? Decline I think is a real question and I guess who is growing out of this? I think it’s possible that China grows out of it. I think that’s the only card they have right now. But I’m really curious to hear

your thoughts on this.

Mary Kissel: Well, it’s great to be with you Tony, Albert, Travis, thanks for inviting me today.

Of course growing is the best option. It doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the most politically salable option. But obviously it’s preferable to inflating away your debt and effectively ruining the savings of seniors and putting an enormous burden, particularly on the poorest and in our various economies. Do they developed or developing economies?

I hate to talk politics because I think it’s always easier for the street to say, “well, you know, we’ve got these neat models and economic forecasts and if you just pulled this lever or that lever, we could achieve X amount of growth.” But the reality is that you have to take politics into account and it’s just very difficult to take the kind of measures that we need to take to grow. And I think you saw that you mentioned the UK and your introduction. You saw that most clearly recently in the UK, where former Prime Minister Liz Truss and her chancellor Kwasi Khortang came out with really what was the only plan outside of Greece?

Greece is the only country that is focusing on growth. They’re looking to hit investment grade next year. But beyond that, the UK was the only country that had really put forth that formula that we know works, which is it’s not just about tax cuts and reducing that burden, it was about stimulating the supply side, opening up Britain’s energy reserves, fracking, going back to the North Sea, encouraging investment.

I mean, if you look at the UK and their economic statistics, it’s pretty shocking. I mean, the two decades prior to the Pandemic, they had growth less than 2% real wages were stagnant for 15 years. Their investment was terrible, even lagging behind their OECD peers. And yet you’ve had twelve years of Conservative governance there and they haven’t really turned the corner. Why? Because politically it’s just simply easier to tax and spend. And once you get on that track, it’s really hard to get off of it. So maybe I’m talking too long, you just one more time.

TN: No, this is a great point. But in talking about managed growth and you brought up politics, I feel like there’s this kind of fate accompli in most Western governments around. Well, we’re really on the downside of our opportunity and we’re a declining country, so we’re just going to manage ourselves that way. And when I think about things like the semiconductor investments and other things coming into the US.

I live in Texas, I don’t know what it’s like in other parts of the country, but it is really booming here. We have a lot of tech companies coming in, we have a lot of investment coming in. It’s a good investment climate. I mean, for anybody in New York or California, it’s terrible here, a lot of rattlesnakes and scorpions. But in terms of the economy, really great.

And so I want to talk about that a little bit in terms of kind of the fake company around. Well, we’re kind of past our prime. Is that kind of a baby boomer thing? I mean, millennials are as big as baby boomers. So is there this demographic assumption baked into that?

MK: Well, look, I mean, democracies get the leadership that they elect, period. And so, you know, I may not like what’s happening in Britain. I may think that they’re on the road to looking like France in terms of their, you know, permanently high double digit unemployment and lousy investment and lousy growth, lousy prospects for their young people. If they’re voting for that, that’s what they’re going to get.

I think that from an investment community. When I’m talking to Stephen’s clients, they’re saying, all right, well, where is there the opportunity for a political process to move us in the other direction? And that’s really just the United States over the next couple of years. I mean, that’s kind of it. Not going to happen in Japan, it’s definitely not happening in Australia, it’s not going to happen in continental Europe.

But the danger here is that the population, particularly the young people, get so mad that they realize that they have no opportunities left, that you see popular protests and you see a push to political extremes. So, look, protests are still going on in France. You’ve got protests starting to erupt in Britain. I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw that in more places across the continent as this energy inflation starts to hurt and as voters realize that this formula of price caps on energy, which isn’t going to solve any of the underlying supply problems of taxing and spending.

So it’s just a huge burden if you want to kind of start a business and get something going. No real move towards less red tape or the ability to kind of start a business and innovate. People are going to get upset at that. Again, I don’t think Populism is dead on the continent, and I think that the US, as these countries kind of go down, I think the US looks more and more attractive.

Albert Marko: No, I mean, Mary is absolutely correct. I’ve always been a proponent of looking at politics in terms of investing, just because things have been shifting so much, being in the United States, emerging markets, which is the rest of the world at the moment, like Mary said. Yeah, I mean, Populism

is absolutely not dead. With layoffs looming in the United States, we’re probably going to see more protests here in the United States gearing up to 2024.

But just like Mary said, I don’t see anywhere else in the world right now that you can actually invest in except for the United States. And I think it’s a little bit by design, by Yellen in them to force money to come out of those countries and into the United States. Although it’s a good thing for the United States in the short term, it’s destructive long term for the global markets.

MK: Sorry, just one more point. In order to get political change and to get back to that growth idea, you have to have real differences between the left and the right in democracies. And I think a lesson that came out of a place like, say, France, where Macron just sat himself in the middle, he destroyed the choice.

And you know, the Conservatives have done the same thing in the UK. They’ve sat themselves in the middle. They took a lot of the center left platform. So what are you going to do if you’re sitting in Manchester, right? Like, who do you like? Labor light in Rishi Sunak or do you just vote for labor? I mean, it doesn’t really matter, does it? You’re going to get the same outcome, right?

TN: So we’re going to do a little bit of what Tom Keen talked about regular. We’re going to kind of rip up the script here and I’m going to ask about you talk about inflation, talk about the leadership in places like Europe. And is it at all possible I know this is kind of a silly question, but is it all possible that in places like the UK or continental Europe that it’s possible to start fracking? That we start getting some of that upstream activity to ease the burden of energy crisis?

MK: No, you’re going to need a war.

TN: Okay? So the dirty upstream stuff, according to Europe, is other people’s problem. They just want cheap energy.

MK: Look, it took Putin slaughtering thousands of people in Ukraine for them to realize that, hey, maybe Russia isn’t a secure supplier and yet they’re still not welcoming fracking. They’re still not coming to the United States and saying, hey, how do we open up more LNG? What are you guys doing?

Right? I mean, this is unbelievable. What is it going to take?

TN: Something like Larry Tankers sitting off of Europe right now, waiting to unload because there’s not enough capacity?

AM: What it’s going to take is exactly what you said, political people, to the point where it just starts dripping over governments. And right now there’s been a push for Blinken to push leftist governments throughout the world right now that it’s just like the status quo everywhere. They’re not going to open up the franking. We’re not going to touch any kind of environmental issues over in Europe right now.

MK: Look at Rishi Sunak doing a U-turn and going to the COP conference. I mean, this has to be the most ridiculous grouping I’ve ever heard of. I mean, at a time when you’ve got like ten plus inflation and people can barely pay their bills or buy eggs or the rest of it, or fill up their car, they’re going to talk about climate change. Are you kidding me?

TN: China’s tripling down on coal.

MK: Yeah, I’m also clean climate too. I don’t care what kind of energy we use, as long as the market’s figuring it out and we’re letting innovation happen, period.

AM: Well, they’re going to start blaming Brexit. Even the Tories are going to be like, oh, maybe we should stay into the EU.

MK: Could Britain go back to the EU?

AM: Maybe? Yeah, they could.

Travis Kimmel: I think the thing that’s really challenging here is we just need coherent and stable frameworks for a lot of the stuff, whether it’s energy policy, monetary policy, like if you think about what the purpose of markets are, to take a really simple example, take a CSA. What is that? It’s a futures market. It’s done in a really small scale. You got a farmer who’s basically short forward produce, right, and you’re buying futures and then you’re taking delivery of whatever lettuce and cabbage and.

If you think about that as it’s a very simple example of what a market is designed to do, it’s designed to allow operators to derisk their business. A large futures market is no different. I mean, I work in tech. We’re sort of like extreme beta, right? And what we just went through here is we went through this period where everyone was looking at a massive boom as a result of policy. And so we all started hiring and there was the time we’re all trying to hire the same time. Staff up handles the influx of business and then in the middle of that staffing motion, your reverse course. So now you have these companies that are… You heard Stripe come out, they’re cutting 14% and just owning it. Like we missed-staff for the environment.

There was almost no way to navigate that properly for operators. And so what you have is you have this destructive policy impulse that is sort of like ruining the whole reason we have markets in the first place.

The reason we have markets is to allow for derisking. And speculators come in there and they provide liquidity and it’s awesome. Markets are awesome. But we’re removing the value that markets once had for operators. And if you’re out here in the economy running a business, it’s extremely hard to navigate that.

TN: Yeah, Travis, that’s a great segue. And let me put up your tweet that you put up earlier this week. Talking about Powell saying some of you losing your job is like little rays of sunlight to me and I think that’s great.

And talking about how do operators work in areas in times of rates whiplash like this, I think bringing it back to risk is, is it? Right. And I run a tech firm. You run a tech firm and it’s not about high rates or low rates. It’s about the magnitude of change for planning. Right. So we can plan for a high rates environment if we know that’s going to happen.

We can plan for a low rates environment if we know that’s going to happen. But that stability is what economies like the US are built on. Right? Yes.

You mentioned one word, “coherence.” And I’m afraid that that’s a little bit too much to ask from policymakers right now, especially when we have the push pull going on with the Fed and the Treasury right now, right?

TK: Yeah. I think we’ve been overdriving this thing for years now. Basically, you saw this in, think about the events that we tried to respond to policy with. You have basically volmageddon. They were like, oh, and they used policy to address that. So your policy takes two freaking years to come through. I mean, how can you respond to a pandemic via policy? I know people get really upset about the SPVs where they short up private credit, but I would say that was probably the smartest thing they did.

So this pandemic and it was like, oh, it’s a few hundred million, right? And so they shore up private credit. Like we’ll backstop that. Arguably, that is the original intent of central banking, is that motion. Of course, you’re supposed to do a higher interest rate and all that badge itself, but whatever.

So that tiny motion was sort of interesting and maybe well played, but flooring rates, making money free and then just jamming liquidity into the economy at the same time, and we’re basically, they generated this boom that we’re now on the back of.

Now we’re reversing that super hard. I just don’t think you can respond to this kind of stuff with monetary or fiscal policy. I don’t think you can respond to emergent events. It’s not an emergency thing. What these are designed to do is to tune structural weirdness like you could tune a demographic change because demographics aren’t going to change that much in a short period of time. And so you can apply a policy to that and wait for the policy to translate through. I think what I would have liked to see when they realized their error here is just set rates at whatever, 3%, leave the balance sheet slowly until you’re back to where you want to be. And don’t do much. All these extreme action where the Fed comes in, they’re like, we get an event we don’t like, whether it’s the coronavirus or inflation or whatever. And they’re like, we’re on it. We’re going to respond swift and hard. That’s the mistake. You can’t do that. So we’re now going to get this…

What I expect to see here is eventually they will solve inflation. But that solution is by the time it translates through, it’s going to have its own momentum and it’s going to be very destructive.

TN: Oh, yeah. I think the real irony is you have publicly traded companies that are expected to give market kind of insight twelve months out to the penny on the share level, right. But then you have Powell standing in front of the world saying, we’re not really sure what we’re going to do next month. It may be whatever, and it’s data dependent. It’s like, really? Like, how many people do you have, analysts do you have? And you don’t know what you’re going to do in 30 days? That’s crazy. Right?

MK: I think Travis is raising such a good point. And the underlying theme here is that is to do something right and to juice the markets on the monetary and the fiscal side. That’s why I put in a plug. If you haven’t read it. James Grant’s book on the 1921 crash, like The Forgotten Depression, such a great book because essentially it’s like do nothing in the market. It will take pain, but then we’ll come back up.

TK: I love you mention that example. It looks like we are generating that exact same, it looks like we’re

generating a depression. Not like the depression that everyone remembers, but that little, very short, swift, extremely difficult period of time. It’s like a couple years in 1920. We’re teeing up the same thing here. It’s really weird.

MK: People make it worse. I don’t know, Travis.

TK: Look, I’m not going to fail that.

MK: I think you could be in the 30s because they’re not going to do nothing, right? They’re going to cap energy prices. They’re going to do more programs to help people.

TK: You have to let the market achieve homeostasis. And the bond market is like, it’s the spine of the economy, and we just keep whipping it back and forth. So everything else is going to be high data.

AM: Yeah, but why are they whipping it? It’s because the political influences within the central banking system, whether they’re Treasury and the Fed. Right now, nobody is talking about the real civil war happening between conservative Powell and some of his members at the Fed, and Lail Brainard and Yellen, who are liberal that are trying to help Democrats by pumping these markets. They crush the bond market only to pump it up two points, like within minutes to pump the Nasdaq, and then the market starts running with it, and then they parade out all these liberal members of the Fed to counteract Powell’s speech yesterday.

So it’s like we can hope for stability, but until they depoliticize the Fed to the point where it’s actually acting properly, I think it’s just a pipe dream.

TN: Do you think Powell is overplaying because of the kind of politics inside the Fed?

AM: Oh, absolutely, because if you look at the Fed minutes in the FOMC releases, those are going to continue to be muted because it’s a cooperative process. Right. They have all the members talked about vote on issues and whatnot, and then Powell has to come out there and counteract that and say, listen, things aren’t working out like the minutes are reflecting, so I’m telling you we’re going to go 75 basis points next meeting. And then again today, they bring out another Fed member to say, oh, no, it might be 50, it might be 50, and then the market shoots up 100 points. This is absurd. Right? That’s an untradable market. It’s untradable market. Right? Yeah.

TN: Since we’re talking about policy fumbles, and Mary recommended a book. I don’t know if you’ve read, Ammonie Schlay’s The Forgotten Man, fantastic book about the 1930s, talking about policy error after policy error after policy error. FDR is proclaimed as this hero who got us out of the Great Depression, and he absolutely screwed up time and time and time again, and took what could have been a two-year recession and turn it into a twelve-year recession. Right? Yeah.

And so are we entering that again? That’s the real question. And it’s really easy for people to say, oh, we’re in the 30s again. I mean, I hear that so many times, it’s just tiring. Right. But we have to look at why the 30s happened. We have to look at why 1921 was so quick and then understanding what the implications for policy and the economy are.

Travis, what you brought up in terms of quick, sharp actions for specific events is exactly what we need. I think rate rises are stupid. Playing these stupid rate rise games, it freaks everyone out. It creates volatility, uncertainty, and nobody can plan. And then you get between now I think we talked about this two weeks ago, Albert, between now and the end of the year, we’re going to see so many layoffs in tech companies and they’re all going to get them just in time for Christmas, because that’s what happens all the time. Right?

TK: The thing that Albert highlights here is really interesting. It’s like, from a decision making perspective, we have the speed wobbles. You’re riding a bike and you get that thing, it’s like, you know you’re going down, you can’t pull out. We just have that right now. We’re whipping this thing back and forth. We’re being hyper reactive. And until we get to a place where we can just sort of chill for a while. Does anybody think that’s on the horizon? It doesn’t look like it. No.

AM: Not as long as politics and inflation are taking hold and there’s elections to be won. That just can’t happen.

MK: I think investors, they go back to basics. They say, OK, where do we have a stable rule of law Where do we have any kind of predictability in the political process? Or even, you know, as I said, the US like the opportunity to have a more attractive business environment.

And where do we have resources? You know, human resource, mineral resources, you know, and so that’s essentially the Gulf in the United States.

TN: Don’t talk to Texas too much, Mary, please. Okay, perfect. Guys, thanks for that.

Let’s move on to Brazil. Brazil’s obviously a really big story this week, and Albert, we saw Lula declared the winner. This was very much a 50-50 election. Of course there were irregularities. There were irregularities in every election. We’ve seen five days of protest now. I’ve got a tweet up from Steve Hanke talking about tens of thousands of Brazilians out who are Bolsonaro supporters.

But what’s really interesting to me about this is not really who wins, but Brazil is a huge supplier of things like energy, frozen chicken, soybeans, these sorts of things to China. And so this type of disruption can hurt that type of trade. We’ve also had Lula already make supportive comments of Russia shortly after the results were announced. So, Albert, what does this mean? What do we need to be looking out for?

AM: Commodities, really. Soybeans, soybeans, corn, ethanol and everything tied into that. Now you’re looking at Brazil, which you’d mentioned is a big supplier to China for soybeans. And then he goes on and declares that Putin is right in Ukraine. It just smells so bad right now for the United States and the longterm interest in the region.

Like I mentioned before, these push for leftist governments, it’s just not wise. I mean, it’s shortsighted.

Long term, these leftist governments are really susceptible to Beijing and Russia at the moment. So, you know, you’re out there and Lula comes out and immediately declares, like, the World Economic Forum is correct, and we’re going to take on deforestation, which is obviously going to obviously going to depress the soybean crowd because it takes years.

How the soybean crops work is like, you clear land, and you got to let them sit there for two years, and then you start rotating in and out. So there will be a steady supply of soybeans that the Chinese eat up pretty much, I think, like 60% or 70% of their crop every year. So what are we looking at? Higher food prices across the board, everywhere in the United States is specifically a problem.

TN: So I’m interested in that regional political angle you mentioned. So if we look at Brazil, we look at Venezuela, we look at Colombia, the government’s coming into kind of our region, and the influence that China has on, say, Venezuela with the debt that’s owed to China Development Bank and then with Brazil on the trade side and so on, is that a regional political risk for the US?

AM: It’s an incredible risk. I mean, you’re looking at the Argentinians about to sell a naval base to the Chinese. So now they have Atlantic access. Bolivia was a problem with the lithium mines to the Chinese. Peru was starting to set up naval bases for the Chinese. I mean, it’s like, how do we overlook this? This is right in our backyard, and we’re sitting there overlooking leftist governments taking control and then flipping against us the very next minute. I don’t understand what Blinken and Jake Sullivan are looking at here. What plan do they have for US interests long term when these governments routinely act against us? Venezuela decided to go start talks with Colombia again. US friendly nation in any sense of the word. So it just boggles my mind at the moment.

TN: So, Mary, you’ve sat in the seat. What would you be thinking at this point?

MK: Well, the key to all of this is Cuba because none of these regimes, many of them, would not be in power were it not for the Cuban security services, which is not really talked about, but, you know, Maduro good examples, publicly available information. His private security officers are all Cubans. So I think Biden had a fantastic opportunity early in his term. All these Cuban people came out under the streets. We should have turned on the Internet and allowed them to determine their own fate.

But instead, where did that go? Nobody seems to care. I think Latin America today for the administration, is more about domestic political ends, and it is about thinking strategically about wait a second. Okay, we’ve got some pretty decently large markets, as Travis pointed out, right?

In Brazil, in Argentina, and Mexico is going way far away from us. That’s another huge story nobody’s talking about. Canada. Right? There’s a lot of opportunity within the hemisphere to create market openings and growth for all of us, but they’re not thinking about it. They really don’t care. It’s about talking about democracy in Brazil so they can talk about the state of democracy in the United States.

AM: Yeah, it’s just because Colombia was such a great US ally and the government was solidly behind the United States and a focal point for Latin American aspirations, and then you go and push for a leftist government that’s favorable to Maduro. I don’t understand what goes through their heads at the moment.

TN: Great. Okay, thanks for that, guys. Just one last question for all of you. Kind of don’t have to necessarily come in individually, but we’ve had all these economic announcements this week. We’ve got the elections, the midterms, US midterms next week. What are you guys looking for in the week ahead Generally? I guess, Albert, you have some specific ideas, but for Travis and Mary, what do you guys expect in the week ahead?

AM: For the midterms, it’s pretty much set in stone as the Republicans are going to take control of the elite the House most likely to Senate by two seats. So you know how the market reacts. Whether we start dumping is really going to probably depend on CPI. So that’s actually what I’m going to really watch, the CPI so we can solidify the 75 basis point rate hike in December.

TN: Okay, great. Travis, any thoughts.

TK: In the political sphere, I’m just kind of looking for individuals that make sense. I’m not really, I don’t really have team allegiances. I just want somebody who’s talking sense.

I think the CPI will be interesting. In terms of intraweek stuff, I try not to think of markets that way. I try to think of a little more defensively and where I want to end up. So if I had a position on, I want to be able to ignore it for a month or two while I just focus on doing my job. I’m a pretty defensive player here. Especially with all the whip.

MK: I think even if Albert is right, and I think he is, that Republicans take control of one or more houses, the regulatory state is going to grind on. So I’m really not looking so much at the federal level. I’m looking at governor’s races where like a Republican Lee Zeldin as Governor of New York could open up fracking in New York.

TN: Is that a real possibility, do you think?

MK: I think it could be, absolutely. Remember Cuomo shut it down himself, so why couldn’t Zeldin open it up?

TN: No, but do you think Zeldin being elected is a real possibility, do you think?

MK: Oh yeah. Really? Remember Giuliani, the pollsters went out and they were like, hey, you’re going to vote for Rudy? And everyone on the Upper West Side said, no, I’d never vote for that guy. Right. And then they looked at the crime in the mess, and then they went into the polling moves and they went yeah, exactly. Right.

TN: So it could be New York, could be Michigan, some of these other places that have had some polarizing governors kind of move more to the right or to the middle.

TK: Do you think that policy at a state level is sufficient to justify capex for energy companies?

MK: No. I mean, really, only the Feds can make a meaningful difference at the margin. I talk a lot to clients about the regulatory state, because we don’t talk about it a lot. But that really is what depresses investment.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Complete Intelligence is in partnership with:

Products

Resources

Company