Tag: Democrats

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.

Podcasts

No Let Up in Fed Rate Hikes

Post author By admin
Post date July 9, 2022

This podcast first appeared and was originally published at https://www.bfm.my/podcast/morning-run/market-watch/us-federal-reserve-interest-rates-hike on July 7, 2022.

Despite weaker economic data, will the Federal Reserve continue their hawkish stance? Do the FOMC minutes offer any hints of their stance? Our CEO and founder, Tony Nash tells us whilst telling us the impact of rising rates on the banking and property sector.

Show Notes

WSN: BFM 89.9. You’re listening to the morning run is seven o’ 7, Thursday, the 7th of July there and keeping you company till 10:00 a.m. Is Shazana Mokda in an undisclosed location far, far away. And I’m Wong shining in the studio now in half an hour, we’re speaking to Manpreet Gill on fixed income and commodity the investment strategy for 2022. But let’s recap how global markets closed yesterday.

SM: So if you take a look over in the US, markets actually closed up despite Fed meeting minutes coming out signaling a more hawkish stance. The Dow was up 0.2%, the SP 500 and the Nasdaq was also up 0.4%. Looking over in Asia though, it’s mostly red. No, it’s all red really. The Naked and Hansi were both down 1.2%, the STI was down marginally by 0.01%, and the Shanghai Composite and FBM KLCI were both down 1.4%.

WSN: So for more on where international markets are hitting, we have on the line with us Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Good morning, Tony. Now so far the economic data coming out of the US shows a slight deceleration of the economy. So do you think that the Fed will then hold back on their hawkish pace of rate hikes despite June’s FYMC minutes indicating that they intend to keep raising rates?

TN: I think they’re definitely going to keep raising rates, I think until we see a marked slowdown in particularly commodity price inflation, but also other things like wage inflation. I think they’re going to keep accelerating. So it’s unlikely they’ll continue with a 75 basis point hike, but they will almost certainly have a 50 basis point hike and continue for the next couple of meetings at least.

WSN: I have another question though, Tony, in that when do you think interest rates will peak or when is the peak of the tightening cycle? Will it be early 2023 or you’re looking maybe later in 2023.

TN: Well, some people are saying that it’s possible they continue to hike until the end of the year, and then in 23 they have some rate cuts similar to what happened in the early 90s. That’s possible. I think it all depends on where the economy is at the time. But I think for now they’re just worried about inflation and the downsides of inflation and they’re looking at asset prices and where asset prices are, and it’s really troubling for them given yeah, the economy has definitely slowed down, but we still have wages rising, we still have very high commodity prices, and we also have an appreciating dollar at the same time. So anything imported should be cheaper on a relative basis, but those prices keep going up as well. So Fed continues to be worried, although they’re getting pressure from the outside because it is an election year and the party in power does not want there to be a recession going into the election. And so they’re getting huge pressure from the treasury and from other people to moderate their stance so that there is not a recession going into the election.

SM: Well, what do you think then, Tony? We know that economists at Goldman Sachs have put the risk of a recessionary slump in the US. In the next year at 30%. So they’re still looking at next year. Some consumers feel it’s already here, I guess. Where are you standing in this debate?

TN: Yeah, I think we have unemployment still falling in the US. So you don’t usually have a recession at a time when unemployment is still falling. We also have high inflation. So on a real GDP basis, you may have a negative real GDP number. Well, you have a positive nominal GDP number. And I know that’s a little bit confusing, but what that basically means is that the rate of inflation pulls the economic growth into a negative number simply because of inflation. So we’re in a place where it’s kind of hard to identify a recession because of the real and nominal difference. But when we still have jobs growing, when we still have investments and other things happening, it’s really hard for us to hand on heart say that we are in or entering a recession.

WSN: Okay, let’s get into the weeds then, with regards to the recent set rate hikes and how that might play out in certain sectors. And I want to look at the US. Banks. So how do you think they perform this quarter? Are you a bull or bear?

TN: Well, it’s a tough time for banks. They had mixed results in Q2, and I think higher interest rates obviously help their net interest margin. But borrowing cools off, and it’s things like mortgages. Other things have cooled off dramatically over the last same month or so. Banks will likely have a very tough Q3, and then when things stabilize, they’ll be better. But I think Q3 is going to be rough for them. I wouldn’t say I’m necessarily bearish on banks, but I would say I’m neutral on banks.

WSN: What about the property sector, Tony? I mean, we’ve heard, of course, a few months ago that whatever you put up in the market, it gets snapped up within the day. But is that trend continuing? Are you a bull or bear for property?

TN: You know what? It depends on where you are in the US. Where I am in Texas, things are really strong. But a lot of other places in the US. Things have slowed down dramatically, and mortgage applications nationally have come to a standstill as interest rates have risen. So I think a couple of weeks ago we may have talked about how a house that was purchased in January, the median price house purchased in January, if it were purchased today, it would cost $800 a month extra. And so the interest rates just had a dramatic impact on house prices. So mortgages have really slowed down.

SM: And can we turn to oil, Tony, because oil prices have dropped below $100 per barrel for West Texas. Does this level accurately reflect supply and demand for crude? And does this then invalidate the bullish forecast of $150 and above that analysts were predicting not too long ago?

TN: Yeah, I think we’re in a really strange place for oil right now. And if you look at the later months of crude oil futures that are being traded, they’re actually trading higher than the current month. So there’s something happening in the current month, like maybe somebody’s books blown up or something. But there’s something happening in the July future that rolls off in a couple of weeks. And I expect that we’ll see higher crude prices going into August and the rest of Q three, early Q four. So it’s going to be pretty choppy for the next few months in energy and commodities generally.

WSN: One last question for me, and it’s more long term economic question, and that’s about Biden’s infrastructure bill that was passed in November last year, but it’s gone really silent. Do you know what’s happening on that front?

TN: Nobody does. There’s been very little news about it. What’s happened partly is inflation has taken a bite out of it and it’s really caused a lot of projects to stall. So the problem with federal appropriations is the longer the money sits, the less money that gets spent, which is good for taxpayers. Right, but I think inflation is really forcing local and state governments to pause on their investment plans because they do have budget, but they don’t have enough budget to get the projects done that they want. So can they appropriate can the US. Congress appropriate more for the next fiscal year? It’s possible. It depends on who’s in power. So if the Republicans come into power in November, then they may not raise the appropriations level and we’ll be stuck with the level that we have, which it’s $500 billion, a massive amount of money. I don’t want anybody to mislead anybody, but the Democrats will likely want to raise that level if they remain in power after the November election. But to date, not a lot has happened. There has not been a lot of movements. We haven’t seen a lot of major announcements of new projects, these sorts of things.

And if it was successful, we would see a lot of major announcements of new projects.

WSN: All right, thank you for your time. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his views on global markets, in particular the US. And whether the Fed will continue to raise rates until 2023. He says maybe, and then maybe they might even cut rates like they did in $2,000.

SM: That’s right. I guess one thing to note is the question is whether we’re going to see a recession sooner rather than later. Yeah, and Tony did point out the fact that labor unemployment is still at really low levels. Unemployment is decreasing so that’s really at odds with a recession and that’s what everyone is looking to see. I think if we start to see unemployment go up, that heralds that a recession is either here or coming.

WSN: I suppose we are living in really weird economic times. None of the normal correlations that we see are making any sense. I think that’s a lot to do with the fact that during COVID-19, governments basically just took the let’s do whatever it takes attitude. There was so much money pumping into the system by every major central bank and the recession was extremely V shaped, sharp recovery. But then that also caused supply chain disruptions and we had the war in Ukraine. It was like the perfect storm of Black Swan events which has resulted in this current situation that we are in now. Very quickly, we’re looking at the Fed minutes that just came out now. Indications are that they are signaling another rate increase of between 50 to 75 basis points lightly in the July meeting. And this is the interesting part, they are willing to accept the price of a slower economy in order to tame inflation.

SM: And this is sort of a change from their soft landing rhetoric, right? So earlier they were trying to say oh, it’s not inevitable that there will be a recession, we can still avoid it, we want to get that sweet spot. But I think now they’re trying to navigate those expectations to go like hey, I think we need to kind of expect pain. There is going to be pain, but it’s better to have this short pay now rather than long term pain later. So I think the Fed is really trying it’s got itself in a pickle essentially in terms of trying to prime expectations of the public.

WSN: I think that’s on the back of the fact that they spend the whole of 2021 telling everyone that inflation is transitory, hey, no problem. And it didn’t turn out to be transitory, so there’s a need to rebuild back that credibility. But up next we’ll be speaking to Carmelo for little on malicious overnight policy rate. Stay tuned for that.

Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 14 Feb 2022

Post author By admin
Post date February 13, 2022
No Comments on The Week Ahead – 14 Feb 2022

In this week’s episode, we look at the CPI numbers from last week, the inflation cycle, and will the Fed stop QE on their Monday meeting? What do you have to expect on the metals market in the longer term? Will the demonstrations around the world push the US to bring out fiscal stimulus again — and can they? What does this mean to the Democrats on November US Election? And lastly, what you should know to thrive and survive this coming week?

This is the sixth episode of The Week Ahead in collaboration of Complete Intelligence with Intelligence Quarterly, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

For those who prefer to listen to this episode, here’s the podcast version for you.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3g8GVyOSmh2NYrcfHevj51?si=b923efb0567a4979

Follow The Week Ahead experts on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
Nick: https://twitter.com/nglinsman/
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon

Transcript

TN: Hi, everyone, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. And we’re joined by Nick Glinsman, Albert Marko. And today we’re joined by Sam Rines for the first time. Tracy Shuchart could not make it this week. She’ll be back next week.

So before we get started, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel. It obviously helps us with visibility and it gives you a reminder when a new episode is out. So if you don’t mind, please take care of that.

Now, a lot has happened this week. We saw CPI slightly higher than expected, which is what we talked about on the show last week. Consumer sentiment out on Friday, slightly lower than expected. And there were a few things that we said last week that will remind you of the ten-year cross, too. Nick pretty much nailed that. Crude went sideways. Tracy said that we would see a slight pull back in sideways move in crude. The S&P have a slight down bias, which is what we talked about. And the Dow had a slight upward bias, which is what we talked about. So good week all around. Thank you guys for being so on the spot for that.

Let’s start with CPI. And Sam, since you’re the new guy, it’s surprised high. So what really jumped out for you and what do you expect to see with CPI prints going forward?

SR: Basically, the entire print jumped out to me. I don’t think there was a single thing that was actually positive on the inflation front. There was no positive news that we could extrapolate from there. Whether you’re looking at the actual headline number, the core number, three month annualized accelerating, et cetera, it was a pure CPI hot. It was just hot. Cupcakes and cakes were the worst news in there. Both of those up. I think it was like 2.2%. 2.3% on a month over month basis. The only thing that was a little bit lower, that kind of offset, that was ice cream. So dessert got more expensive for most of us.

I think generally the way to look at CPI right now is we were supposed to have this really interesting hand off from goods to services. And what we really had was no hand off from goods and services begin to start running. You had people begin to go outside of their homes, but they’re also working at home. So you need more stuff. If you have an office and you work from home, you need two computers, you need two microphones, you need two cameras.

That’s really what we’re beginning to see is the confluence of the end of COVID restrictions, but not really the end of COVID all at the same time. That’s a big problem.

TN: So the durable good cycle is we’re late in that cycle, right. So it’s not as if we’re redoing our homes anymore. Most of that stuff is gone. It’s more consumption, right?

SR: Yeah, it is consumption to a certain degree. But also you haven’t really seen a slowdown in people buying homes. When people buy homes, when people build homes, they need to put stuff inside of them. They need couches.

TN: That’s fair.

SR: So I would say we’re probably not at the end-end of the durable good cycle, we might be in the fifth or 6th inning. Okay. But millennials still on homes, right? Millennials figured out that when you can’t go to a really cool restaurant in New York City, it’s not really worth living in 1000 square foot apartment or smaller with a kid. Right. They’ve decided that they really want to go make a household somewhere, buy a house.

So I think we’re more call it mid innings of durable good cycle. And on the services front, we’re just beginning to see the re emergence there. You’re just beginning to see housing costs, housing and rent, et cetera.

TN: Okay, so this inflation cycle is something that Nick and Albert have been talking about for over a year. You started talking about this in August of ’20 or something like that?

AM: Yeah, something like that. I mean, it was evident that the supply chain stresses is going to cause inflation. When the demand starts to tick up and there’s no inventory, of course, it was inevitable at that point.

TN: So when does it end? Obviously, this isn’t kind of the transitory inflation we’ve been told, and that’s been said many times. But do you see this continuing through, let’s say all things equal. There’s no rises from the Fed, nothing else. How long does this go before it works itself out? Nick?

NG: I’m sorry, Albert, do you want to?

AM: No. From my perspective, wage inflation is a problem. So until that gets sorted out, inflation is going to be sticky.

NG: Yeah. With Atlanta Fed wage price level, it was 5% I think it was, came out for the first time in 20 years. Actually, I’m going to be slightly contrarian. I think we’re at that peak. Whether we can go up, we can still go up a bit more, but I think there’s a peak. The trouble that people have got to get their minds around is if we’re peaking, it could take several months. Where do we come down to? And my suspicion is we come down to a level that’s still significantly above the 2% Fed targets.

The other thing that I think is really important, you’ve got the conventional wisdom. Feds behind the curve, Feds behind the curve. And now all these forecasts from the street have sort of come like this. Goldman have now joined Bank of America on seven.

The key thing to understand in a zero rates environment, they introduced forward guidance, and that was their technique to try to suppress volatility in the market. Well, now that things have shifted around so rapidly and we’re moving to a rate hiking cycle, they’re actually not going to be suppressing volatility. By definition, they can’t you hear this in Europe as well? Data dependency. We’re dependent on the data. Well, they’re dependent on the data in Europe because their forecast is so terrible. Haven’t been much better in the US either. Right.

So you’re going to have much more volatility. So what we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks, which if you traded, if you ran money through 2008, it’s sort of nothing. But what we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks, get used to it. And I suspect going back to what we mention last week and I even put it on a tweet. Newton’s law of gravity is going to start to impose itself on those stocks without the high dividends, those stocks that don’t have the earnings, those stocks that are over owned.

I know we’ve got witching out next week or OpEx not clear whether the market is long or short delta. Just not clear to me because actually a couple of days ago, Goldman came out with a chart that showed that short interest on the S&P is really low. So if that’s the case, and I maintain that we’ve got a lot of trap longs still there, this volatility is going to get worse.

I mean, you’re getting volatility in the treasury market. And remember, the treasury market, by definition, is zero rates, low rates environment, is long convexity. So the price moves to a couple of basis points are way bigger than they were back in the days when you had a decent coupon, back in those good old days where retirees would earn some money on their bank deposits.

TN: Yeah.

NG: So they’re not suppressing volatility anymore. Volatility cannot be suppressed, even if they sell VIX. We’re talking about broad systemic volatility. Is it a risk? Could be. But that’s gone. Those days have gone. Forward guidance. They’re not even going to forward guide. Powell’s last press conference. I’m going to be humble. I can’t give you whether it’s a 50 or a 25. He never said anything. No. When he was asked aggressive questions. So it’s sort of interesting.

TN: That is very interesting. I think not worried about volatility is a very interesting point, even if they just dial it down a little bit. It’s a very interesting point to me.

So let’s move in that direction, Nick. There was a lot of Fed speculation this week, obviously more intensive than even last week. Inter-meeting hike, 50 basis point hike, 25 basis point hike, all this other stuff. So what are you thinking about that and QT? I also want to get kind of your and Albert’s view and Sam, of course, on this thing going around on Thursday about an emergency meeting on Monday. So let’s talk about all of that stuff with Fed and central banks.

NG: I just don’t think this Fed has it in them to do something shocking. So the first order of business, if they were to do anything intermeeting, is stop QE. That’s absolutely absurd that that’s still going on. Right. So you stop the QE.

Remember, this is a Fed that’s built on… Most of these members are built on the gradualist approach of the Fed. They’ve been suppressing volatility. They don’t want to shock anybody. So I think there is a valid discussion to have between 25 basis points and 50. It’s a discussion they need to have and they need time to think about it.

Interesting Bollard came out as hawkish, given he used to be a Dove and we’d forecasted actually everything he said. We got a little experience of deja vu, but I’m suspicious of this intermeeting situation. The only thing I can think of really would be stopping QE. That’s where their first… If you watch the Main Street media, that was their first part of call with the “experts”, and they’re still doing QE, which is why they’re still doing QE. I think they need a proper… Right now, given it’s a new hike, first hike in the whole process, they need to have a proper meeting.

TN: So you think there’s a greater than zero possibility that they’ll stop QE on Monday? I’m not saying you’re saying it will, but you’re saying it’s greater than zero.

NG: That would make sense to me, but it would be a bit dramatic given all the huff and puff that’s been in the since last night about this secret meeting, which is also right. I would be surprised if they do an intermeeting.

I’m still trying to figure out whether they’re biased towards 25 and 50. Remember, the market is giving them 50, but when is the last time the Fed taken what the market is giving it?

TN: Albert, what do you think about Monday, the speculation about the meeting on Monday?

AM: Well, yeah, everyone’s talking about this meeting that popped up all of a sudden, and some people are starting to dismiss it’s procedural and whatnot. But realistically, they got together over the weekend to discuss what’s really happening. The last time they did something like that was pre-COVID in 2020.

Right now, the Fed and actually the Biden administration together are looking at problems with the Russian invasion of Ukraine looming, trucker rally, actually in the United States and France and Australia that are looming. I mean, any more supply chain shocks is systemic problems of the economy. And I think they have to address it one way or another.

Whether it’s a 50 basis point hike in Monday or March or something, you’re going to have to do something against inflation.

TN: So you think it’s possible that they can take some action on Monday? You don’t think this is just a procedural meeting?

AM: I don’t think it’s a procedural meeting whatsoever. I think something’s wrong with the system and they’re working to address it.

TN: So if you had to say they’re going to stop QE or they’re going to announce a rise, which is more likely on Monday.

AM: I think they’re going to announce a rise. Well, to think about it, they’ll probably stop QE before they actually do a rate hike. I think the rate hike will definitely come in March.

NG: That’s the sequence.

TN: Okay.

SR: And just to add something there, I think it’s really important to remember that effective Fed funds right now is eight basis points, right? Eight to nine basis points. It bounces around a little bit but we hike in ranges now, right? So we’re going to hike from zero to 25 to 25 to 50 or 50 to 75 and they don’t have to put it at the midpoint right? So going to ranges, so to speak, is not the only way to look hawkish.

If you raise one range of 25 to 50 and set it at 40, 45 towards the top end of the range, you can do one “rate hike”, but be pretty hawkish within that range, you can show your intention pretty quickly there which would match pretty closely to what the market expectations are when you kind of extrapolate down to actual basis points what the market is giving the Fed. So I think it’s really important to pay attention to not just where the range ends up, but where they decide Fed funds goes within that range.

TN: It could be incremental. They could be a Chinese central banks type of like 37 basis points or it’s 38 basis points or something?

SR: Exactly. Exactly. And I think that’s going to be the kind of “the shock” and all that they can use. They can have call it a very hawkish one hike. They don’t need to do two hikes to be overly hawkish.

TN: So what do you think, Sam, on Monday? Do you think it’s a procedural or do you think it’s possible that there could be some sort of policy change?

SR: I think it’s procedural.

TN: Okay. Interesting. It would be interesting to come back in a week and see what’s happened with that. I like the differences there. Sorry. What’s that?

NG: You get the coin out and heads at something.

TN: Right? Exactly.

NG: One thing it can be, it can be a hike without stopping the QE.

SR: Yes.

TN: Right. Okay. That’s a good point. So speaking of inflation, before we get onto the truckers and other stuff, Nick, you guys put out a piece last week about the metals market. And I’m really curious. It looks like there’s a view that there’s longer term rises in metals, industrial metals especially. Can you give us a little bit of color on that and help us what to expect in metal markets?

NG: Sure. It was a longer term view. It’s not really a short term trading view. The view is, I have the thesis that some of the greatest trades attached to some of the biggest traders in time have arisen because of policy mistake. Whether the policy is benefiting or whether the policy was just maligned. And right now we’re in this net zero push, which is the new neurosis and there’s no transition plan.

So the first thing, if we were to look to commodities right now, where is it? The most obvious place that it’s hit? European energy. Right. The German is getting rid of nuclear. It’s just a complete nano mess. But it’s actually in the metals market where over the next couple of years it’s going to be really keenly felt.

There’s been a lack of capex like energy. There’s been a lack of capex in metals. They learned what lessons? We don’t know. Lessons from 2011 when prices were very elevated. And with that lack of capex and they’re paying high dividends, they’re rewarding shareholders, means the supply cannot be flexible enough, elastic enough on the upside to meet all this huge demand.

So we put the blocks together. China. China, give or take, is still there as a big user and consumer of the metal. Now you add on the rest of the world, plus China, additional China on net zero products. EV cars, right. All the wind farms, solar panels. All this stuff needs metal. Some of it needs fossil fuels as well.

And I got triggered a couple of weeks ago. There was a report in France that said in the next two years, the available supply of copper, not new finds, or not new mines. The available supply right now would have been used up. Yes or no. But the point is that’s the direction. Nickel, even more so. And then you think about nickel and the geopolitics of Russia having a huge nickel company. What we’re about to go through, potentially with sanctions?

All this geopolitics grinds against the need for these metals in terms of net zero. So basically you’ve got those two forces against each other which squeezes everything up in terms of price. And from the point of view, we have no transition plan. So if there was none of that, we needed a transition plan anyway.

So our view, you can go through the metals. Aluminium has been making new multi year highs this week.

TN: Right.

NG: Aluminum being the cheaper copper.

TN: Okay. Yeah. And I think as a medium, longer term plan, as a strategic placement, I think that’s very interesting.

Let’s move on to other components of uncertainties with what seems to me is a resurgence of populism with these trucker strikes and other kind of demonstrations.

Obviously, the Canadian trucker strike has stolen the headlines this week, but there are things happening across Europe, and they have been for a year. Australia has been happening for six months, something like that. Demonstrations. You see sporadic demonstrations in the US with talk about truckers striking at the Super Bowl or something like that. So what do you guys think about that? Is that a real risk, and is that a risk that will flow into markets?

AM: I think it absolutely is a risk. If you’re talking about adding more stress to the supply chain, of course it’s going to be a systemic risk. I won’t even put it past some foreign actors propelling it through social media campaigns to stress the United States, France and Australia.

TN: Okay.

AM: I certainly would if I was Russia or China. I would definitely do that.

TN: Okay. So what does that do if there is this kind of wave of populism that is pushing back against kind of COVID restrictions? Do you think that puts more stress on, say, the US government to get fiscal spending out there to kind of placate people?

AM: There’s no way we’re getting fiscal. The reasons that the Fed has been doing all the shenanigans behind the scenes is because there’s no fiscal that’s happening.

TN: Okay.

AM: Rumors are that they’re even buying oil futures.

TN: Okay. So it makes things complicated, right? I mean, if you can’t send fiscal out to the people, then it makes kind of populism even more complicated.

AM: Of course.

TN: And more acute. Right. So what does that say for November in the US? Does that mean that it’s going to be tougher than we had thought on Democrats?

AM: Oh, absolutely. I mean, they sent out a memo to all the Democratic governors with all the warning flags. If you don’t lift off these COVID restrictions, we’re going to get massacred in November. So all of a sudden you saw this week like a dozen Democratic governors lift all the mask mandates.

TN: Okay. But do you agree if they had room for fiscal, it would solve some of these populist issues?

AM: That’s a tough question, Tony. I mean, possibly, but then the talk of new stimulus checks comes out and then the inflation probably gets worse. What are we doing?

TN: It’s a complex problem, which is why I’m asking the question.

NG: Didn’t Germans should make it pretty clear though, this week? They said I’ve been… Last year with the last fiscal. I said inflation. Inflation, inflation.

TN: Yes.

NG: Clear as you can be. But he’s a swing vote in the Senate. He just said we’re not getting inflation.

TN: Inflation tramps fiscal is what you’re all saying, is inflation tramps fiscal regardless of what happens with populist.

AM: Sorry, Sam. Let’s make a quick real quickly. Inflation is a nuclear football for politicians.

TN: Well, especially at 7.6%. Right. So fuel inflation of 40% year on year. I mean, this is crazy.

Okay, let’s move into what we expect for next week. What are you guys looking for next week?

SR: The flattening on the 210s curve will continue until the Fed breaks something and has to go the other way.

TN: Okay.

SR: I think that to me is the easy trade out there right now. It’s 210 flatten and done.

NG: Put a health warning on that.

SR: Yeah.

NG: If the Fed wimp out, I even think 25 basis points and non hawkish statement. If they whimp out, that long end is going to get hit because the idea of a flattening curve.

Remember, the sequencing is wrong here. That curve flattens after they’ve well into hiking cycles because of the potential for a recession. 13 out of the last 14 hiking cycles have led to a recession. That’s why I curved bear flat. Okay. It’s already doing it.

But the point is it’s because they think it will be enough. If the Fed given the narrative now, don’t go ahead with this. And I’m still anxious about the Fed, even though Powell warned back when the QE three was being launched, you’re going to create a whole lot of problems. Ironically, he got all the problems.

I’m just still nervous about this Fed because.

TN: I think everybody is Nick. I think that’s why we’re seeing the volatility because no one’s getting a clear signal. And we saw some Fed governors out on Friday saying that 50 basis points is too much and putting 25 basis points into question.

So I’m not sure if there’s a consensus.

NG: Actually, there’s a great trade to be had. Great trade in some of the markets. You buy a struggle, you buy volatility effectively. Make it, usually pay up for premium, but you make it completely not dependent on direction.

TN: Is what you’re saying for the next several weeks.

NG: Because they’re not going to suppress volatility anymore. It’s reversed. So everything they do now is by definition going to be creating more volatility. We’ve been zero rates, forward guidance. Let’s just cruise.

And the balance sheet is pushing stocks up. The other thing you need to watch, by the way, is the level of reserves.

TN: Right.

NG: Because I actually think if back in 19 there was that Reserve issue with the repo. I think that slightly could be problematic if something like that happens again.

TN: Okay, great. Good to know. So let’s go one by one. And what do you guys see say in equity markets next week? Is your bias for equity markets? Do you have a downside bias in equity markets? Sorry, Albert, go ahead.

AM: So I was just going to say next week, I think it’s going to be all about the Federal Reserve’s narrative building. It’s going to be a choppy session in equities all week. They’re preparing you, they’re sending out boulerd with ridiculous 100 point basis comments, and they’re just preparing you for a 50 basepoint rate hike.

TN: Right.

AM: So that’s what I think is going to happen. So we’ll just be choppy on next week.

TN: Okay. Sam?

SR: I like SPX more than I like the Dow, and I like the queues less than I like the Dow.

TN: Amid the volatility, you believe in tech?

SR: No. Okay. I don’t like any of them. Okay. And I prefer the S&P to the Dow. And I prefer the Dow to the queues.

TN: Okay.

SR: Yes, exactly. And I don’t like any of them. But if you had a gun to my head and made me buy something, it would be SPX and shorting queues against it.

TN: So there’s a slight downside bias in markets next week, equity markets? Okay, Nick, same?

NG: Yes. I think, as I said, I like what I wrote. News is law of gravity. As these rates come up, it starts to put gravity on the equity market and gravity will bring it down.

TN: Okay.

NG: One provisor, though. If we get some, along the path that we’re going, we get some serious shake outs. I do think what could be interesting is some of these commodity related starts, because actually commodities do quite well during a hiking cycle. Okay. That again, fits with our thesis anyway.

AM: Of course, gold has been on a tear for the last four trading days.

NG: Confusing everybody, right?

AM: Yeah, of course.

TN: Sam, do you agree with that commodity during the hiking cycle?

SR: I think oil is great during a hiking cycle. If you look back over hiking cycles, oil tends to do pretty well. I actually like the long oil short gold trade.

TN: Okay. So you bring us into a good point. Oil was my last stopping point. So, Albert, Nick, do you guys sit in the same place with oil? You think in the short term, say next week oil is looking good, or you think it continues to trade sideways?

AM: I think it goes up. I know. Rumors are Fed buying oil futures. I think it’s going to go up to 110. Not next week, but over the next week.

TN: Even with the inflationary pressure? Even with, which is unbelievable for me to say that. Even with the dollar rising. It’s unbelievable for me to say this.

NG: Albert just made a great point. These commodities are all at new levels and really the dollar hasn’t collapsed yet.

TN: Okay?

NG: Can you imagine what would happen if the dollar sells off some of these commodities?

TN: Yeah, we’re going to have to wrap it up there. So thanks very much, guys. This has been great and have a great week ahead.

Tags atlanta, Bank of America, Canadian, China, Chinese, covid, cpi, Democrats, DOW, Electronic Vehicle, Europe, EV, Fed, Federal Reserve, France, German, Greman, millennials, Monday, New York, Newton, nickel, OpEX, powell, Russia, SPX, US, VIX, week ahead, Youtube

QuickHit

The year ahead: What have we learned from 2021? (Part 2)

Post author By admin
Post date January 4, 2022

Continuing the discussion with Patrick Perret-Green of PPG Macro. This second part focuses on China’s role globally and what it will look like in 2022, especially considering the real estate industry? With the US economy, why is Patrick so skeptical about it recovering and what does the stimulus have to do with that? And what about taper tantrum? Why does he believe it already happened?

Please watch Part 1 here, if you have not already.

PPG started in 1997 in research where he learned how bank balance sheets work. He also run the strategy for Citi for rates and effects in Asia and at one point worked out in Sydney. And in the past five years now, he’s been focused on the global macro environment.

📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.

📈 Check out the CI Futures platform to forecast currencies, commodities, and equity indices

This QuickHit episode was recorded on December 16, 2021.

The views and opinions expressed in this The year ahead: What have we learned from 2021? (Part 2) Quickhit episode are those of the guest and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any contents provided by our guest are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

Show Notes

TN: When you look at what’s happening in China domestically, with the economy and with the political structure, I’m also curious about their outward political projection. And I do worry about Northeast Asia. Not just China, but Japan, Korea. And I’m curious, since you have such a historical background, I’m curious what you think about China in terms of political projection, say for 2022. Are you worried that they’re going to become aggressive in ’22?

PPG: Not ’22. You’ve got enough crap on your own doorstep at home without exacerbating the situation. And if you actually look through what’s going on, well, you can read what the Global Times says and things like the Wegar bill is clearly going to cause some short term aggravation. But overall, my sense is over the past few months, we’ve had a more of a nuanced approach that we need to just tone it down a bit, just dampen down the Wolf Warriors a little bit.

TN: They’re getting it.

PPG: You know what I mean? Down the line, ultimately. Clearly, Japan is arming significantly. Australia. We’ve got the whole quad or whatever you want to call it.

TN: Right.

PPG: One of the biggest problems, of course, has been the abject failure of US foreign policy over the past 20 years. So apart from Gulf War 2, worst disastrous war in history ever when we look at the consequences. Then the GFC.

So everyone they’re all focused on various different things. China’s love the vacuum and it’s been able to get away with loads of stuff, And Biden’s foreign policy towards China is not just China, obviously, but other places abject. Much as it irritates, so over here, I told people people, they love ranting about Trump.

Well, presentationally, he was awful. Foreign policy actually was the best foreign policy that came from the US in decades. Well, okay, assisted by people calling the establishment as well.

TN: But. The difference there is it was outcomes based foreign policy. Right. And I think what Americans have forgotten, particularly over the last 30 years, is it’s really been input space, foreign policy, values and other stuff, which is great. But we had, I think, through the probably 50s, a very pragmatic output based foreign policy. What are the outcomes? That’s the objective. And diplomacy school, my graduate work was in diplomacy, they’ve really focused on the other side of the equation with a fuzzy idea of the outcomes.

And I think what Trump brought, like him or hate him, what he brought was a focus on, a dogged focus on the outcomes of foreign policy. Right. A lot of people hate him. That’s fine. But it was a very pragmatic foreign policy environment in the US.

PPG: Yeah, going forward. And I think there’s a legacy of that now. The one thing the Congress, the only bypass is an issue on the hill is China. And Trump didn’t give a damn about human rights in Uighurs or Hong Kong. They veto proof majorities that he wasn’t going to go through the humiliation of being having a veto overturned. So he just had to roll with it. It actually was more of an inconvenience for him, I think. And then he’s people like Pompeo and military as well.

Overall, I think China, going back to the South China Morning Post article. They were saying that China could hit 5% growth with all the stimulus. Now, if you look at what will GDP activities now and the fixed asset investment. This year, forget about the year-on-year number because that’s the source, but it’s only grown. So I go through the data. I do a lot of data mining. I’m not particularly quantitative. I just sit there with some excel one plus times that times that times that.

TN: Sure.

PPG: Well, there’s only growth nominal terms, 1.6% year to date.

TN: Right. That’s a developed economy number. That’s not a growth economy number.

PPG: That’s a nominal number. Don’t forget. So given the fixed active effort uses lots of steel and cement and commodities which have all gone up in price. Actually, that number is a big fat, real negative. That’s sort of 49 year to date. I think the MBS came out year to date, that’s 49 trillion CNY. So pretty much still out there. That good 4 to 5% of GDP. Retail sales are only up 3.9%. That allows CPI at 1.6%. Either number is still like the lowest on record outside of the immediate pandemic shutdown.

So you sort of wonder where on Earth they come up with their growth numbers for the year? And for it, they’ve got a bit of boost to their exports from the trade surplus and a lack of collapse in tourism because Chinese is a big tourist. So the current account is being boosted. So that flatters the GDP. But even the Chinese next year expect net exports to come down. And if I’m right about the durable goods argument, then that’s even worse for the Chinese trade surface.

TN: Sure. I think you’re right.

PPG: So you’re left with what can they do?

TN: Can I ask you also something because you mentioned retail sales and consumer goods. I’m curious. With all of the real estate woes in China, how much of consumer debt in China is secured by real estate assets? Is that an issue? And how much of a crimp will that put on consumer spending?

PPG: That’s a tough one, because we know overall, the LTVs are very low. But we also know there’s 50 to 60 million vacant apartments. Chinese have a surreal concept about owning. They count as an investment property.

And if you rent it out, it sort of loses its original status. For what’s the description. But the problem is if you’re introducing these property taxes and you’re going in like that, well, then you are seeing second hand homes. I mean, the official home numbers are nonsense when we know full well that developers are sending stuff at big deep discounts.

TN: Right.

PPG: But by large, I think Chinese will just, it will affect sentiment. And some people are highly leveraged. So there are. Personal bankruptcy is still an infant industry in China. It’s not really established in the courts.

TN: There’s so much around it. It’s terrible.

PPG: It clearly is already dampening consumer confidence. And if the real estate is slowing in production, so we know that new sites, new land sales collapse. So that tells you going forward over the next two years, new construction activity is going to be much reduced. And if you’re not building homes, then you’re not going to be filling them with washing machines.

TN: Right.

PPG: I was actually looking at I think it was a big lift manufacturers like Otis and stuff like that. And you’re just going like, you look at the stock price and I think they’re up there and you’re going, like, well, Chinese real estate can’t go down there. You’re just thinking like, yeah, I mean, I basically have a big aversion to anything related or household good related book stock, but I’m not an equity man. I’m a bond man through and through. That’s what I do.

TN: It all makes sense. The logic is there. And given the direction we’re headed, all of this makes a huge amount of sense, especially for kind of ’22. I think 21 a lot of it’s behind us. And there are a lot of questions and a lot of I think, still skepticism around what we’ve heard globally in ’21 about the impact of spending and monetary policy.

But, Patrick, if you don’t mind, you had mentioned US foreign policy. So let’s focus on the US for a minute. And with the midterm elections in the US, and you seem to be skeptical about kind of positive momentum in the US economy, I’m really curious what your view on the US is for the year ahead?

PPG: Well, we got two things. One, we’ve got a big fiscal contraction. We shouldn’t underestimate how much the fiscal expansion has flattered the US economy because it was so large and that’s clearly massively in reverse.

One of the things, I don’t know the exact details of it, but something that US equity analyst convenience to ignore when it comes to earnings is if I ask the question, well, don’t you think 800 billion of PPP loans might have flattered your fingers as a whole? All the other loans to Airlines or stuff like that? US Airlines basically got extremely generously treated. UK Airlines haven’t. Like VA or Virgin Aircraft.

TN: All Americans are really unhappy about all the money the airlines got because the quality of service is terrible.

PPG: Yes. But, for example, the distortions, it’s really like they’re still echoing through. Like, I was talking about the monetary stimulus. It takes longer to pass through the economy. What’s the analogy? It’s like a python eating an elephant.

TN: Right.

PPG: It just takes longer to digest.

TN: Right.

PPG: Probably, extreme example. You get the point. When we look at all the fiscal front, we know that’s much less the hope for fiscal stimulus if you think where we were at the beginning of this year and everyone was going, oh, wow. It’s great. Biden’s going to push so much through. Well, we only just got the infrastructure bill through.

TN: Underwhelming infrastructure bill.

PPG: Yeah. And Build Back Better is still not through. And the fact the centrist Democrats are resisting not just Manchin, but overall, there’s much more of a realization that just look at Biden’s approval role. But the good thing is it’s supposed to be damping down the progressive, different word for them.

And then clearly Virginia shot the dams. And it’s basically long standing. Congresspeople are retiring in record numbers because they don’t want to have the humiliation of losing their district coming up. So let’s presume that the form book is correct. That basically Republicans probably take both houses. Certainly the House. Well, that stymies everything.

The administration has got a window doing stuff, plus dealing with inflation and stuff like that. And it’s always like, well, now you’ve got the administration going, well, we want to do this. But actually, Holy shit, the inflation has got out of control. We need the Fed to come in. And lo and behold, the Fed has just had, we’ve had a big move in short term rates pricing to the point when you’ve got 60 basis point increase in the dots, which we’ve never had before.

And if you said to someone a year ago, what do you think would happen if 60 basis points was added to the dots? Between what quarter? They say the dollar would surge. The curve was flattened. In fact, what we’re seeing is because so much is priced in that the curve is steepening and the dollar is softening. But there are other elements going on there as well.

And if the US economy in the great, you know, between the greatest economy ever couldn’t handle rates going back to two and a half percent and a minor reduction in the size of the balance sheets. And my view was that Fed should have probably stopped at one and three quarters rather than two and a half at most, because they forgot about the lags that they keep on telling us about. That the idea of the US economy with so much more debt, normally, it’s gone from 240%, 250% of GDP to 275 now.

TN: Right.

PPG: Basically, we’ll bring that down a little bit. But it’s gone up by 10% share GDP. So how sensitive is the US economy going to be to 150 basis points? Certainly. This is what the Fed is talking about now, by the end of 2023. Another 50 in ’24 plus balance sheet reduction as well. I just can’t see it getting there. So I’m skeptic that we’ll necessarily see Fed funds getting back to 1%.

TN: Two years is a long time.

PPG: Two years is a long time.

TN: I think, in general terms what I’m seeing. And I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying, but for the past two years, we’ve seen a private sector that’s been fixated on the public sector. Meaning the Covid regulations, the Covid stimulus, all this stuff. And it seems to me that with that stimulus disappearing and with the chaos in DC and at the state level, private sector will start focusing on the private sector and their customers instead of government. Does that sound fair?

PPG: Yeah. Although let’s not be too nice on the private sector. There’s large parts of the private sector that clearly gouged. The interesting one is, of course, global shipping. So if global shipping really disrupted and the costs have really gone up so much, how come is it that people like mask have made more money in the past year than they’ve made in the past 15 years combined? Because it’s clearly capitalized. Oligopoly is going on there, and they are gouging people. That will fade over time.

My biggest concern is actually what is the risk of a demand shock? So the Fed starts draining liquidity and we forget just how sensitive the US and the global economy is to the flow of the US money. And I think it’s the flows that is the thing. So it’s this whole point about there’s a sort of delicate tipping point in terms of if you think about it. I’m a big one for analogies. It’s been like an artery. How low does the blood flow have to get before you faint?

TN: So you’re saying that the flow will stop, but the stock will remain. Are they going to start selling off those balance sheet assets?

PPG: The Fed at some point. Sorry, the Fed.

TN: But not in ’22?

PPG: No, but I think they’ll see. But clearly the fact that they were already talking about this in terms of let’s reduce assets that. Well, fine. If we do the 75 basis points, we’re not going to wait until we get to one and a half, or as it did last time around. We’ll probably start reducing the balance sheet earlier because it’s a nice little tool. And actually, it’s quite a good tool if you want to crumble down on mortgages.

So what was noticeable in the last Redux was because the Fed was buying such a large share of them pretty much 100% of all mortgage where I stopped buying 100% all treasury issuance. But once they started reducing the mortgages, that was when mortgage spreads versus the 30 year mortgage versus the loan bonds actually really started to widen out.

TN: Right.

PPG: And then that mortgages are really the underlying credit of the credit market.

TN: Of course.

PPG: So everyone knows all the Treasuries, actually. And I think mortgages are a better reference than OAS or something. I’d rather look at a mortgage than bond against credit, and that filters through to the whole credit market. I’m never left with a situation where you have record shares of US business debt. If you look at the flow of funds reports, US business debt is a record share of GDP.

So I love the bullshit we get from the corporate. So again, the equity analysts who basically, I think should just should not be left in a room with any hard surfaces. So they go out and they say, oh, yeah, we got record amounts of cash on the balance sheet. So you had I think it was Viacom back, Wall Street Journal normal. Sort of. Yeah, on the corporate sector. Wonderful. Viacom CFO going, oh, yeah. We’ve got like 10.7 billion of liquid assets on a balance sheet. At the same time, Conveniently forget to mention that they had 170 billion of debt. Right? You don’t have any billion of debt. Things go wrong. Your ten or billion doesn’t go that far.

TN: I’ve heard over the past few months as talk of tapering has intensified. And I bring up the taper tantrum to people from 2015, and there seems to be a resistance that we’ll have a taper tantrum this time. And I kind of find that a little bit rose-tinted. There has to be a backlash.

PPG: Well, I think we’ve already had it. Quite honestly. I think we’ve already had it. If we look at some of the moves, if you’re a rate trader and you specialize in rates, we had some big swings. Look at the curve. So 530s in the bond curve before the tipping point was the minutes from the April meeting. So Powell being going on about we might be talking about paper. And then actually the minutes come out and said some participants said it’s time to maybe start discussing taper. And then the 530 was at 155. We’ve been down to 55 now. A 100 basis points with a big long. So there’s been a sort of subtle taper.

I also think you have to go back to the psychology of 2013, really, when we had the taper tantrum when rates exploded. We were still very much in a mindset. And central bankers were, too that we revert to normal, that rates would revert to where their previous level was. And it’s the educational experience. You think about all those Fed objections, all their dot points, and it took them to the the end of 2015 to do the first 25 basis point hike. It took them another year to do the second 25 basis point hike.

So I think we’re scarred by experience now. So there’s not the taper tantrum as of such at the same time, equities. It’s all fine, but they don’t realize how sensitive the economy is to the marginal changes in money.

TN: Very good. Patrick, thanks so much for your time. This is really a level of depth that I think everyone will appreciate. And I think the views are fascinating because it’s view of ’22 that I don’t think they’ll get anywhere else. So thank you very much for your time and just wish you all the best for ’22.

PPG: Yeah. Thank you. Happy Christmas. Happy holidays. And you have politically correct happy.

TN: Thank you, Sir.

Podcasts

BBC Business Matters: US Budget Row

Post author By admin
Post date October 29, 2021
No Comments on BBC Business Matters: US Budget Row

BBC Business Matters is joined by our founder Tony Nash for this episode to talk about US’s $3.5 trillion spending plans. Will it get approved before the G20 meeting in Glasgow? Also discussed are the energy crisis with very high gas prices and Russia’s use of energy as a political weapon against Europe. Has Houston changed because of the pandemic and discussion on climate change?

This podcast was published on October 28, 2021 and the original source can be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172xvqltqn8n2y.

BBC Business Matters Description:

There are intensive discussions on Capitol Hill to try and break the deadlock over his proposed $3.5 trillion spending plans. Those plans have lead to deep divisions in his own Democratic Party. So how close to a deal are we? We get analysis from Natalie Andrews, Congress Reporter for the Wall Street Journal. And is Russia using energy as a political weapon? The question is frequently asked in Europe and it’s now being asked in Moldova, a former Soviet Republic that’s been trying to move away from Russia’s orbit and develop closer ties to the EU. It follows the decision by the Russian state-owned gas company Gazprom to reduce supplies to Moldova and to threaten to suspend them completely. Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg has been to Moldova to find out what’s behind the latest gas crisis. Also in the programme, we look at why has the iconic French fashion house Jean Paul Gaultier – known for cone-shaped corsets worn by Madonna for example – decided to allow people to rent some of its most iconic pieces? And Fergus Nicoll investigates what efforts are some cities making to combat climate change. And we’re joined throughout the programme by Tony Nash Tony Nash of Complete Intelligence in Houston, Texas and Jeanette Rodrigues, South Asia Managing Editor of Bloomberg in Dubai.

Show Notes

RT: Tony Nash, founder of the Complete Intelligence, is based in Houston in Texas. And I would imagine, Tony, that you’ve been watching a bit of baseball over the last few days.

TN: Just a little bit Rahul. Thank you.

RT: And if it’s been good for you so far.

TN: Well, up until last night, it was pretty good. It’s the World Series Baseball Championship. The Houston Astros are in the final two teams playing for the Championship.

RT: And the reason they didn’t go so well because I don’t think they won their first game that we may have talked to Tony a little bit more about that in the program.

Tony, can I come to you here first? Because we heard from the Moldova and government Minister. They’re saying, “Look, I can’t predict where gas prices are going to be in two months time.” As much as of the Northern Hemisphere goes into winter. Gone. Has the guest for us. Where do you think gas prices are going to be higher or lower than where they are now? Because they are very high, aren’t they?

TN: Gas prices continue to rise for at least the next two months, if not into, say, February. So we have tight gas supplies now. We have growing demand now. We have people, a lot of whom are in their house all day, so they have to heat their house where they would normally be in an office, those sorts of things. So it’s an issue that we haven’t really had to face for quite some time. At the same time, we’re seeing inflation in other areas hitting people’s pocketbooks. So I think it’s sensitive in a way that many, many people could not have seen.

RT: President Biden is leaving for the G20 summit in Rome. Then, of course, he’s coming to Glasgow. The COP26. Will you have a deal? Do you think, Tony before he departs American shores?

TN: I don’t think so. There’s a problem with paying for it. And it’s really strange to hear someone say that Democrats are saying they’ll literally vote for anything that goes to the floor, which tells me they’re pretty desperate for something. They’ve tried things like what they’re calling a billionaire tax, which is actually a tax on income of even things that are in your retirement account portfolio.

RT: But is that not a bad idea maybe to try and generate some money? A lot of our listeners will be thinking it’s quite surprising that America doesn’t have paid family leave already?

TN: Well, companies do offer people time off and paid time off when they have a child or something like that, or when there’s a sick family member or something like that. So it’s not something that doesn’t happen here in America. I think somehow it’s being portrayed that Americans don’t do that. It’s not 8 to 12 weeks or something like it is in Europe. But there is time off for that sort of thing. So we’re just in a different place in our social development and we prioritize different things thanEurope. So I think the US is not Europe. The US will never be Europe, or it’ll be a long, long time before it’s Europe. And American taxpayers aren’t willing to pay for that. So they have to find a way to pay for it. And the problem is they can’t find a way to pay for the programs that they want in the bill.

RT: So what’s the soultion going to be here because there will have to be that always is.

TN: A smaller bill. That’s it. I mean, it’s going to be a smaller bill. It’s going to be a trillion, maybe slightly more, something like that, which… I just want to repeat that and say it slowly, a trillion dollars. Okay. So let that sink in. This is not small money. Okay. And it’s a very political tactic to aim very high and then act like you’re disappointed when it comes in at a third of that. But it’s still a TRILLION dollars. Okay. That’s less than the entire bailout of the global financial crisis in the US economy, which was 860 billion or something like that. So it’s less than that entire bailout. So it’s huge money.

RT: It is a lot of money. Let’s look at where you are, Tony, because you’re in Texas, a region synonymous, really, with oil and with gas. As we see these prices increasing so dramatically, do you think that people within those industries, then look at it and think maybe they have a longer shelf life then some people thought they were going to do with that movement to renewables?

TN: Oh, yeah, I think they do. I don’t think hydrocarbons are going away, partly because every plastic that you use is made from hydrocarbons. When Greenpeace protested a vessel, they used a plastic boat to protest. Plastics aren’t going away. I think that the bigger issue that you raised is energy as a political weapon. And I think Russia using energy as a political weapon toward Maldova, toward Europe, toward China, toward other places, I think is a reality that we face when you face tight supplies.

RT: Do you think Europe was naive here in some respects, because if you look at it now, with so much of Europe and Europe dependent on Russian gas supplies, this was always going to be a possibility, if not a probability.

TN: Absolutely. Yes. So, look, I live in Texas. We sell oil and gas to the world. If we had a captive market, we would be tempted to charge higher prices. But we sell to markets all over the world in a competitive system. Europe locked itself into the agreement with Russia, and we could have a long discussion about this. But Europe locked itself in, and so they’re captive. And that’s a huge problem for Europe. And that’s one that Angela Merkel’s and others got Europe into. And conveniently, they’re not going to be around to get them out because they’re out of office. So it’s a really convenient agreement that they came to just in time for them to go out of office.

RT: Let’s go to Houston, Texas. And, Tony, are you seeing Houston change very much, whether that’s a consequence of the pandemic, whether that’s because of a debate about the climate?

TN: So we have obviously a lot of very large oil and gas firms here. And there is a lot of investment in alternative energy sources by those players. So you could argue that it’s just an ESG play for the equity markets. But I think there is sincerity within the companies to be the sources of energy, not necessarily just to be the source of oil and gas.

RT: What if they put in? Do you have no car zones in Houston? How would that go down with the public there?

TN: Houston is a pretty spread out town. So there are some streets that are no car streets, but it’s not large areas, and it’s in very small kind of old-ish parts of town. But other towns? Yeah, absolutely. Up in Dallas, other places, Austin, definitely. There are no car zones in those towns as well. Houston is just a very spread out town. And so it’s very hard to do here.

RT: Tony, let’s come to you first. Let’s ask you, what are you wearing at the moment, Tony, are you wearing a smoking tuxedo jacket? I hope you’re wearing something.

TN: I am head to toe couture. I mean, everything I wear every day is couture. I’m kidding. I’m just in a light blue shirt and jeans. Just came straight from work. But when I think about this business, your guest described negotiate Close as rich and sexy. That describes me perfectly. So of course, I’m going to be a customer.

RT: Okay, let’s get a bit more personal if you are married, if you don’t mind me asking, of course. What did you wear on your wedding day?

TN: Well, this was in the 90s. I wore a Hugo Boss tuxedo. My wife wore a custom dress. So we were married in Sausalito, California. It was a wonderful day.

RT: I’m sure it was. And I suppose you could afford to do that. But if you couldn’t have afforded that, would you now, if you’re going to get married again? Clearly, hopefully not. But would you consider renting something expensive that you couldn’t be able to afford?

TN: Yeah. Why not? Sure if I wanted to. I would absolutely do it.

RT: Tony, next time you’re on Business Matters, we expect you to be in your wedding suit and we expect pictures to be posted as well. Do you think it does? I know what you’re talking about, Jean Paul Gaultier. Do you think it does diminish the brand if they’re renting some of those close out? Does it lose a little bit?

TN: I think right now with kind of the borrowing culture that we have the renting culture, I really don’t think it loses anything. I think people want the experience of doing something nice, wearing something nice, eating something nice and I don’t think it diminishes at all. I think when I was in my 20s, owning it was necessary. Now I think people are happy to rent.

RT: That’s is a very good point. Thank you, Tony. Thank you, Jeanette. If you want to listen to something nice tune into Business Matters, we’ll be back. Same time. Same place tomorrow. Bye.

Visual (Videos)

Retail sales, jobless claims and the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill

Post author By admin
Post date September 21, 2021
No Comments on Retail sales, jobless claims and the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill

CEO Tony Nash joins CNA’s Asia First program to explain the logic behind the US market’s performance. Will the better-than-expected retail sales continue to the Christmas season? What is his outlook for Q3 and what’s hampering the economic recovery in the States? And what are at stake around the success of the $3.5T infrastructure bill?

This video segment was published on September 17, 2021 and is originally from Channel News Asia’s videos on demand, which can be found at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/asia-first/fri-17-sep-2021-2186306

Show Notes

CNA: Well, Wall Street closed mixed in the State overnight as the major indices fail to build on Wednesday strong performance, while for the session, the blue chip Dow closed lower by two tenths of 1%, and the S&P 500 fell by a similar percentage.

However, the Nasdaq managed to eak out second consecutive day of gains. Well, this after investors digested mixed economic readings released before with the opening Bell when August retail sales surprised the market and rose 0.7% from the month prior, with analyst expecting a decline. But on the downside, jobless claims rose from last week’s pandemic low.

Of course, to help us understand the logic behind all the market movements were joined by Tony Nash, founder and CEO with Complete Intelligence, speaking to us from Houston, Texas. Very good evening to you, Tony.

So we’re looking at the better than expected retail sales number. And do you expect that momentum to continue given that we are 100 days away to Christmas in the State side and 99 days away from here in Singapore side.

TN: And we certainly hope that continues. But it’s really uncertain, given some of the corporate outlooks and given some of the other indicators that we’ve seen: purchasing managers indices and the regional Fed reports, Fed Manufacturing reports.

The port hold-ups in Long Beach are not helpful either. It’s really hurt supply chain. So we could see that spending tick up. But we do expect prices to continue to rise. And so there’s really a trade off there in terms of the volume that’s sold and the value that’s sold. And when we’re looking at, say a 1% rise in value of retail sales, that’s quite frankly, not even keeping up with inflation.

CNA: In the meantime, we’re also seeing that the weekly jobless claims increased. And of course, before that, many economist with organizations like JP Morgan has downgraded their third quarter economic growth outlook. So what is your outlook there and what is hampering economic recovery over there in the State Side?

TN: Well, it’s really companies are not seeing great investment opportunities. So the demand for credit in the US, just like in China, and just like in Europe, the demand for credit is really declining.

So we’re not seeing companies spend on big ticket items. They’re not investing on new equipment, they’re not investing on new projects. And so that’s hurting everything downstream because there are impacts across the economic spectrum when companies decide to spend on big ticket items. This is hurting the US. It’s hurting China. It’s hurting Europe.

So between now and you mentioned the end of the year, we expect that corporate spending to have an impact, the damper in corporate spending. We expect the supply chain difficulties and inflation have impacts as well. And if unemployment continues to tick up like it did, we could have a very difficult Christmas season. And the Fed and city administration here in the US are really contending with that, because as they go into the last quarter of the year, they’d really like to see things tick up.

CNA: And talking about those spending of course, there’s one catalyst that investors are watching out would be the passage of the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill. But given the situation that a Biden is facing now, do you think that this increasing likelihood that this bill can’t be get past?

TN: Yeah, I think you’re right. With the failed withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden has really lost a lot of the support from Democratic moderates. And so he’s got the support of the extreme left Democrats. But a lot of the Democrats in the middle are really starting to say, “Hold on a minute. We need to be really careful about how much we support Biden,” because those guys have to be reelected in November of ’22. So from here on out, the voters in their respective districts will be paying a lot of attention to what they’re doing.

This 3.5 trillion infrastructure plan, only 1.2 trillion of it, I say “only” but 1.2 trillion of it is dedicated towards real hard infrastructure. The rest of it is a lot of social spending, a lot of pet projects, and that’s a lot of money. 2 trillion plus dollars.

So Americans are really tired of seeing big stimulus programs put out, and they’re really tired of seeing the pork going to people connected to politicians. So they’d much rather see the lower $1.2 trillion program. It’ll go direct to infrastructure. They’ll see it. It’ll be a very tangible spend.

One other thing to keep in mind is there is still $300 billion that haven’t been spent from the stimulus program that came out in Q1 of 2021. So a lot of Americans are asking, why do we need to green light another three plus trillion dollars in spending if we still have $300 billion that’s unspent?

CNA: All right, Tony, thank you so much indeed, for your analysis. Tony Nash, founder and CEO with Complete Intelligence.

QuickHit

The Fed & ECB Playbooks: What are they thinking right now? (Part 1)

Post author By admin
Post date August 2, 2021
No Comments on The Fed & ECB Playbooks: What are they thinking right now? (Part 1)

Geopolitics experts Albert Marko and Nick Glinsman are back on QuickHit for a discussion on the Federal Reserve, the ECB, and central banks. What are they thinking right now?

Albert Marko advises financial firms and some high net worth individuals on how politics works in D.C.. He worked with congressional members and their staff for the past 15 to 20 years. In his words, Albert basically is a tour guide for them to figure out how to invest their money.

Nick Glinsman is the co-founder and CIO of EVO Capital LLC. He does a lot of writing and some portfolio management. He was a macro portfolio manager in one of the big micro funds in London for quite a few years. Prior to that, Nick was with Salomon Brothers. Now, he concentrates on providing key intel, both economics and politics on a global level to finance managers and politicos.

You can go here for Part 2 of the discussion.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel.

💌 Subscribe to CI Newsletter and gain AI-driven intelligence.

📊 Forward-looking companies become more profitable with Complete Intelligence. The only fully automated and globally integrated AI platform for smarter cost and revenue planning. Book a demo here.

📈 Check out the CI Futures platform to forecast currencies, commodities, and equity indices

This QuickHit episode was recorded on July 29, 2021.

The views and opinions expressed in this The Fed & ECB Playbooks: What are they thinking right now? (Part 1) QuickHit episode are those of the guest and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Complete Intelligence. Any contents provided by our guest are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any political party, religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.

Show Notes

TN: Today we’re talking about central banks and given where we are in “the cycle”, whatever that means at this point, post or late Covid, we’ve had waves of support coming from finance ministries and treasuries and central banks around the world. Central banks seem to be in a very weird position right now. So I’d really love to understand your point of view particularly what the Fed and the ECB thinking about right now and what are some of the biggest dilemmas they have? Nick, if you want to go first and frame that out a little bit and then Albert, will obviously go to you.

NG: Well, given how long I’ve been doing this, I’m more of a traditional, black coated central bank watcher. And I would say a couple of key comments to make right now is I think they’ve lost their independence to a large extent. Harder for the ECB to lose its independence. But with the commission, you have that loss.

I also think that we are, defective monetary financing. And again, I’ll go back to the ECB, who literally for the last month, for everything that was issued in Europe and this reluctance by the Fed to, even they admit talking about talking about tapering, but this reluctance to even consider a pullback on the mortgage-backed securities. The jest, pretty much the same, and it’s very clear with a lot of the actions that I’m in, my interpretation is, one, they’re working in cahoots with the political arm.

So treasury in the US, commission in Europe. Bank of England is a slight exception about to happen, but we can cover that later. So that’s clearly going on. And I think now Albert might do a lot of work together and I think this Albert came out with a comment a while back saying Yellen wants six trillion dollars fiscal. And the excuse that was given, aside from the political bias, was the Treasury market needs it.

And interesting enough, we saw the change to the Repos yesterday. This was after criticism by a committee that was published in the F.T. yesterday. And even Bill Dudley’s commented on Today suggesting that a lot more work needs to be done to ensure that the normal functioning of the plumbing behind the form of safe assets.

So it’s clear to me that things are being worked on in a politically coordinated way that impacts monetary policy. Now, I think they’ve got themselves into an economic or policy black hole. I think the mind set, and it’s been like this since probably ’08, which is they’re not prepared to accept the economic cycle anymore.

So back to one of my previous appearances on on your pod, the Fed not doing anything? Yeah, it seems to me that that’s an acceptable process, regardless of inflation is way above their forecast. And forecasting that’s a whole ‘nother bad area for the… Fed’s forecasts are terribly wrong. The ECB’s forecasts have been wrong for, you know, since time immemorial.

The ECB is more dangerous because they have a bias that keeps them on their policy’s wreck.

TN: So first on forecasts, if any central bankers are watching, I can help you with that. Second, when you say they don’t believe in the business cycle anymore, do you mean the central banks or do you mean the political folks?

NG: The central banks and government. I mean, funnily enough, I’m reading a biography on Jim Baker right now. And when you look at Reagan, when he came in and Volcker, economic data was pretty bad back at the beginning of the 80s. That. No way, no politician is prepared to accept that anymore. To be honest, I think the central bankers are prepared to accept that anymore. Any of the people leading the central banks being political appointees, of course.

TN: So this is kind of beyond a Keynesian point of view, because even Keynesians believed in a business cycle, right?

NG: It’s a traditional Keynesian point of view. The modern day, neo Keynesian, yes, you’re right. Way beyond what they’re thinking.

TN: There’s a lot of detail in that, and I think we could spend an hour talking about every third thing you said there. So I really do appreciate that. Albert. Can you tell us both Fed and ECB, what are they thinking about right now? What are the trade offs? What are the fears they have?

AM: We’ll start with the ECB. The ECB is not even a junior player right now in the central bank world. I know people want to look at the EU and say, oh, it’s a massive trading bloc, so and so. But the fact is, that it’s completely insolvent. Besides the Germans and maybe the French in some sectors, there’s nothing else in Europe that’s even worth looking at at the moment.

As for the ECB’s standpoint, you know, they’re still powerless. I mean, the Federal Reserve makes all the policy. They first will talk to the Anglosphere banks that are on the dollar standard basically. I mean, the Pound and the Australian dollar and whatnot. They’re just Euro Dollar tentacles. But, for the ECB, they’re frustrated right now because they see that the Euro keeps going up and their export driving market is just taking a battering at the moment. But they can’t do anything because the Fed goes and buys Euros on the open market to drop the price of the Dollar to promote the equities in the United States. And that’s just happening right now.

When it comes to the Fed, we have to look at what is the Fed, right? Normally what everyone is taught in school is that they are an independent entity that looks over the market and so on and so forth. Right. But these guys are political appointees. These guys have money and donors. They play with both political parties. Right now, the Democrats have complete control of the Federal Reserve. And everyone wants to look at Jerome Powell as the Fed chair, but I’ve said this multiple times on Twitter, the real Fed chair is Larry Fink. He’s got Powell’s portfolio under management of BlackRock. He’s the one making all the moves on the market, with the market makers and coordinating things behind the scenes. He’s the guy to look at, not Jerome Powell.

I mean, have anyone even watched Jerome Powell’s speech yesterday? It was appalling. He was overly dovish. That’s the script that he was written. He’s not the smart guy in this playing field, in this battleground.

TN: He needs a media training, actually. I think.

AM: He’s being set up to be scapegoated for a crash. He’s just no one to show. He’s a Trump appointee. So next time there’s a crash, whether it’s one week from now or one month from now, it’s going to be pointed on him that, you know, he’s the Fed chair. Look at the Fed chair. Don’t look at everything else that the political guys have made and policies in the past four or five years that have absolutely just decimated the real economy.

TN: This time reminds me, and I’m not a huge historian of the Fed, but it really reminds me of the of the Nixon era Fed where Nixon and his Fed chair had differences and they were known, and then the Fed chair ended up capitulating to do whatever Nixon wanted to get back in his good graces. Does that sound about right?

AM: No, that’s a perfect example. I mean, this idea that’s floated around by economists that economics and politics are separate entities is absolute fantasy. And it just it doesn’t exist in the real world.

NG: Just to pop in on this one because actually there is a new book out which I started three days at Camp David. Because it’s coming up to 50 years since that decision of the gold standard. Now, it’s just interesting you brought it up, because if you think of one of the rationales for coming off the gold standard, there’s several, but one that struck me as I was reading actually the review, the back cover show Percy.

This enables the government to stop printing in terms of fiscal, fiscal, fiscal. That’s what it did in effect. First of all, that’s one of the biggest arguments against people who argue for a return to the gold standard because that would decimate things or cryptos being in a limited supply of crypto as the new reserve currency because the gain that would be pulling against the elastic and you wouldn’t get, the economy would just boom. Right.

So that’s where I think it’s just huge, you know. I’ve always said that actually what we have is what we’re going to ultimately see is exactly the same cost that came with Lyndon Johnson paying for the Vietnam War, Covid. And then the Great Society, which is Joe Biden’s what I call social infrastructure and green ghost plan. So. Going back to that, Nixon was paying part of the price for all of that. With Volcke right. So I actually sit there thinking, well. There are similarities right now, and we’re seeing effectively a central bank and the Treasury, wherever you want to look, untethered from what used to be, well before I started in this business, to be part of the discipline. But even when they came off the gold standard, there was discipline. As you referred earlier, to, traditional Keynesians believed in the economic cycle of boom, bust. You know, boom, you tap the brakes a little bit, take the punch all the way. That’s gone.

That is to me what’s gone on recently, I don’t know whether you would say since the 08 or more recently is the equivalent of that ’73 meeting where they came off the gold standard. People just said no more cycles. Tapping the brakes and now the central banks are in a hole and politicized, they’re not independent because there are no.

AM: Yeah, yeah, that that’s real quick, Tony. That’s exactly right. I mean, even like, you know, I was on Twitter saying we’re going to go to 4400. We’re going to go to 4400 and people are like “No way. We’re in a bear market. This thing’s going back down 37, whatever charts and whatever Bollinger bands they want to look at. But the fact is because of the politics has a necessity to pump the market and then crash it to pass more stimulus packages. The only way was to go up to 4400 plus, right.

TN: Right. OK, now, with all of that in mind, Nick, you did a piece recently about the Fed and housing and some of the trade offs that they’re looking out looking at with regard to the housing market. Now, housing is an issue in Australia. It’s an issue in the UK. It’s an issue in the US and other places. Can you walk us through a little bit of your kind of reasoning and what you were thinking about with regard to the Fed and housing?

Podcasts

Microsoft Executive Backs Australian Government In Tech War

Post author By admin
Post date February 15, 2021
No Comments on Microsoft Executive Backs Australian Government In Tech War

Tech war in Australia, Trump’s impeachment hearing, companies moving to cheaper areas, volatility in the market, and online dating — these are some of the topics in the recent guesting of Tony Nash at BBC’s Business Matters. From Texas, he joins Rahul Tandon in UK and Michelle Jamrisko in Singapore.

What will happen to Australian businesses if Google left? Will Biden be involved in China deals? How will Trump’s impeachment hearings will bring about? How will this move to rural places evolve overtime, for example Californian companies moving to Texas? How will the stocks market play out with too much volatility with increasing number of retail investors? And will online scrabble be the new way of dating?

This podcast was published on February 12, 2021 and the original source can be found at https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x197h9pkh53

BBC Business Matters Description:

The President of Microsoft, Brad Smith, says Australia’s proposals that tech giants pay for news appearing on their services, strengthen democracy by supporting a free press. We hear more from Rebecca Klar, a tech journalist from The Hill. As the second cricket test match in this series between India and England starts this weekend, the BBC’s Rahul Tandon reports that more Indian players are now coming from smaller towns than bigger cities, and how that reflects a broader economic change taking place in the country. It’s an interesting time for dating services with the pandemic throwing the world of romance into disarray; our reporter Deborah Weitzmann has been to meet some people looking for love in the time of Covid. And we’re joined throughout the programme by Michelle Jamrisko, Blomberg’s senior Asia economy reporter who is based in Singapore and economist, Tony Nash from Complete Intelligence; he’s based in Houston.

Show Notes

RT: Will there be some sort of compromise? Because Australia, and many of the businesses in Australia, particularly small and medium sized ones, would struggle if Google suddenly left?

TN: They would. How much of a compromise there would be? I’m not sure, and I think about like GDP in Europe, that wasn’t a real huge compromise. We start to see these nation states starting to act like nation states again. We’ve seen India push back on Twitter over the past. Right? And we’re starting to see countries push back on tech giants because they’re sovereign nations.

RT: What will we see countries getting together in a unified way to push back on the tech giants because there are two very powerful sides there?

TN: I hope they do, because they rule their own countries. And it’s up to a company to learn how to operate within a geography rather than the other way around.

RT: Do you think President Biden will want to get involved in this particular issue?

TN: I don’t think so. It’s interesting when you look at, like China has their way with tech companies all day long. They cultivate their own giants and they do whatever they want with Western companies. I don’t really think Biden will get involved or want to get involved, to be honest. I think it has a lot to do with whoever is closer to the campaign and whoever is closest to the Oval Office. But I think he would want to stay out of it.

RT: Do you think minds will be changed amongst those Republicans, 17 of them are going to have to vote to impeach President Trump? That looks unlikely, doesn’t it?

TN: Well, like Joe Biden, I really don’t know of anybody who’s watched it.

RT: I read something that said this had more viewers than the first impeachment trial. But from what you’re saying, it’s not exactly something that’s bringing in the ratings figures.

TN: I’m a political nerd. I talk to people all the time. I honestly don’t know of anybody who’s watching it. So what you say is possible, but it’s just not what I see. Do I think they change minds? Look, Trump is out of office like somebody pining over like losing a football game or something. This guy is out of office. They need to just let him go. That’s the way most of the people who I speak to feel. Every politician is competitive. Every politician uses rhetoric to win. And what Trump said was no different from what many, many Republicans and Democrats have said over the last four, eight, 12, 16 years. So I think this is just a clown show and it’s not going to result in anything.

RT: Michelle raised an interesting question, that is this about preventing what happened, making sure it doesn’t happen again or is a little bit about this preventing from Donald Trump running again?

TN: It’s more the latter than the former. If we look at the Supreme Court justice discussions over the last two years, especially during the cabinet hearings, there were protests in government buildings in the capital all over the place, people being violent.

RT: But this was different and they’re very different.

TN: But I don’t understand how it was different because though this was different because there was so much ruckus made about it and people wanted to make an issue of it. But if you look at the protests and the violence around the Kavanaugh hearings and you set them side by side with what happened on January 6th, there is very, very little difference aside from the Capitol Police letting people into the Capitol building, which they did.

And it’s on footage. People also let protesters into various government buildings during the Capitol hearings. So, again, this is completely about Donald Trump. Democrats are obsessed with Donald Trump and they just need to let it go. The guy’s not even in office anymore, so they just need to let it go.

RT: It’s not going to be let go for a while. And it’s going to be a conversation that we will be continuing here on business matters over the next few days as that impeachment trial continues. And Tony, China says to the U.S. confrontation will be disastrous. President Biden says he will work with China when it benefits the American people and he will have to work with China on some issues when he particularly his ideas on climate change.

TN: We will live in an integrated world. I actually think Xi Jinping would talk a a tougher game on climate change than Biden would. He certainly has at the World Economic Forum for several years. The question is what they actually do about it.

I actually worked for the Chinese government for a couple of years and the Central Economic Planning Agency. So I understand in a very detailed matter how the Chinese government actually works. And this discussion is just preliminary. It doesn’t mean anything. OK, we’ll know in six or nine or 18 months what the real policies are.

My concerns are with, we really have to look at the people on the National Security Council in the US and their relationships with China.How many paid speeches have they had in China that those are the biggest issues that we need to look at with regard to China policy today from the U.S. perspective.

RT: That trend in India where we’re seeing the growth of what’s called Taiwan tier two, often, these much smaller towns. Is that something that you’re seeing in Texas at all or is it still very much focused around Houston, Dallas, Austin, economic growth?

TN: First on India. The tier two and three cities is something I would forecast when I was with The Economist back in those days. We did work on this 10, 15 years ago. And it’s amazing to see it happen. You go outside of cities like Chandigarh and you see what used to be fields. That is all some suburban cities. It’s really incredible to see that is in Texas.

What we’ve seen since COVID is more people are moving to semi-rural areas or buying bigger plots of land further out. And it’s some people from Texas, but it’s a lot of people from outside of Texas. Some of us, including myself, get a little bit defensive about Texas, if you can imagine.

RT: One interesting thing I think that we are seeing as well is maybe COVID will accelerate this. But this was always going to happen, that we will see businesses moving to cheaper areas. We see that in the States, don’t we? With some movement from California towards Texas?

TN: Yes, but you also see this in places like I was hearing about a technology company that in Taiwan, so the companies are based in Taipei, for example, and the workers wanted to move outside of the city since they couldn’t come into town, into the office. So they moved to small towns around Taiwan where their family was. The company actually indexed their pay based upon the cost of living to those country towns. Right. So and I think what you’ll start seeing as you see the diffusion of employment, companies will start looking at their costs and say, “look, these people aren’t paying for an apartment in Manhattan, they’re living in Iowa.” So we need to really understand where people are living. That company in Taiwan was using mobile phone records to understand where those individuals were so they can index their pay. I think you’ll see more and more of that. It’s not that people won’t be able to live. It’s just that they won’t make the salary from Manhattan while living in, say, rural Texas.

RT: I think we’re seeing that in many parts of the world with that sort of story you described. The taking place in and companies looking at and what’s happening with employees if they move to what you could describe as cheaper areas.

We had Carrie Lee here, there being a little bit cautious about what’s happening with many of these companies are going public. There is a lot of cash around from stimulus in the U.S. Interest rates are very low. Do you see this continuing?

TN: We’re very late in the investment cycle and we’ve moved from a company being valued on its earnings or future potential to a speculator’s market. And a lot of what we’re seeing in markets today are stocks that pop for one day by 50 percent and then they lose that 50 percent the next day. We just saw that with a big pot stock, a big marijuana stock over the past 24 hours here in the U.S. And people are trying to to squeeze out as much gain as they can in markets. So this this market is very long in the tooth. I just don’t see this lasting much longer because we are in such a speculative market right now.

RT: Do you not think that when stimulus begins to to slow down in many parts of the world, some of that frothiness in the markets may disappear?

TN: There’s a concept of stock, meaning how much money is in the market. And then there’s a concept of flow, meaning how much money is moving into the market. And because a lot of the investment climate right now is focused on flow. So how much money is coming in stimulus? How much money is coming in support from other mechanisms? Not necessarily a reallocation of the money that’s already in the market.

One of the big triggers potentially could be a possible disappointment with the the package coming out of the U.S. Congress. If it’s not what people have been promised, then there’s a possibility that those marginal investors who’ve been pumping stocks up by 50 percent per day could be squeezed out of the market. And then we see that flow start or grind to a trickle. And then the action really slows down and then we start to see a correction. No one wants to call a top. I don’t necessarily think this is it. I have no idea. But it is that stock and flow discussion that really worries me.

RT: The thought of dating is always absolutely petrified me. I was always happy my mom would have arranged my marriage and to Indian way somehow there were not many takers. Unfortunately, if you had to go back in the dating scene, would playing Scrabble online be your idea of romance?

TN: No. No, not at all, sorry, it just doesn’t cut it.

RT: No?

TN: We would find way. Look, I have two 19 year old kids. They get out, they’ve been social. Their friends are dating. I know it’s impacted some parts of the world in a very difficult way, but it hasn’t necessarily impacted my kids and their friends. I certainly wouldn’t settle for online scrabble. Who is the researcher at the university in London who snuck out for a hookup? I think we would sneak out outside a curfew to get things done if needed.

RT: OK. All right. Thank you, Tony. We’re getting a very different image of you now. Tony, stop sneaking out, please. No breaking curfew for you. That’s it for business matters.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Complete Intelligence is in partnership with:

Products

Resources

Company