Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s perceived dovish stance is critiqued for potentially leading to increased inflation and discontent among voters.
Market reactions to the Federal Reserve meeting were positive, resulting in a broad rally across various asset classes.
Concerns are expressed about the impact of new legislation in Hong Kong, particularly on foreign investors and the perceived shift towards authoritarianism.
The potential implications of stricter laws on data privacy and state secrets in Hong Kong are discussed, raising concerns about its impact on the region’s business environment.
Transcript
Peter Lewis
Tony, what are your thoughts? I mean, it’s interesting, isn’t it, because he’s raised the inflation forecast. He’s raised his growth forecast quite considerably, but no change to the number of rate cuts this year, although we did get one taken off for next year, didn’t we? There was going to be four next year. Now they’re only talking about three year. So I suppose one of the rate cuts has come out for next year. But what are your thoughts?
Tony Nash
I think it’s silly, Peter. We can’t be raising our economic expectations, seeing wages rise, seeing prices rise, raising our inflation expectations and saying, oh, yeah, we’re going to make money easier. Right. And he even said during the meeting that they were going to slow the pace of the offtake from the fed balance sheet. They’re cultivating an environment for pretty easy money where demand seems to be right now. And that’s how markets took it. Markets took it after the meeting and they just ran with it because he came across as very dovish. In fact, Powell has a way of coming across either way too hawkish or way too dovish. And then other Fed speakers have to course correct in the following days. So I think he probably came off way too dovish. And I think we’re going to see fed speakers over the next week. Correct. More on the hawkish side to say, whoa, that’s not really what we meant. And I really think that that’s what’s going to happen is they’ll make the three interest rate cuts seem more questionable than they are. Although the vote was unanimous, we did see a slightly more hawkish trend in the dots.
Tony Nash
Not a lot, but slightly more hawkish.
Peter Lewis
And what was also interesting was out of the 19 FOMC members, nine of them, so a minority, but a substantial minority, actually think the Fed is going to cut less than three times this year. So I think that’s maybe Jerome Powell is sort of out on a bit of a limb there, isn’t he?
Tony Nash
Yeah, I think you’re right. I do think that he does over calibrate either hawkish or dovish, depending on the direction, and I think he’s trying to signal the direction, but I think he always overdoes it just a little bit. He doesn’t have an easy job. Everyone reads everything into the way he holds his papers, the way he clears his throat or whatever. Right. I mean, everything is overly analyzed with him. But again, we have seen this where he comes out and he’s overly one way or the other. And I think, yeah, seeing those nine voters say hey, we’re not going to have three this year. I think as we’ve been talking about, my team has been talking about a resurgence in inflation for over a year, and we’ve seen it over the past couple of months, and we’re going to see that accelerate. They try to present Jan, Feb as just an aberration, but it’s not. And so it’s going to accelerate. Their expectations are going to be probably even exceeded. And it’s very difficult to have an interest rate cutting environment when you have inflation rising because it’s an election year.
Tony Nash
And consumers love, and voters love to complain justifiably about prices and prices keep rising. What did we see after the Fed meeting? We saw commodity prices soar. A lot of commodity prices soared after the Fed meeting, and that’s going to hit consumers within two. You know, this very unnecessarily dovish talk out of Powell has resulted in inflation definitely being locked in for at least two months.
Peter Lewis
Tony, I’m wondering what you think about this. Is the Fed taking a risk here? Because they basically seem to be saying the economy can run faster without generating significant overheating pressures and they’re willing to cut even while they’re still away from their target.
Tony Nash
Well, this is very similar to like a 2020 2021 argument when things were actually doing okay in the middle of COVID at least in the US, and people kept saying, hey, let it run hot. Let it run hot. Right. And it seems like we’re replaying that again, where, although people may not be using those words, the subtext is let it run hot. And I think the problem is, as Andrew was talking about GDP, the quality of that GDP is not great. It’s overwhelmingly government spending in terms of the growth areas. Okay, so we’re not having private sector growth as a contribution of GDP in the US. We’re having government spending as a growth area in GDP. And so what we’re seeing is heavy fiscal and we’re seeing dovish monetary. And so that’s great, but it just means that we’re going to see more inflation. Inflation is going to come back. Well, it already has, but it’s going to continue to accelerate. If this is the world that policymakers are comfortable with and if this is the world that policymakers are comfortable with, it makes us voters very unhappy because their pay rises are not keeping up with inflation.
Tony Nash
Now, what’s interesting, public sector pay rises are something like twice the size of private sector pay rises. So public sector wages are keeping up with inflation, but private sector wages aren’t and so this is the problem with an election year. American voters are really tired of it and inflation comes up in almost every discussion I have.
Peter Lewis
And I wonder what American voters also think about what he said about labor supply. He sort of mentioned the strength of the data on labor supply, but then he pointed to the strong pace of immigration as helping on that front. That’s rather a hot political topic to.
Tony Nash
It’s a lightning rod, and it’s not a very positive discussion in most parts of the US, even in very heavily democratic parts of the US, which favor inflation in state Massachusetts, New York, it is just a sour topic for people and it’s a very sensitive topic. So when the Fed chair gets up and says immigration is helping the labor market, it makes Americans very uncomfortable and it makes them not really like him.
Peter Lewis
Tony, what do you make of the market reaction to this? Jerome Powell didn’t talk down the rally at all, did he? In his press conference in either stocks or risk assets. He didn’t even acknowledge that this is easing financial conditions and maybe making their job a bit harder.
Tony Nash
He did not. And I think he turned it from a tech rally to an everything rally. If you look across markets at the close in the US today, and as you mentioned at the top of the program with Hong Kong was coming on strong this morning, international markets coming on strong this morning. I think with this, I think overly dovish Fed meeting, he turned the rally from a tech rally to an everything rally.
Peter Lewis
Do you think this is going to continue?
Tony Nash
It’s possible. I think we have to see how things go into the end of the week. If things stay strong into the end of the week, then look out. But I think if we start to see things stall out Thursday and Friday in the US, then we could see things settle back to the levels we had seen a few days ago.
Peter Lewis
Tony, if you look at the reaction of the yen to this, clearly the currency traders don’t think that this is the start of a sustained period of rate increases in Japan. And there’s still going to be that wide yield differential between US rates and Japanese rates.
Tony Nash
Yeah, it wasn’t a big statement. ET seems to be very conservative. He doesn’t want to be seen as shaking things up at the BOJ. He almost acts like a caretaker. And so I think currency traders expected something a little bit more. They want a little bit more in the end, want a little bit more. In terms of markets being slightly tighter, he’s not a big bold move maker and this just wasn’t it. So to see the end continue to weaken on this was just really interesting for me to watch this.
Peter Lewis
Okay. Okay, Tony, what are your thoughts? You’re obviously looking at this from overseas. As Andrew says, it’s no surprise it passed, and it passed with unanimous vote in ledge coat. But now that it has passed, and foreign investors are going to have a chance to scrutinize it and see the impact of it, is there anything to worry them?
Tony Nash
Oh, sure there is. I think the law allows trials without a jury. It allows trials behind closed doors. It allows handpicked judges. So anybody forming a company, anybody who’s a board member, anybody who’s an officer in a company, in a jurisdiction like Hong Kong, you have to worry. Why don’t you have a lot of international companies centered in Beijing because of laws like this, right? So Hong Kong, which 1020 years ago, 30 years ago, was the place to have a company because it was the most business friendly city in the world. Today it’s not that way. And if you’re an officer or director in a company, it’s got to be a little know, give you second. You know, one of the attractors for Hong Kong for a few decades has been media. There is great media in Hong Kong, but it’s no longer a media center, it’s no longer an arts center. And the sad part about that is a lot of that stuff is moving, or has moved to Singapore, which is a pretty strong state in terms of control of messages. So people are so worried about the impact of this new law on Hong Kong that they’re moving to Singapore and seeing it as a freer place than Hong Kong, completely 180 degrees from the way things were ten years ago?
Peter Lewis
John Lee and the government will say, what this Article 23 legislation does is it brings stability to Hong Kong. So will foreign investors look at that and say, yes, Hong Kong is more stable as a result of that, and that’s a positive.
Tony Nash
No, it brings opacity and it brings authoritarianism, in truth. And authoritarianism generally is stable until it. And so, you know, Singapore is an authoritarian place and it’s stable. It’s marginally freer than Hong Kong now, I guess. But no, authoritarianism doesn’t bring stability necessarily, or the stability it does bring is short lived. And again, Hong Kong was very vibrant, very creative, very interesting business hub. And I don’t think it’s totally gone, but I think the risks to officers, investors, board members and so on are much, much higher than they were before.
Peter Lewis
Tony, you are a financial analyst. If you were based in Hong Kong, would you be worried about this state secrets legislation or this state street secrets article that includes economic information, technological information on Hong Kong?
Tony Nash
Yeah, absolutely. So I used to be with a company called IHS, and it’s since been bought by S and P. But twelve or 15 years ago, there was an IHS analyst who lived in China who had some information on crude output or something like that, crude storage. And this person, from what I understand, got it from an industry association or something because they used it in a business environment. The chinese authorities prosecuted him and put him in jail for a long, long time. And at the time, I was working with the economist, but we were shocked at what was happening, because you used to be able to do research, find information, and if you could find information, you could use it to your advantage. And part of using things to your advantage is to trade on it. Right. And so if Hong Kong is to remain a vibrant financial center and a vibrant trading hub, you have to be able to dig for information. But if the Chinese authorities are going to prosecute people for finding information, then Hong Kong as a competitive center is no more. It just isn’t.
Peter Lewis
I mean, that’s what some people are worried about is that Hong Kong is becoming more like mainland China in terms of things like data privacy, state secrets, and what constitutes state secrets?
Tony Nash
Well, there are huge data centers in Hong Kong, right? I mean, there have been for 30 years. And so those data centers, I don’t know, a lot of foreign companies that people have their servers outside of China for a reason, and they have their data stored outside of China for a reason. These new laws allow the government to look into whatever they. So, you know, that stuff that has remained in Hong Kong, I’m sure at some point will move elsewhere if it’s remotely confidential.
Peter Lewis
Okay, well, thank you very much for your thoughts this morning. Great to hear you. That’s Tony Nash over in Texas, USA, who is the founder of Complete Intelligence.
In the latest episode of The Week Ahead, Tony Nash is joined by Michael Nicoletos, Tracy Shuchart, and Albert Marko. The panel first explores Russia’s recent announcement that it would use CNY for trade settlement outside of the US and Europe. Michael Nicoletos explains that this move could be viable, but it would depend on whether all countries would accept the terms of trade.
Albert Marko believes that the recent rate hike was the right thing to do and predicted that the Fed would raise rates twice more. He also criticizes the lack of depth in the economics department of some central banks, citing examples from the RBNZ and the ECB.
The panel also analyzes the energy market and predicted when we might see an uptrend. Tracy Shuchart updates the chart and pointed out that crude seemed to break the down cycle a bit, leading to a good week for the commodity. The team answers a viewer’s question about the possibility of energy prices remaining low for a long time and offered their perspectives on the matter.
Finally, the panel discusses what they expected for the Week Ahead. Michael Nicoletos predicts that the energy market would remain volatile, and Tracy Shuchart believes that the focus would be on the stock market, particularly the Nasdaq. Albert Marko highlights the importance of watching the inflation data and suggests that investors should keep an eye on the bond market.
Key themes: 1. Russia ❤️ $CNY. Why? 2. Where does the Fed (and other central banks) go from here? 3. When will we see an uptrend in energy?
This is the 58th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash and today we’re joined by Michael Nicoletos. Michael is the founder and CEO of DeFi Advisors based in Athens. We’re also joined by Tracy Shuchart of Hilltower Resource Advisors and Albert Marko. Guys, thanks so much for joining us. We have a couple of key themes and I was really in questioning mood when I put these together. The first one is around Russia and the CNY. There was an announcement this week. My question really is why? What’s the point of that? Next is where does the Fed go from here? And really where do all central banks go from here, but mainly the Fed, ECB. Albert is going to lead on that and I know Michael has some views on that as well. That’ll be really exciting to talk through. And then we’ll talk to Tracy about energy. For the first part of this week, we saw energy on an uptrend and we’ve seen a little bit of turbulence on Friday. So when do we expect to see an uptrend in energy? So again, guys, thanks for joining us. Michael, I really appreciate you taking the time from Athens to get involved with us today. Thanks so much.
Michael
Thank you. Happy to be here. Great, love to talk to you guys.
Tony
Great. So first, Michael, I know that you know a lot about China and you follow a lot of their economic activity. And I saw you commenting on this Russia announcement about CNY. Of course, they announced that they’ll use CNY for trade settlement outside of the US and Europe, which is Latin America, Africa and Asia is what they said in their announcement. So that’s about 37% of Russia’s exports. So I put a little chart together. I used UN ComTrade data.
This is 2021 data, which is the latest data that UN ComTrade has. So if they’re really doing that, Latin America is 2% of Russia’s trade, Africa is 3% of Russia’s trade. China is 14%. Okay? And so I guess is all of their trade with China settled in CNY? I seriously doubt it. And then Asia is rest of Asia is 18%. And of that about 1%, just under 1% is Taiwan. So I seriously doubt Taiwan would settle in CNY. But what’s obvious from looking at this chart is Europe is more than half of Russia’s trade. So it’s not as if this is necessarily a massive bold announcement that everything is going to be in CNY from here on out.
Tony
It really is just kind of putting a stake in the ground saying I think it’s almost a best efforts thing. So I guess is this viable? That’s really the question. And Michael, you put out this thought-provoking tweet.
You said if that were the case, China would have no issues running out of USDs. Let’s take that on and help me understand why is China trying to do this and what is the US dollar question that you have around this arrangement?
Michael
Well, first of all, again, thank you for having me. It’s great to be here. Now we need to segregate two things: wanting to do something and being able to do something. It’s clear that a lot of countries which are highly dependent on the US dollar for trading would rather be on something else and not be dependent on the dollar. We saw what happened with Russian FX Reserve when the war started. So clearly this was a warning shot or a lot of countries said we could be next if we go into a fight with the US. So clearly there is a tendency and China wants this to happen as soon as possible. Now, for this to happen, there are a lot of things that need to happen first. I’ll give just an anecdotal example because we get all this news flow and all these headlines where one signs an agreement with another and then two people or two prime ministers come up and say we’re going to do it, and everyone takes it for granted, especially on Twitter. It’s either a fanatic from one side or a fanatic from the other side. So again, I agree with everyone who is afraid of this happening in the sense that a lot of people are saying that the end of the dollar is close and that everyone’s going to go to something different.
Michael
I agree there is the willingness. I’m not sure this can happen soon, and I don’t think it can happen without some conflict occurring somewhere. So an example is that in 2018, Iran signed an agreement with China to sell oil in Yuan. Still, after four or five years, the volumes are ridiculously low. So again, there are agreements, but in order to enforce them and in order for them to happen, they take a lot more time than one would want. So Russia had no option. So because of the sanctions, they still sell to Europe, a few things, but they’re trying to outweigh it by selling more to China. And China and Russia are trying to make these agreements where they will be settling in Rubles or in Yuan. And they try to make these agreements. They want to expand them to other countries as well. However, you see, for example, India. India doesn’t want to settle in Yuan or doesn’t want to settle in ruble. They want to settle in Dirhams, which is back to the dollar. So you get all this information and the data, at least until now, does not support that there is a threat to the dollar.
Michael
There is a threat to the dollar in terms of willingness. There is no threat to the dollar in terms of data which says that this is going to happen tomorrow. So I think that this will eventually happen, but I don’t think it will happen soon. I think until it happens, we’re going to see a few episodes. And these episodes are not straightforward, how they will evolve.
Michael
Now, regarding China and its macro, the reason I’m saying what I’m saying and I’m saying that China needs dollars. China has been dependent, first of all, on its real estate, which was like 30% of its GDP. We saw what happened to the real estate. The second leg was it was highly dependent on exports. There’s a global slowdown. So these exports will have some issues. And now, how has China managed to keep this economy running? I’ll give you a few metrics to understand. The US is an economy which is like 26, I think 26 trillion of GDP. And if I’m not mistaken, its M2 is around 21 trillion. In China, the GDP is around 17 trillion, all in dollars. Okay? And M2 is $40 trillion. 40. Four, zero. So what does that mean?
Michael
The China government prints money. Prints money. Prints money. Because there are capital controls, the balloon gets bigger and bigger and bigger, but the money can’t leave, or it can leave for selected few, and I’ll explain how it leaves. And for the rest, because our capital control, the money can’t leave. So it stays in. But this is in one. Some try to buy gold, some try to invoice over invoice to Hong Kong and take it out of Hong Kong. But when the disparity is so big, clearly there is a problem. There’s an NPL problem. Chinese banks are like four times China’s GDP.
Tony
Sorry, NPL is non performing loans.
Michael
Non performing loans. Sorry. Sometimes they’re non performing. You cannot have an M2 of 40 trillion and a GDP of 17 trillion and not have non performing loans. Chinese banking system.
Tony
Sorry, I just want to go back and I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to make sure that people understand. China has currency in circulation of $40 trillion, and they have a GDP of $17 trillion. Whereas the US has a GDP of what you say 24 trillion. I don’t remember what number you’re… 26 trillion. And they have 21 trillion in circulation. Right. So for all of these people who talk about China being this economic model for other people, why does it matter that their M2 is more than double the size of their economy?
Michael
Let me say something. First of all, let’s put something that the US. Is also the global reserve currency. So everyone in the world wants dollars. It’s not like only the US wants dollars. At this stage, less than 10% of the world wants Yuan. So it’s not like everyone wants to get.
Tony
I think it’s 2.1% of transactions or something like that.
Tracy
2.8%?
Tony
2.8, yeah, transactions.
Michael
Okay. I saw a number which was around 6%. Maybe I’m wrong. Okay. But again, it’s a number which is very small.
Michael
All this money that is in the economy, if Chinese people were given the choice, they would be able to take it out. The economy is growing at a faster pace than its potential. I’ll give you a number. Right now, Chinese banks are more than 50% of global GDP in terms of size. The US, I think its peak was 32% in 1985 and Japan’s 27% in 1994. So we’ve passed all metrics in terms of the world dominant power or the dominant economy, if you want to put it this way, being a percentage of GDP in terms of banking assets. So the banking assets clearly have a lot of bad debts in there, which we cannot know what they are because the Chinese economy wants the Chinese government wants to control that. Now, there was a special committee put in place this month, I think, in order to oversee the financial situation in China. So I’m pretty sure they’re a bit worried about it. They want to switch from an export oriented economy to a consumption driven economy. But this is still less than 40% of GDP and this takes a lot of time to go like the US is around 70%, but it takes a lot of time to go for 40%, 70%.
Michael
Now, all this money stays in China. They have no option, they can’t do anything. So it’s an issue. And I’ll give you a ratio. If you take their FX reserve, it’s around 3 point something trillion. If you divide FX to M2, it’s around 7%. So if that money were to want if that money wanted to leave, in theory, only 7% can be covered by FX reserves, the fixed reserves of the government. Just to clarify, the Asian tiger crisis in 97, the tigers collapsed when the ratio went below 25%. So they didn’t have that support to keep it up.
Tony
And just be clear for the US that’s 100%, right?
Michael
The US doesn’t have any problems. So this is something that needs to be addressed and I don’t know how they will address it. They try to make all these agreements so that the one becomes a tradable currency and they can invoicing one. So if the Yuan, in theory was to become the global reserve currency tomorrow morning, their debt would become the world’s problem. Now, they haven’t managed to export that, so they need these dollars to keep that balloon, let’s say, from all the area in the balloon to be taken up. They need these FX reserves to keep the money in and they need to build confidence, and they try to build confidence with narratives and not with data. But again, they don’t have a choice right now, in my opinion.
Tony
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one- and three-month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
https://youtu.be/yYom7Zqezio
Tony
The difference between, say, the onshore and offshore CNY or CNH or whatever, there is a huge difference in perceived value. I would think you can’t change the perceived value of CNY onshore, but offshore, if people are nominating contracts in, say, I’ll say “CNY” in quotes, there is an exchange right there. But again, this M2 issue, which I can’t stress how important that is, I haven’t heard anybody else talking about this. And it’s so critical to understand the fiat value of CNY itself, right, because it’s not limited, and the government because they’re effectively fun tickets with Mao’s face on it.
Tony
Right. And that’s how the PBOC was treating it. And again, when people talk about CNY as a global reserve currency, nobody is looking at the integrity of the PBOC and nobody is looking at how the PBOC manages monetary policy in China.
Michael
I’ll give you anecdotal information. I haven’t checked the number for a few years, but the last time I checked, if you look at the import-export numbers from Hong Kong to China, and you look at the PBOC, and then you go and see the same numbers in the HKMA, you would assume that these four numbers should be the same, not the same. Import should be export and export should be imports. The numbers should be very close. The discrepancy is huge. These numbers do not reconciliate, which means that in some form there is some over invoicing to Hong Kong.
Tony
And you’re not talking about 30%, you’re talking about multiples.
Michael
You’re talking about a lot. It’s ridiculous. So I think if you see the Hong Kong peg has been stable to the upper bound lately because I guess because of the interest rate differential, a lot of money is leaving. So it’s putting pressure on Hong Kong as well. So it remains to be seen what happens there.
Tony
So let me go to Tracy. Tracy, in terms of Russia using CNY, okay? And I know you look at a lot of their energy exports, and of course there’s all this official dumb around sanctions and stuff, but what’s your kind of guess on Russia using either USD or proxy USD, Dirhams or something else as currencies for collecting on energy exports or commodity exports more broadly?
Tracy
Well, first, I think that they prefer dollars no matter what this kind of China saying we want to trade a Yuan. And Russia said, okay, but that was a suggestion. That does not mean that it’s necessarily happening. But what is really interesting is earlier this week, on Monday, Russia laid out conditions for extending the grain, the black seed grain deal, right? Because it was supposed to be for 90 days, but they cut it to 60 days because they’re trying to use that as leverage. And one of the things that they are trying to use as a leverage is they will extend the deal or they’ll give or the other part is they’ll give African countries just free grain instead of selling it. But one of the big conditions for that was for the removal of some Western sanction, specifically to get them back on Swift. And so if that happens, forget it. Everything’s going to be all the trade will be all euros and dollars.
Tony
I thought Swift was terrible and everybody wanted on Swift.
Tracy
I just thought it was important to point out because if they get back on Swift, obviously that’s going to make trading in dollars easy for everything, all commodities across the board.
Tony
Right. And so that goes back to what Michael said initially about kind of these guys really want dollars and all this other stuff. There’s the official dumb of the prime ministers meeting each other, right. And then there’s the factual activities they undertake based on the reality of their position in the world economy. Right. What are your thoughts here?
Albert
I agree with Michael and Tracy to talk about the reserve currency. Switching from the dollar to the Yuan is a joke, to be honest with you. You do have some people in other countries in the Middle East and China and whatnot talking about the death of the dollar and actual serious tone. But anyone with even like a shred of financial backing and insight knows that it’s just an impossible thing. From what it sounds like, it’s more of like a barter system. But that introduces even bigger problems. I mean, you can’t scale it up. There’s no standardization. How do you value things to begin with?
Tony
That’s it.
Albert
Valuing goods and services without using the dollar right now is just an impossibility. And on top of that, you have the political problems that come along with it. I mean, like the Saudis, they want dollars for their oil. They need defense assistance. The Greeks needed US defense assistance. The Turks, as much as they want to make noise again, they’re reliant on the US and NATO for defense and whatnot. These components not just financially, what Michael talked about and decided much more eloquently than I would ever would, but there’s also political components that you just can’t get around in the near term.
Tony
But even if they had a barter system, they would reference the price in dollars, right?
Albert
Well, yeah.
Tony
10 billion.
Tracy
Your chocolate is back to iran did that when they were first sanctioned over a decade ago. They were trading oil for gold, but it was still referencing dollars.
Albert
On top of that, you run the risk of hyperinflation eliminating dollars from your FX reserves and starting to trade away from the dollar. You’re going to end up in a hyperinflation event.
Tony
Right.
Michael
Can I say something? Can I say something? About all these points? I agree with all these points. There’s one more thing. Let’s say you trade in rubles and you trade in Yuan, okay? It means that you’re going to keep FX reserves in rubles or in Yuan. So you feel more comfortable keeping a currency from an authoritarian regime than holding the US. Dollar, which is fully liquid, fully tradable, and anyone in the street will take it at a split of a second. You need many years of track record to build that trust. There are a lot of bad things about the dollar. We agree that I don’t think anyone will say that it’s a perfect mechanism, but right now, it’s very functional, it’s very liquid. And if you want to keep your reserves in US Treasuries, you can sell them at the split of a second. You don’t have any issues with that. If you have Yuan, you’re going to do what? You’re going to buy Chinese government bonds? And how will you sell them if the PBOC calls you and says, it’s not a good idea to sell your Chinese bonds this week? We would prefer you didn’t.
Tony
Bet on the central bank, right? If you’re holding rubles, you’re betting that the Russian central bank is trustworthy. If you’re holding CNY, you’re betting that the Chinese center. So what central banks are out there that you could potentially trust? You have the Fed, you have the ECB, you have BOJ, right? Those are really the only three that are visible enough that have the scale and transparency to manage a currency. And look what the BOJ has done since Abenomics. And on and on and on. Do you trust the ECB? I don’t know. And it becomes, do you trust the ECB or the Fed more? I mean, sorry, but I just don’t trust the ECB.
Michael
I don’t trust ECB. But it’s relative. I mean, you don’t have a problem keeping Euros. Maybe it’s not your preferred choice, but you don’t lose your sleep on holding Euros. Let me put it at this stage.
Tony
That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right. Okay, guys, this is great. Let’s move on to the next thing, because I think we all agreed violently here, but I think we’re going to not agree on the next one, which I’m really excited about. So let’s talk about central banks. And where does the Fed and where do other central banks go from here? So, of course, we saw the Fed raise this week. I think it was the right thing to do. Albert, I know you think it’s the right thing to do. Markets have been up and down since then. And Albert, you’ve said that you expect the Fed to raise two more times, and I want to talk about kind of what’s behind that assertion. And then we get silly statements like this one from the RBNZ in New Zealand, where the chief economist basically says, if inflation expectations don’t fall, we’ll be forced to do more regarding interest rates.
Well, of course. Why wouldn’t you do that. So can you walk us through a little bit, kind of just very quick, because there have been thousands of hours of Fed analysis this week. But why do you think the Fed is going to raise two more times?
Albert
Supercore is trending up and it continues to trend up. Services are on fire. Real estate numbers have been on fire. There’s no slowdown in reality. I mean, even the layoffs have been slow. They’ve come from the tech sector. They haven’t come from construction or any other blue collar jobs at the moment. So until we see that, the economy is going to be red hot and it’s a problem for the Fed, inflation overall.
Tony
Okay, so play devil’s advocate here. Banking crisis, Fed had to bail out banks, all this other stuff. So why isn’t the Fed saying, let’s pause on the banking crisis worries?
Albert
Because banks are fully liquid. The big banks have no problem whatsoever. Some of these smaller banks that have no risk protocols are getting exposed. The tech heavy investments are getting exposed. Everyone knows that higher rates hurts the tech sector the most. And those banks were at fault. They didn’t hedge properly.
Tony
Now you have duration risk. I just want to be clear. I just want to make sure that people understand. You’re not saying that they failed necessarily because they’re tech, but they failed because of duration risk and then their tech depositors took their money out. Right?
Albert
Absolutely. But the banking system overall is not really at risk. They’re just shaking out some of the weaker players. But that was inevitable as interest rates have risen. A lot of the problems stem from the Fed and them guaranteeing four, five, 6% deposits, while the banks only do 1%. They can’t compete with that.
Tony
Right. Michael, I know that you think this wasn’t the right action. So what’s your perspective?
Michael
Well, let me say something first. I believe that it was a mistake, and I’ll say why it was a mistake. I think it’s a mistake when you raise interest rates as a central bank and the banks follow by raising rates on the loan side and on the deposit side, what do you do? You make debt more expensive and then you make people because you have, let’s say, a 5% interest rate on your bank, you create an opportunity cost so people want to save. So you reduce liquidity from the deposit side, and also you reduce loan demand because it’s more expensive, and that creates a slowdown. What happened now, because we had ten years of QE, everyone forgot that there was an interest rate on the deposit side. So the Fed, MDCB and all the central banks raised the interest rate. So the loan side adjusted. That became more expensive, but the deposit side stayed zero at 1%. I don’t know where this is in the US. But it’s really low. At some point, people started waking up when it arrived at 4% and they suddenly started saying, okay, I don’t have any interest on my deposit.
Michael
Let me put my money in the money market fund. How much does it give? Three, four, 5%? I don’t know. It’s a much higher rate. So I think I saw somewhere today that around 5 trillion have gone into money market funds. The numbers close to that. So when you take your money out of the deposit and you take it to a money market fund, this is the equivalent of a bank run for the bank that you’re taking the money, it’s a deposit living. It might not feel like a bank run, but on the balance sheet of a bank, it’s a bank run. So this started happening, and again, because of what you mentioned, they had invested in Treasuries and the duration risk was a mismatch. They didn’t do some of them at least hadn’t done appropriate hedging. They started losing money and they started selling this bond at a loss, although they had them at the Healthy Maturity portfolio where you don’t need to take a mark to market loss. And suddenly both sides of the balance sheet were screwed. Let me put it this way. So a few banks started going under. Now, I know that the central bank has come up and I know a lot of people come up.
Michael
And I do agree that there’s no systemic risk. And I mean that I don’t see a cascade of people losing their deposits. But nevertheless, people feel uncomfortable and try to do something about it. Either take them more money market funds or take their money from a regional bank, if they can. To JP morgan or one of the big guys. This creates a big problem for the economy. Yes, there are some signs which show that the economy is still robust. But I think a lot of leading indicators suggest that the economy is slowing down and most of the metrics coming from the inflation side have collapsed. Yes, core CPI is still high and it’s a lagging indicator, so it will take time for it to come down. But I think that given the stress we saw this week and why do I say that? Because we look at the US as a closed system. It’s not. When you raise interest rates as the Fed and you are the global reserve currency, you create a global credit crunch. You saw that last week. The Fed had come out with swap lines for everyone. You saw today that foreign banks borrowed 60 billion in liquidity, the ones that didn’t have a swap line.
Michael
And we see today Deutsche Bank being in the headlines and Commerce Bank being in the gate. So you might think that the US system is okay, but it creates a domino effect, which we’re starting to see. We saw Credit Suisse going under in a deal, which was not, I’d say, what we would think of. I believe that that deal in combination with the high rates is probably the root of the problem in the sense that they destroyed the capital structure, they wiped out all the 80 ones without wiping out the equity holders. Which means now that in Europe everyone’s wondering if my 81 is of any value. And that creates another uncertainty in combination with the higher interest rates and the stress that has started to build up. I think we’ve passed the moment where, okay, it could be debatable if they did right or if they did wrong. The US bond market is saying that it was wrong. It was a mistake. The two years at 370. And so the bond market went from the one side and the Fed went on the other side.
Tony
Why? The two year at 270 is important.
Michael
373, 70. Sorry, yeah. Three seven. Because if in two years you’re getting 3.7% and the Fed fund rate is five someone, it means that someone is buying a two year bond getting much less. Which means what? It means that the market is saying rate cuts are coming soon. So the market is saying there’s no way we can keep it this way. And the Fed is saying the opposite. Historically speaking, the bond market has been right. If you take it into context, it could be this time that they are wrong. It feels to me, at least from the stress I look in global markets and not in US. Only, that things are getting a bit out of hand. And having a bank like Credit Suisse go under, which is a big bank, and having all the central banks come in together on a Sunday night to give up swap lines, it means that the stress in the system, it’s much bigger than with yeah, but Sunday night.
Tony
Is the best time to get swap lines. Okay, so you talk about European banks, but we had Mueller from the ECB out this week saying, I wouldn’t worry about a financial crisis in Europe.
So we have ECB guys out there going, yeah, Credit Suisse happened and we know Deutsche is an issue, but I wouldn’t worry about that in Europe. So I think we’re seeing statements from Yellen, the Fed, the ECB, other guys who are saying, no, there’s nothing to see here, but then we see things kind of blowing up all over the place. Right, and then we have a question especially specifically for you, Michael, from a viewer who said, I’d like Michael’s thoughts on the EU, particularly banks, pensions and future growth prospects. So can you talk us through? How do these banking issues in Europe flow through to European pensions?
Michael
First of all, let’s say something. We’re talking about the US and.
Albert
Duration.
Michael
Risk on the bond losses. Let’s remind everyone that at the peak of QE 18 1818 trillion worth of bonds had negative yield, and these were mostly Europe and Asia. So pension funds and banks in Europe which are forced to buy these bonds were buying bonds. With a negative yield. So they were losing on day one these bonds from -50 basis bonds have gone to two and 3%, the losses on these are much greater and pension funds will have much bigger issues than the ones that have in the US we were talking about a pension crisis in the US. But the European one is pretty bad too. Just look at in France, they raised this week the year that you take your pension from 62 years old to 64 and the country is burning to the ground. Now, you understand that it’s 62 to 64. It’s not like they made 62 to 70 years old. So it’s very delicate. And the situation in Europe, given the negative bonds, given the interest rate hikes and given one more thing in Europe, given that Europe doesn’t have the dollar and it has the Euro was mostly a supply driven issue.
Michael
It means that we were importing oil and energy from Russia and from everywhere and all these commodities were priced in dollars. So as a Europe tell, the price of these commodities were more expensive. So inflation was a supply driven problem. I think there’s a report, I think from the San Francisco Fed two thirds of the inflation was supply driven in Europe. So when inflation is supply driven and you raise rates to stop it, you’re using the wrong medicine to stop the problem. You need to crash the economy in order for this to stop. This is not really efficient. Now, in the meantime, you have yields going higher and now the yields that we see on our screen on Bloomberg or anywhere are not the yield real yields because the ECB is in and tries to contain the spreads. If you left the market low, I’m pretty sure the spreads would be much, much wider. And you have the new thing which came up this week when the Swiss National Bank decided that tier one, additional tier ones would be written off and equity holder, an equity holder would be saved. Now, imagine what happened. You probably saw what happened this week, all the 80 ones in Europe got smashed because everyone says I don’t trust this instrument.
Michael
I don’t know. Yes, central bankers will come out.
Tony
These are the cocoa bonds that came out in I think, 2013, right?
Michael
Yeah, there are a few of them, yeah, but it’s a cocoa, it’s contingent convertible. It means that they’re convertible be converted to equity if something happens. Let me put it as simple as it is, but these are supposed to be wiped out before the equity. So the question is what prevents for something else similar to happen again, the ECB came out, BoE came out, they said this is not accepted. But the fear and the is now everywhere. So you have a combination of factors. You have a factor that this ECB has been raising rates when I don’t think it’s a proper mechanism to address inflation in europe, they’ve created a slowdown. If you see Germany’s numbers and everywhere’s numbers in Europe, the economy is slowing down fast. You have a discussion on the capital structure of lending, which is very critical in the way companies and banks go and borrow themselves and all this at the same time and when the US. Is draining liquidity from the global system. I think the situation in Europe is very tough. Again, after 2008, I don’t think we have a systemic risk on our hands and the risks never materialize in the same place.
Michael
But I think things are about to get tough and it’s going to be much worse before it gets any better.
Tony
So what I would offer back, and I think everything you’re saying is valid and Albert Tracy, let me know if you want to think about this, but in the US. We have a presidential election next year. There is almost no way that we will see the US economy crash in the next 24 months because Janet Yellen won’t let that happen. And so we may see issues in Europe and we may see Europe and the rest of the world suffer based on US interest rate and monetary policy. But the US. Will do everything, the current administration will do everything they can to keep the US. From crashing in that time. And I’m not just saying this because they’re Democrats, Republicans would do the same thing to keep the economy afloat in the year before an election.
Albert
Albert, what do you think about that? It depends on what is happening specifically with debt ceiling, right? I mean, Janet Yellen and the Biden administration would gladly let the economy sink, the market sink anyways if they could blame it on escape both the GOP on the debt ceiling not getting hyped. So that’s definitely something you need to watch over the next six months because it is campaign fundraising season and they can’t really agitate their voters all that much, to be honest with you. Certainly the political component is going to be high over the next twelve months.
Tony
Okay, great. Let’s move on. Thank you for that, guys. Let’s move on to energy.
Michael
Can I say something?
Tony
Absolutely. Yes, please.
Michael
What appears to be happening right now, at least in my eyes, is that the Fed is using interest rates to attack inflation and it’s using the balance sheet to give liquidity. So these two do not go in the same direction at this point. The question is if they can do this for a long time. It doesn’t feel to me that they can. But at least right now they’re giving liquidity on the one side and they’re raising rates on the other side. I’m not sure they can do this for us.
Albert
We’ve actually talked about that at length here. But it’s not the Fed. It’s really the treasury. Sterilizing QT They’re coordinating.
Michael
They’re coordinating.
Albert
Of course they coordinate for the most part, but sometimes in the last six months or the last twelve months. Powell and Yellen have been at odds with each other in policy. So this is a lot of the reasons why the markets has just been topsy turbine. Don’t understand which way it’s going because you have conflicting policy and agendas from the treasury and the Fed.
Michael
So you feel it’s conflicting or do you think it’s coordinating? They’re doing it on purpose. That’s what I haven’t figured out yet.
Albert
I think the want to eliminate excess cash in the system is coordinated but I think the policy of how they’re doing that is conflicting and that’s going to be a bigger problem, say second half of this year.
Michael
Okay, sounds logical, but it’s one of these things that pass on me. I don’t know if they’re doing it on purpose or if they do any as you say, because they’re using other tools and they step on each other doing so.
Albert
My rule of thumb is to side with incompetence rather than conspiracy.
Tony
Okay.
Michael
It’s not conspiracy when the Fed chairman talks with the treasury guy?
Albert
No, I am absolutely in your corner on this one. I absolutely believe that they talk and coordinate things for sure. I just think that their agenda at the moment doesn’t line up 100% of the time.
Michael
Okay.
Tony
Very good. Okay, thanks for that guys. Tracy, let’s talk about energy for a while. Up until Friday we had a pretty good week for crude. I thought we were breaking that down cycle a bit, but we’re seeing some chop in energy markets. And so we had a question for you from a viewer saying when do you see oil and natty in a sustainable uptrend?
Tracy
Yeah, nat gas is a whole other issue. I think it’s going to be very difficult really. We’re trading in the range that we’ve been trading in most of the time for the last 20 years or so. That $2, $3 range has been very comfortable for nat gas. We produce a lot of nat gas. Yes, we are building out LNG facilities and yes, we have had problems with freeport and such. I just think that we probably won’t really see a big spike in prices unless we see another energy crisis in Europe, do you know what I’m saying? And then we’re going to have to force to sell even more. So for right now I would kind of get comfortable with nat gas about that range. But if it starts breaking above like 375 or so I would start getting bullish. But for right now, just kind of in that area where it’s been comfortable most of the time. Right. So I think it’s going to be a while for that. So we got to kind of assess the situation in Europe as we get to summer air conditioning use and to next winter if they have a bad winter, I think it’s going to be a few more months at least down the line for natural gas as far as oil is concerned.
Tracy
Brent said about $75 right now, saudi Arabia would like it around 80, 90 range is where they’re really comfortable. I think right now what we’re going to have to get through is we’re going to have to really assess we need more time to assess Russia’s situation. They just extended that 500,000 barrel a day cut out until June. The latest records do show that they actually have cut that much so far in March. So the cut is happening, which also means that they’re experiencing kind of a pullback in demand, even though they have really it’s more on the product end rather than, I should say, rather than the crude oil end, because they have floating storage, they have ships piling up everywhere with product. And so I think that will help clear their excess product a little more. So it’s really on the product end and that we also have to see everybody’s freaking if the Fed again decides to stop raising rates or pause. I think commodities really like that situation just because of the cost of carry and transportation and storage for all these commodities is very expensive. Right.
Tony
Because.
Tracy
You get bank credit lines for that. Right. And so I think that’s putting downward pressure on markets right now. And then obviously fear of recession is kind of kicking in again after the recent bank crisis in the US. And in Europe. And so I really don’t think that we’ll see higher prices. I mean, typically this is the time of year we do start seeing higher prices heading into high summer demand season. But we’ve also been seeing, I think everybody expected China. China demanded to shoot up right away. That’s taking longer than anticipated, which I kind of have been saying that on this show for quite a few months.
Tony
Long time. Exactly.
Tracy
So I think that there’s a lot of factors involved right now. I do think, again, it’s higher for longer. Historically still, prices at $70 is high for oil. The market is crashing by any means, just coming down from geopolitically induced spike last year. I think it’s higher for longer. And definitely I could see prices go into that $110 range, but likely into 2024. Not really this year, obviously, unless something happens. Okay.
Michael
Do you think if the Fed poses or whatever reason, or if they do a rate cut, do you think that commodities will explode or do you think.
Tracy
I think if they cut, commodities would get really excited. I think if they pause, they would get excited. Right. I think we would see a rebound in a lot of these commodities, grains, things of that base metals and industrial metals and oil. But if they start cutting, then I think that they’ll really like that because then they don’t have to throw product at the market because they can’t afford to store it.
Michael
Thank you.
Albert
I’m actually quite bullish for oil in the near term. One of the reasons is I’ve heard through the grapevine that the Chicanery and the futures market and I’m reading that hedge funds and other money managers sold the equivalent of 139,000,000 barrels of oil in futures over seven days a week and a half ago. So, I mean, to me, it’s like they’re almost out of ammo when it comes to suppressing oil at the moment. And any little flare up or anything is probably going to be bullish for oil and probably shoot right back up to 80.
Tony
So what could that be, Albert?
Albert
It could be a natural event. It could be weather, I mean, some kind of economic policy stimulus from Europe coming out there, or even the United States going into, like Tracy was saying, the travel season and whatnot. It could be anything, really. I mean, I think the market is just begging for some kind of bullish signal for them to run it up.
Tony
Okay. And Tracy, if you’re sitting in Europe because energy prices were such a factor in 2022, what are the main things that you’re worried about? Their nat gas storage. Has that been depleted much over the winter?
Tracy
No, it wasn’t depleted. They just had to start injections again because what we are seeing is that this really started in fall of 2021. Everybody kind of forgets that the crisis started before the Ukraine invasion, but what we saw is industry start to shut down, especially industry like smelting and glass blowing and things of that nature that require a lot of energy. Right when nat gas prices started spiking, and that was well before that summer of 2022 spike, they didn’t need to spike much where we saw a lot of those industries shut down. So what we’re seeing now is that since prices have been muted for long enough now, now we are seeing manufacturing and whatnot pick up with the numbers came in overnight for Europe. We’re seeing manufacturing pick up again. We’re starting to see some drawdowns finally in storage. Spain in particular has really ramped up a lot of their industry that had shut down prior. I have to say, natural gas prices are still more expensive than they typically are in Europe. Even at this price, right, they’re still higher than normal. So this is also why we’re not seeing a flurry of activity.
Tracy
As soon as prices came down, you have to realize that relative to where they were, they’re still generally high. But we are seeing, I think people are getting used to kind of this price range for Ttf, which is Dutchnet gas. And so we are seeing in manufacturing and industry pick up again in some of these traditional industries that require a lot of energy. So we’ll have to see, and if that really picks up, companies are going back to where they went to fuel instead of gas. We’re seeing them go back to gas now. And so that’s really what I’m watching on the energy end. Is this just one off, kind of, or does this continue throughout the summer?
Michael
Okay.
Tracy
Sorry.
Tony
And then everybody’s favorite energy secretary, Jennifer Grandholm, had some comments about refilling the Spr this week. Can you fill us in on that? And what does that mean for markets?
Tracy
Basically, she said we’re not filling in the Spr, refilling the Spr anytime soon.
Michael
Sorry.
Tracy
She said a few years, which means a lot more years unless there’s a change of administration and a policy change. But I would say from until the election not going to see an Sbr, which makes sense because they know that if they fill the Spr, what’s going to happen? Oil prices are likely going to go higher, and they can’t afford that going heading into an election year. And so I think that’s really why they kind of pushed that off. That’s kind of what’s going on with that.
Michael
Can they be saying something and doing something else?
Tracy
Yeah, but we would know if they’re actually filling the Spr or not because it’s a public auction.
Tony
Okay, why don’t we just stop calling it the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and just call it the Petroleum Reserve? Nothing strategic about the way they’re using the Tactical Petroleum Reserve.
Tracy
They’re using it as a piggy bank. Right.
Albert
Instead of strategic, you use slush fund, petroleum reserve.
Tony
Right, exactly. Okay, guys, one last question, I guess. What are you looking for in the week ahead? We’ve had a lot of volatility over the past couple of weeks. Michael, what are you looking for in the week ahead?
Michael
I’m focusing on central banks and interest rates. I think the issue will be banks. Again, I think the big stress in the economy is private markets and not public markets. BCS, private equity, all these investments need to do write downs. It will take a bit more time for them to do that. It doesn’t happen that fast. They don’t adjust as fast as public market. I believe that bank we will see that stress mostly on banking stocks. A because the cost of funding goes up, b because the capital structure is put into a discussion. C because they continue to raise interest rates. And there is a stress within, I think, focusing on what happens to the banks and to the two central banks. Again, we’re looking at the same thing, unfortunately, but the problem is not in the same place. But these are the indicators you need to look. I believe that you’re going to see inflation coming down fast. That’s my expectation. Maybe I’m wrong, but if you see inflation coming down, it’ll make the life much easier for central bank. Yeah.
Tony
And for all of us. Do you expect to see, like VCs, for example, some VCs close up because of the cost of funds and a lot of these banking issues, or do you think it really doesn’t impact them much?
Michael
I don’t know if they’re going to close down because it’s a 510 year investment. It depends if they can reinvest or if they have to liquidate. But I think funds that are coming up to their maturity, they need to liquidate or they need to roll over. It’s going to happen at a much lower price than they thought, or they’ll have to wait one or two years more. So I think that stress is going to show up somewhere.
Tony
Tracy, what do you see over the next week?
Tracy
I think it’s type based markets. There’s not really a lot coming up as far as oil is concerned. OPEC meeting is the following week, which we already know they’re going to do nothing. So really, next week, end of month stuff, there’s not a whole lot going on in the commodities world, really newswise next week. So I think probably see the same sideways action.
Tony
Okay, great. Robert, what are you looking for? Let me ask a little bit of a kind of loaded question with that. As springtime is coming in in Ukraine, do we expect that to heat up at all as things warm a bit there?
Albert
Well, yeah, I would say yes. Geopolitically? I think it would be advantageous for Russia to do something to stay face. Absolutely. But for the week ahead, I think the narrative shift I’m watching for the narrative shift of interest rates to banking, like Michael was talking about, I think Yellen is most likely going to come out and try to guarantee 500,000 in deposits and even talk about 750 and get it up there and just get the crisis over and done with. So that’s what I’m looking for.
Michael
Okay.
Tony
Wow. Would that require congressional no, they can use emergency powers. Everything’s. Emergency power is great. Perfect. Okay, thanks, guys. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your time and all your insight, and have a great week ahead.
In this episode of The Week Ahead, the hosts discuss three key themes: Silicon Valley Bankruptcy, the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Tightening (QT) and systemic risks, and America’s energy policy.
The discussion begins with a focus on Silicon Valley Bank (SIVB), which had a major issue raising capital and faced a bank run on Thursday. On Friday, the California bank regulator shut the bank down. SIVB had $175 billion in deposits, $151 billion of which were uninsured. One of the discussions surrounding the SIVB collapse is how venture capitalists have been affected.
The hosts then move on to discuss the Federal Reserve’s QT and systemic risks. They note that the US has been experiencing strong data and inflation, and Fed Chairman Powell hinted at a 50 basis point increase this month. The hosts discuss whether the Fed will accelerate QT in this environment, what that could look like, and what risks it would pose to the US financial system.
The third theme discussed is America’s energy policy. Host Tracy Shuchart mentions a speech given by US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, which didn’t seem to give her more confidence in Granholm’s competence as an energy secretary. The discussion touches on the problems with America’s energy policy and how it affects the country’s overall economic outlook.
Finally, the hosts share their expectations for the week ahead.
Overall, this episode offers a comprehensive analysis of current events and trends in finance and policy, with a particular focus on the implications of SIVB’s bankruptcy and the Federal Reserve’s actions. The hosts provide insightful commentary and thought-provoking questions that will be of interest to anyone following these issues.
Key themes: 1. Silicon Valley Bank(ruptcy) 2. Fed’s QT & systemic risks 3. America’s feckless energy policy
This is the 56th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Joseph Wang. You may know him as @FedGuy12 on Twitter. He’s a CIO at Monetary Macro and a former senior trader at the New York Fed. Joseph, we’re really happy to have you here. Thanks so much for joining us. We also have Albert Marko and Tracy Shuchart will be joining us during the show. There are some key things we want to talk about. First is a hawkish Fed of course we can’t talk about that without the Silicon Valley Bank things, events that happened today. So we’ll cover that a bit. We’ll get into the systemic risk of quantitative tightening and the likelihood of that happening, as well as America’s rudderless energy policy. And we’ll talk to Tracy about that in detail.
So guys, thanks very much. There’s been a lot going on this week. Albert, I know you’ve been on the road. Joseph, it’s your first time here, so I’m really glad we can have this conversation. Guys, let’s start out with Silicon Valley Bank. I mean, this is something that just kind of happened yesterday. It actually happened with a communications announcement on Wednesday coming in the wake of another bank failure.
And it was really bad timing, it was really bad advice for them to do this. And we’ve just seen a bank explode right, or implode. So can you help us walk through what actually happened from your perspective?
Joseph
Yeah, well, first of all, thanks for having me on the show, guys. I love your show and I do listen to it. So it’s real honor to be here today.
Silicon Valley Bank. So as of recording today, it looks like they’ve been taken into receivership by the FDIC. So basically it’s bankrupt. Now, Silicon Valley Bank over the past couple of years, if you look at their equity prices, they soared really high, especially during the crypto boom. They were known as a bank that would lend a lot to the financial tech sector. And as the financial tech sector imploded, it seemed like that kind of hurt them as well. These past few days you saw it stock price steadily decrease. So if you’re a bank, you have two big concerns. The one is solvency. Are your assets worth more than your liabilities? And the second is liquidity. Do you have enough cash on hand to meet investor withdrawals. When I put money in a bank, so I am an investor in that bank, right. So I eventually lent money to local bank and local bank bought from me and I can go and get that money back anytime I want. And that is part of the problem of a bank. Your liabilities, they are short term, so they can disappear anytime you want. But your assets tend to be longer dated, things like loans, let’s say a five year, ten year loan.
So I can’t really comment on the solvency situation of Silicon Valley Bank. I suspect that they are insolvent simply because I read that they’ve been making a lot of loans to these fintech companies and we all know how that turned out. But you can actually get pretty good insight on their liquidity situation by looking at their regulatory filings. If you want to study a bank and I study bank, so you want to look at something like this.
That’s all this is a call report. A call report is a financial report that banks file. It’s literally 100 page reporting form, and it comes with instruction manual that’s 800 pages in leads. So that’s why I can actually keep a reference here. So if you look at Silicon Valley’s financials, you’ll see that it’s a bank that is vulnerable to liquidity runs. It might not seem so on the surface, but so just for the audience, Silicon Valley Bank has about $210 billion worth of assets. It’s largely funded by deposits. Now let’s look at their asset side first. Now if you’re a bank, you got to keep liquidity on hand because what if everyone starts to ask for their money back? You want to have some liquidity on hand to meet those redemptions. So Silicon Valley Bank has actually a pretty good portfolio of liquid assets. Of the 210 billion in assets, about 120 billion are securities. Securities are good because you can sell them. That’s what a security is. If you have a loan to local company, you can sell them. That’s illiquid. Of the 120 billion, 80 billion are high quality liquid assets. So in the banking world, you want to have high quality liquid assets because you can sell them easily to raise cash.
These are Treasuries and Agency MBS. So so far, $80 billion of high quality liquid assets. Sounds like a great liquid bank. You dig down a little bit more, you find out they’ve already pledged about 50 billion of those away. So they’re already using that to either to secure borrowings. For example, let’s say you are a huge investor. You’re putting money into Silicon Valley Bank, but you don’t really know if you want to take that risk. So you could ask for some collateral. So that could be a possibility as well. So the bottom line is they don’t actually have that much liquid assets, even though they look like they do. Now let’s look at their liabilities. It doesn’t look good either. So normally if you and I okay, I don’t know about you guys, but when I put money in a bank, I have less than 250,000. So it’s within secured by the FDIC. But if you have a lot of money more than 250,000, then it’s not secured by the FDIC. Then you have credit risk. When you look at the depositor profile of Silicon Valley Bank, you can see that they have $150 billion unsecured deposits.
So those are institutional investors who basically lent maybe unsecured, maybe definitely uninsured to Silicon Valley Bank and they could lose everything. If Silicon Valley Bank goes bad, down really badly, they probably will, they’ll get something back. But it’s not good to lose money when we put it in the bank. So they have liabilities that are runnable and they began to run. Now I’ve been hearing anecdotally that everyone was like, get your money out of Silicon Valley Bank. So I’m sure they were. Now you have if you’re a Silicon Valley Bank, that’s a huge, huge problem. You have no liquidity. Everyone is asking for their money back. Your last lifeline is to borrow from, let’s say, the Fed or a Federal Home Loan Bank. It looks like they’re already borrowing from the Federal Home Loan Banks and I don’t know if they can borrow even more. A Federal Home Loan Bank is basically a government sponsored agency whose job is to provide cheap loans to the commercial banks they’re already lending to to the Silicon Valley Bank. In theory they could lend more, but they have a lot of exposure to Silicon Valley Bank. So the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which is the bank that’s lending to Silicon Valley Bank, 20% of their loan book is to Silicon Valley Bank.
So if you’re a CFO there, do you want to increase your exposure to this bank that’s probably going bankrupt? So yeah, it’s over for them, which is why the FDIC souped in.
Tony
Those are amazing details and it’s exactly what I wanted to hear. Now what I had read earlier was that there are $171 billion of deposits at Silicon Valley Bank and 175 billion but 151 billion of that is uninsured. So basically $24 billion people can pull $24 billion out, but there’s $151 billion that they may or may not get back. Right. So for a lot of these VCs, early stage tech companies and so on, I don’t know if private equity firms or investment funds bank there, but certainly it seems to me to be a systemic risk, especially in the venture capital community. Is that a fair assumption to make?
Joseph
I don’t think it’s systemic to the banking sector and we can talk about that. But these guys who in that community for sure, Tony, I imagine that a lot of people in that community are banking with Silicon Valley Bank. And if Silicon Valley Bank goes under, they’re going to have to have haircuts and maybe it’s a lengthy process. Maybe they get tied up in bankruptcy court or something. So that’s a liquidity problem for them. And so for that community, yeah, I agree, it could be a big problem.
Tony
So if I’m a limited partner in a venture fund today, I’m checking with that venture fund to make sure that my cash is okay. Is that the process that people would be doing? For people who don’t know, limited partners are the investors who put money into a venture capital fund. And my assumption is a venture capital fund would likely store that money in Silicon Valley Bank. And if they can’t access all of well, they could take the first $150,000 of that. But if they can’t get beyond that, then it’s not just the VC that’s hurt, it’s that limited partner. Is that correct?
Joseph
Yeah. So that losses, like you mentioned, partnership losses flow through from the entity to the partnership. That’s what being a partner is about. I imagine there are some rules depending on your general partner, limited partner, things like that, but yeah, it’s investors that get hurt.
Tony
And so the allocation just both of you guys probably know more about this than I do, but the allocation of, say, venture capital from, say, a pension fund is a relatively small allocation of all of the allocations of, say, a pension fund. So I would suspect that this probably isn’t a systemic risk back to, say, pension funds and other investment funds like we had maybe in 2007-8. Right. It’s probably less of a systemic risk than that was.
Joseph
Yeah, I totally agree. I don’t view this as a systemic risk.
Albert
I agree with that. Tony. I don’t think anything systemic is going to happen because SVB Bank goes under. I mean, SVB Bank is the FTX of the fintech banking world. I mean, everything on there, everything that they invested in, is based on trust, and not very much for the fundamentals at A. So it’s not a surprise that it went under as the Fed has been raising rates. Everyone knows that if the rates rise, the tech sector is one that gets hit the most. So it’s not really a surprise that this happened now.
Joseph
Yeah, I totally agree. When the Fed is raising rates, it’s trying to slow down the economy through sectors that are interest rate sensitive. I think the great irony here is that we all expected that to be real estate, right? But real estate is fine, but we miss the fact that the other really interest rate sensitive sectors is tech. And we see big layoffs in tech. So it’s actually all the well paid people who complete on Twitter who are having a bad problem, but the more blue collar industries seem to be doing fine.
Albert
Yeah. Housing got a boost because there’s a lot of cash buyers. People were cashing out at the behest of bloodstone, buying everything, but they were cashing out three and four times the value of the homes that they had a mortgage on. So they go and buy other homes, pure cash. There’s no mortgage risk in the system for the rate. Just like you were saying, the housing sector is not really affected by rates at the moment. You can see that because the houses are still going up and still a little bit of a shortage. But the tech sector was always the biggest loser of the hawks.
Joseph
One of the things that I hear is that there’s the fiscal stimulus from all the construction stuff, like is flowing into the state and local governments. And so that kind of construction spending seems to be supportive of employment, at least in the construction sector. So the guys who, if they’re building residential houses, maybe they can go and do something that’s benefiting from fiscal stimulus.
Tony
Sure. Here in Texas and probably in Florida, where Albert lives, there is construction all over the place, and it’s helping the tax base, it’s helping the overall impact of related jobs and other things. So it is still very strong, at least in the south.
Albert
Well, look at the layoffs. It’s all been tech and no construction. Construction has a shortage of workers at the moment, that’s the best indicator that you can have at the moment.
Tony
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics, we forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecast for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one- and three-month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
Tony
Right. Okay, in talking about that strength, let’s talk about the Fed a little bit. Okay. If we were talking two days ago, there would probably be a bias toward the Fed becoming more hawkish. Right.
All the buzz two days ago was, well, we’re going 50. Fed is going to be more hawkish. It’s going to be tough. But over the last 24 hours, things have really started to lean away from that. So what do you see as drivers of the Fed being hawkish and drivers of the Fed being less? So we can’t say that they’re dovish. Right. But it’s more the degree of the rate rise. So what do you see in the calculus that they’re thinking through?
Joseph
Yeah, so let’s level that a little bit. So at the last FOMC conference, Chair Powell basically said that from now on, we’re going to do 25 basis points. He said that through his statement. So the language was that rather than talk about the pace of the hikes, we’re going to talk about the extent. So that’s kind of a that would seem like a done deal. And from my experience with the Fed, very slow, very conservative organization. 75-50-25-25-25, you know, you don’t go from 25 to 50. Now, that’s what everyone assumed. And also corroborated by, let’s say, President Mester. And then Chair Powell kind of threw that whole thing upside down this past week when he was testifying before the House and Senate. He was basically suggesting that, you know, if the data is still strong, we’re going to do 50 until the market began to price that in. So the question ultimately is, is data strong? And that has to do with what happened today with the non farm payrolls and what happens with the CPI report next week. Now, when you’re looking at market pricing, like you suggested, Tony, they seem to be taking out that 50 basis point hike today, Friday, and that could be in part because of fear contagion in the banking sector, I don’t know.
Now, looking at the non farm payroll itself, it looks like the jobs number over 300,000 was comfortably above Bloomberg expectations of about 200 some thousand dollars. But there was a little bit of a mix in it as well because of the unemployment rate increased. I think the pace of a wage increase is also moderated as well. So it seems to be on the stronger side, but not unambiguously. So my perception from this is if the Chair Powell is basically upending everyone’s expectations and putting 50 on the table, the presumption is 50. And this was not clearly weak. We got to watch CPI next week as well. As long as CPI is not like super, like a big disaster, I think the presumption should be about 50 basis points for the March hike.
Tony
So you think the presumption is 50 now?
Joseph
I think today’s headline employment was pretty strong. It’s not something that is weak enough, I think, to take away the presumption. Again. Everything could change with CPI next week, but we’ll see.
Tony
Thank you very much. That’s okay. We know you’re busy, so thank you so much. So Joseph, with the jobs data, there were 50,000 department store jobs in that jobs data. And to me that seems like a statistical extrapolation from an old model or something. I mean, I don’t know of any department store that’s hiring. So when these things come out, what are we supposed to think about that type of data?
Joseph
Yeah, so a lot of people get into the guts of the report and the Fed actually, internally, they have their own model for stuff like this. I would be hesitant to be looking into too much into these adjustments. As you mentioned, they matter. But then you can look at every single job report and say, oh, it’s actually not as strong as it is, or not as weak as it is. For all these little idiosyncratic reasons. I would just take it as it’s presented and knowing of full well, of course, that it is a statistical abstraction of what reality is.
Tony
So is it fair to say you see it more as a kind of a direction than something that’s more specific?
Joseph
Yes. And also if you just average this one with the past few months, it does seem like the labor market not slowing, has decent momentum and there could be revisions going forward. I mean, January was revised slightly, slightly weaker. So it’s just not obvious evidence that data is weak from my reading.
Albert
Tony, for a long time I’ve been saying the Fed should have been doing 50 basis points months ago, but here we are now talking about 50 after doing 25 a few times. I don’t think that they’re going to do 50. I think more that what they’re going to end up doing is talking about QT and doing QT for longer rather than rates at the moment, just because I think Powell and Yellen and the entire crew over there is a little bit worried about the economy, especially after the bank failed. And looking at the jobs numbers, I just can’t see more than that’s. I just think that things will start breaking. If we go 50, we’ll be down 200 points on the S&P, and things will start breaking. And you start wandering down to 3500 on the S&P, you actually make it a financial crisis.
Tony
Isn’t that kind of what they like? They kind of want some things to start breaking. Right. Not that they don’t bankrupt people, but they do want some things to start breaking.
Albert
They keep talking about a soft landing, and that’s the plan at the moment.
Joseph
I agree with Albert. I think the right policy would just be emphasized QT a bit more. It makes perfect sense. I guess we’ll talk about QT in a bit, but it’s a good policy from my perspective, because when you do QT, you’re putting upward pressure on the rates that actually matter to the economy. You hike the Fed funds up and down. Nobody really cares about the overnight rate. When you’re talking about economically sensitive rates, like mortgage rates or like your auto loan rates, those are like the five year, ten year sector, and that can be influenced by QT. So you want to slow the economy down, you want those rates to go higher. But I think the Fed is pretty stubborn when it comes to QT, in part because they don’t really understand they don’t feel like they understand it well. They feel that they understand the overnight rate a bit better.
Tony
Okay, so let’s talk about that. QT is on our agenda, so let’s move to that. So in terms of rates, Joseph, you’re the 50 camp. Albert, you’re the 25 camp. Let’s move to QT. We have been undertaking QT for, what, ten months now or something, and it’s been gradual. Albert, you smile when I say that. What’s your thought?
Albert
Well, I mean, we’ve been doing QT, but then it’s been offset by Yellen’s TGA activity.
Tony
Yeah. Now what are you hearing about the TGA? Has that slowed down?
Albert
It slowed down now, but once the tax revenue comes in late April, she’ll have that again in May.
Tony
Okay. So if we have quantitative tightening, which means the Fed is selling things from their balance sheet into the market, probably at a discounted rate, which takes money out of the out of circulation and it tightens the money supply. Right, but if we have the Treasury issuing funds from the general account, it’s offsetting those QT efforts. Right?
Albert
Yeah, that’s exactly what it’s doing. She’s actually, right now, as we speak, being questioned by the TGA from the House Ways and Means Committee. That’s exactly what she’s been doing, and I think it’s more like why she’s doing it politically rather than anything with economic policy in mind.
Tony
Okay, so what are the politicians generally asking her about, Albert?
Albert
Well, they’re asking her about her sterilization of QT by using the TGA and the effects of inflation because of it at the moment. I have a list of the questions that I can definitely give you guys for afterwards if you want to post them up here. But that’s what they’re asking her about. Why is her action why is she talking about rates when she is a CFO of the country? She is the Treasury Secretary. She’s not the Fed chair. She should be talking about rates one day after Powell comes out being hawkish.
Tony
Right. It’s hard to quit the Fed, I guess. Okay, moving on.
Joseph
I have a question, Albert. Do you have any views on who might be the next vice chair? I mean, right now the frontrunner seems to be Janet Everley, this academic in Northwestern, but I watched the hearings and everyone there was like, from the Democratic side was like, “”oh, we got to have an Hispanic vice chair. We got to have an Hispanic vice chair. And Janet Everley, maybe she has distant relatives or maybe she’s going to write a cookbook about tacos or something like that, but she doesn’t appear to be Hispanic to me.
Albert
Yeah, I don’t know. That decision is going to be made by Brainard who they want is the vice chair. That goes with their liberal policies and enacting and using the Fed to push those political agendas. That’s what they’re looking for. I mean, it could be Hispanic or black or white or whatever, but the base case is that they need someone with a liberal slant in their view to help them out.
Joseph
Yeah. Janet Everly definitely has a liberal slant. For you guys who are not aware, she thought it was a good idea to have a higher inflation target. Maybe that will be in the future, not with Jay Powell, but maybe in the future, maybe like 3%, maybe 4%. Who knows?
Albert
I think 3% is definitely coming no matter what. I don’t think it’s realistic for us to get back down to 2%, especially with the Fed members being former liberal than they were a few years ago.
Tony
Okay, let’s talk about the three 4% rate at some point.
Tony
But let’s get back to QT. Joseph, can you talk us through some of the if the Fed were to accelerate QT, which seems to be something that you’d like to see them do, more of what forms would that take?
Joseph
They could just simply raise the cap for Treasury. So right now the Treasuries can match. The QT pays for Treasuries is a maximum $60 billion a month. They could raise that. So what happens mechanically is that you can think of it as the private sector having to hold more Treasuries. You’re increasing the supply of Treasury debt that must be held by the private sector. So basic supply and demand, increasing supply prices for Treasuries decline and so yields go higher. So that’s a way that they could try to tighten policy by making, let’s say, longer dated interest rates higher. And I think it’s helpful, especially in today’s context. So investors look at the world, look at the future based on their experience in the past. And our experience over the past decade was a Fed who would just cut rates at the drop of a hat. And so because the investor community believes that you have a very, very deeply inverted curve and that’s a big problem because as the Fed is hiking rates on the front end, you don’t see that as much in the ten year. And so you can see, for example, mortgage rates continue to go down as they did in January, thus essentially undoing all the hiking the Fed is doing in the frontend.
Joseph
So you really need the market to either believe that the Fed is higher for longer, or you could have the Fed engineer it by just boosting the supply of longer dated Treasuries. And it’s hard to convince the market of something and the market has a reason to believe that JPowell and his committee of largely dovish committee is just going to cut rates. So it’d be easier to just boost the supply of Treasuries through QT.
Albert
Okay, that’s something that nobody talks about, is durational liquidity. Nobody speaks about that right now with the Fed and the Treasury. I haven’t seen one analyst talk about duration liquidity.
Tony
Okay, so can you guys talk about that? How would they change? Well, first of all, if we focus more on QT, would that potentially pose a threat to, say, banking systems or there are other potential systemic threats that QT could pose for the US.
Joseph
Yeah, it could blow up the Treasury market.
Tony
Okay, tell us how that wouldn’t tell us.
Joseph
So I think there’s huge the great systemic risk today is not in the banks or the private sector. It’s in the public sector. It’s in the Treasury market. And we saw kind of a prelude to that with what happened with the gilt market in the Bank of England last year. For those of you who don’t remember, last year we saw gilt yields basically 30 year long good data gilt yields basically explode higher late last year, and in part because, one, the Bank of England announced that they were doing quantitative tightening and also because the government announced that they were going to issue a whole bunch of gilts. Now there are some levered players in that market who basically blew up. Now if you recall throughout late last year, okay, the summer of last year, there’s a lot of articles about Treasury market liquidity. This is something that I’ve been writing about since last January. And Treasury market liquidity is not really strong, in part because the size of the Treasury market is just growing so quickly. It’s not growing in proportion to the underlying market. So I think about this as like a stadium that gets bigger and bigger, but the exits don’t get any bigger.
Joseph
So 20 years ago we had about $7 trillion in Treasuries outstanding. Today we got about 25. And Biden is going to promise that he’s going to issue even more through his spending. And the underlying market liquidity in the market hasn’t scaled in the same way. 20 years ago we were doing $400 billion a day in cash transactions. Today it’s 600. So again, there is some potential for fragility. Now the market got was looking pretty dicey in the summer last summer, but it got bailed out when recession fears predominated and people began to think that Fed is going to cut rates. Recession, you got to buy Treasuries. But in the event that those recession concerns go away or inflation stays persistent, you can have, I think, some real discontinuous event there where yields spike higher like they did in the UK, which of course wouldn’t lead the Fed to respond. Yeah. So that’s what I view as I’m not really worried about banking or anything like that. So one thing that people have to be aware of is that the banking system has really changed a lot over this past decade. So an easy way to look at that is just Fed QE, right?
Joseph
So now banks have $3 trillion of basically liquidity from QE on their balance sheet. They didn’t have that preg. There’s also a lot more regulation. Now banks are really, really boring businesses. Back then it was exciting. Everyone is making huge bonuses and so forth. But now that’s all in the tech sector.
Tony
Okay, so you say that the gilt blow up happened because of long dated yields. Is there anything, if we move into QT, is there anything the Treasuries could do? Could they move that to the shorter end of the curve to avoid that?
Joseph
I think that would be a great idea. So one of the things that they floated is a buyback operation. So what they would do is they would issue bonds and use that proceeds to buy old bonds. Now I think it would be a good idea to issue shorter dated bonds and buy longer dated bonds. They basically change the duration profile. I don’t think that’s what they want to do. So far they’ve been pretty adamant that they want to make it a maturity bond. Now I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you issued a 30 year bond and. After ten years, it rolls down to a 20 year bond. Now it’s an off the run bond. So an off the run is something that was issued, not recent, and that off the run market is very, very illiquid. So what you could do is you could issue a new on the run 20 year on the runs are very liquid because they’re the recent vintage. Take that money and buy back the old 30 year, which became a 20 year. So you don’t really change the duration of the debt outstanding, just the liquidity profile. That’s what they’re floating.
And maybe that’s something they’ll do. I suspect that it’s not going to be enough. If they want to do something like that, they probably will need to rely well, it’s not going to work, so they’re going to have to rely on the Fed. Just like in the UK, they relied on the Bank of England.
Tony
In Japan. What they’ve been doing particularly kind of seven to ten years ago, the Ministry of Finance was issuing shorter duration debt to buy longer duration debt, and the BOJ was buying that shorter duration debt and letting it expire at maturity. Is that something that we could do here? Where the Treasury would issue shorter duration debt, the Fed would buy it, they would pay off the longer duration debt, and then it would just go into nowhere?
Joseph
They could totally change the maturity structure of Treasury debt. It’d be a really good idea if they did that. They don’t actually need the Fed to buy it. There’s a ton of demand for cash at the front end in the US financial system right now. There’s so much demand that people are putting it into the Fed’s reverse repo facility, which is about $2 trillion. So that means that the Treasury could issue $2 trillion worth of Treasury bills, and the market would just lap it up like that. So they don’t need the Fed to buy it.
Tony
Okay, while we’re here, while we’re talking about people buying Treasuries, I saw some notes over the past week or so where people are saying China is selling their Treasuries, everyone needs to worry. Can you talk to us about that? Joseph Albert, can you talk to us about that? To me, that seems laughable, but it is laughable.
Albert
They need dollars to keep even if you look at if you look at over the long run, I think over the last, like, five years, yeah, sure, they had bought a lot of Treasuries and now they’re selling Treasuries. But it’s pretty even at the moment, if you look going back five years, I don’t even take that kind of argument seriously. When people say that China is going to sell Treasuries and dollars going to crash and blah, blah, blah, buy my crypto, buy my gold, it’s what it usually is. So I personally don’t see it as a big deal. I mean, you know, that’s just the way I think about it, so pretty pretty explicit about it.
Tony
Joseph, what do you think?
Joseph
Yeah, it’s hard for China to find a substitute for Treasuries. So Brad sets there at the Council of Foreign Relations, he’s an expert on this and he has done some pretty interesting detective work. And one of the things that seems interesting is that the China foreign reserves actually hasn’t changed all that much over the past several years. So based on their publicly disclosed data, it stayed around, let’s say three, three and a half trillion over the past few years. But if you recall, China has been making a lot of money through exports. During COVID for example, they were exporting like trades to the US trade deficit with China between US exploded higher. Right. So where is all that money going? It’s not going to the sovereign fund. It must be going somewhere else. I think part of it is going to the commercial banks, but I don’t really know how their data works out. I think they definitely have a huge problem in that they have a lot of exposure to the US. That kind of gives the US political power over them, just like the US could seize Russia’s sovereign reserves. It’s a problem for them.
I don’t know how they can solve it. I’m sure they want to solve it, but so far it seems like they’re stuck, at least for the moment, in Treasury.
Albert
It is a big problem for China because when Yelling calls them up and said, you got to help us out in inflation and crush commodities, you’re going to have to do what Yellen and the Fed say just because of how much they’re held off. I absolutely agree with you on that one.
Tony
Let me bring Tracy in here because I don’t like it when she’s quiet. So, Tracy, what do you think about the issue about Chinese selling US treasuries? Do you see that as an issue from your perspective? Does China have other options? What do you think they’re doing with the money they’re making on US. Export, on exports to the US?
Tracy
Well, I think if we look at the big picture, right, we have seen increased central banks buying gold and selling US treasuries, but we have to look at the bigger picture. More people own US debt than any other country in the entire world, so that’s not going away soon. So I hate to cater to these people and say, yeah, central banks are wearing a lot of gold, but that means that they’re shutting us right? Because it’s simply not true. You still look at the highest countries that own US debt still continue to be the same one china, Japan, et cetera. That’s not going away anytime soon. It is notable in the fact that looking at the gold market, which has been particularly lagging, I think it’s very interesting if we’re looking at the commodity side of things because we’ve seen last year particularly we saw outflows of gold flows, people investing in gold, whether it’s physical, ETF, et cetera, literally for eight months straight. I think that kind of makes this market interesting. But again, I don’t want to conflate that with central banks are buying gold, digging US. Treasuries. That means nobody likes us.
Tracy
Debt anymore.
Albert
That’s an important fact that, yeah, whenever they sell gold or Treasuries, they’re just raising my opinion. They’re just arbitraging for dollars later on. It’s nothing systemic that’s a threat to the US dollar by any means.
Tracy
That was my point. Let’s not make this a bigger issue than it needs to be that we have often seen, yeah, central banks can.
Tony
Walk and chew gum and spin plates and all that stuff at the same time. I think they’re capable. They’re very smart people are capable of doing all this stuff. So okay, just before we move on from QT, albert, is there anything else on QT that you wanted to bring up that you’re watching?
Albert
No, Joseph pretty much talked about it extensively, and there’s not really much I can add. I just think that the proper thing for power to do right now is to accelerate QT and keep rates as they are at the moment.
Tony
Okay, so with housing remaining relatively strong, do you think that they’ll sell off more MBS as a part of their QT portfolio, or do you think they’ll just keep it in the same proportion that it’s been now?
Albert
I think they’ll just keep it in the same proportion right now. I mean, housing at the moment is a big political problem because homes are unaffordable at 70% mortgage rate. So they’re going to have to do something they’re keeping an eye on. That I can guarantee.
Joseph
Yeah. I also note that Powell has been asked his point, Blake, and just said no. He can always change his mind. Powell has a reputation for being a pivotal like he just did. But to Albert’s point, mortgage rates are 7%. That’s kind of already a big drag on housing. If it went to 8%, would that really make that much of a difference? It’s already very high, and you’ve already.
Tracy
Seen housing prices come down extensively, right? Redfin just came out and said 45% decrease in luxury homes and 37.5% decrease. So I think what we’re seeing is housing prices decrease in response to the increase in mortgage rates.
Tony
Okay, very good. Okay, let’s move on. Since we’ve been talking about the US. Government for the first two segments, let’s move on to the US. Government for the third segment and talk about America’s rudderless energy policy. So, Tracy, you were tweeting about a speech that Jennifer Granholm, U. S. Energy Secretary, made earlier this week, and I want to kind of parse that through with you because she is the spokesperson for US. Government’s energy policy.
And there just seems to be a lot of mixed messages. And I’ve got a tweet on the screen about the grand home speech where you said she said, we’ll still need fossil fuels in 30 to 40 years, then to send it into how the Inflation Reduction Act makes the US. Irresistible for new energy. So can you talk us through kind of what were you thinking of as you heard her, and what were your big takeaways?
Tracy
Well, the first thing I want to note in that speech is that for the last two years, this administration has been pushing on the energy industry, right. And has been talking about how they have all these profits and they’re not.
Tony
Producing greeny energy companies. Greedy.
Tracy
That’s been the mo, right. For the last two years. And then in this speech, she did like, 180 when asked the question.
Tony
How.
Tracy
Do you think oil companies, oil and gas companies are responding? She said, we’re very happy how oil and gas companies are responding to our request for like, she gave them props, which is literally 180 degree. So to me that I was like, what? Because really our production has not really increased at all. But suddenly she’s at Fair a week giving props to the energy companies because.
Tony
The CEOs were there.
Tracy
Well, right. So it’s a huge mixed message. The other important thing, I think, to take away from that particular speech was that the US. Wants to move on to energy transition. We want to move away from China. We want to be able to mine our own metals and minerals in the US. For this energy transition. But she was quick to add that the permitting process is a nightmare. It takes ten years just to get a permit. And then if you get lawsuits on top of that, to get to an idea from, I want to build this mine in the US. To actual fruition is a ten year permitting process, and then it’s then plus however many lawsuits you have. I thought that was really interesting and that she actually admitted that the permitting process was completely horrible. Since her administration, or the administration that she works for, has said, what we want to do is streamline this permitting process. We’re going to give people all these incentives to build mines, et cetera. Basically, what she did I take away from the speech is basically what she said was completely opposite of what this administration has been telling us, and that is we have all these incentives.
Tracy
We can build all these mines, no problem. And we love the fact that the US. Oil and gas companies have responded to us and are producing more, which is outright not true. Sorry.
Tony
Okay.
Albert
These are political pipe dreams by the Biden administration. As long as the EPA is there and staff with environmental Nazis, there’s no way that manufacturing and mining is going to propel to the next level in the United States.
Tony
Biden budget proposes 17,000 more EPA staff.
Albert
Oh, yeah, that’s a great sign. That’s a great sign.
Tony
But what they’re saying, tracy, tell me if I’m wrong. They’ve already pushed all this money or they’re already planning to push all this money out into the market. Okay. And this week, the EU developed a proposal to kind of complement the US. And compete with the US. So there’s dump trucks of cash now out there to develop alternative energy. But both the US. And Europe have very restrictive policies on getting those mines together. So out of one side of the mouth, they’re saying they want alternative energy for a safe future. But the reality is they’re paying companies to have Congolese children mind cobalt. I mean, that’s the reality of the situation, right.
Tracy
Situation is it’s not in my backyard. Right, right. That’s the reality situation.
Tony
We want cars that plug in, and we don’t want people to know that Congolese children are mining cobalt. But that’s the crude, stark, horrific reality of these policies today.
Albert
Absolutely, yeah. If you want an American built iPhone or American built Tesla, from the battery on all the way up, it’s going to cost you $5,000 for an iPhone and $190,000 for a little smallest Tesla you can possibly buy.
Tracy
Yeah, it doesn’t matter because it’s never going to be enough, but it doesn’t matter. You think Yellen went to Africa, right? Her trick on Africa, all we heard was she went into Africa to join the renewable generator. That is not why she went. She went to go make deals for mining in Africa. It’s really the back of that situation.
Tony
Wow, that’s terrible. I mean, it’s just the rainbows and unicorns of the policy as it’s portrayed versus the reality, the ugly reality of this industry is pretty horrific. So, Tracy, as you watched Grand Home, what did you think about the oil and gas sector? Did you think, okay, everything’s fine, I don’t have to worry about all this restrictive stuff for 510 years, they’re just going to keep on with status quo?
Tracy
No, I think once you’re looking at the oil and gas sector and you have to look at what actual oil companies said. So you had Scott Sheffield, a pioneer, say there’s five good years left of the permian. That’s a scary thought. Right. And there’s no incentive to drill more because the government’s telling you that in ten years, we want you totally phase out. And so we are going to have a serious problem. And I have said repeatedly, I think that the 13.1 million barrels per day the US. Produced at the end of 2019 in December is probably the height of that’s. It that’s the height of shell, unless something drastically changes within policy.
Tony
Okay, so it sounds to me, since there’s five good years left to the permian, since the US. Government wants this phased out in ten years, there is no ability for oil and gas and money firms actually to have a capital planning cycle. Right. Anything that has longer than a five year payback just is not worth investing in, is that fair to say?
Tracy
I would say that’s fair to say in the United States. Now, if we look offshore, which is really interesting, and that’s where we’re seeing a lot of investment in, say, Guyana or Namibia or a lot of offshore sector kind of seems to be the focus right now in other countries because they just don’t have the same policy hurdles that the United States does.
Tony
Okay.
Albert
Yeah. All places where the EPA is not at.
Tony
Right. So the entire US energy policy and renewables policy is just a big Nimby policy, like you said, just not in my backyard.
Tracy
It is right now. We’ll see what happens. There’s a project going on in Alaska right now which people should be paying attention to their policymakers want this to go through. I sincerely doubt that it’s going to go through because no majors want to invest up there because they run into a bunch of lawsuits. Right. And so why would you knowingly, even if you bought the land rights or the leases, it’s a horrible place because you know that you’re going to be faced with a million lawsuits and give me a million hurdles and whatever. Even if you look at the recent Gom auction, now, you have environmentalists suing anybody that bought leases. It’s a lose lose situation if you’re really trying to explore more gas in the United States right now.
Tony
Okay, so when you say it’s a horrible place, do you mean specifically that Alaska is a horrible place? Because I think we have, like, three there.
Tracy
Alaska is amazing place. I have friends from Alaska.
Tony
Okay.
Tracy
I’m just saying the problem is that you run into a whole lot of regulatory issues, and then you run into a whole lot of lawsuits that are going to take place. And really, that’s a whole separate issue. Now, I really wrote about this in 2020 was the land that they auctioned off is part of a reserve?
Tony
That’s always a good idea.
Tracy
Probably should have never been. Right? And that’s why it really got no interest. It did get a bid from Chevron again, but I don’t see that project going forward ever.
Tony
Okay. Yeah, it’s crazy. And as I try to figure out the policy and I talk to you and I talk to other people, I just can’t figure out what we’re going to look like in five years. And if I was in charge of capex budgets with upstream, downstream, midstream, I honestly wouldn’t know what to do.
Tracy
Because there’s that’s why we continue to look at these companies, continue to focus on dividends, capital, discipline, and paying down debt. I mean, you have to remember, these studies were not making money for years.
Tony
That’s an important point. So when the President of the United States says that Chevron is a terrible company for giving large dividends and doing large share buybacks, they’re doing that because they cannot spend that money on capex. Because they don’t know what the environment is going to be like in five or ten years, is that correct?
Tracy
Yes, exactly. And that’s the point. And they’re trying to gain shareholders. You have to look, two decades ago the oil and gas sector was 20% of the SF 500 weighting wise. Right. And at the lowest in 2020 we were a little bit below 2%. We’re now at about 4%. But you can see where that market has fared fairly poorly.
Tony
Yeah, but Tracy, it’s all going to be AI software forward, so just complete intelligence.
Tracy
It’s going to be chevron AI.
Albert
Yeah, I’ll fund it by a new Silicon Valley bank.
Tracy
That’s right.
Tony
Okay guys, we have a big week ahead going into leading up to the Fed meeting. So what are you all expecting? Joseph, what do you expect to see next week with the various prints coming up?
Joseph
It’s all about the CPI. I mean, I want to know if it’s actually strong. If it’s strong, then we got 50 basis points blocked in right now. Like you mentioned, Tony, that’s been taken out of the market. It could be a violent repricing. So that’s what we want to focus. So I’m suspecting that a lot of people are pricing in rate cuts in part because of what they perceive to be some risk in the banking sector. I just don’t see that. And so when we see that come out of the market, we could have rates go back to expecting a more higher for longer stance by the Fed.
Tony
Okay, great. What is a high CPI to you?
Joseph
I haven’t checked this expectations yet, but whatever is higher than expectations.
Tony
Okay, so literally higher than expectations, if it’s higher than the consensus, then that’s a high CPI.
Joseph
Yeah. If you think back a couple of months, we’re seeing CPI go down. Right. Deceleration, I want to know if it really just did reaccelerate or if it just kind of gave back. What the increase from last month?
Tony
Okay, great. That’s perfect. Albert, what are you looking for next week?
Albert
Same thing CPI is to make a break for the Fed on 25 verse 50. I’m hoping somehow they’ve managed to manipulate the CPI number to make it somewhat in line with the consensus. Hoping for a nothing burger probably be the best option at the moment. Something meaning consensus. If core CPI is hot, like Joseph said, fifty S, fifty S locked in.
Tony
And if super core CPI is hot, that just reinforces wage expectations and it’s all this super circular situation. Right? Okay, so if we do see a 50, do you see an impact on equities? Like a negative impact on equities? Do you think it’d be sideways?
Albert
Without a doubt. Without a doubt. I think if they go out and do 50, I think we’re down 200 points in the S and P pretty quickly in a week. If they do 25, we might even rally 100 points. You know how it is, we’re in bitcoin world now in the S and P. Right?
Tony
Exactly. Okay, that’s good to know. Tracy. We’ve seen oil kind of move sideways. We see energy kind of move sideways lately. What’s happening and what do you expect to see?
Tracy
You know what? I think we talked about this the other week. I continue to think it’ll move sideways. I think we’re in a range. OPEC is very comfortable with that $80 to $90 range for Brent crude oil. And so I see no reason for much to change in that. I think as we head into high demand season right, june, July, August, we could see an uptick in prices. But for right now, the market is very comfortable.
Tony
Okay. And then this Saudi Iran peace agreement that was announced today, do you think that has an impact on crude supply? Do you think that could push crude prices down?
Tracy
I don’t think that, no. Because OPEC has existed for a very long time. Iran is an original member of OPEC.
Tony
They were the founding member. Right.
Tracy
So that relationship has existed cohesively beyond any of the other geopolitical problems that they have had. And Saudi Arabia has always said that this relationship will exist beyond whatever other problems we are having. So I don’t think within the oil market, it really changes any dynamic because that relationship was already solid.
Tony
That’s good to know. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for your time. Thanks for all your knowledge. Have a great weekend. And have a great weekend. Thank you.
In this BFM 89.9 podcast, CEO of Complete Intelligence, Tony Nash, discusses the February US equities market and gives his predictions for March. Nash predicts another down month for US markets, albeit not as much as February, with China also being down markedly. He also expects Malaysia to do well and increase by about 1%. Nash also comments on US earnings season, stating that the quality of earnings reported so far is not great and that only $0.88 was matched by cash flows for every dollar of profit, with some companies passing along price hikes successfully but for how long can they keep it up. Nash also discusses interest rates and a more hawkish Fed, which could lead to the dollar rising. He also comments on a newly formed House committee aimed at examining economic competition between the US and China.
Transcript
BFM: BFM 89.9. Good morning. You’re listening to the Morning Run at 7:07 on Thursday the 2nd of March. I’m Shazana Mokhtar with Chong Tjen San and Wong Shou Ning. Now, in half an hour, we’re going to discuss Malaysia’s bilateral ties with the Philippines in light of our Prime Minister currently on a visit there. But as always, we’re going to kick-start this morning with a recap on how global markets closed.
Overnight, US markets were mixed. The Dow was up marginally by 0.2%, the S&P 500 down 0.5%, NASDAQ down 0.7%. Asian markets were also mixed. The Nikkei was up by 0.3%, Hang Seng popped it up and was up by 4.2%, Shanghai Composite up by 1%, Straits Times Index down by 0.2% and the FBMKLCI was down by 0.3%.
It’s everywhere.
That’s right. Well, we’re going to try and kind of peel some trends with Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Tony, good morning. Let’s review what happened back in February. It wasn’t such a great month for US equities. We did see the Dow and SP 500 both lose 4% and 2.6%, respectively. Where do you see the stock market heading in March? Is it going to be more volatility or perhaps brighter skies on the horizon?
Tony: Oh, yeah, it’s going to be pretty choppy. Generally, we expect US markets to have a down month, not down as much as it had been in Feb, but we do expect another down month. Obviously, if the Fed comes in with a very hawkish meeting, then we could see more chop there. We do expect China to be down this month as well. That kind of goes against what we’ve seen in News early this month, but we are seeing China down markedly, say more than 2% this month as well. Good news is we expect Birth of Malaysia to be up about 1%. So while we see chop in others, we may see Malaysia do squeak out a good positive month.
BFM: And Tony, as the US earnings season starts to taper off, what is your assessment of the results that have been released so far? In particular, the most cyclical consumer-facing companies?
Tony: Yes, so the quality of earnings reported so far is not great. So for every dollar of profits, only about $0.88 was matched by cash flows. That’s the largest discrepancy since at least 1990. So that means 12% are from kind of non-cash earnings. So it’s really accounting and other things. So what we’re seeing, especially on the consumer side, is some companies are passing along price hikes, and we see some of them doing that really successfully. I think we’ve talked about that here before, where they’ll hike between eight and say 15% and their sales volume will be down maybe 5%, something like that. That’s really helped the top line and margin expansion. But the real question is for how long can they keep raising those prices and kind of sacrificing transaction volume. So there’s a real question there. But many of those companies have said they’re going to continue to raise prices into later in ’23. The problem is when we run into a company like Coals, which is a retailer here in the US that reported today, and it was all bad, they’re losing customers they’re not able to keep with their costs and other things.
For those companies that cannot pass along price hikes, for whatever reason, it’s really bad news for them. The inflation they’re importing from their vendors is just squeezing their margins, and in some cases, they’re losing money. So, I don’t think the quality of earnings improves from here for at least two quarters. That’s just something to think about as we go into the next Q1 and Q2 earnings.
BFM: Okay, I want to come back to interest rates, Tony, because I’m reading Bloomberg and it seems like the Street is now expecting a terminal rate of 5.6%. Honestly, this changes every day. It was 5.4% not too long ago. But what does this mean for the US dollar? Are we back to the reign of King Dollar again?
Tony: Well, if we see a more hawkish Fed, then I would say yes, that’s probably the case. So, what we would likely see are things like 25 basis points, at least for the next three meetings, if not longer. If we continue to see hot inflation, as we have over the past couple of days, they could do a surprise 50. I don’t think that’s what they’re going to do, but we can’t rule it out. We could also see quantitative tightening, meaning the Fed could unload more mortgage-backed securities or other things, accelerating that from their balance sheet. Because housing is still pretty hot, actually. Prices aren’t moving that much, so we could see the Fed move on MBS or some other things to accelerate that off of their balance sheet. I don’t think that’s highly likely, but it’s a possibility. All of those bode well for the dollar and dollar strength. If that happens, we would definitely see the dollar rise generally.
BFM: Can we take a look at what’s happening over in the US Congress, Tony? There’s a newly formed House committee aimed at examining economic competition between the US and China. I think they held their first hearing earlier this week. What was the outcome? And do you think, as a result, we’re just going to see more trade conflicts between these two superpowers?
Tony: Yeah, so there’s a lot of focus on decoupling from China. There will never be a full decoupling from China. I don’t think we’ll even have a majority decoupling from China. But there are some key industries, like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, some healthcare aspects that people really do want to decouple from China because we saw through the pandemic that supply chains are very, very dependent on China. Americans want many of those core things closer to home. They’re focused on decoupling. For some reason, people in Congress are just becoming aware that the CCP is in charge of everything in China. So they’ve underestimated the influence of the CCP and they’re waking up to the fact that they’re central in China. We had a couple of former national security advisors suggesting things like accelerating the arming of Taiwan and helping Chinese circumvent the Great Firewall, those sorts of things. And then, of course, human rights. They talked about CCP police outposts that are in US cities where there are actually these CCP outposts that will pursue Chinese nationals within the US, among other things. It’s taking a pretty tough stance on China. I’m not sure to what extreme that will go and what policies will be adopted yet, but I think it’s definitely trying to at least uncover some of the things that Americans haven’t been aware of.
Keep in mind, a little bit of this is theater, right? It’s people in Congress holding hearings to publicize some of their agenda. So, I think it’s a little bit of that so that they can then move into legislation and move the needle just a little bit. I don’t think we’ll see anything extreme, but you will certainly hear some extreme talk over the next couple of months.
BFM: Yeah, but does this change the way fund managers invest? You’ve got this continuing geopolitical tension between the US and China. Is it going to stop, for example, American fund managers from buying Chinese stocks?
Tony: I think it definitely puts China as a higher risk for US portfolio managers. And certainly over the past couple of years, more US portfolio managers have become aware of the risks of investing in China as supply chains close down, among other things. So, I think you will see more of a tighter risk calibration and more weighting of risk for Chinese equities. So, it could potentially not be good for American money investing in Chinese exchanges. Absolutely.
BFM: Tony, thanks very much for speaking with us. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his take on some of the trends that he sees moving markets in the days and weeks ahead. As he was talking about how March is possibly going to be down, although not as down as February, I couldn’t help but think, ‘Oh, beware the eyes of March.’ But, yes, it’s still choppy out there, especially as the FOMC will be having their meeting this month. I think everyone’s going to wait and see how much they’re going to hike those rates.
Yeah, he gave some predictions on Malaysia as well. He thinks the market will possibly be up by about 1% in March, but the market has been quite disappointing in Malaysia. And he also expects the China market to be down in March by about 2%. And we spoke about the geopolitical risk which may impact US fund managers as well.
In the latest episode of “The Week Ahead”, Tony Nash, Michael Kao, Albert Marko, and Ralph Schoellhammer discussed the current market trends and key themes in the world of finance. The discussion revolved around three main topics – “What kills the US dollar?”, “DXY to 112? Turbulence Incoming”, and “Inflation’s hold on Europe”.
Mike started the discussion by talking about the symposium on the Great Power Competition with China and the US Dollar’s primacy in an era of economic warfare. He emphasized that the US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is at risk due to the rise of other currencies such as the Chinese Yuan. Mike further elaborated on the factors that could potentially kill the US dollar, such as a shift towards a new reserve currency or the decline of the US economy.
Moving on to the next topic, Albert spoke about the DXY, which he expects to reach 112 in the near future. He explained that this is due to the strengthening of the US economy, coupled with rising interest rates and the anticipation of the Fed’s monetary tightening. However, he also cautioned that the markets are likely to experience turbulence due to the uncertainties surrounding the central bank policy and the geopolitical risks.
Ralph then focused on the impact of inflation on Europe. He pointed out that inflation in Europe has been rising at an alarming rate, with Austria’s inflation rate being 0.9% m/m and 11.2% on year. Ralph also tweeted about the rapid increase in bankruptcies, and how this could lead to a domino effect on the European economy. He predicted that the European Central Bank’s (ECB) decision to tighten monetary policy would lead to further economic challenges, especially in Q2 of this year.
Key themes: 1. What kills the US dollar? 2. DXY to 112? Turbulence Incoming 3. Inflation’s hold on Europe
This is the 54th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash and today we’re joined by Michael Kao. Michael is @urbankaoboy on Twitter. He’s an ex-hedge fund manager and now he’s a private investor. We’re also joined by Albert Marko, who you’re well familiar with, and Ralph Schoellhammer, who is at Webster University in Vienna and he’s a political economics expert.
Tony
So before we get started, I want to talk about our Friends of Tony promo. So I have more than one friend. So it’s plural. Friends of Tony Promo. So, CI Futures is our markets forecasting platform where we forecast about 800 items every month. We do currencies, commodities and equities every week, every Monday morning. And we do the top 50 economies economic variables once a month where we do show our error rates there. So that is what distinguishes us from other folks. There is accountability. And you don’t have to guess about our previous performance. We’re having a promo. The coupon code is friends of Tony. Plural friends. It’s $19.99 per month for a twelve-month subscription. It’s for new subscribers only. We’re only doing it for the first 25 people who come in. So please make sure you get on this right away. Please go to completeintel.com/pricing and we hope you subscribe.
So guys, thank you for joining us. We have a few key themes this week. First, Michael has written quite a bit about the dollar and about the kind of economic warfare happening now between the US. And China. So we’re going to take the other side of his typical argument and look at what kills the US dollar. We’re going to talk to Albert about dollar strength. He made a statement about the dollar going to 112 with some turbulence. So we’re going to dig into that. And then Ralph is going to talk us through inflation’s hold on Europe. So, should be a really broad macro conversation for us today, which I’m really looking forward to. Mike, you did recently attend this symposium on the Great Power competition with China, I think it was at West Point. And you spoke about US dollar primacy and an area of economic warfare, which must have been great. I missed my invite, but it must have been a great discussion and I think we’re all pretty jealous. I assume that much of the presumption or fears about the Chinese Yan, right.
Is that kind of what the basis was of this?
Michael
Yeah, I think generally when people are talking about threats to the US dollar system right. The most glaring contender is the Chinese Yuan, given all the scaffolding that they’re setting up with 60 plus odd bilateral swaps around the world and one belt, one road and all this stuff. Right. But anyways, if you want I can go. First of all, I love the fact that you’re forcing me to steal, man, the counter argument against my own thesis. Good. Which is great. Yes.
Tony
You’ve talked about the US dollar wrecking ball. Right. And you’ve really talked a lot about how the dollar has really kind of hurt some emerging markets. So I do have a chart of USD CNY, and we’ve seen the volatility of the CNY over the past really five years, ten years. And you know, part of my concern about the CNY is the PBOC.
And you know, we can talk about that in detail, but I’d really like to hear, what do you think? If the dollar was displaced, how would that happen? And we could spend days talking about this, but I guess in a summary conversation, how would that happen and what would be a potential other store of value that would be accepted globally?
Michael
Okay, so I was going to answer this question on different time scales, right? There’s short term and there’s longer term, but I believe where you’re going with this is a longer term time scale. Like what ultimately displaces the dollar as the global reserve currency. Right.
Tony
We can talk different timescales. I actually think that’s very interesting.
Michael
Right, well, look, let me dispense with the easy part first, which is the shorter time scale. I’ve been saying for a while now that I don’t necessarily think that we’ve seen the cyclical top in the US dollar in the short term just because I don’t think any of the competing regional blocks can outhawk the Fed. Or conversely, I don’t think the Fed is going to be in a position where it’s going to outdove the rest of the world either. Right. So either of those scenarios tell me that I think the US dollar is probably going to resurge. And so obviously the counter to that, what would have to happen for that not to happen? Well, I think that the US economy would have to suddenly take a turn for the worst and be in a much worse spot than the rest of the world. And the rest of the world would basically be able to become a much more hawkish visa vis the Fed. I see the exact opposite playing out in the short term. Okay, so now longer term and this is basically the topic of my paper, right? So I think the premise of my paper is that this notion that Breton Woods was basically this top down construct that it foisted a Trojan horse mechanism on the world where, hey, everybody, come use the US dollar because we’re going to be convertible to gold.
Michael
And then all of a sudden in 1971, nixon shocks the world and takes that gold tether away. But it’s too late. Everybody is stuck using a dollar. I call bullshit on that thesis because if you look at the Euro dollar, the rise of the Euro dollar banking system, it started happening probably 15 years before that.
Tony
And he was actually very popular when he did that.
Michael
Right? Yeah, well, it’s started happening by the way. It started happening the real catalyst to it first it was the failure of the tripartite agreement after World War II, which tried to stabilize the frank and the pound and the dollar exchange rates. But then in 1957, when Britain basically in a domestic flight against inflation, surprise, surprise, they they basically instituted capital controls. So there was a there was a tremendous global need for a liquid reserve alternative. And so the world actors on the world stage organically flocked to the US. Dollar. So the premise of my paper delves into what are if trust in the dollar already went well beyond its gold backing back then, right? What lent that trust? And so our paper posits that it rests upon national power. It’s a bedrock of national power. And I focus on three economic pillars of national power geography, which informs everything. But then geography also informs a country’s access to its natural resources and its industrial capacity. So in our paper, we talk about how, look, the US. It’s well known that the US. Is very, very naturally bowed with geographic assets that are really unparalleled in many ways.
Michael
And China is short a lot of those assets. However, because we have a federalist capitalist system, china is using essentially economic warfare to target that as a vulnerability, right? So they have unfairly competed and stolen IP in the world of semiconductors. Right. They’re trying very hard to replicate Taiwan success with TSMC. Fortunately the US. Controls critical choke points in that industry still. But yet, in that area at least, the US. Is finally starting to come around and make some very specific targeted export controls as well as changes to its industrial policy. The point here is that in that area alone, the US. Is starting to recognize the importance of reshoring and defending our flank from an industrial policy perspective. But when you compare and contrast that to oil and gas, which is the other critical supply chain where the US. Is currently the leading oil supplier in the world, and we are naturally long that natural resource, but because of blind devotion to ESG adoption and this erroneous assumption that an energy transition is going to follow Moore’s Law dynamic when it won’t right. Is going to leave us in a very dangerous lurch. I point out that there’s a real inconsistency there where we’re kind of shooting ourselves in our own foot when it comes to energy policy.
Michael
To answer your question, what has to happen for the US. To really lose its status? I started thinking. I said, well, number one, okay. Oh, the other thing is much ado has been made of the US. Weaponization and the criminal west seizure of Russian reserve assets and whatnot. Okay, well, look, I also point out in my paper that, yes, that should be a shot across the bow for US. Policymakers because, like the situation in the 1950s, right, it certainly creates an incentive for our adversaries to look for an alternative. But what are the alternatives? Because if you look at the eurozone, the yen, the pound. The euro is, frankly, the most successful challenger to the dollar to date. And yet, since its inception in 1999, us share of FX reserves has stayed constant 60%. It’s the euro that’s actually lost share. Now, the Chinese yuan. Here’s the problem. What has to happen for the yuan to supplant? The US number one, china would have to prove that it will be a better benefactor and more trustworthy sort of steward of the global commons than the US. I don’t see that happening in almost any circumstance.
Tony
So let me ask you just in that what allies does China have? Like, if China were to say, okay, boys, we’re going to war. Line up and let’s form a coalition, who would China’s allies be?
Tony
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics, who forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices. Every Monday morning, we do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one in three months error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
Michael
Well, that’s that’s a really good question, because right now right now well, yeah, those those are the those are the two, right? And perhaps, perhaps Iran. Right? But, like, Russia is interesting because China’s relationship with Russia over decades and centuries and even centuries, certainly, right. Has been kind of a storied one. Right. I wouldn’t say that this dragon bear romance is necessarily that chummy, because, look, China is really happy that it’s getting big discounts to Russian euros, right. And that’s directly countered to Russia’s interest, I think this whole notion that right now they share a common interest in wanting to counter the US’s. Hegemony, but that is a very fragile bromance, to say the least. The other thing I was going to say is that the other thing that would have to happen for the US. To see dominance, I think, would be that the US. Willingly essentially becomes a vassal state to China and allows China to roll over. Basically, our interest in the Indopacific, that the US. Allows China to take over Taiwan and we just roll over and do nothing. I guess in a parallel universe, that could happen. I’m not seeing that happening.
Michael
I think that China’s significance alone, not just as an unthinkable aircraft carrier, potentially for China if seized, given its geostrategic position in the first island chain, but obviously Taiwan semiconductor alone is of critical significance.
Tony
Just to take the other side of that for a minute, you know, let’s also be very aware that, you know, the wars that the US. Has lost over the last 80 years have really been to China in Korea, to China in Vietnam. Right.
Albert
We didn’t lose those wars, Tony. Our military objectives were all met. We’re confusing the political opponent.
Tony
We lost those two wars. I mean, we had to negotiate the settlement, and the US lost those two wars. So the only people the US has really lost to over the last, you know, hundred years is the Chinese. And so, you know, I do sit with you and with Albert in terms of if things were to happen, you know, with the US prevail, I actually think they would I don’t think it would be a cakewalk, and I do think there are some scars there in Asia. Right.
Michael
I think you have to compare and contrast that to where the US. Was in World War II, like when Britain lost its hegemony, where the pound lost its hegemony is because the UK was in a very tough spot. It had essentially bankrupted itself after World War II and was completely beholden to the US. The US’s lend Lease program. Right. So the US essentially had all the cards. Now, here the two wars that you talk about. I agree with Albert. It’s not even close to the same thing. We withdrew, and it wasn’t a great withdrawal, but it wasn’t a situation where we had essentially bankrupted ourselves and we were completely dependent on the largess of somebody else. Right.
Albert
If I can interject Michael, we can.
Michael
Go on and on.
Albert
About to go back to Tony’s question, what would come next? I mean, theoretically, the United States would have to have some sort of societal breakdown. Our rule of law would have to break down, and we’d have to become a nonintervationalist nation. We wouldn’t be able to protect our interests globally at that point. Something could come along to dethrone the dollar. But even if we’re at that point, I think the next logical step of removing the dollar as a reserve currency would be an Anglosphere plus Japan digital currency, where regional players would secure their own interests in those regions and have a collective I mean, this is just theoretical and way out of our lifetimes, in my opinion. But I think it would be a step down to that first where our allies and the US. Would jointly have a currency block yeah. Running through all the scenarios, in my opinion, that would be the only thing that would take the dollar. That would be I mean, the dollar would still be a part of it, but it wouldn’t be the main part of it. It would be the sole unit polar one. But you could have an angle sphere plus Japan digital currency for just for trade settlement.
Michael
Now, you know what I think the highest probability sort of gray rhino would be out of all this. It would be that if China made overtures toward Taiwan and Taiwan willingly just say, Here, take me. Because I think last year, or maybe two years ago, I wrote a thread about this, how some of the older guard in Taiwan and you know this, Tony some of the older guards that are with the KMT, they really don’t like the DPP because the DPP wants to get away from the Chinese ancestral roots of the Taiwanese. So the old God doesn’t like that. And so what if China says, hey, we’re going to take you? And then what if Taiwan says, Here, take me to me? That is much more worrisome than an amphibious takeover of Taiwan, which I see is very low probability.
Albert
Yeah, exactly.
Tony
Yeah. I think that is the most likely scenario of the scenarios of China taking over Taiwan. Right. It’s a mutual but with the DPP in power and with DPP as a sizable political party there, it’s a north versus south issue for people don’t really understand. KMT is largely North, DPP is largely south, and DPP comes to power when their policies really align with people in the north from time to time. Right. And so that’s how the DPP gets into power. The DPP is much more nationalistic and independent than the KMT.
Albert
That would be pretty risky, I mean, for the United States if it didn’t intervene in some which way, because then you could talk about North Korea and South Korea unification and siding with the Chinese at some point, which is not out of the realm of possibility, in my opinion.
Tony
Right, okay. Can we agree? Is it eliminated for the next probably 2030 years?
Albert
Yes.
Tony
Do you think it’s eliminated, Michael?
Michael
I think so. I think so as well. I was on a different podcast earlier this week, and I keep alluding to this interesting podcast that Andrew Hunt out of the UK did, where he did analysis on 36 Chinese private banks. And his assessment is that there’s four there’s a $4 trillion liability gap that’s not captured in the in the balance of payments. China is much china is much, much more levered than the US.
Tony
Absolutely.
Michael
But but it’s but it’s hidden. It’s just pin behind the Opacity curtain. That’s exactly right.
Tony
Doesn’t look good. So if we if we push China out, say, 30, 40 years before they’re a contender, and they may not even be they may be too old by that time, because there really isn’t immigration to China right. Except for from North Korea and maybe a couple of other places. So we pushed China out. What about Europe? Will we have European decide for morale in 30 years? Will we have the demographic age of people who can actually work and contribute to the economy?
Albert
They don’t have a functioning military and solely reliant. Their banks are solely reliant on the US. At the moment. They’re insolvent, in my opinion.
Tony
So, yeah, that’s a good point. If you can’t defend yourself and if the demographics continue to get worse, they won’t have people that will defend the area. So if you can’t defend yourself, you can’t have a functional currency. Right.
Ralph
I guess that was a little bit an unintended consequence. And this is something Europeans hate to admit, but of course a lot of EU policy was kind of this dirty secret. The United States were constraining China and Russia, and the Europeans were trying to make deals with them. If you think back them in the entire Russian pipeline network to Europe, and I think with all of it also mentioned, kind of psychological effect was a certain form of infantilization. Right. This idea that military conflicts simply are a thing of the past in many ways, I see the biggest security risk for the United States. I don’t want to over dramatize it, but I see it almost more in Europe than in China or elsewhere, but not because of an actual military conflict, but the commitments to Europe for cultural and historical reasons that this is going to drag down American capacities. This is going to work out. But the European idea and we hear it again europe will now rearment the Titan vendors. They talked about the Germany. If you look at what’s actually happening, it’s just not happening because they know that the populations don’t really have an interest in that.
Tony
Yeah. Okay, so it’s not CNY. It’s not Euro. What else is a viable it’s not Japan.
Michael
Right.
Albert
This is what’s making me allude to the fact that I think that anglosphered plus Japan digital currency would be the only logical step. Next logical step. Just in my opinion. I just can’t see anything else out there. The Swiss francs is not big enough. The pound is not a relic of what it was without any actual alternatives that we can discuss. What’s out there? Nothing’s out there.
Michael
And by the way, all these, like, newfangled ideas of having some sort of pan global currency backed by commodities. But you know what? John made her. Cain’s backed the Bancorp during the battle for Bretton Woods. Harry Dexter White backed the unit. The SDR was tried and failed. The US. Dollar. Is that pan global currency?
Tony
Sure.
Albert
Yeah, it is. I keep arguing with these gold back currency people, and I’m like, what would stop me being the dictator of Albania, of spray paying some lead and saying, there’s my gold? But you can’t really look at it. You know what I mean? No nation gives you a transparent audit. So how could you even have a currency based on such a thing? It’s just silly to me, in my opinion.
Tony
Ralph, jump in.
Michael
Yeah.
Ralph
And I think one of the things this is what Mike did so well, I think in his paper that he presented at Westbourne, I think we have to look at kind of the structural conditions. And in many ways the United States has the occasional incompetent administration, but their structural is still more sound than any potential competitor, definitely more than Europe. And I think if one takes a closer look, they’re all structurally, at the moment, more sound than China. And in the case of a real conflict, I mean, these things really, really matter. And besides the rhetoric in America, we.
Tony
Expect our politicians to be dumb, and we just work around that.
Albert
Yeah, I mean, in a perfect world, the Pentagon would be working with the treasury to weaponize the dollar. I guess in the adversaries, I mean, that’s something the Pentagon has never really understood or really looked at, is like, you can place your adversaries in a certain position, being short commodities, short food, and you can really strain bingo, bingo.
Michael
By the way, that is the premise of our paper. Our paper is literally saying is literally saying that rather than rely on overt sanctions, that basically cause everybody to look for alternatives to the dollar. We’re at this really interesting macroeconomic window where a strong dollar policy inflicts asymmetric pain in our largest geopolitical adversary.
Albert
Yeah, it’s an absolute logical thing to do. And on top of that, not only can you use the dollar, but you can now use derivatives of the dollars, specifically grains. I mean, there’s only five companies in America that control the world’s grain. You can call them up and cause problems for the world or for China, for Russia, for any nation you really want to target if you really want to get down to that level.
Michael
And by the way, it also kills two birds with 1 st, right. Because it basically export our inflation problem because we are in a domestic fight against inflation.
Tony
Okay, that’s a great idea. Let’s do that. Great. Okay, so let’s just call this new currency TBD. How about that? Because I’m not really sure what to put in there. There are a lot of cheerleaders, as you guys have pointed out, trying to push other things forward, but I just don’t see the case for them. And outside of just suspending reality, I just don’t see the case for something else right now. I don’t say that as an American. I like, I’m not necessarily trying to kind of represent for the dollar. I just don’t see the viability of other options right now.
Michael
Yep.
Albert
I would be I would be the first one waving the red flags if there was an actual alternative out there.
Michael
Oh, there was one thing I was going to riff on. Albert, what what you were saying, or Tony, what you were saying in terms of, you know, our politicians being idiots and whatnot. So so my my view on that is that it’s because of the geographic endowments that the US. Has that’s enabled our federalist free market system to arrive and to survive. Because if you think about it, right, if you’re China or Russia with unbelievably shitty geography, it takes an autocratic system to try to hold that bucket of bolts together. To paraphrase Han Solo, why would you.
Tony
Want to own all that land if you’re Russia, why do you want to own the east? I don’t get it. It’s just hard to keep it all together. So that’s a great point, Mike. Okay, great. Hey, let’s go from talking to the dollar to talking about the dollar. Okay. You put a Tweet up earlier this week saying when the dollar started breaking upward, you talked about expecting Dxy to hit 112.
So it’s kind of we’re, we’re heading back to where we were last year, I guess. So can you walk us through that reasoning? And you talked about turbulence. Incoming. Can you, can you talk about what that turbulence is?
Albert
Inflation. It’s back again. And as much as the Fed doesn’t want to admit a mistake, they’ve absolutely created policies of mistakes and allowed inflation to rear its ugly head. I don’t want to leave it all on, all on the Fed. A lot of it has to do with Yellen’s actions and what she’s done with the dollar and then bringing it up and bringing it down. I mean, this goes to Michael’s point of the weaponization of the dollar is, you know, Yellen takes the TGA and she’s in charge of dollar policy. She can take the dollar up. And what she did, and it drove all the liquidity in Europe, back in Asia, back into the United States, which kept our markets propped up.
Tony
For people who haven’t watched this word, can you talk about what the TGA is?
Albert
And then if the treasury general account, she can use it in many ways, but basically it’s injecting liquidity into the economy.
Tony
And how much at what scale has she done over the past, say, nine months or something?
Albert
Prior to the midterms, she was doing about 160,000,000,000 a month.
Michael
Wow.
Tony
Okay, that’s a lot. When you say injecting, where was that going?
Albert
Well, I don’t know exactly where it was going. That’s not really clear. But she was absolutely using it and I’m sure it’s been dispersed throughout the economy and whatever sectors that she needed to send it out to to rally the markets. And she did a good job. I mean, the markets have stayed up here over 4000 for quite a long time and we don’t really deserve to be here at the moment. The problem that we’re having here now is as you rally the markets now, commodities start to rally. I mean, Europe was in a zombie status. China has been in lockdown for the most part. Yeah, I mean, they’re doing this, but as they reopen, inevitably inflation is going to come back. Wage inflation has been persistent. That’s not going to wave. I mean, I mean, honestly, the workers probably deserve wage inflation after 40 years of getting nothing. So, you know, I can’t really blame them on that aspect. But again, we’re, we’re sitting here with a hot PC PCE number today. You know, it looks like CPI is probably going to be sticky again next, next time around. And the Fed is going to be talking about 50 basis points when they, you know, previously the markets were calculating that we’re going to do a pause or a pivot in a later in the year.
Tony
That’s just not happening. A couple of meetings.
Michael
No. So I mean, this honestly feels like Q one of 22 to me. The whole setup right now feels like Q one of 22.
Albert
We’re right back where we started, Michael. Right back where we started. Because of Fed policies, they’ve done nothing to correct the situation with inflation.
Tony
Okay, so what’s going to happen to drive the dollar up? Yellen stops spending out of the TGA or doesn’t spend as much, or Fed policy, all the above. What happens to contribute to that?
Albert
I think it’s going to be a combination of Fed policy and then the ECB, the Europeans being hawkish themselves. But I think that we’re looking at 75 basis points, probably going up to five and 5.75 on the Fed funds rate by the end of the year, maybe even six. I don’t think they can go over that. But I mean, that alone should take the dollar up to 112. I’m sure they can, but taking the dollar over 115 to 120, you’re going to start causing massive problems. Rest of the world, you just start breaking things.
Michael
Can I ask Ralph a question?
Tony
Absolutely, sure.
Michael
So Ralph, I’m curious. I agree with Albert’s thesis. When I look at the inflation prints in Europe and in the UK, still so high, that gives me a little bit of pause right again on betting on the dollar continuing to rise, except when you look at the state of the economy. And so I’m curious how you see that, because I believe the last UK GDP print was very close to skirting the zero bound. So how much more can the BoE or the ECB really do?
Tony
Sorry, before we do that, let’s move into rough section, which is inflation hold on Europe, right? Which is exactly what you’re talking about. And so we saw Austrian CPI committed 11.2% year on year. When was the last time that happened, Ralph? I mean, what we’ve seen over the past few months maybe, I don’t know, 40 years ago or something.
Ralph
Oh, yeah, before I was born. And so this has been significantly long time ago. The problem is, despite what the ECB does for European politicians, it’s always the 1930s. So the answer, the economic problem is that it must be a demand side problem. So every time the ECB hikes rates, the government comes in with fiscal expansion. And Australia is the best example for this. Pretty much everything that would have been caused by higher rates has been softened by government spending and now expected government spending to happen in the future, which is they very slowly or not at all changed their behavior. So the, the idea to. Kind of, you know, pull money out of the system due to high interest rates is not working as as expected. I mean, we we saw it in Germany. It was when we met the last time, right? They said that there was actually slow growth in Germany in Q four 2022. Then they said that was a slight contraction of 0.2. Today we got the second revision. That actually it’s a contraction of 0.4. And that’s mostly because there was government spending. Otherwise it would have been significantly worse.
Ralph
And I think this is really the problem we are running into. So every time the ECB tries to high grade, governments will jump in with their own fiscal policies, trying to soften it. And what, of course, happens as a consequence, europe is losing its industrial base. So supply side politics, which would be necessary, they become more and more difficult. I mean, Tracy on the last weekend did a great job in kind of just listing all the aluminum smelters and all the heavy industry that has been closed down. We heard today that Germany’s chemical giant BASF is shrinking operations all over Europe. So at some point, you cannot just turn this back on again. So I’m very worried about the structural health of Europe, or even if we look at R and D and spending, right out of the top ten R and D spenders, there is one European company, which is Volkswagen, but all the other companies, most of them are American and some of them are Asian. But Europe is losing kind of connection to all of this just as a challenge to you guys. I mean, name one groundbreaking innovation or one groundbreaking area, and let’s say the high tech area where Europe or European nation was on the forefront in the last 20 years.
Ralph
Nothing comes to my mind.
Michael
Well, ASM Lithography.
Albert
Ralph brings up a great point, and one I usually harp on a lot is whenever you have political policies intermixing with economic policies, you have a problem because politicians want to get elected and their terms are a lot shorter than economic policies need. You know what I mean? That’s just the reality of it. I mean, the Germans, they say they’re tightening things up, but then they give 80% of their population, 80% of their paycheck to stay home. That’s not going to help.
Michael
And by the way, all this, right, all the slowdown in BASF and all that that you’re talking about, Ralph, this is with an extremely benign weather backdrop this year that enabled Ttf and NBP to collapse.
Tony
So huge benefit.
Ralph
I think there are two other very important issues that particular European politicians don’t get and that you and Mike had also talked a lot about, which is there is this weird idea that if Europeans and Americans stop drilling and supplying the world with fossil fuels, that somehow the prices will go down. But exactly the opposite is going to happen because we’re still going to consume it, we just no longer produce it, which is great for all the non European and non American producers. And the second part, what I think Europeans still don’t understand, is there is still this idea that the world will go back to as it was, let’s say ten years ago, like very early on. But even if there were, new should stop. Right? It’s obvious that there is a new kind of industrial policy happening that French showing that reassuring is going to happen and that will push upwards pressure on prices. And Europeans, at some point, they’re going to feel this. I mean, we see. With Germany, Europe is increasingly becoming a continent that has to import more and more, but everything we can export is becoming less and less.
Ralph
That is not a sustainable model unless we say we just become the world’s biggest retirement home tourist destination. But other than that, it’s really problematic.
Albert
That’s interesting because I remember Belina and I were talking about what Europe should do and it was definitely bring black your supply chains to Eastern Europe, north Africa, closer to home, something Europe can drive in investments and actually hold it close to close to their hand there. But they just have not done anything. They want to rely back on the old guard of let’s go to China and grab their market share. Meanwhile, Africa is sitting right there. That’s going to have a bigger population in the next 25 years than China and Younger and Hungary for innovation and products, but they haven’t capitalized on that.
Ralph
It’s like an inversion of the 19th century, right, when there was once a time where Europeans looked at the map and so everything is a potential part of the empire, not like they barely looked at the map at all. And I think it shows in their economic policies.
Tony
Yeah. Just going back over to what you were saying about the short termism of governments, and we see this, at least in the west, the bureaucracy is supposed to be the part of government that helps the office holders to see the longer term. But the quality of our bureaucracy has deteriorated so much over the last 2030 years that they just don’t care.
Albert
They don’t care. I put a lot of blame on social media right now. I mean, all these politicians get on social media and do catch phrases and this and that, and everything is in the real and now and immediate and so on and so forth, six months down the road. They don’t care. Simply, they don’t care.
Tony
Yeah. Ralph, one of the things that you tweeted out earlier, and I know Michael found this really interesting, was the bankruptcies in Europe. This was a Eurostat chart that came out looking at the rate of acceleration of bankruptcies across industries. Can you talk to us about that a little bit?
Ralph
Yeah, I mean, there’s a couple of factors not work. I mean, one is that a lot of these companies it’s kind of what happened in the financial sector during the Great Recession where you had these zombie banks. I think a lot of this is now also happening in the real economy and the industrial economy where many companies have been propped up during Cobit, they have been propped up by very low interest rates and this is now coming to an end. I can only speak for Austria, but there are many companies, of course, also have loans, some of them with not fixed interest rates. And of course they are squeezed now, so they have huge problems in refinancing themselves. And I think this is just the beginning. I don’t share the optimist. I’m kind of a little bit Albert here. Everybody who says that either inflation is going to be over, there’s no trustworthy indicator for me that inflation is ending anytime soon. And the second one is this idea and you mentioned this also, Tony, one of your tweets. I think the IMF forecast for growth in the Eurozone are too optimistic. I think that factors that are not yet calculated.
Ralph
Absolutely. And of course the big elephant in the room comes and go to mike, did you mention, is of course, energy. Like, everybody is like, oh, the energy crisis is over. But that’s only because elasticities in the energy sector are very low. So yes, if there is a lot available right now, it immediately affects the price. But there is no guarantee that it’s going to stay like this in the medium and long term. And if I look at European policy, I think that it’s going to get worse before it gets better seems more likely. And you see gradually signals like this coming from the International Energy Agency and from Goldman Sachs. So all of a sudden the optimists of two months ago say, well, it might be more problematic than we anticipated it to be. And one part of the story is something that also Mike mentioned. At some point, I think we have to say this also openly is this obsession with ESG and an energy transition that makes the promise that by 2030, 2035 the European economy is going to run entirely on renewables, which is an unrealistic. And we want to be more outspoken about it, which I think is a ludicrous proposal that cannot be fulfilled.
Michael
I call that the grativerse.
Tony
Yeah, we’ll all be driving.
Ralph
As a quick last point if we want to put real numbers on it. I mean, the German government alone, the Europeans spent almost a trillion dollars on energy last year. The Germans spent about $465,000,000,000 only on energy and all it got them was the declining economy by 0.4% in the first quarter. So what is their strategy if they want to do this again next year and we see it in the spread? At some point markets are going to look at Germany and say, listen, your reputation has been great for the last 40 years, but can you really still.
Tony
Deliver what what you germany’s got a lot of they’ve got a lot of capacity for fiscal spending. I just think they haven’t opened up as much as they need to yet. I mean, I think that’s part of.
Albert
Their they can’t they go into a doom loop of inflation.
Michael
What happens when Mother Nature doesn’t cooperate next time around?
Albert
Right?
Ralph
I think all of you are right. Tony’s right. I think there is still wiggle room. But what are they doing with the money? Right? Instead of making capital investment and saying, okay, we solve the problem, to do something they pretty much put it all into welfare checks, energy subsidies, but exactly. Encourage people to spend more and more products that are less and less available. So what’s the only thing you get? It’s inflation. I don’t know what the politicians are looking at.
Tony
Speaking of that, let’s talk about everyone’s favorite central banker, Madam Lagarde, and the choice that she has at the next meeting. She said earlier this week that they’re likely to raise by 50 basis points at the next meeting.
So what we’ve seen, the last two rate hikes were 50. We saw a couple of 75s in September and October. So there had been a hope like there was in the US. That things would not loosen or ease, but at least slow down on the rate hiking front in Europe. But with the pace of inflation, it almost seems like they don’t really have a choice, right?
Ralph
I would agree. Yeah, I think they don’t have a choice.
Tony
Okay, well, that’s it.
Michael
Well, I think they’re going to try. But what I really think reading between the lines of all the tough talk with all the world central bankers what I think everybody if you look through to their actions so far, I think everybody has been holding their breath, hoping that the Fed is going to engineer a global recession so that they don’t need to be the ones to have to administer the medicine. But the problem is, and I alluded to this in a thread a couple of months ago called geopolitical mosh pits, right? We’re in this every man for himself world where everybody’s got a domestic inflation problem. And so what the Fed does needs to sorry, the United States interests need to take precedence over necessarily worrying about other central banking interests and vice versa. But the problem is that right now the US economy is still humming along whereas the rest of the world’s economies are faltering pretty badly already. Your guess is as good as mine. I just think that Lagarde’s job is really tough because there’s no panned global bond market. Really. So she’s got this ridiculous Tpi mechanism where she’s trying to hold together sovereign spreads and the ECB’s sort of bond purchases as a percentage of GDP already at like 60% compared to the Fed at like 34% compared to japan at 120%.
Tony
Right.
Albert
I’m glad you mentioned that Michael, about nation states interest because it’s one of the things I harp on, especially when I talk to younger people and they ask me about geopolitics. The first thing you have to look at is a nation’s self interest and there’s no better time than right now to prove that example and you’re seeing it firsthand. All these nations, they have to have their own self interest that are before anything else at the moment.
Tony
And that’s normal, right?
Michael
That’s healthy.
Tony
I think that it’s so silly when we have to consider other people. Of course there’s a time for that, but it’s not right now. You have to really look after your own country, whether it’s India, Germany, US, China, whatever, it doesn’t matter. You have to look after your country first. Rough.
Ralph
But that’s the thing. Exactly what Albert just said and this I think makes it an even bigger ticking time bomb for Europe. You have notice absurd situation that politicians of member states of the EU, they want to continue to do populist economic policies while when they fail they can put blame on the Europe, on the ECB. So technically what probably should do before the next and out sort of a rate hike is to go out and say listen, cannot clean up the mess that you guys make in the domestic economic policies. And of course that’s not something that she’s probably going to say, but that’s really the dilemma. Data us almost have an advantage with the somewhat something that Albert is criticizing all the time, justifiably so with the kind of the chummy relationship between the Fed and the government. But at least it all happens within one state, right? It all happens within one country. And also going back to what Mike said about the federal structure. But in Europe, it’s kind of the worst of two worlds because the ECB tries to fine tune the economic problems via interest rates and the politicians that just go out and say, oh, I know you have to pay more on your loan, but here is an extra check for you.
Ralph
So you could almost say it’s like the nation states are mocking in the sense what DCP is trying to do.
Tony
Yeah, Mike, you said that Lagarde has a very hard job. I actually think it’s very hard because it’s very easy. There really isn’t a lot of choice there. It’s hard having the wherewithal I guess to go through with these things that are probably going to end up being.
Michael
Pretty painful, by the way, to steal man the other side a little bit. Okay, there are some that say that okay, well the Fed, because we have all these bilateral currency swaps, the Fed is going to take care of all its friends. Right. And so we actually saw a little bit about that. I wrote a thread last year about how, when the Yen, for instance, started its first approach towards 145 ish 140 ish I got some talk from a very well placed source that basically the Fed, in conjunction with the DOJ was allowing the BOJ to essentially buy us ten years to basically kind of paint a picture to stymie the depreciation and the yen. Okay? So then we saw this big risk rally. Remember when that happened and the yen corrected back? Well, then I get a call from the same source saying, you know what my people are telling me? My people at the Fed are telling me that, you know what? They can’t hold the line anymore. They’re going to basically stop. That’s when you saw the yen go to 150. Right now we’re in this sort of everybody calls it the transitory boldilocks, where things kind of came down and you’ve got Yellen’s games with the TGA, et cetera.
Michael
But I really think, and I think I agree with everybody on on this call, that all hell is going to break loose again when the dollar starts approaching 110 again. And this time maybe there won’t be that sort of bilateral help.
Albert
Yeah, michael is absolutely right. I heard the same thing about the Fed and the BOJ on top of that.
Tony
I thought you were a source, Albert.
Albert
Right, because I talked to you about.
Ralph
It a couple of times.
Albert
But they do the same thing with the Aussies and New Zealand and Canada. They give them marching orders, say, hey, we’re going to paint a picture over here, so gives us room to do something over here, so on and so forth. But like I said, that’s the Anglosphere and plus Japan. That’s why one of the things that led me to believe is like, next thing for a currency would probably be them. But they already work together as it is, whether the market knows it or not, they talk and they work together. Yeah.
Ralph
I think it very often comes back to this very point that this is something that Michael’s and I said before it’s that, of course, what underwrites the dollar as the global reserve currency and the most powerful currency is because the United States have the most powerful economy. Whatever problems they have otherwise, their economy in many ways is still the most dynamic and the most innovative. And this is what I interfere about. The European situation is we can criticize politics, we can criticize the ECB, but I think we also have to criticize European industry itself. Because like in Germany with heavy industry, they never say anything. Right? They could get together and say this. You hear occasionally a voice there and occasionally a voice there, but there is no concerted actions by representatives of the industry to do something about it. And my suspicion is because they kind of made it comfortable for themselves because they know they get government subsidies, they might have to produce less, but I’d rather depend on the biggest monopoly there is. The state than on those pesky customers or those potentially unsecured international markets. But that’s a very short time perspective.
Ralph
I mean, this is not something it can do forever. And again, the only reason why Europe could do what it did was because they could rely on the United States to provide with the bluewater navy to everything else. They provided the framework in which Europe could do what it did. But as this framework is changing, because Albert would never talk to me again, I’m not going to move all multipolar because you would because I don’t agree with that idea either. But it’s definitely changing, I think. I think Americans are becoming more sensitive to listen, guys, you have been pre writing for 60 years. It’s time to do something yourself.
Tony
Yeah, go ahead, Mike.
Michael
So, Ralph, you touch upon another theme that we raised in our paper, which was, again, it goes back to geography, right. Because the US has had these geographical advantages. It’s allowed its military strategy to focus outward on force projection and develop that blue water navy. Right? So when you compare that and compare and contrast that to China, right, where you could argue that they’ve got greenwater superiority within the first island chain by virtue of 350 vessels versus our 270, but the gross tonnage is one third that of the US. Navy. They cannot force project. And so if you talk about real force projection and geopolitical power right. Again, to steal man the other side, what would cause the US. To see the T hegemony? Well, it would be that scenario where China somehow decides that, hey, you know what? We are going to subsidize global maritime security for the good of the global commons. Do you see China doing that? I sure don’t.
Albert
Not for all of us to century. And it takes a lot of money to build up a navy. And then you need combat experience. And then on top of that, any kind of conflict in Taiwan or the South China Seas shuts down their ports. China cannot afford to shut down their ports. I was going back and forth with Elbridge Colby about this. He’s a military guy, and I love the guy. Right. But when you have to look at the economic aspects of it concerning the dollar and China’s food insecurity problems and their economy in general, if they invaded Taiwan and shut down those ports and their economy collapsed, she would be dead in 30 days.
Michael
There’s a little issue of China having to import 80% to 90% of its crude, all of which pretty much come through the Strait of Malacca.
Tony
Yeah.
Albert
I mean, so but this is this is something that it’s really important for you to talk to the military and get that USD thing out there and talk about commodities and talk about the economic ramifications and say this is a significant deterrence for China to invade. This is a significant deterrence for any nation to really go after because there’s just no money around. The economies are really weak. So it’s a great thing that you’ve done.
Michael
Thank you. I hope you guys enjoy the paper. Yeah, sorry.
Tony
Just going back to what you said, Mike, about China not having the blue water navy, really, to protect trade and waterways. They have tried that with the Belt and Road. It’s been less than a decade, but it’s kind of been a failure since the start of it.
Michael
The thing with belt and road, right? If you think about what it is, they are expending tremendous amounts of national treasure to recreate what the US. Is naturally endowed with.
Tony
Right. Yeah. It’s very inefficient.
Michael
It’s very corrupt, and they’re failing at that.
Tony
I start with those. When I was trying to put in a tendering system for the Belt and Road transparency, I asked them, how much are you comfortable losing to corruption? 20%, 30%, 50%? People just shrug shoulders. Nobody wants to even look at those basic transparency issues, much less understand that that spending is incredibly wasteful just for some sort of desperately seeking some sort of relevance with third tier countries. Right. I mean, no offense, they’re great people and all that stuff, but they are not necessarily economic powerhouses, and they’re not necessarily strategically placed. So it’s a big problem, and corruption is a big problem in those places. So not only are they going to have to buy off Chinese industry to go in these places to build, they’re going to have to buy off the officials in those countries to get the infrastructure done. Okay, guys, let’s bring this back to Europe. Since Europe is kind of our last group. Ralph, I get the sad sense that when Mike talks about dollar resurgence and Albert talk about dollar resurgence and inflation is pushed on the rest of the world and these sorts of things, europe and European industries show this as well.
Tony
Europe isn’t really a growth engine, of course. Right. So is Europe the worst place of the regions in the world generally, when we see a dollar resurgence and inflation and kind of these coming headwinds? Probably not.
Ralph
I mean, I remember I asked all about this, I think almost a year ago, once on Twitter. I think that the ties between the US. And Europe are still so strong that I could imagine that the US. Would be willing to adapt their policies in a way to protect Europeans from the fallout that will find some ways to support them. Okay, I think that, again, maybe I’m putting too much hope in the US. Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part, but I think that these ties are still strong. I think this is the US. I think they still view Europe as part of the national interest. But spoke to be very clear, I’m glad of I mean, something that bothers me, really, is I think the best thing Europe could do would be to place itself as Athens to America’s wrong kind of place I can feel to the strongest player on the block. But don’t try to be as again, Albert, we’ve discussed it many times to participate in this fantasy of the new multipolar world where you will balance the US in a quasi agreement with India and China. This is all fantasy.
Ralph
None of this is real. When push comes to Sharp, I think the US are still the best bet for the Europeans. But to be kind of a psychological problem in Western Europe, I think this is another thing.
Tony
Of course.
Ralph
I think the Eastern Europeans, particularly Poland and others I think are much more willing to attach themselves or kind of align themselves with the US. I think Western Europe and it’s mostly cultural, psychological that they still wish to be kind of a counterweight potentially to the rude Americans and the alcohol.
Tony
We’re definitely rude. We’ll take that. Okay, guys, we’ve been an hour, so I appreciate all of the thought you put into today. For everyone watching, please don’t forget about the promo. The Friends of Tony for promo promo 1st 25 subscribers. Guys, I really appreciate your time. Time. Have a great weekend. Have a great weekend. Thank you very much.
In the current Week Ahead, Harris Kupperman (Kuppy) of Praetorian Capital discusses his hypothesis that crude oil prices may reach $300 per barrel due to a decrease in supply resulting from environmental regulations, a lack of investment, and government actions. Kuppy also argues that high demand for housing in the US, driven by population growth and migration, will lead to a positive outlook for the housing market. However, he notes that high mortgage rates could impact the market, but a pause on interest rates or an acceleration of inflation could lead to a more favorable outlook. Kuppy suggests that the US housing market may see a shift towards lower-priced homes with fewer amenities in order to accommodate growing families. He also highlights the attractiveness of housing markets in emerging markets due to high interest rates and positive real yields on property appreciation.
Next, Brent Johnson of Santiago Capital discusses recent policy changes by the Bank of Japan (BOJ) and the market’s reaction to them. Brent argues that the changes, which included increasing the amount of quantitative easing (QE) and widening the range within which the yield curve control operates, were not a real policy change and that the market misread the situation. He suggests that the BOJ is trying to avoid a repeat of earlier this year, when rising interest rates caused chaos in the Japanese banking system and the market had to be halted. He also discusses the challenges central banks face in balancing the bond market and the currency market, and the impact of these challenges on the yen.
Finally, Tracy Shuchart of High Tower Resource Advisors talks through the relationship between oil demand and household savings during economic recessions, stating that past recessions have not significantly impacted oil demand. She also covers the potential long-term effects of declining population rates on global energy consumption, then comments on the potential for energy consumption to increase in the short-term, citing data from the International Energy Agency and discussing the impact of economic stimulus on household savings and consumption.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. My name is Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Harris Kupperman. You may know him as Kuppy on Twitter. We’ve also got Brent Johnson and Tracy Shuchart. Kuppy is with Praetorian Capital. Brent Johnson, of course, is with Santiago Capital. And Tracy Shuchart is with High Tower Resource Advisors. So, guys, thank you so much for joining us. I think this is going to be a great discussion.
Hi, everyone. Wanted to let you know about a promo we’re having for our CI Future subscription product. This is our Inflation Buster sale. We know that prices are hitting you everywhere and it’s holiday time. So I want to give you a big break on our CI Futures product.
CI Futures has thousands of assets that we forecast every month. We do commodities, currencies and equity indices. Every single week, on Monday morning, there are hundreds, almost 800 of those that we forecast every week updated on Monday morning. We forecast economics variables every month. Those are available on the first of every month. In total, it’s thousands of assets.
We show our error. We are the only product out there, the only forecasting product out there that actually discloses our error. You can see our historical error and you can see a year’s forecast at monthly intervals. Right now, we’re offering 50% off of CI Futures. You can actually get it for as low as $25 a month. We have different arrangements based on the commitment. You want a full year or say, going month to month. So you can get it anywhere between $25 a month and $50 a month with our current offering.
So please check it out. Please click on the site. If you need a demo, let us know. Thanks very much.
We have some key themes here. The first, really looking at some of Kuppy’s discussions lately, looking at $300 crude, and kind of still with a question mark, bullish housing? I think that’s the first thing we’re going to jump into.
Then we’re going to look at Japan’s normalization. We had some news this week with BOJ Chair, kind of starting to normalize the Japanese money supply environment. So we’ll jump into that with Brent. And then we’re going to look at recession on oil demand elasticity with Tracy.
So, guys, thanks again for joining us. I’m looking forward to just a great discussion today.
So, Kuppy, you know, you have posted quite a lot about $300 oil in your newsletter and online. And, you know, there are a lot of, we had a show last week that was full of oil bulls. I don’t know that anybody particularly said $300. So I’m really curious about your $300 call. Can you walk through your thesis and just help us understand what you’re thinking?
Kuppy
Yeah, sure. I mean, overall, oil is just like all the commodities. It’s supply and demand. And since 2014, no one’s really invested and the supply side is really constricted. You have ESG mandates. You have lack of capital from institutional investors. You have banks that won’t lend. You have governments around the world that are canceling pipelines and canceling permits. And now you have UK talking about excess profits, taxes. That’s not an environment for guys to go explore and drill. And the thing about oil is that if you’re not drilling new wells, they decline over time. And so the question keeps being, where does the oil come from? People just think that the US. Shale, you can flip a switch and barrels show up. And maybe that was the case a decade ago, but that’s not how it works anymore. We’ve really hit the best acreage.
And from here on out, not only are you working mostly at tier two locations, but you’ve seen massive inflation in terms of oilfield services and those wells that everyone used to lie about and say it had 100 IRRs at 60, what we learned is they don’t break even at 60. And now you have massive oilfield inflation. I don’t know if you have decent IRRs at 80 or maybe even 100 in a lot of these places.
And I mean, it’s no secret why no one’s drilling. The numbers don’t work. And then, you know, you flip it to the other side on the demand side. Look, 6 billion people want the same standard of living and the same energy per capita utilization that all of us have. And you could have said this decades ago, but what’s changed is that they’re all in that part of the S curve where their per capita consumption explodes. I mean, look what’s happened in India. We’re having, I guess, a global recession this year, but demand is up teens.
You look all around the world, Africa, LatAM and demand is up. Even in the US demand is up. And so demand grows one or 2 million barrels every year. And where is the supply going to come from? What we’ve seen, like I said, is the supply is restricted. And even if you try to add supply, it takes a couple of years.
And so I think you’re going to have a massive mismatch. And what’s hidden that for the last year is that China has been offline. That’s two or 3 million barrels. The SPR is globally of about a million, million five. So you’re really looking at, let’s call it four and a half million barrels. That that’s been kind of like subsidizing the balances.
And, you know, you could debate, you know, exactly what the number is, and it moves around some. But for the most part, you’ve had this weird subsidy to the oil price, and I don’t think that’s going to be there next year. China has been pretty clear they’re opening and the SPR is empty. Meanwhile, Russian production is in free to fall after the US firms left. That’s another million. And like I said, global demand grows a million or two a year.
And I don’t think we can see much growth on the supply side. I think you’re going to have a four to 5 million barrel deficit, and that’s one of the biggest deficits in 40 years. And it may even be as large as we saw in World War II as a percentage of total consumption. And I think the price is going to scream out of control. I don’t think 300 is the clearing price long term, but I think you could get there in a super spike, especially given how much structured products out there that’s synthetically short. So that’s how I see it, and that’s why I’m so bullish.
Tony
Okay, so is your time frame for ’23 for the $300 price, or is that just kind of a longer term target?
Kuppy
I think it’s like the next year or two.
Tony
Okay.
Kuppy
Like I said, we’re going to have massive supply demand mismatch next year, and I think it’s going to scream out of control. There’s some things we could still do. They’re going to jump some more SPR. Maybe there’s some things around the margin they can do. But in the end, if you’re structurally short oil and there’s no oil to be had, I think the price goes crazy. And you always have a geopolitical kind of upside there to whatever happens to the price of oil, because it’s never really the downside, but it’s usually the upside if something crazy happens.
Tony
Right. Okay. We just had Zelensky speak to US Congress this week here in the US. And it doesn’t really sound like the war there is slowing down. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I don’t know that we get a clear picture anyway, but I think there are a lot of assumptions that that will calm down next year for some of these guys who aren’t seeing super high oil prices. If that war intensifies, does that speed up your $300 price target, or does it affect it at all?
Kuppy
I don’t think it affects it at all. I mean, Russian oil is still making its way to the market. But US technology for the Russian oil fields isn’t. And so Russia is going to be in slow motion decline in terms of production, and I don’t really see what would change in the Ukraine situation. I think it’s very likely that as soon as the ground freezes there, those half million conscripts will be set loose behind the Ukrainian army and kind of surround them all. The only reason that Ukraine is still in the war is really just because it’s been kind of warm there. I think it doesn’t look very good, but that’s like more of a personal view. But I don’t think it really matters who wins this war. In the end, Russian production is rolling over.
Tony
Right, okay. And is there a possibility of, let’s say, a load of investment going into Venezuela in the short term and that volume that supply, hitting markets to save markets? I’m just trying to kind of figure out, is there a near term supply side solution?
Kuppy
Not really. I mean, who wants to invest in Venezuela? You can get a bunch of pieces of paper with guarantees, but the history…
Tony
Chevron does, of course.
Tracy
No, but it’s absolutely true. I mean, it would take billions. And it’s still the problem is geology there? And what’s going on…
Tony
Explain that. When you say the problem is geology.
Tracy
It’s not only their infrastructure which is decrepid after, it’s also geology. Right. They have very sludgy oil. It’s very hard to get out of the ground. So even with investments, you’re facing an additional challenge of the geology there being very, very difficult. And so that’s just going to add. So anybody thinking that Venezuela oil is going to change this dynamic is off base, in my opinion.
Tony
Okay, and then Africa supplies other stuff. There’re Brazil. There isn’t really anything that can be accelerated on the supply side. I’m just trying to poke through this, guys, just to get a better view.
Kuppy
I think you’re going to see an increase in offshore oil production around the middle of this decade. Guiana, Suriname, West Africa, Brazil, it’s all coming online. But it doesn’t come online fast.
Tony
Right?
Kuppy
Well, you have a lot of places that are rolling over or really struggling just to stand in place. I think we should look at is what’s happening in Saudi, where they’re frantically procuring every jackup that could be had globally. They’re going off into the Gulf. I mean, if their oil production was stable or they thought they had more onshore, which is the cheap stuff, they’d just be drilling more onshore. The fact that they’re going into the Gulf, it’s an increase in complexity and cost means that their existing fields are now getting old. And it’s obvious they’re old. They’ve been going for 70 years, but they’re finally seeing that water cut really pick up and they’re starting to panic. No, I think you have a lot of problems everywhere. Plus you have some swing places. Iraq, Libya gets cut off again from exports. You have a bunch of places where you could lose a million barrels in a hurry.
Tony
Okay. No, it sounds pretty ominous, actually. So I’m trying to find ways to push back on that. But again, we have some really smart folks last week, including Tracy, who had a similar thesis, maybe not 300, but a similar thesis. And I think what you’re saying, Kuppy, makes a lot of sense.
Kuppy
I think the pushback is really that something could happen on the demand side where you have a global economic crisis. They lock us down for monkey pox or the next pox they invent. Something like that is what I’d be looking at in terms of the wild card where demand falls off. But all it really does is postpone things. I mean, look, it’s December. 2023 budgets are being set at all the majors, and they’re being set in the context of mid 70s WTI. Do you think board of directors are going to approve an increase in spending? Like, I think 2023, and as a result of ’24 production, at least onshore US, is kind of baking the cake based on @75 price today.
Brent
Hey, Tony, I typically would defer, and I will defer on all things oil to Kuppy and Tracy, but I would say that to be completely truthful, I actually shorted a little bit of oil this morning. And it’s just a tactical thing. It’s not a huge deal. If it goes against me, we’ll stop out and it’ll be fine. But what Kuppy just said, I think could happen. The interesting thing is I think it’s possible we do get this demand shock right, and we get some kind of a global slowdown in the first half, which could potentially push oil a little bit lower. But if that were to happen, I would then, well, I already do agree with Kuppy’s thesis kind of medium to longer term. I think he’s kind of nailed the overall structural issues and why it is. And I would just say that if we do get kind of a short term demand drop that pushes the price lower, that could actually help to cut supply even more because firms go bankrupt or they can’t invest or whatever it is, and then it constricts supply even more, and then you get a military action. And in my opinion, that’s how you get oil at $200 or $300. I tend to agree with the Kuppy’s overall position.
Kuppy
You’re just talking about the slingshop, right?
Brent
Yeah, that’s exactly right.
Tracy
Absolutely. And you have to realize that if we have the lower oil prices we have and gasoline prices we have, that increases demand in a supply side constricting environment. So that’s where you get your selling shot. So it really depends on, I think, how you’re trading this definitely depends on your time frame. If you’re longer term, that’s one thing. If you’re shorter term, I think oil is going to be volatile for the next few quarters.
Tony
So because we’re actually talking about $300 oil, I think it’s Citi who always does the extremes in crude. So now we’re going to have a Citi report that says $500 oil. Right. Thank you.
So, Kuppy, you also had a very interesting call on housing. And when I sent out the Tweet about this recording, I had some questions about your housing call, your bullish housing call. And I want to ask, are you still bullish housing? And can you go into that thesis a little bit either way? What’s your thinking on US housing now?
Kuppy
I’m bullish US housing. Structurally, you have a shortage of 5 million homes. This is population growth, especially people my age a little younger that are starting families and they need homes. And there’s been a lot of migration in the US. And so you need a lot of homes in Texas and Tennessee and Florida and not where these people are fleeing from. And so as a result, there’s just strong demand for homes. At the same time, if you take mortgages up to 7%, no one could afford a home.
And so we’re having a bit of a pause as the Federal Reserve kind of intercedes in the housing market. And it’s kind of like a Brent Slingshot in oil. All you’re going to do is make the problem worse if you’re not building enough homes for the demand. Because the demand keeps growing, the population keeps growing and so they’ve kind of postponed us a little. You’ve seen rent spike out of control, though. That’s kind of stabilizing a little just with the economy kind of slowering. But no, I think the housing market is going to do very well, but it’s going to need a pause on interest rates or an acceleration on inflation.
I mean, you could look at a lot of emerging markets where you can’t borrow for 30 years, you can’t maybe get five years and you’re going to pay 15% interest rate on that. But you know what? They’re having huge demand for housing because if inflation is 20 and you fund it at 15 and you get put a couple of terms of debt on that, well, you’re making 20 30% on your equity. That’s a good place to be as a 25 year old guy or 30 year old guy with a family trying to get a home.
Tony
Yeah. When people don’t understand why real estate is so attractive in Asia and why, say, Hong Kong homes or Chinese homes or whatever, why you always have this inflationary environment in real estate in Asia? What you talked about, Kuppy, is exactly why. I think it’s very hard for people in the US particularly to understand why real estate in Asia is so appealing. And it’s exactly for that reason.
Kuppy
Yeah, LatAm and Africa too, where interest rates are high, but you still have a positive real yield on owning your property because it’s appreciating.
I think the other thing I’d say in the US and I think people kind of lost the narrative here. Guys are complaining that when their parents, like my parents were buying homes, it used to cost two or three years of salary and now it’s eight years or ten years of salary. And they say homes are really expensive.
Yes, homes are really expensive. But the guys got buying a McMansion today. It’s like a 4000 square foot home in the suburbs. If you look at what the people were buying in the 70s and 80s, it was like 1200 square feet, it was a two bedroom with a little kitchen. Now the kitchen has $200,000 of appliances in it. Like right. The reason these things got really expensive and, and unaffordable.
I think you’ll see some reversion back to a lower price point home with, with less amenities because you got to put people into homes as they were to put them. And so, big picture, I’m super bullish you know, you, you can’t go indefinitely with, you know, having a family with three kids and they’re in a two bedroom that’s 1200 sqft.
They need space, but that’s going to take until rates come back and as soon as rates peak out and start dropping or when inflation accelerates again, I’m going to be all over housing.
Tony
Great. Okay, that’s good. Thanks for that clarification. I think that’s really interesting, but in the near term you’re not necessarily bullish on housing in the near term, while rates are rising?
Kuppy
I think housing is going to do just fine because the tailwind is so strong, but at the same time, I think there’s better stuff to own. I’d much rather be in things that are pro inflation. I really just want to stick with energy. Uranium. I think those are trends that do well really in either market environment, but just because of the supply demand imbalances of the next year or two, I think they just work idiosyncratically no matter what. And I don’t know, I just think it’s easier trades.
Tony
Great. Okay, we did have some questions actually about emerging markets, so I just want to ask you first Kuppy, but then the rest of you guys, what emerging markets are you looking at and why?
Kuppy
I’m not really looking at any, so I can’t say. I will say I have a lot of friends that specialize in emerging markets, and they could show me a bunch of metrics that say emerging markets haven’t been this cheap in a very long time on cash flow, book value dividend. And there’s some reasons why maybe they deserve to be cheap. But those things come and go in terms of the why. But you buy cheap assets, things usually happen to you that are beneficial over time. I see Brent laughing, so explain.
Brent
Okay, to be clear, I’m not laughing at Kuppy’s answer. I tend to agree with, if his friends are telling him these things, I’m sure that’s true because they tell me the same thing. I just kind of laugh because I feel like every year for the last seven years, the trade of the year at the beginning of the year is to short the dollar and go long EM. It’s always the trade, it’s always the big idea, and to me it just never plays out. And I don’t think it’s going to play out right now.
I personally am not looking at any EM other than to stay away from it or perhaps to go on vacation to it. I don’t want anything to do with it from an investment perspective. Probably, not surprisingly, I don’t think the move in the dollar is over. And I think if we get a slowdown in the first half, which I think we will, I think that will play out in the Euro dollar market, and the emerging markets just as much, if not stronger than it will in the US markets. I don’t see an environment where EM outperforms the United States right now
Tony
In dollar terms.
Brent
In dollar terms. Yeah. Maybe in local terms. In local terms, that could easily happen. I mean, take a look at Turkey, right?
Tony
Right.
Brent
Turkey stock market has gone up two or 300% in the last 18 months, but they’ve got 80% inflation in local terms.
Tony
Right. So you have to.
Brent
So you have to yeah, right.
Tony
So Brent, can you talk us through you mentioned the dollar and you know, everyone always wants to know what your thoughts on the dollar? Can you walk us through what you’re looking for, say, over the next three to six months with the dollar?
Brent
Yeah, so, I mean, over the next three to six weeks or a couple of months, I don’t know, maybe it just goes sideways. But I think by, if not the end of Q1, beginning of Q1, kind of April-May time frame, I think the dollar is much higher than it is right now because I think that, you know, I sent out a tweet earlier today where because I, was kind of laughing.
I was talking to somebody and they said, well, rate hikes are over, so the dollar is done. And I was like, well the, the dollar can go up for reason other than rate hikes. And he was like, what are you talking about? And here’s the thing. From 2008 to 2019, the dollar went up 20% and there weren’t any rate hikes. I mean, there was a few in 2018. And in 2014, in 2014 and 2015, the DXY went up 25%. There were zero rate hikes. It’s because there was a global slowdown, right.
And when dollars aren’t circulating and the world needs dollars, there’s a dollar shortage. Supply, demand, it pushes the dollar higher. And so I feel like the move of the dollar in 2020, I’m sorry, in 2022 was all about rate hikes. Interest rate differentials, right. And maybe that is potentially over.
But the dollar can move for reasons other than interest rate differentials. And I think people have forgotten that if we go into a recession or if we go into a global slowdown, all that debt that is issued in dollar still needs to be serviced. And so I think perhaps the run in the dollar due to rate hike differentials is over. But I don’t think the run due to dollar shortage, due to a global slowdown and the need to service dollar debt is over.
Now, if I’m wrong, I don’t think that the Fed will come out and totally flip until they’re forced to do it. And the only reason they would be forced to do it is if the dollar was higher and all these asset prices were lower. So is it possible by the end of 2023 the dollar is lower? Sure. But I think at some point in 2023 we’re going to get another run in the dollar. And I think it’s probably in the kind of the March to April-May time frame.
Tony
Well, I think what people also forget is that the Fed has eight plus trillion dollars on its balance sheet, and if they start to sell it off in any sort of volume, that takes dollars out of circulation, right?
So that’s a big assumption because they’re shrinking it on a small basis now. But if they accelerated that, that would take dollars out of circulation. That’s bullish dollar as well, right.
Brent
Well, the other thing I want to make this point because I think this is a critical point. And I was speaking to, I went to a conference in October, and I’m not going to pick on this conference because it’s happened at every conference I’ve gone to. And I had so many people come up and me and say, what’s going to happen with the Fed? How’s the Fed going to get out of this? How’s the Fed going to get out of this? They’re trapped. Nobody has ever come up and asked me how the ECB is going to get out of it.
Nobody’s ever come up and asked me how the bank of Japan is going to get out of it. Nobody’s ever asked me how the Bank of England is going to get out of it. And the thing is, they’re in worse shape than we are. I hear you, and I understand all the problems associated with the dollar. Listen, it’s a horrible currency. It’s just better than the other three jokers.
Tony
Gold or CNY, Brent. Gold and CNY solves everything.
Brent
Exactly. So my views on the dollar are not just based on what the Fed is going to do. A lot of it’s based on what these other central banks are going to do. And I just don’t think their leaders are any smarter than ours.
Tony
Perfect.
Brent
And I think they’re trapped even more than we are. So anyway, not to go off on a whole tangent, but that’s why I don’t want to have anything to do with emerging markets.
Tony
That is not a tangent. In fact, that’s a segue to our Japan normalization discussion. Right.
So thanks for that. So we saw Kuruda come out, talk about changing policy a little bit, and markets reacted with a stronger yen and yada yada. Right.
So is this, do you see this as a real change? I see this tweet that you sent out earlier this week saying if you think happened to think today’s move in the BOJ is going to work out for Japan, it’s not.
So can you talk us through? Is it just preparing for the next BOJ chair to reduce risk if they change policy? Is it a real policy change? Is it going to work out? What do you see there?
Brent
I don’t really think it’s a policy change. And if you actually look at a lot of people, just see the headline and just react, and they don’t even think about what the headline means. And I think the market has got into a habit, and people in general have got into a habit of reading into it what they want to read into it. So I think very much the world wants Japan to get out of this, and they want the dollar to go down. And so anything that shows that another central bank is going to outperform the dollar, they ultimately want that to be true, whether it is or not.
If you read what they actually are doing, they’re actually increasing the amount of QE that they’re doing. So if you just read that sentence, you’d say, holy cow, the end is going to go even lower. Because not only did it have a horrible year this year, but now they’re going to increase QE. But at the same time, what they said is that we’re going to let the bond, the yield curve control, the band with which in yield curve control moves, we’re going to widen that.
So we could have interest rates in Japan go up to 50 basis points rather than 25 basis points. And so the market kind of interpreted that as, okay, they’re actually moving towards rate hikes. Now, they didn’t say they’re moving towards rate hikes. They didn’t do a rate hike. But everybody wants to believe that they’re going to raise rates.
But here’s the thing. Earlier this year, and I think it was March or April, interest rates in Japan, because of inflationary pressures, are now actually even hitting Japan. Long term rates in Japan moved up 25 basis points. And because the two to five to ten years prior to that, they were doing QE and negative rates. The banking system is chock full. And when I say the banking system, the banks, the hedge funds, the endowments, the all the institutions in Japan have all these zero yielding bonds, Japanese bonds on their banks, and because, and they’re long term bonds.
And so when yields even go up 25 basis points, the convexity makes the balance sheet of all these institutions go upside down. And so when interest rates went up 25 basis points in April, it caused all kinds of chaos in the Japanese banking system, and the market had to be halted, and the Bank of Japan had to come in and promise to do more yield curve control in order to keep it from blowing up.
And two days ago, or three days ago, whenever that announcement was, they made that announcement, the market took it as an interest rate hike. And guess what happened? They had to halt the Japanese bond market again. So I understand if they do raise rates, that would strengthen the yen.
But the problem is you cannot, and this is for every country, the US included, again, there’s a progression in how it’ll go, but you cannot save both the bond market and the currency market because they work at cross purposes. Whatever you do to save the bond market hurts the currency. Whatever you do to save the currency hurts the bond market. And every central bank in history has promised they won’t sacrifice the currency, and every central bank in history has ultimately sacrificed the currency.
And the reason they always choose the currency over the bond or the reason they always choose to sacrifice the currency over the bond market is two reasons. One, the currency affects the citizens more than the government, and the bond market affects the government more than citizens. So they’re going to bail themselves out before they bail the citizens out. And the second thing is, if the bond market blows up and the banking system blows up, there is no longer a distribution system for the government to raise money.
So they can’t let the bond market blow up because then they can’t get money anymore. And then if they can’t get money, they can’t operate. So this is a very long way of saying that I understand why the market moved the way it did. I think maybe in the short term it makes sense, but in the medium to long term, it doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Again, kind of watch what they do, not what they say. I think the yen is going much, much lower.
Tony
Okay, interesting. How long do you think it will take before markets call their bluff, is that?
Brent
Maybe a couple of months?
Tony
Really?
Brent
Again, I think we’re going to have a lot of problems by the end of Q1 all over the world, not just in Japan, not just in the US, not just in Europe, but everywhere. I think we’ve been slowly moving towards this crisis, and I think we’re almost there.
Kuppy
Brent, I think a lot of the move in the yen over the past couple of weeks is really just guys degrosing. That was the funding currency for all the risk assets, and risk assets went no bid, basically all year, and guys are finally getting redeemed from their hedge funds, and it’s year end redemptions. You got to pay it out. It’s got to unwind your yen to unwind your Tesla, which is also in free fall.
Brent
That plays into it as well. Yeah, I see your Tesla queue there. That’s a good timing.
Kuppy
I’ve had this, what, five years? Six years. It’s probably coming due today.
Tony
When is the Twitter Q month coming?
Kuppy
I don’t know.
Brent
Oh, they should have one of those, shouldn’t that’s a good idea. We should start selling those.
Kuppy
I’m a little conflicted here because I feel like Elon might be doing the right thing on the Twitter side, whereas Tesla is still like the evil empire. So I don’t know.
Tony
Okay, we’ll have another discussion about that at some point. Brent, you talk about things coming in Q1. Can you share a little bit of your thoughts there around markets, potential recession that might…
Brent
Well, yeah. I mean, in general, it’s kind of amazing. Now, let’s reverse ten days ago to the Fed meeting. At that time, the Fed had raised four and a half, almost 4% for the year, and markets were down, but they weren’t down that much. Now, since then, they’ve sold off another 5% or 10%. So now they’re getting close to the lows of September again.
But this is what I think. I think a lot of people are surprised that the market hasn’t crashed more than it has based on the four and a half percent or, or 4% rate hikes. And I think what sometimes people forget is that we may not even be feeling the effects of the very first rate hike yet, because oftentimes rate hikes take nine months to a year to actually.. The effects of the rate hike to show up in the economy and work their way through the economy.
Tony
Powell talked about that a lot in his last…
Brent
Well, no, exactly. And the first rate hike was nine months ago. It was in March. So it really wasn’t that long ago. Right. And now they’ve raised four times since then. So I just feel like by the time we get into February, March, that stuff is going to have started to show up, perhaps dramatically. And I think the Fed is going to continue raising until they just can’t raise anymore.
Now, whether they should or not, whether you believe Powell or not, again, that’s kind of a separate subject. I just think he’s going to do it because he wants to do it, and the last thing he wants is for inflation to reaccelerate on his watch. Right. And if he crashes the market, then everybody will be begging him to do QE and he can go do QE and be the hero. So I just kind of see that that’s how it’s playing. And I think that probably a lot of people agree with me on that. I don’t think that’s any kind of a crazy view right now. I think a lot of people think he’s going to hike until it crashes the economy, but I don’t see him slowing down until he has to.
Kuppy
Brent, I got a question. Lagarde has been super dovish for a very long time. Depending which country in the Eurozone you’re at teens, maybe even high teens inflation all of a sudden, last week, she just came out swinging.
Brent
She did.
Kuppy
And what do you think changed? Did someone just whisper in her ear? Did she look at a debt bad data point? Did a politician be like, hey, the peasants are upset about the price of bree? Like, what happened?
Brent
I think it’s a little bit of that latter. I’ve talked about this before. I think we all know that financial repression is the name of the game for governments. That’s how they get out of these big debt, these big debts that they, you know, they want to inflate it away over time. The problem, though, is what they would ultimately like to do is to get very steady rate of inflation at four or 5% a year for ten years right. And inflate away 50% of the debt. The problem, as we’ve kind of figured out and found out that it’s very hard to just get four for four or 5% inflation. It goes from 2% to 12% pretty quickly. They don’t have as much control as they think they do, right?
And the problem with four or 5% inflation, you can kind of get away with it because it’s annoying and it is frustrating, but it’s not totally ruining your life. But with 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 80% inflation, that starts to ruin the pledge life, as you mentioned. And that’s when they start to push back from a political perspective. And that’s what central banks and governments don’t want. They don’t want the populace revolting. But when you’re cold and you’re hungry, that’s when you revolt. Nobody revolts when they’re full and warm and have a great job and going on vacation. Why would you revolt in that environment? But when things are going against you and they start pushing back politically. And so I think that the pressures in Europe are a little bit just too much for them to not at least acknowledge it publicly. Now, whether they actually do anything and follow through on it, that will be interesting to see because, again, ultimately, I think they will save the currency rather than save the bond market, or I’m sorry, they will save the bond markets rather than save the currency. But I do think it’s a little bit of why Lagarde came out as strong as she did.
Kuppy
Do you think she follows through or?
Brent
No, she’ll try again. And it’s like Powell. Powell will keep trying it. Well, eventually the markets will push back on them and won’t let them, but I think she might try. But I think Europe is just screwed for lack of a better word.
Tony
So let me ask you guys and Europe, are we in a position where we have to approach what Japan is doing, where eventually the central bank will come in and buy up equities and they’ll buy their debt? And this is a cycle that just can’t stop? Is that what’s going to happen in the US and Europe as these central bankers are put in a quarter? And are we getting closer and closer to kind of D Day?
Brent
I think we probably are. Now, and I think there’s many people who believe that there’s nothing that central banks can do to squash inflation. I actually think that’s wrong. I think they could cause a depression which would have put a damper on inflation. Now, I don’t think that they can engineer a soft landing, but I think that’s what could happen at the end of kind of Q again, Q1, Q2. I think we could get some deflationary pressures coming through the markets due to the rate hikes that central banks have been trying and we’ll force them to U turn.
The biggest question I have, to be really honest, I’m not sure how this plays off, is whether or not we can get one more cycle of QE of risk on before they have to kind of reset the whole system. I could see a thing where we just have a couple maybe things just go down from here and a year from now they have to reset everything. But I could also see a scenario where we again have a bad first half of 2023. They reverse everything, we get another QE cycle that takes us into 2023 through the election five.
Yeah, exactly. And I don’t really know how that one plays out. I could see it kind of going either way. But ultimately to your point, Tony, I think the central banks will have to reverse.
It was funny. For several years, we were in a currency war where everybody was cutting rates to weaken their currency. Now, in the last couple of call a year, they’ve been raising rates to kind of strengthen their currency to try to fight against the inflationary pressure. So now the currency wars, who can outhawk the other one? It’s all going to end in tears.
Tony
Sadly. I think you’re right. Speaking of tears, Tracy.
Brent
No. Are you going to cry?
Tony
As we talk about difficulties
Tracy
every day?
Tony
…Recession and consumption and Kuppy started talking about oil at the start and oil demand. You posted a chart about looking at oil demand elasticity and household savings as central banks take different actions. Of course, that changes as stimulus have stopped. If it doesn’t come back on, there are changes to household savings, these sorts of things. So you posted a really interesting chart about household savings and can you talk us through a little bit of that and a little bit around oil demand elasticity?
Tracy
Yeah. What I think, I think there is a misconception that when there is a recession, that oil demand suddenly falls off a cliff. Right. Everybody has a very short memory and they look at COVID when we literally shut down the planet, but that’s not the reality. So if you look at past recessions in general, 2008, the most recent one, great financial crisis.
Now, we did see a dip in demand, but it was only about 2%, and it was only about 2% for two quarters. And then by the third quarter, demand increased over what it was before the great financial crisis. And so when I talk about the fact that everybody talks about savings, rates are going down, credit card rates are going up, nobody’s going to be able to afford oil, everything’s going to shut down, there’s a lot of fears running around. We’re going to have this global recession and nobody’s going to use oil anymore. And that’s kind of been the prevailing narrative. And we’ve seen this in open interest.
We’ve seen many funds sort of lose interest over oil. That’s been a great year for them. They shed their positions. But this prevailing narrative that we keep hearing in the media, “oh, it’s a global recession. Nobody’s going to use oil again.”
It’s just not a fact. We look at the data, we look at every recession. Recessionary pressures really have not taken much demand off the market. And every time that demand has been taken off the market within a very relatively short period of time, we’ve seen demand increase over that prior level. And so to use this kind of as a narrative, I think is not correct if you actually look at the data.
Tony
Okay, so we had this weird kind of almost recalibration of expectations with COVID where really everything came to a stop, right? So demand just cratered compared to, say, 2008, 2009 crisis. And so kind of the base effect of demand coming back has been really impressive, kind of year on year growth each time, right? And then we’ll continue to see that as China comes back.
But there are some real concerns for example. China’s population peaks out, peaked out in 2022 or ’23 or something like that, right? So their population is peaked out, and it’s all downside from here, right? Unless there’s real growth in their consumption. Europe’s pretty peaked out. Japan’s peaked out. The US hasn’t peaked out.
But we have some of those long term trends, and we have a recession. I’m just trying to play a little bit of devil’s advocate here. How much of an impact do you think those have on consumption, on the consumption dynamics, particularly with regard to savings and how, if people don’t have rising incomes and their saving rates decline just to make ends meet, which wasn’t necessarily the case in say, 2010 eleven. Can all of those things come together to really impact kind of the overall consumption trend or is that just not really a concern?
Tracy
I think there’s two separate things. If we’re talking about declining population rates, that’s sort of a long term view. We’re looking 20-50 years out, does that trend continue? And of course, at that point, you’re talking about global energy consumption decelerating, obviously.
Tony
And we’ll have nuclear powered flying cars right by then. So.
Tracy
Absolutely. But if we talk about, you know, shorter term things or near term things, things that we’re looking at, you know, over the next, say, you know, year to five years to ten years, I mean, there are still, regardless of a recession, we still are seeing year to year global consumption increasing. And in fact, we just had IEA, which I know is a WEF show, but we just had them completely revised their whole global oil growth demand system going back to 2014. They redid their entire numbers and added millions of barrels. And the media really likes to use that IEA data. They just repackage it and whatever. And they’ve been completely wrong at that point.
This goes back to when we had missing barrels and everybody was talking about that back in 2014. But the fact is that by any measure, global consumption is rising, right? Because you still have emerging markets that are trying to get out of the darkness. You look at countries like India, which they’ve had the strongest global demand increases so far this year. So there is always demand coming from somewhere, and the problem always goes back to supply.
In fact, we just don’t have the supply catching up with the demand. So even if we look at the Western world and even perhaps China years out, I mean, you still have to understand they’re still increasing demand, even though they’re absolutely even if their population is elderly and declining, their consumption energy wise is still on the uptrend.
So we still have these huge markets that are still on an uptrend. We’re going to see this in emerging markets. We’re going to see this in India, we’re going to see this in South America. We’re going to see this in Africa in particular, because BRI, suddenly they got a lot of money from China. They can build out this infrastructure, and they need, there is more demand there. So even though the west may be looking towards this green energy transition, we have to realize that that green energy transition also has not been working out. We just saw the biggest increase in coal demand in the EU in ten years this year.
Tony
Yes.
Tracy
Incredible that energy policy is not.
Tony
Reporters on sarcasm. Green energy transition. It’s on sarcasm.
Tracy
Really what we have to boil this all down to, long and short of I know I always talk in, like, broad picture, but really it all boils down to the data. What is the supply coming online? What is the demand going forward? And so far, demand outstrips supply. There is no way around that right now.
Tony
Okay. And it’s fairly inelastic it sounds like.
Tracy
It is fairly inelastic, even if you have, you know, again, look at the data. Anytime we’ve had a recession, demand is bounced back very quickly, and we’ve only seen a 1 to 2% pullback in demand. It’s not like COVID where everything crashed.
Tony
Okay, so we started and ended with crude. And I usually finish up guys with kind of, what do you see for the week ahead? But I’m going to change it up a little bit. As we go into 2023, with regard to markets, what keeps you up at night? What is that thing that you think about and you’re like, well, Account Odd sees this, and it’s obvious to me. What is that thing that keeps you up at night, Kuppy? I know you’ve got some amazing things in there. So what is that thing? And I know none of us see what you see.
Brent
You can’t say bourbon. That’s not a legitimate answer.
Kuppy
I think next year is the year that oil matters. We’ve lived in this world where oil has been sort of range bound, really for eight years. And people just got used to energy being cheap. I mean, we had a little bit of an energy scare in Europe, and I say “little” because that should have been the wake up call. And instead, I think you’re about to see the big one and you’re going to see energy as a percentage of GDP go to some crazy level like in the 1970s. And I think as a result, most of the Q sips on my screen are going to get smashed and everyone’s worried about JPowell. But in the end, JPowell is not the world central banker, oil is. And JPowell is going to chase oil higher on the screen for a while. He effectively has been chasing oil higher on the screen. And when oil rolled over from the summer onwards, that’s what cooled off the inflation. It’s not Fed funds rate that kind of helps. It’s really just oil. And as oil reaccelerates, JPowell is going to chase it higher on the screen and it’s going to get to a price where he’s going to have a dilemma.
He could either keep chasing oil higher or he could bail out the real economy with the rest of the economy. And I think he’s going to bail out the rest of the economy by cutting rates and sending oil parabolic. I think that’s how you get to my 300 number. And I don’t think people realize that oil at 90. Who cares? Oil got to 120 for a couple of weeks this summer. Who cares? What if oil is consistently in the high 100 and it just stays there? I think it just dramatically changes the arithmetic for every other QSIP on the screen. Absolutely. Aren’t plugging that in.
Tony
Okay, good. Thank you. Tracy, what keeps you up at night?
Tracy
I actually think that looking at 2024, I think that the metals markets are going to make a huge comeback. I’m not talking precious metals, I’m talking basin industrial metals only because I think that oil plays a part in that. If we have higher oil prices, we’re going to have higher metals prices. And because the west, in particular the EU, does not seem to want to be giving up on this green energy policy. We’re going to need a lot of metals, we’re going to need a lot of copper, we’re going to cobalt, nickel, whatever, if they want to continue down this path.
Tony
Sorry, you’re saying you need more industrial metals for batteries and other infrastructure for the green transition?
Tracy
More than we’re currently. In fact, we don’t even have the known reserves to get to the 2030 goals right now. If we were talking about copper. And certainly the mining industry has suffered the same problem as the oil industry has a lack of capex for the last seven years. And so we simply just don’t have that. So what I’m looking at, I think that oil is a big story and will continue to be a big story in 2021, 2022, but I think metals are going to start to come into play in 2023 and ’24. And what I’m worried about is we literally, again, no capex, and we don’t even have proven reserves anywhere. So that’s what I worry about. The metals based in industrial metals.
Tony
Okay, so so far it’s commodities keeping you guys up at night. Brent, wrap us up. What keeps you up?
Brent
It’s kind of interesting. I think that the underappreciated risk, even though the dollar made a hell of a run this year, is that we could have a funding market problem in the euro dollar market. And to be honest, it doesn’t keep me up at night because I’m kind of ready for it. I’m expecting it.
You know what keeps me up at night is these guys in Washington and Frankfurt and DC, and Tokyo and Beijing figuring out how to extend this game because they’re masters at keeping the plate spinning. And I’m always trying to figure out what are they going to do next to keep this whole house of cards going. And to me, that’s the wild card. I feel like I can kind of figure out markets. If markets are just left alone, I can kind of figure them out. The wild card is when the masters of the universe are the powers that be, however you want to describe them, come in and start messing with things, because that can change things, at least for a day or a week or a month, and sometimes that’s enough to wipe you out.
Tony
Yeah. Okay, guys, thank you so much. This has been really enlightening. I really appreciate the thought we put into this. Want to wish you all the best for the holidays and a fantastic 2023. Thank you so much.
Gasoline prices have continued to decline in the US. Big Fed meeting. 50bps. JPow insists the terminal rate is 5.5. Markets seem to want a rosier picture. How do you trade this? Bob Iaccion shares his expertise.
We’ve seen some weakness in crude prices, of course, and consumers are seeing a bit of a break with energy prices. Jay Powell doesn’t see inflation abating soon – he seems to believe it’ll be persistent. Part of that must be with energy. Our Complete Intelligence US headline CPI forecast looks at a reacceleration in early Q2. Is that around the time Josh expects energy prices to re-accelerate or does he have a different expectation – and why?
Tracy posted a really interesting chart recently. We’ve been talking about the SPR releases for a long time, but this chart is super stark. She walks us through what this means.
Hi, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by, by Bob Iaccino. Bob is with Path Trading Partners. We’re also joined by Josh Young. Josh is with Bison Interests, and Tracy Shuchart, who is with High Tower Resource Advisors. Guys, thanks for joining us today.
And Bob, I know this is your first time to join us and I really appreciate you taking your time. I’m always really shocked by the the quality of people who will talk to us, which is just amazing. So it’s, it’s great to have you here. And Josh, this is your second time and you have just hit a lot of home run since your fund started. I think you’re up 140% or something while the industry index is down like 20% or something. Is that right?
Josh
I can’t talk about my performance.
Tony
Okay. So I think you’re doing pretty well. So I’m just really grateful to have you guys here. We’ve got a few key themes here.
Of course, there’s been a lot of macro data out and some of that stuff has been classified by a few people as kind of widowmaker trades. So let’s get a little bit into that with Bob.
We’re going to look at energy and inflation and Josh is going to lead on that. And then we’ll look at WTI and the SPR with Tracy. So Bob, let’s start. You had sent this tweet out from Emma a few days ago where she says that markets kind of are believing what they want to believe and it’s really a trap and some of them are kind of widowmaker trades.
So can you talk us through that? Of course. We just had the big Fed meeting with a 50 bps rise and JPowell now insists that the terminal rate is 5.5 or somewhere around there. We saw PMIs come out today that were a lot lower than expected. We saw a downward revision in unemployment by over a million jobs sorry, of employment by over a million jobs. So why do markets continue to want to see a rosier picture or where are we right now and where is it going?
Bob
Well, it’s interesting, Tony, and again, thanks for having me. When you’re looking at equity markets specifically okay, let’s just talk when we talk about markets in a general sense, we’re usually talking about equities, which is one of the things I think the mainstream gets wrong.
But when we’re talking about equities, you’re talking about just a natural upward bias. There’s many millions and billions of dollars that go into 401ks and long only mutual funds every single month that people don’t even look at. So when all else is equal, you have a slight upward bias in equities.
And therefore it kind of stands to reason that people in general, investors, retail investors, want things to go up. And I suspect when somebody starts trading I remember I gave a speech pre COVID and somebody came up to me and said, I don’t understand how you trade the ES, which is S&P futures. I said, what do you mean? They said, well, stocks always go up, right? So sometimes you can be short ES. And I’m like, oh, my Lord, let me show you a chart. Stocks don’t always go up. If you take a look at an equity chart going back to 1920 or however long you want to be, yes, it is angled this way.
But when you see what’s going on right now, there’s a lot of old adages in the markets that I honestly can’t stand. But one of them gets repeated a lot is, you can’t fight the Fed. And most people are trying to fight the Fed. And Jerome Powell keeps coming out there and says, why are you guys fighting me? So the more and more stern Jerome Powell gets about interest rates, the more and more the markets get comfortable with what the Fed is doing and saying, sort of, and I’m paraphrasing what I think the market would be saying as a whole, “okay, we know what you’re doing now, so we’re comfortable with it, and we’re just going to buy stocks.”
And that seems to me to be troubling. It’s interesting because I’m bearish medium to long term, but I own the S&P Futures right now. I actually bought them on the first day of the fourth quarter with a mindset toward this type of activity. I said, okay, the fourth quarter is going to be higher than the third quarter, so I can go ahead and buy a small ES position within the context of my thesis that toward the end of the first quarter, beginning of the second quarter, I think equities dump again. I don’t think that the lows that we saw in October are the ultimate lows for this particular bear market.
Tony
So you’re saying that selling out of Trump’s NFT doesn’t mean we’ve hit the bottom yet or whatever.
Bob
I took screenshots galore of that Trump Superman thing with the laser. I’m like, if he could have a body like that, so can I, right? By eating McDonald’s and drinking Coke. I thought that was amazing.
No, I mean, again, these kinds of things a lot of people would think is peak bullishness just in any market overall. It certainly is probably peak bullishness, at least in the short to medium term and NFTs that that happened.
Tony
Hi, everyone. Wanted to let you know about a promo we’re having for our CI Futures subscription product. This is our inflation buster sale. We know that prices are hitting you everywhere, and it’s holiday time, so I want to give you a big break on our CI Futures product.
CI Futures has thousands of assets that we forecast every month. We do commodities, currencies, and equity indices every single week. On Monday morning, there are hundreds, almost 800 of those that we forecast every week. Updated on Monday morning.
We forecast economics variables every month. Those are available on the first of every month. In total, it’s thousands of assets.
We show our error. We are the only product out there, the only forecasting product out there that actually discloses our error. You can see our historical error and you can see a year’s forecast at monthly intervals.
Right now, we’re offering 50% off of CI futures. You can actually get it for as low as $25 a month. We have different arrangements based on the commitment you want — a full year or say, going month to month. So you can get it anywhere between $25 a month and $50 a month with our current offering.
So please check it out. Please click on the site. If you need a demo, let us know. Thanks very much.
Why do you think we’ll continue to see ES rise through, say, first quarter? Like, what are you seeing? Is it sentiment or is it some of the data coming out?
Bob
It’s the data being done and it’s the big events being finished. So, again, as I mentioned the beginning of this conversation, Tony, all else equal equities have an upward bias. And I said to myself, okay, we’ve got one more Fed meeting, one PCE, one CPI, a couple of small to medium sized business PMIs in the form of the S&P PMIs, and then not a whole lot.
So given that backdrop, people say, okay, we’re still near enough to the lows, or this is probably the lows. Even some of the people that I respect a lot think that the October lows are the lows, and I just happen to disagree with them going into next year. But they’re probably, they’re likely this is not a bold statement, the lows for 2022. It’s not a very scary thing to say considering we’ve only got, what, ten trading days left, 20 trading days left at the most.
So from that perspective, I feel very comfortable with the buy at the end of the third quarter and sell somewhere near the beginning of the first quarter position that I put on and I have a break even stop. I mean, I’m not going to lose money on this trade, which means I’m not going to pay a whole lot of attention to it anymore.
Tony
Right? Okay, very good. So, Josh, let’s talk about the data for a minute. Josh highlighted a chart that was sent out today looking at the difference, say, the divergence between hard and soft economic data. And hard economic data is still relatively positive, significantly more positive than the soft data.
So can you help us understand what’s the difference between hard and soft data and then what’s your view of the divergence between hard and soft data?
Josh
Yeah, so I focus more on sort of the energy side than the general broader market data side. But it is interesting. So the hard data and my understanding of this is the measures of actual activity and the soft data is more measures of sentiment or sort of modeled or forecast activity. And then I guess where I sit on it is I’m looking at actual oil and gas consumption data, and it looks a little weak. And so when I look at it looking a little weak, and that doesn’t mean I’m bearish I like the supply situation a lot. It’s very bullish, and that probably overwhelms. But from my perspective, tracking oil and gas consumption, it looks like maybe some of this ostensible hard data isn’t as hard as it’s represented. So that’s my take on that.
Tony
Let’s talk about that a little bit. Bob, you seem to be a little bit skeptical of some of the hard data.
Bob
Yes.
Tony
What do you think is a little bit overstated right now?
Bob
Well, I’ll give you an example. This past non farm payrolls report. Negative 40,000 on retail jobs. When have we seen that going into a holiday season? It’s likely that a lot of it has to do with seasonal adjustments in my view, because how do you correctly adjust for seasonality that changes every season, along with technology changing every single season at a rapid pace what seasonality may or may not look like?
So I’m not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but hard data produced by the government is where there is possible manipulation. I’m not accusing anyone of manipulating anything. I’m just saying that’s where it’s possible. In sentiment data, that is the survey respondent sentiment. That’s what it is. And that generally shows up in hard data.
Josh mentioned in his tweet about this divergence between hard and soft. Right now we have a divergence between iron ore and crude oil prices, right. Which has a very positive correlation over time. We can look at the data. Josh can look at the data, and so can Tracy better than I can, and say, okay, I believe these will converge, and I think this one will leave because it’s data.
Sentiment, you can’t say, that’s not the respondent sentiment, whereas data coming out of the government, if you believed the government’s data isn’t manipulated, then the data is what it is. But when you look at something so strange as retail employment falling going into the holiday season, that’s either economically catastrophic. Is that a word? Economic catastrophe?
Tony
Sure. Catastrophe.
Bob
Economic catastrophe. Or it’s wrong. One of the two. Catastrophic. That’s what it’s right.
Tracy
And we have all these huge revisions and the employment data every month, right. Going back, they’ll revise two, three months back.
Tony
They’ll revise two years back, Tracy. There are generally four revisions on OECD country data, and so they’ll go two years in and revise stuff. And whenever I see an initial kind of print of economic data, I always say, and you see this regularly on Twitter is I say, I’ll wait for the revision. And it’s not the first revision. It’s typically the second or third revision.
My view is that the first two say the initial print and the first revision are really PR for every macroeconomic print. Not just in the US. Globally. And then we start to kind of see back adjustments of what really happened. So I just don’t understand why initial prints of economic data move markets. I don’t understand why the financial media make a big deal about these initial prints of data because they’re wishful thinking. In the same way, Bob was talking about how investors have a rosy view of stocks always going up. Macro data typically has the bias of those government statisticians either too negative or too positive.
Okay, good. So is the view, guys, that the soft data will pull the hard data down? Is that kind of where we’re kind of falling on this?
Bob
It’s definitely my view. I mean, again, if that’s your sentiment, something has to happen to flip that sentiment. I always like watching the politicians. I don’t make political statements on shows like this. I make political statements, unfortunately, at the dinner table. But when you’re talking about political statements, you’ll see jobs are strong and you’re making enough money to pay for the inflation. That doesn’t change the reality on the ground for people. You’re not going to actually have somebody say, well, the President said, I have the money to pay for this, so everything is fine. So I always believe that the sentiment is much more reliable than the data, even though it shouldn’t be that way. It really should be the opposite.
Josh runs a fund and he can’t talk about his performance even though the performance is real data. That’s what his performance is. I was at a fund of funds years ago as part of the investment committee. We had nine full disclosure, was a low volatility fund. So our biggest up year was about 90 basis points. But we never had a down year. I’m sorry, 3.9 basis points, 390 basis points. But we never had a down year in nine years.
And our auditors and our regulators said we couldn’t publish that performance. And when we said why, they said, because it implies that you can’t have a down year. Well, yeah, if you’re stupid, it implies that.
But, you know, this was our actual performance, but we can’t put it forward. Josh has great performance and can’t talk about it. And this is the same kind of thing where to me, the sentiment will pull the actual data down and then you question whether that’s going to be manipulated for political gains or not by either side.
Tony
Right, exactly. Not one party or the other. It’s both parties.
Bob
Absolutely.
Tony
We don’t figure that anybody individually.
Tracy
I mean, I think the employment data has been wrong all year, for two years now. You just look at labor force participation rate and how many people are multiple jobholders, not single job holders. And we just had that huge revision of 1.1 jobs.
Tony
Yeah. So we saw jolts turn over a couple of weeks ago and then we have this downward revision of jobs. So if we look at the Fed’s mandate, they’re kind of not really doing either, right? Either they’re not doing either or they’ve already achieved the job stuff which they said six months ago that they hadn’t achieved and they continue to persist that they haven’t achieved. So is it fair to say that with the downward revision and employment data and the downward trend in jolts data that they’re kind of getting there already? So this is kind of a bad news is good news thing potentially?
Tracy
Potentially if the market chooses to read it like that. I don’t think the algos know how to read it that way. But yeah, I mean, it’s possible. We already are at 4.5% with all these revisions on unemployment.
Tony
Right? Okay, very good. So we’re going to get off the macro data for a minute. We’re going to move to energy prices. Actually, we’re going to stay on some macro data for a little bit. I put on the screen our Complete Intelligence CPI forecast and what we’re looking at potentially is a gradual rise of CPI accelerates a bit in April and goes into the summer.
So it’s possible, according to our forecast, that we do see a second bump in CPI. I have to say there is no human intervention in this. This is all machine driven. And so we’re reading things in the markets or the machines are reading things in the markets that are saying we could see a second bite of inflation coming in, say end of Q1 or early Q2.
So Josh, the question for you is we’ve seen some weakness in crude prices and consumers are seeing a bit of break with energy prices, gasoline prices and so on. But we saw from the Fed meeting that JPowell doesn’t see inflation abating anytime soon. So it seems like it’ll be fairly persistent. How do you expect energy prices to fit within that?
Are you seeing energy prices accelerate quickly or do you expect energy prices generally? Of course, I know there are different segments, but generally do you expect them to kind of accelerate quickly or do you see kind of a delayed acceleration of energy prices?
Josh
This is a great opportunity to run real briefly a potential economic analog to where we are in some respects. And the potential economic analog is the Asian financial crisis, the ’97 and ’98 scenario. And where that might be real similar to what we’re seeing now is one, we’re actually seeing consumer deposits start to fall with loans increasing. We’re seeing mortgage rates start to fall even though the Fed reset or keeps raising rates. And so we’re seeing the housing markets start to clear and then we have this very low labor force participation, sort of similar to what you saw in prior periods.
And you see this, they say, what is it that good times lead to weak men, and then weak men lead to bad times, and bad times lead to strong men. And sorry for the gender aspect of that, but just sort of the general idea. When I see all this, I think that there’s a real chance that we see much higher consumption of real goods and real inputs. And then when I tie that so that’s relevant for the inflation question as well as for oil and gas in particular, because there is this huge non participating aspect of the labor force that is increasingly likely to participate as NFTs and crypto and various day trading, tech stock and other sorts of speculative activity comes down.
And then there is this other aspect, which is that with oil and gas starting to come into China more, and other commodities potentially coming into China as they reopen and restimulate, there is the potential for inflation on raw materials and deflation on consumer goods and other stuff that China exports. And so it’s a sort of very weird, messy time. I’m not sure, I think that tech equities rebound like they did after that ’97, ’98 time frame. But other than that, it looks like sort of the most similar to maybe that plus 2003, something along those lines.
And I’m interested in your guys take on that, because it seems like we have room, actually, for significant uptake in demand, not just in China, for oil and gas, even in the US potentially, as employment potentially improves, just because you have all these people, you have all these open jobs still, especially in the low end, and you have a lot more people who maybe are relevant for those jobs and more interest in them now.
Tony
Yeah. So when you talk about uptake so if we look at China, for example, there were zero international flights going into China from, say, 2020 until, what, this month, right? Something like that. International tourist flights. And those are restarting. And so that’s just one kind of proxy indicator of, say, trade, the economy, travel, other things. Right. So do you have a view on that, on, say, passenger flights into China, tourism in China and how that would impact, say, crude?
Josh
So I have a better view on China to China flights than China to international. It actually does look like there’s a lot more bookings for international to China and vice versa flights, but there’s not a lot more actual flights yet. But there are way more China to China flights. We’re actually up from a low of two weeks ago or two and a half weeks ago.
We’re up about 100%, actually, maybe even more than 100%. And again, the data is not perfect, but I’ve been posting daily seven day average lag data just to to sort of show a moving average, and the moving average is up over 100% for that. So just those China to China flights, it looks like, represent about 200,000 barrels a day of jet fuel consumption and jet fuel is very oil intensive.
You use more than a barrel of oil to get a barrel of jet fuel because of the energy component and because of various other aspects of that refining process. And so also, jet fuel consumption historically has been a good proxy for oil and gas consumption in an economy. If you’re using more jet fuel, you’re using more gasoline, you’re using more diesel, you’re using more coal and natural gas and various other things.
It’s a great sort of real time economic proxy. And there’s lots of this is one of the places where I disagree on the sentiment surveys. I’m an economist by training and education. And the problem with surveys is that there’s no money in them, right? So people just tell you whatever they think, whereas consumption is actual money. It’s a buying decision. It’s not a speaking or a writing decision.
And the consumption matters more. So these real time actual consumption indicators are very promising, it looks like, from China, even as there’s headlines of Beijing is totally shut. So the headline is that and then the consumption data is that the consumption is way higher. I’m going to go with the consumption data, and that looks very promising. Again, that’s only part of this theory, and I’m interested in your guys take on it to the extent that you’re.
Tracy
Open to talking about bob was talking about iron ore earlier, and they came out overnight, actually, and said they have a state buying purchasing iron ore is how they purchase it now. They started about a year ago, and so they said they’re going to start buying iron ore again. So really, to me, that does say they are really getting ready to sort of push this stimulus, and they really want that 5% GDP for next year because of how much it has come down and how much has been lagging over the last two quarters, including this quarter.
So to me, hint, not that just them saying no more COVID passenger. I’m looking for real things that they’re actually doing. So look for them to start buying hard assets and buying sort of in the material sector and that’s kind of to me, that, okay, we’re ready to stimulate this economy.
Tony
Okay, that’s fantastic for everyone, right? I don’t think anybody in the world wants China to fail because it hurts everyone. There’s such a big economy, and especially their Asian neighbors, but also their big trading partners like the EU and the US. So I hear a lot of kind of sour China sentiment and people kind of cheering China failing. And I don’t think anybody in reality wants that to happen because it would hurt all of us.
So since we have three energy experts on, I guess let me ask you about China’s position with their crude reserves. Are they pretty tight? Do they have a lot in storage? Do they have stuff contracted? Like, if they grow, how will that impact the spot price.
Tracy
Well, they will have to buy more because when oil prices were at their peak just a few months ago, even though they were closed, and even into 2021, when oil prices really started to spike higher, they used a lot of their SPR, especially starting in summer of 2021. So they started using a lot of their SPR because they like cheap commodities and oil prices were Spiking. And so I do know that, you know, from what we can tell, you have to remember, we only know what’s above ground that we can see by satellite. We have no idea what’s underground for for what they have in storage.
I just want to preface that, because a lot of people say you don’t know what time. So we do know some storage. So what we can see is that they have drawn down their SVR quite significantly. If they start opening up and they need to purchase more, especially with kind of these oil prices lower and then being able to strike deals with Russia right now, I do think we’ll start to see them purchasing a lot more, not just for consumption now, but to refill their SBR.
Bob
Again, I’ll defer to Josh and Tracy more about China. I’m actually much more knowledgeable about Japan than I am about China, but from a perspective of what they’re likely to do there’s, the interesting sort of component of Chinese culture can be quite monolithic. And if you have sort of spikes in COVID cases and it brings about this sort of I mean, they obviously protested Lockdowns, but there were reports overnight about Beijing looking like a ghost town today because cases were spiking again.
And you could see this potential sort of spike in demand and then drop off in demand. And that would likely be the last drop off where I suspect that the demand that we saw here in the US. China’s demand, would increase three and four fold of the spike that we saw here in the US. Which is why I kind of agree with Josh’s overall bullish sentiment, even though we haven’t quite reached my downside WTI targets that Tracy and I talked about a couple of weeks ago. From that perspective, though, there is an interesting possibility of this downturn. But to Tracy’s point, I don’t think the Chinese government stalls their purchases because of their SPR usage.
It’s called an SPR globally, but they certainly use it quite a bit more than we do here in the US. To manage their it’s almost like a hedge account for them, where they sort of buy and sell much more rapidly in store. And they do the same thing with copper. And it’s interesting because when the copper market started really getting into the headlines and Spiking three years ago, there was all this talk about copper inventory and copper being used as a currency in China. You can store copper for quite a bit longer than you can store fresh crude oil. It’s got to be rotated.
Tony
So that’s a great point. That’s great. Okay, so speaking of SPR, Tracy, you punched out a chart this week on WTI versus SPR, WTI price versus SPR, and it looks like that divergence is pretty stark.
So you guys just mentioned China drawing down their SPR. The US. Has drawn down its SPR. So can you talk us through what this chart means and really what it means for crude prices?
Tracy
I mean, really what it’s showing is it’s showing all of the times that we’ve pretty much needed to tap into the SBR because of an actual emergency. You can see the difference between when we had to tap the SDR and say war or Katrina or Libya, right, how little that was compared to a non emergency event, that we drew it all the way down.
Now, Biden has said this really just showing the magnitude of this SPR draw for literally no reason. But if, you know, Biden did say that he was looking to refill it at 68 $72, we have gotten down on that in that area. We haven’t really been able to stay there. But it is possible that we could be looking at, by our calculations, Q2, they could possibly be looking to repurchase if oil prices are down there, which there’s no guarantees with China reopening and sort of seasonal tendencies and what have you. Generally, we see about mid February through summer really starts to kick in higher demand season, and you start refining for summer grades and things of that nature. But it is possible that we could see the US.
Kind of start at least thinking about repurchasing Q 223 again, that would buoy oil prices as well and kind of put a floor underneath it.
Tony
Okay, so that kind of reinforces the headline CPI data that I put out there saying, say, March, April, May, things really could tick up. I think it’s silly to expect crude to be down at that level, especially, as you guys say, if China is opening up, if they’re refilling their SPR, if the US. Is refilling SPR, that sort of thing. So that’s all super interesting. Is there anything on energy that we’re missing right now, guys? I just want to make sure going into the end of the year that we’re covering the areas we need to COVID on energy. What are we missing?
Josh
So I’ll jump in on this just real quick. On inventories, there’s a lot of uncertainty. Like Tracy was saying, we don’t really know how much oil is in storage in China right now. The way I approach it is just to assume the worst to some extent to to underwrite to that and then, you know, understand sort of upside. And the worst case is, is somewhat bad. Like it looks like for, for oil prices, it looks like there might be two or 300 million barrels of oil and storage in China.
More than some of the most optimistic analytics services or whatever are showing. And it is, in theory, possible, right? They have big caverns. They could store it like we do. It’s possible. To the extent that that’s the case, it still might not matter, because as China reopens, to the extent on the low end, again, of Chinese consumption, maybe you get another 2 million barrels a day or so of consumption versus where it’s been. And maybe they were importing a million barrels a day to store up until this point.
So you still have a delta of a million barrels a day. And so if you have 200 million in storage, 200 days from now you’re out of storage and you’ve been importing, you end up with this, like, million or 2 million barrel a day need to draw on world inventories.
But world inventories are really low ex China. So you end up with a situation where on the low end for recovery, you end up with an undersupplied situation. And that’s not assuming any Russia disruptions on the high end, if you end up with a sort of three or 4 million barrels a day.
Again, what Tracy and Bob were saying about the imports of iron ore and some of these other indicators, if those are right, and we end up on that sort of higher end of demand, which we also saw in the US. As we reopened, I mean, things could get crazy real fast, and China could end up looking like the world leader in oil trading from having imported and stored all of this oil to the extent they have it.
And then the last thing oil was in Biden’s buy target range, and they were selling from the SPR, not buying it in the last week or two. So that tells me it’s very unlikely that there’s repurchases of oil into the SPR anywhere close to these price levels and anywhere close to these economic circumstances.
Tracy
I mean, I think most people agreed they probably won’t buy back in the SPR, but they say they will. But I think if that even happens, we won’t see that until at least three of 2023. But again, prices will probably be higher than where they want them to be to purchase it anyway. But I do lean towards the fact that it’s going to be a very long time before they actually start repurchases.
Tony
Okay, great.
Bob
I have a couple of closing things, if I could, because first of all, I like Josh until he told me he was an economist. But I think that’s more of a strategist. We’re like a strategist, and we’re like the little brother of economists, and we’re always jealous of that. They get to put the economists, find their name and strategists. I could just say I’m a strategist. No, I don’t have to show a degree to do that. But from a perspective of the SPR, I worry about the political, the future political implications of what the administration did. If you look at the exact somebody sent me the exact definition of what the SPR is supposed to be and I guess in that context he used it correctly, right?
But I think I know at least Tracy and I agree that it was used incorrectly here because it was just a price increase. It wasn’t really an emergency. Prices were coming off on their own. Biden’s own. Treasury put out a report in July that said the SPR release only affect prices somewhere in the range of $13 to they revised that from about $28 to pump.
So it wasn’t even that big of an effect through Biden’s own. Treasury said this it’s not me saying this, but I worry about the future of prices are up, let’s dump a bunch because we’ve got midterms coming. And then next thing you know, there’s a massive outbreak of some sort of geopolitical problem in the Middle East and there’s a real emergency and we don’t have what we need. So that’s my concern about that. The last thing I’d like to say isn’t really energy based, it’s more about CPI.
I was on a Twitter space yesterday waiting for the mic. I never got the mic, and I heard somebody who I won’t mention say prices are decelerating at an accelerating rate when the exact opposite is actually true. Prices are accelerating at a decelerating rate. They’re not decelerating an accelerating rate. People forget. First of all, I don’t like the Consumer Price Index, but that’s a whole nother podcast. CPI is exactly that. It’s the consumer price index. It’s an index. If you go to the St. Louis Fred website and you look at a chart of CPI, it’s basically always increasing, right? That’s why the Fed’s target is a 2% increase in prices.
If we’re in the midst of disinflation, not deflation. And I think sometimes the public doesn’t realize, they’re like, oh, prices are coming down. No, they’re actually not. The rise in prices is actually slowing down, but they’re still rising. It’s like if you went to buy a car for $22,000, I don’t know where you’d get that, but and you go the next month and it’s up $23,000, and then you go the next month, that’s up 23,100. Prices didn’t go down, they just increased at a slower rate. And I’m going to be saying this everywhere I appear from now because I think the public’s misunderstanding of what’s happening with inflation, maybe I’m going to affect sentiment if I say it too much. Josh, I don’t know. But that’s the issue I have in terms of CPI specifically, and energy is obviously a huge part of that.
Tony
Well, I tweeted out almost the exact same thing this week about CPI, about inflation, and inflation isn’t falling right. The rate of price rises is slowing and there’s just a huge misunderstanding of that. So before we close up, as we go into these last ten or so trading days of the year. What are you guys thinking about over the next couple of weeks? Is there anything that’s on the top of your mind as the year closes? Josh, let’s start with you.
Josh
Sure. So people have talked a lot about this. We haven’t talked about this yet. The divergence in between oil prices and oil and gas stock prices, especially on the large cap and mega cap side. And I think people forget that commodity prices other than the spot price are not predictive. The forward curve is not predictive. It’s terrible. It’s used as a hedging mechanism that’s used as a prediction mechanism. Equities are forward looking and they’re not perfect, but they’re one of the best prediction mechanisms that we have.
And so energy stocks, oil and gas stocks are telling us that oil prices are likely to be higher, similar to your analytics software and the pundits and what. The sentiment is terrible in saying that oil prices will be lower and the price has deviated in the short run with the equities. So it does look like the more likely scenario, just even using that heuristic, is that oil prices go higher again, ignoring all the fundamentals and whatever. And so the interesting thing is, if that’s right and oil prices go higher, it might send those oil and gas stocks even higher.
There’s sort of this sort of soros reflexivity that happens with those sorts of things. So I think it’s worth touching on. Many people are posting about it, talking about how they need to converge. And actually I just think you got to understand what they are and what they are.
Tony
That’s a good point. Tracy, what are you thinking about going in last two weeks now?
Tracy
That chart is everywhere. To be honest, I’m still looking very closely at open interest in the oil and gas mark, oil in particular. A lot of length has come out of that contract. People just aren’t interested. A lot of people took profits because it was one of the more profitable commodities. Right. Over the last year or two years, we haven’t really seen anybody actively short that market short.
Open interest has actually declined a little bit, but not as much as length. So if people get interested in this market again, there’s a lot of room to the upside if people jump in because that length has been taken out of the market. So I’m watching that towards the end of the year in particular, see what happens after the beginning of the year. See if this market find some more interest.
Tony
Okay, all three of you are being pretty subtle about your expectations for energy prices. Bob, why don’t you close out? What are your expectations going into the last two weeks of the year?
Bob
First of all, I agree. I think there’s almost I shouldn’t say this, but I think there’s almost no way energy prices continue lower on the crude oil side and natural gas is doing what natural gas is going to do. So I think overall energy prices go up. Electricity prices are going up. And given that backdrop, if the three of us are right, by the way, if I mischaracterize what you two think, please jump in. If energy prices go higher, there’s very little chance in my view, that of the three possible scenarios for the Fed that the right one can come true in the Fed’s view.
So I’m actually more looking at EPS estimates for equities need to come down, earnings estimates need to come down, and the Fed is either going to have to a admit to a higher inflation target or B accept a higher level of inflation without saying so, or equities have to make a new low. And when that low happens, if that low happens, I should say if it’s a very good opportunity for industrials and consumer staples to sort of get in and kind of ride the recession wave back up as the economy itself restrains inflation by us going into some sort of a shallow or deep recession.
The other two things I would say is there any way I can get an economist title without putting in the work that Josh did? If anyone knows how to do that, absolutely. Just put it on your bud, Josh, don’t let me do that. You actually worked for it. And then the last thing I would say, if anybody wants to send me a bottle of Blantons, I’m willing to give you a free trade that is guaranteed to either make or lose money.
Tony
Hey Bob, just kind of latch on to what you just said about energy prices rising and industrials. So we’ve seen through 2022, a lot of industrials and retail firms raise price. Okay. And consumers have accepted that price. But if you’re saying that commodities are generally going to rise yes. Does that mean that we’ll see margins compress for those industrials okay?
Bob
So in the short term, consumers are.
Tony
At a threshold where they can’t accept higher prices soon.
Bob
So if you guys remember, you look back to the Great Recession in 2008, the last thing people did was let their car be repossessed. That kind of shows you the inelasticity of energy demand in general. People were defaulting on their mortgages before they let their car payment go into default. So from that perspective, people might be overestimating how far demand for energy can drop even in a recession. I’m making a correlation that probably isn’t accurate, but just anecdotally that’s something that we’ve seen. And it’s the same thing with heating and cooling your home.
People are probably less likely to stop heating their home. They’re probably more likely to accept cooling at a little bit hotter of a temperature. So going into summer it may not be as apparent, but I do think that when we come out of it, industrial utilities, energies and consumer staples are going to lead us as most times coming out of recession simply because of the first things that people start spending again on and they’re the last things that people stop spending on. So I like those things coming out of what I expect to be a fairly decent drop and end of the first quarter, beginning of second quarter next year.
Tony
Very good, guys. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your time. This has been fantastic. So have a great weekend. And have a great weekend. Thank you.
This Week Ahead is a special episode because it was recorded live, with guests Albert Marko, Sam Rines, and Mike Smith, together with host Tony Nash in a face-to-face conversation. It’s also the first time that we had a Twitter Spaces, joined by a few people and taking their questions.
Gasoline prices have continued to decline here in the US. Since June, RBOB has been pretty much one way, sliding from ~$4.30 to $2.16. That’s half. Of course, lower crude prices are a huge factor, but over the summer we were hearing all about refinery capacity. Is there more to it than the oil price? XLE vs crude – XOM closing in on 100, etc. How much of an impact is this having to help affordability given the broader inflationary environment?
Inflation is proceeding unabated, as we saw in Sam’s newsletter this week. Some Goldman guy was out this week saying there may be a recession in 2023. Sam looked at the terminal rate in his newsletter this week. How would accelerated inflation or steepening of recession worries affect the Fed’s actions?
We had BOJ head Kuroda (who has been in the job for a decade) begin talking about Japan hitting its 2% inflation target. If that were to happen, how likely would the BOJ be to scale back its ultra-loose monetary policy? Impact on Japan’s equity market, govt bonds, etc.
Key themes 1. How low will gasoline go? 2. Inflation/Recession worries 3. The day after Japan hits 2%
This is the 45th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
I just want to say hi and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. We’ve got a couple of special items for this show today. First, Albert Marko is in Houston, Texas. So we’re doing a live in-person Week Ahead with Sam. Tracy will be on Spaces eventually. We also have a special guest, Mike Smith, who’s a partner at Avidian Wealth here in Houston. Second, this is our first Twitter Spaces, so this may be a little clunky and we may make some mistakes, so just bear with us, if you don’t mind.
So Mike, Sam and Tracy eventually, and Albert, thanks for joining us. I really appreciate the fact that you guys have come today.
We have a couple of key themes today. The first is how low will gasoline go? Gasoline prices I think nationally are around $2.99 are approaching that in the US. So we want to take a little bit of a look at that to understand what’s happening there. We also want to talk about inflation and recession worries. Sam will go into that quite a lot and we’ll try to figure out what’s happening with inflation.
And then we’ll talk about Japan post 2% inflation. So there have been some comments from Abe at the BOJ about Japan hitting 2% inflation, and we’ll talk about that a little bit.
Okay, so Albert just joined us. So let’s get started on gasoline prices. Guys, since June, RBOB has really come down from 430 to about 216. So it’s about 50% or 49 point something percent.
Of course, lower crude prices are a huge factor. We’ve seen crude prices come down in that time as well. So is there more to go on crude prices? On gasoline prices? Like I said, we’re waiting for Tracy, but she’s not joining. So I’m just going to throw it open to you guys. What’s your thought on gasoline? Because we’re entering the holiday season, it’s going to be a lot of driving. There’s a lot of inflationary pressures, which we’ll talk about in the next segment. But I’m just curious what your thoughts are on room for gasoline prices to fall.
Albert
Well, I think they guess some prices are going to fall because price of oil just keeps on going down. I think at the moment, whatever brokers, government entities or whatever we want to talk about is starting to drive down the price of oil because it’s beneficial to the political situation. So I think that oil, as it drifts down towards 60s, mid sixty s, the price of gasoline will also come down.
Tony
What are you hearing? We’re in Houston, energy capital of the world.
Sam
What are you going to yeah, it’s hard to make a call on the energy price kind of in its relation to gasoline for a couple of reasons. One, we really don’t know where any spare capacity can come from in terms of the ability to refine at this point.
You’re running at 96% utilization rates for refinery capacity, that’s pretty much peak. So if you have any sort of hiccup there, you’re going to have a problem on the gasoline front.
Tony
So hurricane season is over. Do you see any reasonable hiccups coming? Obviously may be unexpected, but when you’re.
Sam
Running at 96% capacity, it doesn’t take much to have a small problem. Right. And if you go from 96% to call it 90% because of an accidental outage, that could be something rather significant for the gasoline market. So while oil prices, you know, appear to be fairly volatile right now, it’s, it’s hard to translate that back into a gasoline price.
Mike
I know if 86 degrees here in Houston, but unpredictable winter can happen. I know it’s a little bit of a delay, but we don’t know. These weather patterns can happen. We could have a colder than expected winter and that could probably trigger as well.
Albert
Rail strikes is another issue. Talking about any kind of strikes in the transport industry, diesel prices making truckers, you know, trucking more. It’s not anything.
Tony
Right. I just saw Tracy pop in and then she popped out. So once she comes in, we’ll come back to her on this. Thank you. Okay, that’s great. And we’re seeing, we’ve seen XLE, the energy companies, the energy operators, we’ve seen XLE stay pretty elevated as crude prices have come down. There’s typically kind of a four to six month lead between crude prices coming down and XLE coming down. So when we look at some of these major operators, is there an expectation that those prices will come down? Or are we kind of I’m just inviting Tracy to co host. Okay. Hi, Tracy. Are you there? Sorry. Just back to XLE. Do we expect XLE, the traded operators like, say, ExxonMobil, those sorts of guys? ExxonMobile is about to break 100. They’re headed back down after topping out like 115, something like that. So do we expect their share price to follow the crude price directionally?
Albert
I would say no. Really? It’s tough. It’s a tough call, to be honest with you, because we just don’t know which way the markets are going to go. Crude prices is acting like bitcoin at the moment, just being up and down 10% per week. I can’t even give you an honest answer on that.
Sam
I mean, it’s certainly not going to be the same data that you would expect in a decade ago, but you’re likely to have the sentiment at least have some effect on XLE or XOP, whatever it might be. But the issue now is that you’re not going to have the same sort of capital expenditure catch up and overshoot that you did in previous cycles simply because investors have already said, we will punish you for that. And producers don’t want to be punished.
Sam
They’re making a lot of money at 50, 60, $70 barrel oil. I don’t think you’re going to see the level of beta to the underlying that you would normally expect.
Tony
Okay, great. So basically they’re using your old equipment at the current energy prices and they’re maxing it out. But when the capex cycle does come on, will it come on with huge force or will that trickle out? Like when will invest? Will investors decide at some point that they won’t punish these operators for capex?
Sam
No, they won’t. No. Okay. Why spend for something that has a five to seven year time rise? We’ve been told that the oil companies aren’t supposed to exist in a decade. So as a shareholder you want that return of capital. You don’t want that capital put back to the ground. And if you begin to see any sort of significant uptick in capital expenditures, you’re going to have it absolutely crushed from a stock perspective. Right. If Exxon announced that they were going to begin a significant capital expenditure program, that stock would get absolutely hammered and you can just go through any of the companies. It’s all about what are you doing for my dividend? How much stock are you buying back and maintaining output, not expanding because you talked about it.
Mike
We’ll be short or fast. I think it’ll be going to take a long time for that to happen unless some major catalyst happens that actually sparks that in.
Tony
When you think about how long it.
Mike
Is to legislate get permits, it’s a decade.
Sam
Yeah, absolutely.
Mike
So it’s got to be some major catalysts.
Tony
Tracy, are you there? I see you as a co host but I’m not sure if you can speak. Okay. Once you’re in Tracy, just speak up and I’d love to get you involved in this discussion. Sam, how much of an impact is having is say lower gasoline prices having on the affordability in broader inflationary environment? So basically are gas prices helping the inflation discussion much or is it just a relatively small thing since a lot of people are working from homes?
Sam
There’s kind of two ways to think about that. There’s the inflation dynamics, the actual inflation dynamics that lower gasoline does have that headline CPI narrative.
Tony
It’s a tax cut. I’m kidding.
Sam
The problem is that over time gasoline has become a much smaller portion of the wallet. The average person does not spend anywhere near as much on gasoline as they used to and that’s just a fact. So is it really helping people on the margin? Yes. Gasoline and groceries are the two things that you can kind of see and one you see in a big bull sign, the other you see every week when you go buy groceries. So gasoline, grocery prices coming down, it’s good for the consumer mentality. Is it good for the action and spending levels?
Tony
Okay, great. Okay guys, just so you know, this is a live spaces. We are recording this and we’ll upload on the YouTube channel probably tomorrow. Tracy has joined us. Tracy, if you’re there and you want to chime in please join. Okay, let’s move on to the next topic for inflation and recession worries. So inflation is proceeding pretty much unabated salmon, and we saw this in your newsletter this week and I’d love to talk more about that. We also had some Goldman guy, I can’t remember who it was yesterday, saying there’s probably going to be a recession in 2023. And all these people are coming out saying maybe back half of 2023 there’s a recession, which it’s a convenient time to say that right? Right now to say something’s going to happen in the back half of 23. So you look at the terminal rate in your newsletter.
So how would, say accelerated inflation, if that’s actually coming or the steeping of recession worries affect the terminal rate from the Fed?
Sam
I think you have to divide that into the first part. That is, what would inflation call it a deceleration in inflation pressures mean for the Fed? Unless it’s significant? Not much. Does a recession matter for the Fed? Not if it doesn’t come with disinflation. Does the Fed care if we have real GDP decline? No. I mean we have real GDP decline, q One, q Two. They got their mandate, they did not care. Right. You currently have north of 7% CPI and you have an unemployment rate of 3.8, maybe percent. It’s really hard for me to see which one of those metrics is comforting to the Fed at this point. So does it affect the Fed’s trajectory? Maybe it’ll take a 25 out of the terminal rate, but that’s about it. You’re simply not going to have this type of immediate Fed pivot with inflation at north of 6% and this type of unemployment rate, it’s just not going to happen.
Tony
Okay, great. Now for you guys on spaces, if you have a question or want to put up your hand, put a question in the channel or put up your hand. We’ll take some questions later on in the podcast.
Albert
That inflation is just so sticky right now. We spoke about it earlier for podcast about wage inflation just sitting there, you know, just rising every single month. Politically, it’s a great thing for people to wait 40 years to get wage inflation, but I just, I can’t see how all these consumer prices are going to come down and talk about this inflation or wage inflation is just going to stay elevated for the next 1015 years.
Tony
Yeah, that’s a good point. So I get that there’s this expectation out there where people expect prices to come down to say, 2019 levels at some point. And, you know, we were talking about this, Sam, that do you expect prices to go back down to 2019 levels? We’ve seen a dramatic rise in a lot of different areas. So do you expect that to fall back down to what it was two, three years ago?
Sam
No, I don’t even think that in the best of all possible worlds, that’s not one of the worlds.
Albert
The only people talking about that are the political people that are trying to sit there and trying to gain votes because people are struggling at the moment. But the economic guys exactly. It’s only what you want to hear, but the economic guys are looking at the numbers and, like, we have never seen I mean, why would why would companies bring the prices back down that much when they know they can get away with it?
Sam
I mean, Cracker Barrel expects wages in the coming year to be up five, 6%, right?
Tony
Those of you who aren’t in the US.
Sam
Year, right?
Tony
For those of you who aren’t in the US. Cracker Barrel is a very kind of middle America restaurant comfort food, right? It’s biscuits and gravy. It’s fried chicken, that sort of thing. And so this is not the high end yet. It’s not McDonald’s. It’s very much the middle market in the US. And so Sam’s done a very good job in his newsletter over the last couple of years covering price hikes at Pepsi, at Home Depot, at Cracker Barrel, at other places. So many of these companies have raised prices by, like, 8% to 10%, generally, or more. Who’s raised more?
Sam
So Campbell Soup this morning came out with earnings, and they divide them into two categories. They divide it into soup and kind of prepared meals type deals and then snacks.
So think Snyder’s Pretzels is one of the brands. The prepared meals, which include soup, they increased pricing, 15% from last year, and they increased on snacks, 18. And that was price that they pushed. Volumes were slightly negative, but negative 1% and 2%. Okay, you’re talking almost no budge on volume and a huge move in pricing, and that is for the most boring of all commodities. This is soup we’re talking about.
Tony
And I want you guys to understand what Sam is saying. Campbell Soup has raised their prices between 15 and 20%, and their volume declined 1%. So do we ever expect Campbell Soup to reduce their prices by 18%?
Sam
No. That’s the beautiful part if you were corporate America right now, is you get a free pass to really find the elasticity in the market for your product by raising prices until you begin to see pushback from consumers, and you just haven’t seen a significant pushback from consumers. And to the narrative of inflation peaking. Inflation is peaking. If you look at the last four quarters of price increases from Campbell Soup, it was something like 6%, 11%, 11%, 16. Right? So maybe the second derivative is negative, but the first derivative isn’t.
Tony
And it’s positive in not a small way.
Sam
Correct.
Tony
We’re not talking about 2% price rises. We’re talking about 18% price rises, which.
Mike
Is we’re seeing that for consumers, the biggest increase. But, I mean, I guess in future years, that probably somewhat levels off. And then on top of raising prices, I’m sure all of you have noticed the shrinkflation, the items have less in it and we’re paying more for it on top of everything else.
Sam
Well, that is part of the pricing element. Right. So when they take packaging down a couple of ounces that shows up in the pricing mechanism.
Albert
It’s incredible that Campbell Soup and all these other companies raised their prices by 16% to 19% because that is actually the true inflationary number. When you go back to what they used to do it in the 1990s, it’s 18 19%, not the 7% that the Fed tells you. CPI.
And on top of that, these inflationary numbers give you a tailwind for earnings. So all these companies that surprise earning beats, if you look at them, what inflation has done into their products, it’s not a surprise that they beat.
Sam
Yeah, right. And it’s somewhat stunning because if you think about it from a 23 24 perspective, if you have your input costs begin to move lower, or at least decelerate, and you’re holding your prices at these current levels, or even increasing slightly from here, or increasing from here, all of a sudden you begin to think about what that does to a bottom line. That is an extremely attractive thing for a business. As we begin to move into the latter part of the margin expansion that everybody kind of thought was over after COVID, that really might return to some of these boring, staid old stocks.
Tony
Right. So guys, just, just to be clear, what we’re saying here is prices are not going to go down or they’re highly unlikely to go down to what they were two or three years ago. We’ve hit an inflation level, it’s a stairstep. And companies are comfortable seeing reduced volumes, but they’ve compensated that with higher price and consumers are generally accepting higher price. Right. So as an aside, I’ll be shameless here and say complete intelligence does cost and revenue forecasting. If you guys need any help with that, let us know. Okay? So, terminal rate, you’re still looking at five to five to five somewhere in there.
Sam
Well, I think it’s probably closer to five and a half to somewhere between, I would say five and a half to six because you have the stickiness in wages, right? And the stickiness in remember this is important, that Powell, week ago at the Brookings Talk pointed out one thing, and that was Core Services Ex shelter. In other words, they, they are already throwing shelter out. Even when shelter decelerates, they’re not going to pay attention to it. And he also made it very clear that Core Services X Shelter, the main input cost for many of these businesses is wages and personnel. So while you have these wage pressures, building the Fed is not your friend in any meaningful way. So I’m much more on the give it five and a half to six. There’s this idea maybe we get 50 50 25 then done. Or 50 50 done. It’s more like 50 50. 25 and 25 and 25. It’s just slower.
Tony
You said this a month or so ago. It’s a matter of the number of 25 that we get.
Sam
Yes, it’s 25 delays.
Tony
Okay. So it’s not over, guys. We’re going to continue to see the Fed take action, and they haven’t even really started QT yet. And we’ve talked about that for some time. And when they start QT is really when markets feel is that fair to say? Yeah, depends on the market, of course.
Sam
Yeah, they’ve started QT It’s just a small 200 billion or something that’s still QT. They’re not going to sell them.
Mike
I think one of the things he said is the Fed is not your friend. And just think about that statement for a minute. For two decades, all investors we’ve all come to known as the Fed is our friend. Anytime the market was down, they’re out there doing press conferences. But I think it’s critical for people to understand we’re not going to see a return of that for a significant amount of time.
Tony
Right. You’re not public servants. Right. Exactly. They don’t like you.
Albert
It’s important that as Sam mentioned, that 50 50 and then the repetitive 25s correlates with their rhetoric of soft landing that they keep talking about whether they can actually achieve a soft landing. Well, that’s another debate that we talk about. But that’s exactly what their intentions are. Those are 25 US to the end of their they get to where they want to be.
Tony
Right. Okay, very good. Let’s move on to Japan. Bank of Japan Chairman Corona was on the wires this week talking about Japan hitting the 2% inflation rate, which they’ve been trying to hit for 30 years or something. And then they made a policy with Avionics in 2012, and they still have been able to hit it. And now that we have crazy inflation globally, they’re going to claim the win. Right. And they’re going to say, we hit it and abe nomics. Although Avi is not empowering where it was ultimately successful. So, Albert and Sam, I’m just curious, what does that mean if Japan hits 2% inflation and they tail off their quantitative easing, their kind of QE infinity and they stop buying government bonds, all this stuff. First of all, do you think that’s going to happen? Okay. And second, if that does happen, what did Japanese markets look like? And then what does the yen look like? I realize they just threw a bunch of stuff out there, so just take it away. So you might like jump in here. Sure.
Albert
The fiscal monetary setup is quite favorable, right. If they do whatever they’re going to say they’re going to do quite favorable. There are only headwinds that I can see is the US. Stock market equities. If the US equities fall, without a doubt it will affect the Asian market, specifically Japan. It’s a tall order for them to sit there and get their 2% inflation target. So I don’t even know if that’s even a valid discussion, but I guess we’ll sit there.
As much as a set up as favorable for Japan, they’re combating China. And I still think that China, because they don’t have as much connection to the US. Equity market, is a little bit more favorable. I would go China over Japan right.
Tony
Now, yes, but I’m tired of talking about it.
Albert
I know not to talk about China when Japan is so interconnected with China, so everything is interconnected in that region. But I do think that the fiscal monetary set up for Japan is favorable.
Tony
Okay, sam, what do you think?
Sam
Like Albert said, theoretically, it’s really interesting. It’s intriguing. The one thing that I think is important to remember about Japan is that every time they seem to have the monetary policy setting correct and they were heading to actually hit their 2% target, they always seem to raise taxes or do something to make sure that they missed it. Was MMT on steroids? Very good example of MMT actually working. Right. You can do as much monetary policy as you want as long as every time you’re close to an inflation target, you just race to that or taxes. So I think that’s something that I’m always somewhat skeptical of Japan doing. If they begin to lift yield curve control on Japanese government bond yields, I think it’ll do two things. One, it will make for an interesting market in Japanese bonds. The BOJ owns such a large amount of that market that is almost difficult to fathom that it actually has a functioning market. It doesn’t really have a functioning yield market. So that’s kind of the first thing is we’ll finally get a feel for how that market actually functions. The second one is that you’ve had a 2% inflation win with the yen sitting between 130 and 150, a very weak yen.
That’s a tailwind to inflationary pressures. If they do lift YCC, it doesn’t matter what else they do. If they raise interest rates, whatever it might be, the yen going back to 120 is going to undo a lot of that inflation pressure in and of itself. You’re going to really bring that in. It’s also probably a positive. Having a stronger yen in this environment when you’re at an energy shortage globally is a positive for the Japanese economy because they import so much energy. Having that stronger yen makes it cheaper in domestic terms from that perspective. So I think there’s a number of things that could line up pretty well, and there’s always the opportunity for the Japanese government to mess it up somehow. Of course, I do think that it’s a very interesting market, particularly if you can do it on a call it an outright basis investing and get some of that currency dynamics mixed in with your investment, that could be a very interesting opportunity going.
Albert
You know, what’s interesting is what you’re saying about MMT on steroids. It’s like, you know, you’re making all these descriptions of what’s going on in Japan, and I just look at the fed, and I’m just like, well, oh, my God. We’re starting to be on the verge of Japanification at the moment right now, because the 30 year bond from who I talked to the 30 year is.
Sam
Completely controlled by the federal government.
Albert
And at the moment, it’s completely controlled. And if they can sit there and pump those bonds and pump the markets, you got Japan right here in the United States with MMT and Leil Bernard and yelling, doing whatever they want to do.
Sam
You just have to raise taxes.
Albert
Yeah. So so masters at that. Yeah.
Tony
So I used to go to Japan a lot, and in the late, say, 2010, 2011, when the yen was at, like, 75, when I would go to Tokyo and I would go down to breakfast in the hotel, I was the only one there. And I remember when Abe was elected and even pre election, the yen started to weaken him taking office. The yen started to weaken. Right. And I remember the first time I went down to the hotel lobby and there was a line to get to breakfast rather than just it being wide open for me. So a devalued yen means a huge amount of power for the Japanese economy. So when you say JPY going back to 120, I remember in 2010 eleven. When people would say, gosh, if we just had a yen at 95, we’d be happy. Right. And now it’s at 145, or whatever it is.
Sam
I haven’t 130 yet.
Tony
136. So, you know, it’s you know, it’s a completely different environment and puts the Japanese economy in completely different context. But you have nationalization of bond markets, you have nationalization of ETF markets. Is it really an open, competitive economy? It’s certainly a highly centralized economy. Right. And that’s really dangerous. But they love to use demographics as the justification to intervene in markets, right?
Albert
Yes.
Tony
Okay, guys, if anybody has a question, raise your hand. Or I’m not exactly how this works. Again, this is our first time to do a spaces. So put something in the messages or raise your hand or do whatever, and we could potentially have you come on and ask your question. I’ll be very honest. If you have an anonymous Twitter handle and we don’t know you, I’m not going to let you speak. So don’t waste your time. But if you’re someone we know, then we’re glad to have you on. So I guess while we wait for people to come in with questions, we’re pre Christmas holidays here in the US. We’ve got a Fed meeting coming up, the expectations for a 50 basis point hike. What do you guys expect? We’re seeing equity markets really kind of gradually move lower. What do you guys expect for the next week? Or so in the US before the Christmas holiday.
Albert
I think the CPI is actually going to be a little bit less than consensus and probably get a rally going to the end of the year, to be honest with you. I think everybody knows it’s going to be 50 basis points. The question is what’s the guidance after that? What do they say? If it’s a good CPI number, well, then you can have this dough stock for another month.
Mike
Sentiment has been so low and kind of got your seasonality right now. I think that probably prevails here.
Sam
If you think about it, a few.
Mike
Months ago everybody was kind of in this panic, Seymour. People kind of there’s this nice little calm right now everybody’s just kind of floating around waiting to see what’s next. And what’s your point? I think everyone expects to raise another.
Albert
50 basis point, which is amazing, because 50 basis points is not dovish. I guess everyone’s expecting 75 or 100 about a month ago, you know, their.
Mike
Condition as to.
Sam
No, I would say there’s there’s a couple of interesting things about the Fed meeting it into the back half of the year. One is what does the dollar actually do here? Because if you begin to actually have a significant move in CNY stronger right lower on this chart. But if you get a significant move back towards the 650 area on CNY, that is going to have a spillover effect. To a stronger Euro continued strength in the British pound you could begin to have a number of dynamics that are somewhat negative dollar and therefore pretty bullish on the risk asset front that I think could catch some people off guard simply because of the spillover effects. But the Fed, the one thing to remember about this meeting is it’s not just a 50 basis point height. It’s also that stupid dot plot that they do that actually has some pretty serious potential consequences because if 23 comes out with higher than expected dots and 24 dots move higher, the terminal and the long term rate begins to creep a little bit higher. If you begin to have that hawkishness, I kind of want to say this, so going to, if you begin to have the hawkishness become less transitory in the dot plot, that could become somewhat problematic for markets that could take some of the sales out of what we’ve seen to be a moderating dollar effect.
So I think, I think it’s worth being a little careful until we see that dot plot and begin to hear how Powell is approaching 2023 because I think they’re somewhat aggravated about the way that the Brookings Institution, the Brookings speech was received by markets they did not want a significant asset rally going out of that right. That was counterproductive to what they want. So I think they’re going to be very careful about the rhetoric into the.
Tony
Back half of the year because they would just. Not be so jerky in their communication. They’re super bearish. They’re bullish. They’re super bearish. They’re bullish have a consistent message.
Albert
Yeah, but it depends on what’s going on behind the scenes, what data they see. All this data, they see all the CPI and the jobs numbers a week or two heading for anybody else. Don’t kill yourselves.
So I guess it comes down to what is going on behind the scenes and what they don’t want to break. I mean, Blackstone came from what I heard, blackstone was $80 billion in the hole and having problems, and they went to the Fed, and that’s what triggered Powell to be slightly dovish.
Tony
And I thought they were the fed.
Albert
Well, whenever you guys Powell’s portfolio sitting there in your grasp, you are the.
Tony
Fan of that one.
Albert
But I guess it goes down to what is happening behind the scenes and what could potentially break is why they’re coming on this roller coaster ride of rhetoric.
Tony
Yeah. Okay, I’m going to see if Valena wants to come in she’s attending. And see if she wants to come in to see what? Invite her to speak and see if she wants to Valena, are you there? If you want to come in and let us know what you’re thinking is going into the end of the year and 2023, you have an invite to speak. You’re welcome to.
Albert
Molina is sitting there in Austria, vienna, Austria. And I know the European markets are now looking quite interesting to me. A little luxury market in Europe is absolutely exploding, and it’s just unreal that. It’s just so resilient. I mean, there’s two brands that I personally liked, laura Piano and Brunello Cucinalli, which I have a tremendous amount of polls. Brunello Cucinalli didn’t care anything about the Russian sanctions or anything. Just kept on selling, and they just blew out earnings yesterday or as of today, they were up like 7% this month. Really, the luxury retail market, luxury jewelry market is just it doesn’t stop great. And it’s counter to what everybody is saying. Recession this, recession that. You go to gucci stores, lines out the door, Louis. The time you need an appointment, it’s just resilient. It’s just actually quite amazing.
Sam
It is really similar to if you look at our markets, right, particularly the masters plotted against the price of oil. If you do a six month delay, guess what? It’s almost it’s a really interesting kind of windfall type chart. You can kind of see the oil money flowing in there. And you even had China relatively shut down, and that was a huge driver, a tremendous driver of European luxury, particularly for LVMH. Even with China shut down and not really having the tourism, you had a lot of tourists from Middle East, et cetera, really put in some of the South American countries that are doing fairly well, particularly at the higher end. A lot of that is driving this kind of underneath the surface. You had tech, then you had energy. And the question is, now you have the China reopening. Is that the next leg for a lot of these lectures?
Tony
Okay. So let’s talk China.
Albert
I wasn’t going to do that.
Sam
Tracy.
Tony
You’Re as a speaker as well. So if you want to come in, you can come in any time. Okay, so let’s talk about China, even though I didn’t want to COVID that. So let’s talk China. What’s happening, Albert, with the reopening? Like, what do you see the next two months happening with the China?
Albert
Just as we spoke about a week ago on China, those riots and the reason the Chinese even let you see these riots happen on the social media was a signal that they were going to reopen, and in fact, they did. Days later, we’re reopening in stages. And that’s just it. And get your house in order, everybody, because inflation is going to happen. I think I think copper was up, like, two and a half percent this morning. And this is this is it just barely reopened right now, manufacturing, because the odors were down I think Western odors were down 40%.
Tony
But kind of everyone told me on Twitter that democracy came to China.
Albert
Yeah.
Tony
Okay.
Albert
Those are people that have never been to China or stayed at five star hotels or actually step foot outside of Beijing.
Tony
So let’s go there a little deeper. And Xi Jinping is in the Middle East either today or over the weekend at an Arab China summit. Right. And so, first of all, him leaving China right after there were protests, what does that say to you, Albert?
Albert
Safeguard, he’s done any kind of opposition that was pushing against Xi’s Party congress moves eroded, and then these street protests are just street protests. I get it, people are upset and their livelihoods and check down the list of whatever you want to say, but realistically, they never work unless they get violent. And they never got violent.
Tony
Right. So you kind of have to let the steam come out of that valve, I think is probably what you’re saying. Right? The CGP is saying that now with CGP going to the Middle East, sam, they are the premier buyer. China is the premier buyer from OPEC clubs now. Right. It’s not the US. And this isn’t new for people who have been paying attention. The Saudis and other people in the Middle East have been spending a lot more time in Beijing for probably six, seven years. And so and and it’s been longer, but it’s been really, really visible for the last six or seven years. So what does what does that tell you about, let’s say, OPEC’s desire to, please say, a US president going to the Middle East to try to bully them, to pump more? Is that effective anymore?
Sam
No, not at all.
Tony
Hi, Tracy.
Speaker 5
Hi. Sorry, I was having technical difficulties, and for some reason I couldn’t all gone earlier.
Tony
Welcome. No apology necessary. We’re just talking about China and with Xi Jinping in the Middle East for a summit with the Saudis and the GCC members and what that means for the ability of say, a US president to kind of bully OPEC into reducing oil prices going forward. Is there really any strength there? Do you see.
Speaker 5
That’S? Absolutely done. What I would expect she landed in China today. I would expect him to get the full lavish welcome. Right. And we want to be looking at who he brought with him as far as national heads of corporations. And I would expect this to be completely opposite of what we saw the Biden meeting with and more akin to what we saw the Trump meeting with, where they I would expect that.
Tony
So they’ll touch the crystal ball.
Speaker 5
Maybe they might bring out the ball. Yes. And I expect billions and billions in new deals as far as economic, military, energy in particular, et cetera going on at this point. Again, they’re having a conference where they’re going to have multiple leaders in the Gulf nations in Saudi Arabia. So I mean they’re really going to try to rue China on this trip big time.
Tony
Right. So when you talk about military deals, what do you think about that? Albert?
Albert
I’m not really sure Saudi Arabia will.
Tony
Do major military deals with China.
Albert
I mean maybe a few just for show up for optics theatrics but the US military hardware is the best in the world and realistically Saudi Arabia is under the US defense umbrella. Whether the left or the right likes it or not, that’s just the reality of it. And as long as Iran is not poking or poking trouble from the east and Yemen not from the south, southern regions have an easy ride. So their military deals aren’t really they’re not at the forefront at the moment. But anytime that Russia wants to string that relationship, they can certainly call up Tehran and say lob a few missiles over and things go right to elegant.
Sam
To Albert’s point, I don’t think Saudi is going to work. KSA is going to become the next India where they split their arms deals among the three major powers of arms anytime soon. I mean that’s just not going to happen.
Albert
No, there will be a little bit, yeah. India is a completely different ballgame. India has got counterbalance, they need to counterbalance Russia with China and Pakistan and it’s the old mess over there and they need to do what they’re doing.
Sam
Well Nksa is also trying to hold together their market share in a world of Russia really having to begin sending almost all their stuff to call it China India.
Tony
Right.
Sam
So if you had were the two largest pieces of growing market share for Saudi Arabia over the past decade, that was India and China. And now you have the other major energy player in the region coming after your market share. There’s got to be a little handshaking here to keep everybody happy and selling at $55 a barrel.
Tony
You don’t hate that, right?
Sam
If you’re trying to. I mean, it’s the perfect time to reopen. You’re getting cheap energy. You have supply chains that have fixed in the rest of the world. So I think this is very much a visit to make sure that they can continue reopening, get those long term energy deals in place, and then move forward.
Tony
Right. Okay, so we do have a question for Tracy, and you guys jump in. So, Tracy, there’s a listener named Rasul, and he’s asking, when China opens up, is it possibility that it could use its own SPR, like in November 21, to reduce its oil cost? Is that something they would consider doing?
Speaker 5
I think not at this juncture, right now, because, first of all, they’ve already drawn it down. Right. And they’re still worried about long term energy security, as is everybody right now. In addition, they’re also getting really cheap Russian oil, so I don’t think that would be something that they would do right now.
Tony
Okay.
Albert
No, they wouldn’t do that.
Tony
Right.
Albert
There’s no absolutely no need to do that. The US. Only did that because of Midterm economics, and that’s just that China had no intention of doing that.
Tony
Great. Okay, good. All right. Well, guys, I think we’ve covered it. We’ve been here for about 40 minutes, and the hotel we’re in has threatened to call the police if we don’t leave. So I want to thank you all for joining us for this week ahead, and we’ll get this posted on our YouTube channel within a day or so, okay? So thanks for joining us, and look forward to seeing you on the next one. Thank you.
This video interview is owned by Channel News Asia, and the original source can be found at https://youtu.be/U_Im05ClsN0
The United States Federal Reserve’s plan to ease its pace of interest rate hikes as soon as December would bring some relief for markets concerned about the central bank overtightening too quickly, Mr. Tony Nash, founder and chief executive of data analytics firm Complete Intelligence, told CNA’s Asia First.
Transcript
CNA: Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell has signaled policymakers could slow interest rate increases starting this month. That sets the stage for a possible to downshift to a 50bps rate hike when Fed officials gather again in two weeks.
Powell: Monetary policy affects the economy and inflation with uncertain lags. And the full effects of our rapid tightening so far are yet to be felt.
Thus it makes sense to moderate the pace of our rate increases as we approach the level of restraint that will be sufficient to bring inflation down. The time for moderating the pace of rate increases may come as soon as the December meeting.
CNA: But it isn’t quite a dovish turn. The U.S Central Bank Chief also stressed that they have a long way to go in restoring price stability despite some promising developments.
Mr. Powell warns against reading too much into one month of inflation data saying that the FED has yet to see clear progress on that front. In order to gain control of inflation, the Fed chair says the American labor market also has to loosen up to reduce upward pressure on wages. Job gains in the country remain high at nearly 300,000 positions per month and borrowing costs are likely to remain restrictive for some time to tamp down rapid price surges.
This is where U.S interest rates stand after an unprecedented series of four 75 bps rate hikes. Policymakers projected earlier that this could go as high as 4.6 percent but Powell says they will likely need to keep lifting rates more and go beyond that level until the inflation fight is done.
The less hawkish tone from Powell Boyd U.S market stow and the S&P500 erased losses it searched three percent. The Dow gained two percent while the NASDAQ jumped more than 4.4 percent. the 10-year treasury yield also dipped as Bond Traders dialed back their expectations on how high the Fed may push interest rates while the U.S dollar retreated.
Tony Nash is founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence joining us from Houston, Texas for some analysis. Now Tony, just looking at Powell’s comments, the first differs in some way with what the Fed and its officials have been telling us earlier in the year and how we’ll get there fast to try to reach the terminal rate. But now it’s signaling that it will get there slower. What is this going to mean for businesses and consumers in the US?
Tony: I think what it means is we’re going to get to the same destination. It’s just going to take a little bit more time to get there. So the Fed has seen jobs turn around they’ve seen jobs aren’t necessarily slowing but the rate of rise in open jobs is slowing. We’ve seen mortgage rates go up. We’ve seen the rate of inflation rise slowly.
So the Fed is seeing some things that they want and they’re worried about over-tightening too quickly. Because what we’ve seen so far is really just interest rate rises. They really haven’t even started quantitative tightening yet. I mean they’ve done a little bit maybe a couple hundred billion dollars. But they have nine trillion dollars on their books give or take.
They haven’t even started QT yet. And they’re starting to see inflation and some of these pressures on markets at least slowed down a little bit. So I think they’re saying “hey guys we’re still going to get to a terminal rate of five percent or five and a half percent but we’re going gonna slow it down from here unless we see things accelerate again.”
CNA: When do you think we will actually see that five to five and a half percent?
Tony: You’ll see it in the first quarter. You know if we do say 50bps in December and maybe another 50 in January, we’ll see some 25bps hikes after that but I think what markets the cyber leaf that markets are giving right now is just saying. Okay, we’re not at 100 or 75 in December.
I think that’s a big size that you saw today and you know. It raising at 75bps per meeting just put some real planning challenges in front of operators people, who run companies. So if they slow down that pace and people know we’re still going to get to that 5 to 5.5%, it allows people to plan a little bit more thoughtfully, and a little bit more intelligently.
I think this does relieve some people of the worries of the Fed over-tightening too quickly and it also relieves worries that the Fed is only relying on monetary policy. They’re not relying on interest rates I’m sorry and they’re not relying on quantitative tightening. so the Federal balanced approach sometime in Q1.
CNA: Okay, you also mentioned before in our past conversations, the concern that the market has been having for this week especially since it’s China’s lockdowns and you see these restrictions ending gradually. What is that going to mean for Energy prices and inflation?
We see Energy prices say now they’re what high 70s low 80s somewhere in that range. We do see a rise of say crude oil prices by about 30 percent once China fully opens. We could easily be 110-120 a barrel once China fully opens. And so there will be pressure on global energy markets once China opens. Other commodity prices will see the same because we’re just not seeing the level of consumption in China that we expect.
What we also expect is for Equity markets to turn away from the U.S. and more toward Asia. So the US has attracted a lot of investment over the past year partly because of the strong dollar partly because of kind of a risk-off mentality consolidating in U.S markets. As China opens and there becomes more activity in Asia than we would expect, some of that money to draw down out of the US and go back to Asia.
CNA: Can you look at the jobs market in the US even as we expect this potential pivot towards Asia for stock market investors? The jobs market and the picture on wages there because the ADP data shows that there seems to be a cooling in demand for labor how soon do you think we can see a broadening out to the broader jobs market?
Tony: You would have broader cooling of demand in the jobs market I think, that’s definitely hidden tech. You’ve seen a lot of layoffs in technology over the past say three weeks. And that will cascade out. I don’t necessarily see think that you’ll see that in places like energy, but you will see that in maybe finance, some aspects of financial services. You’ve seen some of that and say mortgage brokers and this sort of thing so you’ll see that in some aspects of financial services. Some aspects of say manufacturing at the edges. but I do think there’s a lot of growth in U.S manufacturing as this reassuring narrative really takes uh gets momentum in North America. And so even though we may shed some manufacturing jobs in one area I think we’ll see growth in manufacturing jobs in other areas.
CNA: Okay, Tony. We’ll leave it there for today. Thanks for sharing your analysis with us. Tony Nash is founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence.
This Week Ahead, we’re joined by Daniel Lacalle, Tracy Shuchart, and Sam Rines.
First discussion is on liquidity drain and quantitative tightening (QT). How difficult is it?
Rate hikes get a lot of the headlines, but QT peaked at just under $9 trillion in April of this year. The Fed has pulled just over $200 billion from the balance sheet since then, which isn’t nothing, but it’s not much compared to the total.
Where do we go from here? Most of the Fed’s balance sheet is in Treasuries, followed by Mortgage-backed securities. What does the path ahead look like – and where is the pain felt most acutely? Daniel leads on this discussion.
We also look at the copper gap with Tracy. We don’t really have enough copper over the next ten years to fill the demand. Despite that, we’ve seen copper prices fall this year – and Complete Intelligence doesn’t expect them to rise in the coming months. Tracy helps us understand why we’re seeing this and what’s the reason for the more recent fall in the copper price. Is it just recession? Will we see prices snap upward to fill the gap or will it be a gradual upward price trend?
We’ve had some earnings reports for retail over the past couple of weeks and Sam had a fantastic newsletter on that. On previous shows, we’ve talked about how successful US retailers have pushed price (because of inflation) over volume.
Costco and Home Depot have done this successfully. Walmart had serious inventory problems earlier this year, but their grocery has really saved them. Target has problems, but as Sam showed in his newsletter, general merchandise retailers have had a harder time pushing price. What does this mean? Is Target an early indicator that the US consumer is dead?
Key themes: 1. Liquidity drain and QT 2. Copper Gap 3. Retail and the US Consumer 4. What’s up for the Week Ahead?
This is the 42nd episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I am Tony Nash. And this week we’re joined by Dr. Daniel Lacalle or Daniel Lacalle. Daniel is a chief economist, he is a fund manager, he’s an author, he’s a professor. Kind of everything under the sun, Daniel does.
Daniel, thank you so much for joining us today. I know you have a very busy schedule. I appreciate you taking the time to join us. We’re also joined by Tracy Shuart. Tracy is the president at Hightower Resources, a brand-new firm. So pop over and see Tracy’s new firm and subscribe. We’re also joined by Sam Rines of Corbu. Thanks all of you guys for taking the time out of today.
Before we get started. I’m going to take 30 seconds on CI Futures, our core subscription product. CI Futures is a machine learning platform where we forecast market and economic variables. We forecast currencies commodities, equity indices.
Every week markets closed, we automatically download that data, have trillions of calculations, have new forecasts up for you Monday morning. We show you our error. You understand the risk associated with using our data. I don’t know if anybody else in the market who shows you their forecast error.
We also forecast about two thousand economic variables for the top 50 economies globally, and that is reforcast every month.
There are a few key themes we’re going to look at today. First is liquidity drain and quantitative tightening, or QT. Daniel will lead on that and I think everyone will have a little bit to join in on that.
We’ll then look at copper gap, meaning we don’t really have enough copper over the next, say, ten years to fill the needs of EVs and other things. So Tracy will dig into that a little bit.
We’ve had some earnings reports for retail over the past couple weeks and Sam had a fantastic newsletter on that this week. So we’ll dig into that as well. Then we’ll look at what we expect for the week ahead.
So Daniel, thanks again for joining us. It’s fantastic. You’ve spoken to our group about a year ago or so. It was amazing.
So you tweeted out this item on screen right now about the liquidity drain.
You sent that out earlier this week and it really got me thinking about the complexities of draining liquidity from global markets, especially the US. Since I guess global markets are hypersensitive to draining in the US.
Of course, rate hikes get a lot of headlines, but you mentioned QT, so it’s a bit more complicated. Obviously, QT peaked in April of this year. There’s a chart on the screen right now at just under $9 trillion.
And the Fed’s put about $200 billion back from their balance sheet, back in the market from their balance sheet, which isn’t nothing, but it’s really not much compared to the total.
So I guess my question is, where do we go from here? Most of the Fed’s balance sheet is in Treasuries as we’re showing on the screen right now, followed by mortgage backed securities.
So what does this say about the path ahead? What do you expect? How quickly do you expect? Does it matter that much?
Daniel
Thank you very much, Tony. I think that it’s very important for the following reason. When people talk about liquidity, they tend to think of liquidity as something is static, as something that is simply there. And when central banks inject liquidity, it’s an added. And when they take liquidity away from the system, that simply balances the whole thing. And it doesn’t work that way.
Capital is either created or destroyed. Capital is not static. So when quantitative easing happens, what basically happens is the equivalent of a tsunami. Now, you basically add into the balance sheet of central banks trillion, whatever it is, of assets, though, by taking those assets away from the market, you generate an increased leverage that makes every unit of money that is created from the balance sheet of the central bank basically multiplied by five, six, we don’t know how many times. And it also depends on the transmission mechanism of monetary policy, which is at the end of the day, what the reason why central banks do QE is precisely to free up the balance sheet commercial banks so that they can lend more.
Tony
Let me stop you there. Just to dig into so people understand what you’re talking about. When you talk about transmission mechanism, and the Fed holds mortgage backed securities, the transmission mechanism would be through mortgages taken out by people because mortgages are cheaper, because the Fed is buying MBS. Is that fair to say?
Daniel
Not cheaper. They don’t necessarily have to be cheaper. They have to be more abundant. Ultimately…
Tony
That’s fair. Yeah. Okay.
Daniel
Ultimately, this is why when people talk so much about rate hikes, rate hikes or rate cuts are not that important. But liquidity injections and liquidity training are incredibly important for markets because rate hikes or rate cuts do not generate multiple expansions. Yet liquidity injections do create multiple expansion, and liquidity draining is much more severe than the impact of the rate hike.
Tony
Okay, so when you say multiple expansion, you’re talking in the equity markets?
Daniel
In equity markets or in the valuation of bonds price. That means lower bond yields or in the valuation of private equity. We saw, for example, in the period of quantitative easing, how the multiples of private equity transactions went from ten times EV to even to 15 times easily without any problem.
So what quantitative tightening does is much worse than what quantitative easing does, because the market can absorb an increase of liquidity through all these multiple assets. However, when quantitative tightening happens, the process is the reverse. Is that the first thing that happens, obviously, is that the treasury, the allegedly lowest risk asset, becomes more cheap, ie, the bond yield goes up, the price goes down, the bond yield goes up, and in turn it creates the same multiplier effect, but a larger dividing effect on the way out.
Tony
So the divisor is greater than the multiplier.
Daniel
The divisor is greater. And I tell you why. In the process of capital creation, there is always misinformation that leads to multiple expansion. Okay? So one unit of capital adds two more units of capital plus a certain excess valuation, et cetera. Now from that point, if you reduce one unit of the balance yield of the central bank, the impact down is much larger. So where it goes to, this is the problem that we as investors find it very difficult to analyze is where is the multiple at which equities, bonds, certain assets are going to stop because it is very likely to be below the level where they started.
The challenge of quantitative tightening is even worse when the process of quantitative easing has been prolonged, not just in period of compression of economic activity or recessions, but also in the periods of growth.
Tony
Okay?
Daniel
Because the level of risk that investors take becomes not just larger but exponential under QE. Under QT. Under QE, you get Bitcoin going from 20 to 60 under QT, you get bitcoin going from 60 to maybe zero.
I don’t know. I don’t know.
Tony
The comments are going to be full of angry bitcoin people.
Daniel
I just want people to understand that just like on the way up in a roller coaster, you go slowly and it seems that everything is going relatively smoothly. When you start to go down, you go down really fast and it’s truly scary.
Tony
Okay, so let me ask you this, because when you talk about multiple expansion, I’m sure we’re going to get some comments back about tech firms because we’ve seen tech firms multiple expansion decline pretty dramatically in the past, say six months, certainly past year, for companies like Meta. So although we’ve only seen $200 billion in quantitative tightening, how does that reconcile with your statement about interest rates not necessarily impacting valuations.
Daniel
No, interest rates impact valuations, but not as aggressive as quantitative tightenint. They do, particularly in tech for a very simple reason. I think that all of us can understand that a technology company is in the process of money creation. A technology company is one of the first recipients of newly created money because it absorbs capital quicker and it obviously benefits enormously from low interest rates, obviously.
But the process of multiple expansion tends to happen in the early stages of those companies. Now the process of multiple compression is much more viscious because I would be genuinely interested to have a discussion with, I don’t know, with people that invest in nonprofitable tech, but I would really like to understand how they get to the current levels of valuation comfortably.
The biggest problem I see of quantitative tightening is the same problem I see of the hidden risks of quantitative easing is that central banks cannot discern which part of the wealth effect comes from the improvement in the real economy or simply from bubbles. And the creation of bubbles obviously, we can imagine that something is a bubble, but we don’t really know until it bursts.
So it’s going to be very problematic for a central bank to achieve almost one thing and the opposite, which is what they’re trying to do. What they’re trying to do is to say, okay, we’re going to reduce the balance sheet. Hey, we’re going to reduce the balance sheet by 95 billion a month and think that that will have no impact on the bond market, on the equity market, and on the housing market. The housing market is already showing.
Tony
Yeah, I don’t necessarily think they’re saying that will have no impact on that stuff. Sam, from your point of view, is that their expectation that QT would have no impact on asset prices?
Sam
I wouldn’t say it’s their expectation that it wouldn’t have an impact on asset prices. I think they understand that there’s an impact on asset prices from just the narrative of tightening generally. But to the point, I think it is very difficult to parse what portion of their tightening is doing what particularly for them.
You look at some of the research on coming out of the Fed, on what QT is expected to do and what QT does, and you come out of it thinking they have no idea. I think that they would probably say that quietly behind closed doors, without microphones. But to the point, I would agree that there is an effect and that the Fed likes to say set it and forget it, because they don’t really understand what the actual impact is on either the real economy or the financial economy. Come up with our star-star, which is some stupid concept that they decided to come up with to rationalize some of their ideas. But I would say no, that makes perfect sense, that they really don’t understand exactly how much it is. Which is why they say we’re just going to set it, forget it, and we’re not really going to talk about it.
Because if you listen to the Fed, their concentration is on the path to the terminal rate and the length of holding the terminal rate there. And if you Google or try to find any sort of commentary about quantitative tightening within their speeches and their statements, it’s actually pretty hard to find.
Daniel
Yeah. So just to clarify one thing, just to clarify. In the messages from, for example, of the ECB and the Bank of Japan, less so of the Fed. And I would absolutely agree with that because the Fed is not so worried because they know that they have the world reserve currency, but the ECB and the Bank of Japan certainly expect very little impact on asset prices. For example, the ECB are just saying right now that they’re expecting to reduce the balance sheet in the next two years by almost a trillion euros without seeing spreads widening in the sovereign market. That is insane to be fairly honest. So that is what I’m trying to put together is that the same… A central bank that is unable to see that negative bond yield and that compressed spreads of sovereign nations relative to Germany is a bubble. It’s certainly not going to see the risk of tightening.
Sam
I would start with saying that if the ECB thinks they are going to take a trillion off the books in a couple of years, that’s the first insane part of that statement.
Tony
Good. Okay. So what I’m getting from this is taking liquidity out of markets can be really damaging and the guys who are doing it don’t really know the impact of their actions. Is that good top level summary?
Daniel
Absolutely. That is the summary.
Tony
Okay, so since they’ve only taken 200 billion off, I say “only,” but compared to 9 trillion, it’s not much. Since they’re pulling the interest rate lever now at the Fed and they’re kind of tepidly moving forward on the balance sheet, do we expect them to finish the interest rate activities before they aggressively go after the balance sheet or are they just going to go march forward with everything?
Daniel
No, I think that’s.. They want to see the impact of interest rates first before they make a drastic action on the balance sheet. Particularly in the case of the Fed with mortgage backed securities, and the case of the Bank of Japan with ETFs because the Bank of Japan is going to kill the Nikkei if it starts to get rid of ETFs. And certainly the Fed is going to kill the housing market with mortgage backed securities are warranted.
Tony
Yup.
Sam
And then it’s kind of interesting because there’s two dynamics that I think are intriguing here. One is that the Fed’s balance sheet is getting longer in duration as interest rates rise because those mortgage backs are just blowing out to the right because you’re not going to have to have the roll down and you’re not going to have the prepays on those mortgages anytime soon. So the Fed is putting themselves in a position where hitting those caps on mortgage backs is just simply not going to happen on a mechanical basis. And they’re either going to have to sell or they’re going to have to say, we’re just not going to hit we’re not going to hit our cap on mortgage backed securities for the next 20 years.
Tony
Yup. So I get to put those to maturity like they’re doing with all the treasury debt.
Sam
Yeah, they’re just letting them roll off, which means they’re not going to have mortgage backs rolling off with a six and a half percent refi rate.
Daniel
Yeah, I agree with that.
Tony
Wow. It’s almost as if QT potentially is a non issue for the longer duration debt? Are you saying they’ll continue holding? Sam you’re saying , “No.” So what am I missing? What I’m hearing is they may just hold the longer duration stuff. So if that’s the case, is it kind of a non issue if they just hold it?
Daniel
It’s not a non issue. They are in conversations all the time with the Bank of Japan to do this composite yield curve management, which in a sense means playing with duration here and there on the asset base. But it doesn’t work when the yield curve is flattening all over the place and when you have a negative yield curve in almost every part of the structure.
So the point is that by the time that markets realize the difficulty of unwinding the balance sheet, the way that central banks have said, probably the impact on asset prices has already happened because commercial banks need to end margin calls, et cetera, margin calls become more expensive. Commercial banks cannot lend with the same amount of leverage that they did before. Capital is already being destroyed as we speak.
Sam
Into the point. As soon as you had the Bank of England announce that they were going to have an outright sale of Gilts, you saw what happened to their market. They broke themselves in two minutes.
Tony
Right. Okay. So that’s what I’m looking for. So it’s a little muddy. We’re not exactly sure. Right. QT is complicated. It’s really complicated. And liquidity is dangerous, as you say, Daniel. It’s easy on the way up. It’s really hard coming down from it. And that’s where…
Daniel
I think it was Jim Grant recently who said how easy it is to become a heroin addict and how difficult it is to get out of it.
Tony
Sure, yeah. I mean, not that I know, but I can see that.
Daniel
We don’t know it, obviously. None of us do. But it’s a very visual way of understanding how you build risk in the system and how difficult it is to reduce that risk from the system.
Tony
Yeah, just stopping adding liquidity is a good first step, and then figuring out what to do after that is I think they’re right. A lot of people like to knock on the Fed, but doing one thing at a time is, I think, better than trying to reconcile everything at once.
Okay, great. Since we’re taking a little bit of longer term view on things with some of that mortgage backed security debt, I just also was in a longer term mood this week and saw something that Tracy tweeted out about copper consumption and demand.
This was looking at long term demand, say, by 2030, and there’s a gap of what, 20 no, sorry, 10 million tons. Is that right, Tracy?
Tracy
8.1 million tons.
Tony
8.1 million tons. Okay. Now, when we look at copper prices right now, we’ve seen copper prices fall. We don’t really have an expectation of them rising on the screen as our Complete Intelligence forecast of them rising in the next few months.
So why the mismatch, Tracy? What’s going on there? And why aren’t we seeing the impact on copper prices right now?
Tracy
Well, I think if we look at basic industrial metals really as a whole, except for, say, lithium, really, we’ve seen a very large pullback in all these prices in these specific metals that we are going to need for this green transition.
Now, part of that is, I think, part of that is QT, we’re just saying money liquidity drained from the system. But I also think that we have overriding fears of a global recession. We also have seen people are worried about Europe because with high natural gas prices, a lot of their smelting capacity went offline.
And one would think that would be bullish metals, but it’s scaring the market as far as global recession fears. And then, of course, you always have China, which is obviously a major buyer of industrial base and industrial metals. They’re huge consumer as well as producer of the solar panels. Wind turbines and things of that nature.
So I think that’s really the overriding fears and what I’ve been talking about even for the last couple of years, that I think metals is really going to be more of H2 2023 into 2024 story. I didn’t really expect this year for that to be the real story.
I know you thought that energy was still going to be the focus. And I think even though we’ve seen prices come off, energy prices are still very high. And I think energy prices we’re going to see a resurgence of natural gas prices again in Europe as soon as we kind of get past March, when that storage is kind of done. Because we have to realize that even though the storage is still this year, 50% of that did still come from piped in natural gas from Russia.
I think we’ll start to see natural gas prices higher. Oil prices are still high. Even at $75, $80, it’s still traditionally high. So the input cost going into metals to bring it all together, the input cost going in metals, we are going to need a lot of fossil fuels. It’s very expensive. We also see mining capex suffers from the same problem that oil does is that over the last seven years, we’ve seen huge declines. And then when we look at copper in particular, we really haven’t had any new discoveries since 2015. So all of those are contributing factors. But again, I don’t think that’s really a story until last half of 2023 and 2024 going forward.
Tony
Okay, so to me, the copper price tells me, and I could be, tell me if I’m wrong here. Copper rise tells me that markets don’t believe China is going to open up fully anytime soon, and they don’t believe China is going to stimulate anytime soon. Is that a fair assessment?
Tracy
Yes, absolutely. I think we kind of saw metal prices. We’re bouncing on some of the headlines back and forth, but really we haven’t seen anything come to fruition, and I think most people are not looking until probably spring for them to open up. And I think China really hasn’t changed its stance, right. As far as. There Zero Covid policy, they’re still on that. So I think markets have been digesting that over the last couple of weeks or so. And that’s also another contributor to seeing a pullback in some of these metals in the energy sector.
Tony
Yeah, if you look at the headlines over the past week, you definitely see a softer tone towards China, with Xi Jinping coming out in the APEC meeting sorry, not the APEC meeting, the ASEAN meeting. And he’s a real human being and all this stuff, and he’s talking with Biden and he’s talking with European leaders and Southeast Asian leaders.
So I think there’s been a softer tone toward China and this belief that good things can happen in the near term, but I don’t think most investors will believe it until they see it, first of all. And I think places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, US. Other places, maybe not. The Germans are also a little bit worried about short term sentiment in China. Things could turn pretty quickly. So, like you say, I think base metals prices are down on that. But over the long term, obviously, it doesn’t seem like there’s enough capacity right now. So, anyway, we’ll see. So for bringing that up. Sorry. Go ahead, Sam.
Sam
Yeah, I think there’s just two things to add there. One, if you didn’t have investment in base metals and energy at zero interest rates, you’re not going to get it at five. Let’s be honest. That’s point number one, this isn’t a short term thing. This is a much longer term thing. And you need to have much higher prices for commodities broadly in order to incentivize any sort of investment, because they’re, one, very capital intensive, and two, capital is very expensive right now. So I think that’s also something to keep in mind over the medium term, is we’re not solving this problem at five and a half percent interest rates here. That’s clearly not going to happen. And the other thing is you haven’t seen the Aussie dollar react in a positive way. So if the Aussie dollar is reacting, China is not reopening. It’s just that simple.
Tony
Yeah, that’s a very point.
Daniel
If I may, I would also like to point out that the bullish story for copper, lithium, cobalt is so evident from the energy transition and from the disparity between the available capacity and the demand. But when the gap is so wide between what would be the demand and the available supply, what tends to happen is that the market, rightly so, sees that it’s such an impossibility that you don’t even consider, at least as a net present value view, that bullish signal as Tracy was mentioning until 2023 or 2024, when it starts to manifest itself.
Right now, it’s so far between the reality of the available supply and the expectation of demand that it looks a little bit like what happened with Solar in 2007, 2008. We just saw bankruptcy after bankruptcy because you didn’t match the two. And on top of it, Tracy correct me. But this is the first year in which you had a massive bullish signal on prices, in energy and in metals, yet you’ve seen no response from a capping.
Tracy
Exactly. Nobody’s prepared, nobody wants to really still spend that kind of money, particularly not the oil industry when they’re being demonized by everybody in the west in particular. So you know, you’re not going to see a lot of, nobody wants to invest in a project when they’re saying we want to phase you out in ten years.
Tony
What’s really interesting though also is BHP bought a small midsized copper miner in Australia this week, so I forget their name, but the miners are seeing opportunities, but they’re just not seeing the demand there yet. So we’ll see what happens there. So anyway, thanks guys for that. That’s hugely valuable.
Sam, you wrote on retail this week and you have really brought out some interesting dynamics around pushing price versus volume within stores over the past several months. And your newsletter looked at Target, Walmart, Costco, Home Depot. Earnings across retail sectors.
So Costco and Home Depot seem to have pushed price successfully. Walmart, as you say, had serious inventory problems earlier in the year, but their grocery business seemed to have really saved them. But Target really has problems and their earnings report this week was a mess. So we’ve got on screen a table that you took out of some government data looking at, has made a change of sales for different types of retail firms, building materials, general merchandise and food services. And things seem to be going very well for everyone except general merchandise stores like Target.
So can you help us understand why is that the case for, I mean, maybe Target is just terribly wrong, but why is that the case for general merchandise specifically and what does this say about the US consumer? Is the US consumer kind of dead in some areas?
Sam
No. US consumers is not dead, which is the strangest part about this earning season to me is everybody kind of read into Targets reporting was like, wow, this is horrible. It’s bad, it’s bad. Target is its own problem. Their merchandising, horrible. Their executive team, horrible. I mean, I don’t know how you survive this. With Walmart putting up huge comp numbers on a relative basis. I mean, they pounded Target and to me that was single number one. That’s Target’s issue.
The general merchandise store. We bought a whole bunch of stuff during COVID that we don’t really need to buy at 17 of right? We bought it during COVID You could get Walmart and Target delivered to you, that was a boom for their business and that’s just not being repeated. Same thing with if you look at Best Buy and electronic stores not doing great because we all bought TVs during COVID and computers, we needed them at home. These are just pivots. When you look at the numbers for restaurants, when you look at it for grocery, I mean, again, a lot of it is pushing price onto the consumer, but the consumer is taking it.
And those are pushing revenues higher. Look at something, the company that controls Popeyes and Burger King, absolute blowout, same store numbers. I mean, these are restaurants that are pushing price. They’re still having traffic and they’re not getting enough pushback.
Home Depot pushed 8% pricing, well, almost 9% pricing in the quarter. They didn’t care about foot traffic, but traffic was down mid 4%. They didn’t care about the foot traffic. They got to push the price and they, guess what, blew it out? Loads had a decent quarter. These are housing companies, at least home exposed companies and building exposed companies that had great third quarters that were supposed to be getting smashed, right? The housing is not supposed to be the place that you’re going to right now. And somehow these companies could push in a price.
There’s something of a tailwind to the consumer where the consumer is kind of learning to take it in certain areas and just saying, no, I don’t need another Tshirt or I don’t need to make another trip to Target. I think that it’s pretty much a story of where the consumer spending not if the consumer spending.
That retail sales report, it will get revised, who knows by how much, but the retail sales report, even if it gets knocked down by a few bips called 20 basis points, 0.2%, it’s not going to be a big deal. It’s still blowing number. These are not things you want to see.
If you’re the Fed thinking about going from 75 to 50, 2 reasons there. One is that pricing little too much. And if it begins to become embedded, not necessarily in the consumer’s mind, but also in the business’s mind, I can push price. I can push price. I can push price. That’s a twosided coin where the consumer’s willing to take it and businesses are willing to push it. That is the embedding of inflation expectations moving forward.
Going back to I think it was last quarter, Cracker Barrel announced during like, yeah, we’re seeing some traffic flow, but we’re going to push price next year, and here’s how much we’re going to push it by. These companies aren’t slowing down their price increases, and they’re not seeing enough of a pushback from consumers.
Tony
Cracker Barrel and Walmart are not topend market companies. They’re midmarket companies. And if they’re able to push price at the mid market, then it says that your average consumer is kind of taking it. But the volume is down. So fewer people are buying things, but the ones who are buying are paying more. Is that fair to say?
Sam
It’s fair to say. Fewer trips, more expensive. It’s fair to say. But there’s also something to point out where Macy’s, their flagship brand, kind of had a meh quarter. Bloomingdale’s, heirt luxury? Blew it out.
Tony
Okay.
Sam
So you’re seeing even within general merchandise stores, you’re seeing a significant difference between, call it luxury, middle, and low.
Tony
Okay. So what is it about, say, Target and Macy’s? I’ll say Target more than Macy’s, but is it just the management, or is it the mech?
Sam
It’s merchandising and it’s the Mexican.
Tony
Right, okay.
Sam
And if you don’t have the right stuff that you can push price on, you’re not going to make it.
Tony
So will we see some of these general merchandisers move into other sectors? Grocery or whatever?
Sam
I mean, Target has grocery. TVs closed. They have everything. It’s a question of do you have the right thing to sell right now in terms of that? So I don’t really think you’ll see many big moves, mostly because they already have too much inventory. So their ability to pivot is zero at this point. So it’s going to be a tough holiday season. I think it’s going to be a pretty tough holiday season to Target. But I didn’t see Walmart taking down numbers for the Christmas season. We’ll see with Amazon, but cool.
Tony
It seems healthy. Just observationally. They seem pretty healthy.
Sam
Yeah. And the other thing to mention, just as a side note, there’s a lot of this consternation around FedEx and UPS and their estimated deliveries for Christmas. This is the first year that Amazon has had a very, very large fleet going into the Christmas holiday season where they don’t have to send packages through FedEx and UPS only. They have a very, very large in house fleet of vehicles to do so with, and they built that out massively over the past 18 months. So I would read a lot less into that for the Christmas season, et cetera, than people are. That’s something I think it’s kind of taking the big picture and missing the finer points.
Tracy
I had a question really just on that same vein. I’ve seen a lot of the freight companies that report on freight, like Freight Waves, have been screaming at the top of their lungs, loadings are falling. People are going out of work. They’re firing everybody. Nobody’s delivering anything. Nobody’s delivering any goods. Do you think that’s sort of cyclical or because it seems like there’s a mismatch right now. There’s a lot of goods out there to be delivered, but for some reason, these guys can’t get loading.
Sam
I think it’s two things. One, everybody double ordered in spring and summer. So I think Freight Waves and a lot of other companies saw a lot of livings that they wouldn’t have seen otherwise. And you spread those out, and I think that’s point number one. Point number two is these retailers are stuffed with inventory. Target, even Walmart is somewhat elevated. They don’t have that big problem. They have the inventory. I would say it’s much more of a timing issue. You’ll probably see Freight Waves have too many loadings, called it in the spring and summer of next year because people are playing catch up and trying to get the right merchandise, et cetera, et cetera. So I think it’s just more of a Covid whipsaw than anything else.
Tracy
Makes sense, right?
Tony
Okay, so bottom line, us. Consumer is still taking it, right? They’re still spending, they’re still okay. Despite what bank deposits and other things tell us, things are still moving. And is that largely accumulating credit or how is the US consumer still spending? They’re accumulating credit?
Sam
A couple of things. One, they have their bank deposits are fine, particularly at the middle and upper levels. They’re still relatively elevated. Two, you’re getting a much higher wage. So your marginal propensity to consume when you see a significant pay raise, even if prices are higher, is higher, right. So you’re going to spend that dollar.
So you’re getting paid more. You’re switching jobs a lot more. Your switchers are getting something like a double digit pay increase. These are rather large chefs, so I would say the consumer feels a lot more comfortable with taking the inflation because they’re getting paid a lot more. Unemployment is sub 4%, so they’re not afraid of losing their job unless they’re at Twitter. So the consumer is sitting there like, all right, I’m not losing my job. I’m getting paid increases. Why would I stop spending? I think it’s that simple.
Tony
Great.
Sam
Yeah, they have credit cards.
Daniel
That is a very important point. What you just mentioned, employment. Employment makes all the difference. The pain threshold of consumers is always being tested. Companies raise prices. Volumes are pretty much okay. So they continue to raise prices to maintain their margins. And that works for a period of time.
I think that what is happening both in the Eurozone and in the United States is that after a prolonged period of very low inflation, consumers also feel comfortable about the idea that inflation is temporary. Basically everybody and actually I have this on TV this morning, we’re talking about everybody is saying, okay, so prices are rising a lot, but when are they coming down? But I’m still buying.
The problem, the pain threshold starts to appear when employment growth, wage growth, starts to stop, and at the same time, prices go up. And obviously the companies that feel comfortable about raising prices start to see their inflation rate, rise. So it’s always difficult because we never know. There’s a variable there that we’re very unsure of, which is credits. How much credit are we willing to take to continue to consume the same number of goods and services at a higher price?
But it is absolutely key what you’re saying, which is as long as even though wage growth in real terms might be negative, but you’re getting a pay rise and you still feel comfortable about your job, you feel comfortable about your wealth to a certain extent and credit keeps you safe, consumption in the United States is not going to crack.
However, where do you see it cracking? And we’re seeing it cracking in the eurozone. In Germany, where you don’t get the pay rise, you don’t get the benefit of taking expensive credit from numerous different sources or cheap credit from different numerous sources and at the same time you get elevated inflation. Consumption is actually going down the drain. The way that I see it is that the problem, the consumption, not collapsed, but certainly the consumption crack is very likely to happen more north to south in the eurozone than in the United States at the rate at which the economy is growing.
Tony
Yes, yes, very good. Thanks for that, until on Europe, Daniel, that was really helpful.
Okay, let’s do it very quick. What do you expect for the same week or two weeks ahead? We have a Thanksgiving holiday here in the US, so things are going to be kind of slow. But Tracy, what are you looking for, especially in energy markets for the next couple weeks? We’ve seen energy really come off a little bit this week. So what’s happening there?
Tracy
Yeah, absolutely. Part of the reason of that, besides all the global factors involved, the recession didn’t help UK him out and said they were already in the recession. That then sparked fears. We have pipeline at reduced capacity right now, which means that’s going to funnel some more crude into cushion, TWI contract is actually cushing. So that’s putting a little bit of pressure. I think holidays, obviously I think this next week we’re not really going to see much action as usual. So really looking forward to the following week is we have the Russian oil embargo by the EU and we also have the OPEC meeting and I would suspect that at these lower prices they would probably, they might be considering cutting again. So that’s definitely those two things. I’m looking forward to in that first week in December.
Tony
Great, thanks. Daniel, what are you looking for in the next week or two?
Daniel
The next week or two are going to be pretty uneventful, to be fairly honest. We will see very little action or messages that make a real difference from Fed officials or from the ECB. On the energy front, there’s plenty of news that we pay attention to Tracy’s Twitter account. But in Europe we will get quite a lot of data, quite a lot of data that is likely to show again this slow grind into recession that we’ve been talking and very little help. I think that from here to December, most of the news are not going to change where investors are and that will probably start to reconfigure our views into the end of the trading season, 27 to 28.
Tony
Okay, very good. And Sam, what do you see next week? The week after?
Sam
I’ll just be watching Black Friday sales that are coming in. Honestly, I think that will be a pretty important sign as to how things are developing into the holiday season and begin to set the narrative as we enter in December. Again, there’s no real interesting Fed talk coming out next week, but we’ll begin to have some pretty good data coming from a number of sources on Black Friday, foot traffic, internet traffic, etc. Tuesday and Wednesday.
Tony
Very good.
Sam
The following week. That’s all I care about.
Tony
Excellent. Really appreciate that. For those of you guys in the States, have a great Thanksgiving next week. Daniel, thank you so much. Have a fantastic weekend. Always value your time, guys. Thank you so much. Have a great weekend.
