Tag: qt

Systemic Risk: Silicon Valley Bank(ruptcy) & America’s Feckless Energy Policy

Post author By admin
Post date March 11, 2023

Explore your CI Futures options in this March Madness Promo.

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.

Follow The Week Ahead panel on Twitter:
Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Joseph: https://twitter.com/FedGuy12
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

Transcript

Tony

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.

Albert

Thanks, Tony.

Joseph

Bye, guys.

Albert

Thank you.

Podcasts

Slower US rate hikes could help ‘buy time’, allow businesses to plan better

Post author By admin
Post date December 1, 2022

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.

Week Ahead

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

Post author By admin
Post date November 19, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Tony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel

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

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

Tony

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

Daniel

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

Tony

That’s fair. Yeah. Okay.

Daniel

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

Tony

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

Daniel

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

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

Tony

So the divisor is greater than the multiplier.

Daniel

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

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

Tony

Okay?

Daniel

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

I don’t know. I don’t know.

Tony

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

Daniel

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

Tony

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

Daniel

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

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

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

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

Tony

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

Sam

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

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

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

Daniel

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

Sam

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

Tony

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

Daniel

Absolutely. That is the summary.

Tony

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

Daniel

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

Tony

Yup.

Sam

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

Tony

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

Sam

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

Daniel

Yeah, I agree with that.

Tony

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

Daniel

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

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

Sam

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

Tony

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

Daniel

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

Tony

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

Daniel

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

Tony

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

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

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

Tracy

8.1 million tons.

Tony

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

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

Tracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony

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

Tracy

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

Tony

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

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

Sam

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

Tony

Yeah, that’s a very point.

Daniel

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

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

Tracy

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

Tony

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

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

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

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

Sam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony

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

Sam

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

Tony

Okay.

Sam

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

Tony

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

Sam

It’s merchandising and it’s the Mexican.

Tony

Right, okay.

Sam

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

Tony

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

Sam

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

Tony

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

Sam

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

Tracy

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

Sam

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

Tracy

Makes sense, right?

Tony

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

Sam

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

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

Tony

Great.

Sam

Yeah, they have credit cards.

Daniel

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

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

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

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

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

Tony

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

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

Tracy

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

Tony

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

Daniel

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

Tony

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

Sam

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

Tony

Very good.

Sam

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

Tony

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

Sam

Thank you.

Daniel

Have a good weekend. Bye bye.

Sam

Thank you.

Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 28 Mar 2022

Post author By admin
Post date March 26, 2022
No Comments on The Week Ahead – 28 Mar 2022

‼️SPECIAL OFFER FOR THE WEEK AHEAD VIEWERS: $50/MO ON CI FUTURES SUBSCRIPTION. ‼️

We’ve seen so much about oil for rubles, gas for bitcoin, etc this week. Does it represent a fundamental shift for energy markets? And is the dollar dead? The yen fell pretty hard versus the dollar this week. Why is that happening, especially if the dollar is dead? Bonds spike pretty hard this week, especially the 5-year. What’s going on there and what does it mean?

Key themes from last week:

Oil for rubles (death of the Dollar?)
Rapidly depreciating JPY
Hawkish Fed and the soaring 5-year

Key themes for The Week Ahead:

New stimulus coming to help pay for energy. Inflationary?
How hawkish can the Fed go?
What’s ahead for equity markets?

This is the 12th episode of The Week Ahead in collaboration of Complete Intelligence with Intelligence Quarterly, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Listen on Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0twcBeGGELUrzdyMS0o37U?si=4dab69b94c3e4ec9

Follow The Week Ahead experts on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon

Time Stamps

0:00 Start
0:34 CI Futures
1:22 Key themes this week
1:48 Oil for rubles (death of the Dollar?)
3:15 Acceptance of cryptocurrency?
5:34 Petrodollar Petroyuan?
7:32 Rapidly depreciating JPY
10:12 Hawkish Fed and the soaring 5-year
11:58 Housing is done?
13:10 Stimulus for energy
15:53 How hawkish can the Fed go?
17:34 What’s ahead for equity markets?

Transcript

TN: Hi, everyone, and welcome to The Week Ahead. My name is Tony Nash. I’m here with Albert Marko, Sam Rines, and Tracy Shuchart. Before we get started, please, if you can like and subscribe to our YouTube channel, we would really appreciate it.

Also, before we get started, I want to talk a little bit about Complete Intelligence. Complete Intelligence, automates budgeting processes and improves forecasting results for companies globally. CI Futures is our market data and forecast platform. CI Futures forecasts approximately 900 assets across commodities, currencies and equity indices, and a couple of thousand economic variables for the top 50 economies. CI Futures tracks forecast error for accountable performance. Users can see exactly how CI Futures have performed historically with one and three month forward intervals. We’re now offering a special promotion of CI Futures for $50 a month. You can find out more at completeintel.com/promo.

Okay, this week we had a couple of key themes. The first is oil for rubles and somewhat cynically, the death of the dollar. Next is the rapidly depreciating Japanese yen, which is somewhat related to the first. But it’s a big, big story, at least in Asia. We also have the hawkish Fed and the soaring five-year bond. So let’s just jump right into it. Tracy, we’ve seen so much about oil for rubles and Bitcoin and other things over the past week. Can you walk us through it? And is this a fundamental shift in energy markets? Is it desperation on Russia’s behalf? Is the dollar dead? Can you just walk us through those?

TS: All right, so no, the dollar is not dead. First, what people have to realize is that there’s a difference. Oil is still priced in USD. It doesn’t matter the currency that you choose to trade in because you see, in markets, local markets trade gasoline in all currencies. Different partners have traded oil in different currencies. But what it comes down to is it doesn’t matter because oil is still priced in dollars. And even if you trade it in, say, the ruble or the yuan, those are all pegged to the dollar. Right. And so you have to take dollar pricing, transfer it to that currency. And so it really doesn’t matter.

And the currency is used to price oil needs three main factors, liquidity, relative stability, and global acceptability. And right now, USD is the only one that possesses all three characteristics.

TN: Okay, so two different questions here. One is on the acceptance of cryptocurrency. Okay. I think they specifically said Bitcoin. Is that real? Is that happening? And second, if that is happening and maybe, Albert, you can comment on this a little bit, too. Is that simply a way to get the PLA in China to spend their cryptocurrency to fuel their army for cheap? Is that possibly what’s happening there?

TS: It could be. Russia came out and said, we’ll accept Bitcoin from friendly countries. Mostly, they were referring to Hungary and to China. Right. And I don’t think that is a replacement for USD no matter what because not every country except for perhaps China really accepts or El Salvador really accepts Bitcoin or would actually trade in Bitcoin. Right.

TN: In Venezuela, by the way. I think. Right. So on a sovereign basis. Okay. So Sam and Albert, do you guys have anything on there in terms of Bitcoin traded for energy? Do you have any observations there?

AM: No, this is a little bit of… This is even a serious conversation they’re having? With El Salvador going to be like the global hub for Russian oil now because they can use Bitcoin?

TN: That would be really interesting.

AM: But this is just silly talk. Every time there’s some kind of problem geopolitically and they start talking about gold for oil or wine or whatever you want to throw out, they start talking about the US dollar dying and whatnot.

I mean, like Tracy, I don’t want to reiterate what Tracy said, but her three points were correct. On top of that, we’re the only global superpower.

TN: Okay.

AM: That’s it.

SR: Yeah. My two cent is whatever on Bitcoin for a while.

TN: Right.

SR: Cool.

TN: I think that all makes sense now since we’re here because we’re already here because we all hear about the death of the petrodollar and the rise of the petroyuan and all this stuff. So can we go there a little bit? Does this mean that the petrodollar is dead? I know that what you said earlier is all oil is priced in dollars. So that would seem to be at odds with the death of the petrodollar.

AM: Well, Tony, in my perspective, the petrodollar is a relic of the 1970s. Right. Okay. Today it’s the Euro dollar. It’s not the petrodollar that makes the American economy run like God on Earth at the moment. It’s the Euro dollar. Forget about Petro dollar. Right. Because it’s not simply just oil that’s priced in it in dollars. It’s every single piece of commodity globally that’s priced in dollars.

TN: And Albert, just for viewers who may not understand what a Euro dollar is, can you quickly help them understand what a Euro dollar is?

AM: They’re just dollars deposited in overseas banks outside the United States system. That’s all it is.

TN: Okay with that. Very good.

SR: And the global economy runs on them. Full stop.

AM: It’s the blood of the global economy.

TN: So the death of the petrodollar, rise of the petroyuan and all that stuff, we can kind of brush that aside. Is that fair?

TS: Yeah. I mean, even if you look at say, you know, China started their own Yuan contract rights, oil contract and Yuan futures contract. But that still pegged to the price of the Dubai contracts. Right. That are priced in dollars.

TN: Let’s be clear, the CNY and crude are both relative to dollars. Right?

TS: Right.

TN: You have two things that are relative to dollars trying to circumvent dollars to buy that thing. The whole thing is silly.

TS: Exactly.

AM: Yeah, of course. Because Tony, the thing is, if China decides to sell all their dollars and all their trade or whatever, everything they’ve got, they risk hyperinflation. What happens to the Renminbi and then what happens in the world? Contracts trying to get priced right.

TN: Exactly. It’s a good point. Okay. This is a great discussion.

Now, Albert, while we’re on currencies, The Japanese yuan fell pretty hard versus the dollar this week. Do you mind talking through that a little bit and helping us understand what’s going on there?

AM: Yeah, I got a real simple explanation. The Federal Reserve most likely green light in Japan To devalue their yen to be able to show up the manufacturing sector in case China decides to get into a bigger global geopolitical spat with the United States. Simple as that.

TN: Great. Okay. So that’s good. This is really good. And I want people to understand that currencies are very relevant to geopolitics or the other way around. Right. Whenever you see currency movements, there’s typically a geopolitical connection there.

AM: Of course. And on top of that, if it was any other time and they started to devalue the currency like this, the Federal Reserve where the President would start calling the currency manipulators. And there’d be page headlines on the financial times.

TN: Right.

AM: And because that didn’t happen, It’s an automatic signal to me that this is what’s happening at the moment. Right.

What’s also interesting to me, Albert, is we’ve seen last week we saw Japan approach the Saudis and the Emiratis about oil contracts. We saw Japan call. There’s a meeting in Japan next week, I think, with China. So Japan is becoming this kind of foreign policy arm, whether we want to admit it or not, they’re kind of becoming foreign policy arm for the US. Because the US is not well respected right now. Is that fair to say?

AM: It’s more than fair to say, I believe Biden’s conference with South Asian leaders was just canceled on top of everything else.

TS: Sorry. And we saw this week Japan and India just signed, like, a $42 billion trade deal. So it kind of seems like they’re smoothing over the rough edges because the United States kind of came after India a little bit earlier about two weeks ago.

TN: Yeah, that’s a good call, Tracy. I think Japan and India have had a long, positive relationship. It’s especially intensified over the past, say, seven or eight years as China has tried to invest in India and the Japanese have kind of countered them and giving the Indians very favorable terms for investment and for loans. And so this is kind of a second part of that investment that was, I think, announced in, say, 2014 or 2015, something like that. And again, as we talked about it’s, Japan intervening to help the US out and obviously help Japan out at the same time. Thanks for that.

Now, Sam. We saw bonds spike pretty hard this week, especially the five year. I’ve got a Trading View source up there on the five year up on the screen right now. So can you walk us through what’s happening with US bonds right now, especially the five year?

SR: Sure. I mean, it’s pretty straightforward. The Fed is getting very hawkish and the market is adopting it rather quickly. And I don’t know how forcefully to say this. The current assumption coming from city is four straight 50 basis point hikes and then ending the year with just a couple of 25. That is a pretty incredibly fast off zero move time, some quantitative tightening, and you’re somewhere around three and a half percent to 4% worth of tightening in a year. That’s a pretty fast move.

So the two year to five years reflecting that the Fed is moving very quickly, you’re likely having the long end of the curve is lagging a little bit. You saw flattening, not steepening this week. The long end of the curve is telling you that the terminal rate may, in fact, actually be at least somewhat sticky around two and a half and might actually be moving a little bit higher. And that terminal rate is really important because that is how high the Fed can go and then stay there. It is also how fast the Fed can get there and how much above it the Fed is willing to go. So I think there’s a lot of things that happened on the curve this week.

TN: Okay. Albert, what’s in on those? Yes, go ahead, Albert.

AM: Oh, I’ve heard whispers that the long bond is going to 2.8% and maybe even 3%. That’s what the whispers have been telling me about that, which is going to absolutely devastate housing.

TN: But that was my actual idea.

SR: Oh, yeah. Housing is done. I mean, you saw pending home sales were supposed to be up a point and down 4%. That’s the first signal. The next signal will be when lumber goes back to $300.

TN: Okay. It seems to me you’re saying by say Q3 of this year we’re going to see real downside in the housing market. Is that fair to say?

SR: Oh, in Q2, you’re going to see real downside in the housing market. Yeah.

TN: Wow.

SR: Pending sales are, I think, one of the most important indicators of how the housing market is going. Right. It’s a semi forward looking indicator. If you begin to see a whole bunch of these homes in the ground stay as homes that are not being built. Right. So if you begin to see just a bunch of pads out there, it’s going to become a significant problem considering a lot of people have already bought the materials to build it off. And you’re going to begin to have some really interesting spirals that go back into some of the commodity markets that have been on fire on the housing front.

TN: Wow. Okay. That’s a big call. I love this discussion. Okay, good. Okay. So let’s move on to the week ahead. Tracy, we’ve had some stimulus announced to help pay for energy. Can you help us understand? Do you expect we’ve seen California and some other things come out? Are more States going to do this or more countries going to do this, and what does that do to the inflation picture?

TS: Well, absolutely. We saw California, Delaware, Germany, Italy talking about it. Japan already. They’re coming out of the woodwork right now. There’s actually too many to list. It’s just that we’re just now this week just starting to see the US kind of joining this on a state to state basis. The problem is that this is not going to help inflation whatsoever. You’re literally creating more demand and we still do not have the supply online. So all of these policies are going to have the opposite of the intended effect that they are doing. Right. It’s just more stimulus in the market.

TN: Do we think there’s going to be some federal energy stimulus coming?

TS: They’ve talked about different options. I mean, really, the only thing that they could do right now is get rid of the federal excise tax, but that’s only really a few cents. And they kind of don’t want to do that because that goes towards repairing roads, et cetera. That doesn’t fit into their plan that they just passed back in the fall. Right. We had infrastructure plan, so they need to pay for that. That’s already passed. So they probably won’t do that.

The other options that they have that they’re weighing are more SPR release, which is ridiculous at this point because they could release it all and it would still not have a long lasting effect on the market. And that’s our national security. It’s a national security issue. And we’re experiencing all these geopolitical events right now. We have bombs in Saudi Arabia. We’ve got Russia, Ukraine. So I think that’s like a poor move altogether.

TN: So if more States are going to come in, is it suspects like Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, those types of places?

TS: Yes.

TN: Okay. So all inflationary, it’s going in the wrong direction.

TS: It’s going to create demand, which is going to drive oil prices higher because we still don’t have the supply on the market.

TN: Okay. Wow. Thanks for that. Sam. As we look forward, you mentioned a little bit about how hawkish the Fed would be. But what are you looking at say in the bond market for the next week or so? Do we expect more activity there, or do you think we’re kind of stabilizing for now?

SR: We’re going into month end. So I would doubt that we’re going to stabilize in any meaningful way as portfolios either head towards rebalancing or begin to rebalance into quarter end. So I don’t think you’re going to see stabilization. And I think some of the signals might be a little suspect. But I do think back to the housing front. I’m going to be watching how housing stocks react, how the dialogue there really reacts, probably watching lumber very closely, a fairly good indicator of how tight things are or aren’t on the housing front.

And then paying a little bit of attention to what the market is telling us about that terminal rate. If the terminal rate keeps moving higher, to Albert’s point, that’s going to be a big problem for housing, but it’s going to be a big problem for a number of things as we begin to kind of spiral through, what the consequences of that are. It will be for the first time in a very long time.

TN: Okay. So it’s interesting. We have, say, energy commodities rising. We have, say, housing related commodities potentially falling, and we have food commodities rising. Right. It seems like something’s off. Some of it’s shortages based, and some of it is really demand push based. So energy stuff seems to be stimulus based or potentially so some interesting divergence in some of those sectors.

Okay. And then, Albert, what’s ahead for equity markets? We’ve seen equity markets continue to push higher. How much further can they go?

AM: Last week they eliminated, I think, up to about $9 trillion inputs, short squeeze, VIX crush. I mean, they went all out these last two weeks. It’s absolutely stunning. From my calculations, I think they expanded the balance sheet another $150 billion. Forget about this tapering talk. There’s no tapering. They just keep on going. How high can they go? That’s anybody’s guess right now. I think we’re like 6% off all time highs. On no news.

TN: So potentially another 6% higher?

AM: Honestly, I know that there’s hedge funds waiting, salivating at 4650. Just salivating to short it there. So I don’t think they can even get close to that, to be honest with you. So I don’t know, maybe 4590 early in the week before they start coming down.

TN: Okay. Interesting. So you think early next week we’ll see a change in direction?

AM: Yeah, we’re going to have to this has been an epic run, like I said, 90% short squeeze, 10% fixed crush. You don’t see this very often. Okay, Sam, what do you think, Sam? Similar?

SR: On equities, I like going into the rip higher. I’m kind of with Albert, but a little less bearish. I think you chop sideways from here looking for a catalyst in either direction. Bonds ripping higher today, yields ripping higher today. Bond prices plummeting. That I thought was going to be a catalyst for equities to move lower. It wasn’t. That kind of gives me a little bit of pause on being too bearish here, but it’s hard for me to get bullish.

TN: Okay.

TS: What’s interesting? I’ll just throw in like, Bama, weekly flows. We actually saw an outflow from equities for the first time in weeks. It wasn’t a lot 1.9 billion. But that says to me people are getting a little nervous up here. Profit taking, as they say on CNBC.

TN: All right, guys. Hey, thank you very much. Really appreciate the insight. Have a great week ahead.

AM, TS: Thanks.

SR: You too, Tony.

TN: Fabulous. Look. I’m married. I’m a man. I don’t notice anything. I noticed the other guys laughed at that. Uncomfortably. That’s great. Okay. I’m just going to start that over, guys. And we’re going to end it.

Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 21 Mar 2022

Post author By admin
Post date March 19, 2022
No Comments on The Week Ahead – 21 Mar 2022

This week, we saw a Fed rate rise, crude came back from the stratosphere, and Chinese equities came to life.

As we said last week:

– Sam said “watch the 5 and 7 year” bonds, where we saw serious action.

– Sam also said “grip it and rip it” with equity markets.

– Tracy said that dramatic spikes in crude markets were priced out of the market for now

– Albert called for a volatile week thru the Fed meeting, although we didn’t see the lows he’d expected.

Sam walked us through the Fed decision and what’s happening in the bond markets. He also explained a bit more about his “grip it and rip it” comment and where the leaves us.

LME is talking about banning Russian copper on the exchange. What does that mean for global copper markets, as explained by Tracy? We’re also coming off the nickel scandal at the LME. Are there bigger problems with at the LME – mixing politics with markets?

We saw China equity markets perk up this week. KWEB, the China tech ETF, is up over 40% since Monday. What happened, what is Albert watching and what’s coming for Chinese equity markets?

Listen on Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/1yFipmQCs7XNHEXwj20bZf?si=5310245ccd1545d1

This is the 11th episode of The Week Ahead in collaboration of Complete Intelligence with Intelligence Quarterly, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.

Follow The Week Ahead experts on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

Transcript

TN: Hi, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. And I’m joined by Albert Marko, Sam Rines, and Tracy Shuchart. Before we get started, I’d like to ask you to like and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

So this week it’s been a really interesting week. We saw Fed rate rise. We saw commodities, especially crude, come back from the stratosphere and we saw Chinese equities come back to life. So it’s been kind of a really weird week.

Last Friday, Sam said to watch the five- and seven-year bonds where we saw some serious action. He also said rip it and grip it with reference to equity markets. So let’s dig into that a little bit today.

Tracy said the dramatic spikes in crude markets were probably priced out in the week before, which we saw bear out this week. And Albert called for an active week before the Fed. We didn’t see the low he expected, but I think very much in line with the volatility he expected this week.

So, Sam, to get started, can you walk us through the Fed’s decision and what’s happening in bond markets?

SR: Yeah. So I think the Fed’s decision is pretty simple to understand on a number of levels. It’s inflation, inflation, inflation and everything else is secondary. When asked multiple times what would knock them off of the call it the inflation war, they made it very clear there was very little that would knock them off that path. So you had a lot of action on seven-year, five-year and a little bit on 10? Not as much as I would have expected, really. But the basic reaction was the Feds going the Fed’s going very hard, very fast, probably would have done 50 if it weren’t for Ukraine and may do 50 at a coming meeting or two if the war in Ukraine doesn’t begin to really spiral into an employment issue in the US. It does not matter about a growth issue, matters about employment issue. So I think that’s really critical.

The two-year looks really well priced to me in light of that situation, quantitative tightening, whatever. That will happen in May. We know that.

TN: We’re convinced it’s happening in May.

SR: We’re convinced it’s happening in May. Yeah. The rhetoric from the Fed is pretty clear that they’re going to go early and they’re going to go fast on quantitative tightening. None of that is great for the longer end of the curve, starting at five s and ending at 30s.

If you want to kind of think about it in terms of ideal perspective, in terms of pricing, it’s probably pretty good. 5s, 7s, 10s, 30s have all priced a pretty interesting growth to inflation narrative that if you begin to have the growth narrative breakdown, if you begin to have the long term inflation embedded narrative breakdown, because the very fast, very good Fed, that’s going to change, and that’s going to push those yields down, prices up pretty dramatically, pretty quickly.

TN: Fantastic. So when you talk about QT in May, I think I bounced back and forth over the past, say month or two months where people are talking about QT, then they’re talking about the possibility of QE, then we’re talking about QT.

So the QT aspect of it, if that happens, which when you say I fully expect it to happen, the main point there is to take money out of circulation, is that right? What is the main point of QT?

SR: What is the main point of QT? Main point of QT is signaling.

TN: Okay.

SR: In my opinion. QE is a pretty big signal to go ahead and buy everything. QT is a pretty good signal that the Fed is serious, right. It’s a seriousness issue. It’s not as dramatic, I think, as it might be interpreted by the financial media in terms of an actual translation to financial conditions or to equity markets, et cetera.

It does tend to knock down multiples, and it probably adds another 25 to 50 basis points worth of tightening this year. But I wouldn’t say it’s a shredding of cash. It’s a shredding of reserves. So reserves never made it in to the market in terms of real usable high power cash. That’s a big difference.

TN: Okay. So when we look at the environment right now versus what you’re expecting for QT in May, are we in kind of an interim opportunistic equity market right now? Are people just kind of trading until the inevitable comes? What’s happening, especially in US equity markets?

SR: What’s happening in US equity markets? That’s a tougher question to answer than you might think. A lot of short covering. That’s the first thing. Second thing is most of the risk seem to be priced as we exited last week. Right.

If you’re going to price the world for World War Three or some sort of big tail risk, that was the time to do it. And you simply didn’t have any of that come to fruition. You had a hawkish Fed, but you didn’t have a Fed that seemed to want to break something really quickly. And it’s pretty obvious that they’re willing to break something at this point, but they didn’t want to break it with a 50 basis point hike or call it three or 3 or 50 basis point hikes. That is one of the reasons why equity markets get a little bit of relief here.

The other side is that the ten year yield dropped. The ten-year yield dropping took some pressure off the Nasdaq for rate increases or interest rate increases that side of things. So Nasdaq outperformed S&P, that’s a pretty important signal. There was some risk on this week.

TN: Great. Okay, Albert, what’s your rate on US equity markets in light of what Sam is talking about with Fed action?

AM: Sam’s right. They want to break something, but they don’t want to be seen as breaking something. I mean, I was dead wrong on the sub 4,000. I completely forgot that Opex was this week. They were not going to pay out $4 trillion and put up just the people. It was just that they probably spent 100 to 150 billion this week to pump this market up and keep it stable up in the stratosphere up here.

I guarantee they spent about at least $100 billion doing that this week. And they just annihilated people. They kept equities up. They are signaling that they’re going to hit inflation hard and fast, just like Sam said. They have to because things are just getting silly at this point.

TN: Okay. And Tracy, in light of what Sam is talking about with QT and more hikes later in the year, do you expect that to have a material impact on commodities over the short to medium term, or do you think they’re still on this strong trajectory that you’ve expected?

TS: Yeah. I think that unfortunately, the Fed cannot subside this with rate hikes because we have, again, real supply demand issues. And so I think the commodities markets, the trajectory is going to continue higher. It doesn’t matter, especially when we’re looking at now we have this Ukraine Russia war, and now we also have 50 million people locked down in China again. And they just closed one of their major ports and manufacturing hubs this week. So supply chains that were sort of beginning to mend, right, after 2020 just got thrown into an entire tail spin once again.

TN: I have a friend in the manufacturing sector who because of the Shenzhen Port close and city close, he got several force majeure letters this week. So that stuff is cascading through industry. We’re not necessarily seeing it in markets yet, but it’s really cascading through industry really quickly. And I think we’re going to start to see that appear in financial statements of companies in the coming months.

AM: That’s important, Tony, because my contention has always been that they’re allowing inflation to run wild because it reduces the amount of rate hikes they actually have to do come May, they might be done with their last rate hikes at that point and start QT just simply on the basis that the supply chains and the economy is struggling.

TN: Right. One thing I want to go back to, Tracy, when you say bullish market and this is my understanding of your statements, but you’re bullish on commodities, you’re not talking about crude going to $140 again next week. This is a medium term play. Is that fair to say?

TS: It’s a medium to longer term play, which I’ve kind of always stated, granted, we had the Russian Ukraine factor come in that push prices to 130 WTI, which was a lot faster than I anticipated. I really liked the fact that we pulled back from that, got some of that geopolitical risk air out of the market, but we’re still on the same trajectory of $150 a barrel over the course of the next year or two.

TN: Right. Okay. Now, while we’re on Russia Ukraine, the LME came out with some news about copper this week and we’re showing that on the screen right now talking about the LME potentially banning Russian copper on the exchange. Can you talk us through that? And what does that mean for global copper markets?

TS: All right, so this is, the LME Commission basically suggested that they ban Russian oil. This has to be presented to the internet. Copper. You said Russian oil.

TN: You meant copper, right?

TS: Copper, yes. Sorry. This has to be presented to the international community for this to actually go through. The problem here is Russia is the 7th largest producer of copper. They account for about 4% of global production. It’s a role on the LME exchange is more significant because they are the third largest exporter of refined copper metal and this is deliverable to the exchange. So this really would send LME markets into chaos. Literally.

TN: Okay, so let’s kind of somehow link that to the LME nickel issues that we saw last week. Okay? Could this, as an exchange, could actions like this impact the credibility of the LME or what does this mean kind of political actions and by “political actions”, I mean there was intervention on behalf of a Chinese entity for the nickel market last week.

There’s potential intervention as a result of geopolitical issues with Russia in the coming weeks. So will we see exchanges get more political and will that impact impact their credibility as an exchange?

TS: Well, that’s the problem, yes. And I do think that it will impact their credibility. The nickel market is essentially broken at the LME rights now, right. They reopened again on Tuesday. They set daily limits at 5%, limit down. They were limited down right away. They raised it to 8% on Thursday, limit down right away, 12% on Friday, limit down right away.

And basically, that’s not because of the fundamentals of the market. That’s because people are running for the hill. They just want out of that contract. Right. And so that is definitely going to be a problem for the LME market going forward.

TN: Are there dangers and we don’t necessarily need to name other markets, but are there dangers of other we’ll say developed market exchanges to kind of make these types? Could we see CBOT or CME or some of these guys start to play these games, too?

TS: I think that’s a difficult question to answer. I do not think that you will see CME do that unless you have some other foreign markets do that first.

TN: Unless a big Chinese state owned entity lose a lot of money.

TS: If we see SHFE do something like that, then I think the United States will. But I do not think you’ll see the CME market actually.

TN: Okay. Yeah. I mean, I’m not sure that some people understand that these exchanges are actually businesses and they have to make business decisions. Right. And some of these business decisions, they’re not completely neutral market participants. Right. In some cases, they get involved in these trades.

TS: They’re there to make money. Right.

TN: They are there to make money. But when politics inserts itself into markets, these exchanges that people think are kind of arms length to the trades, it starts some people wondering about the price. Are they actually getting the right price? Is there really a true market there?

TS: Well, exactly. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing at the LME right now. At the command, so far, we have not seen that at CME yet. But that is to be determined.

TN: Right. Albert, Sam, what do you guys have to say on this?

AM: From my perspective, I can’t really add much to what Tracy said. She’s right on the ball. When it comes to systemic issues, politics gets in the way and protects it. That’s just the way it works. And unfortunately, just seeing what you’re seeing today, which is undermining, it undermines the trust in the entire market overall.

TN: Yeah. It just seems like a problem that’s really hard to get over. Right. Like how long will it be broken and when it’s back, will it snap back? I just don’t know. Sam, do you have any thoughts on this?

SR: My only thought is very similar to Albert’s, in terms of I don’t think anybody’s going to actually trust the LME anytime soon. If you’re going to make a significant trade in a metal, I highly doubt you’re going to want to do it through the LME without having some sort of backup to that position.

TN: Okay, great. Let’s move on to Chinese equities. Albert, we saw China equity markets forgot this week, KWEB, for example, which is a China tech ETF, is up over 40% since Monday. So what happened and what are you watching?

AM: Again, the systemic issues that China is facing in the market, I mean, Hong Kong was about 5% away from just absolutely imploding. They had a new problem where it wasn’t just the foreign money that was leaving the system, but actually the mainland mainland Chinese investors were taking money out, which was something new. And it was to the point where the peg might have even broken. So they had to shore it up by liquidity injections. And the Xi had come out and made those comments citing Hong Kong twice. But I was on Twitter and I was saying, this just can’t happen.

China is completely about to fail market wise. So let’s start picking things, pick the best ETF, pick the best companies out of China. And I mentioned KWEB with you guys, GDS, Chindata, you can throw a dart and pick your Chinese name last week and it went up 40% to 80% at some point.

Same thing. Now I’m kind of trimming my position back, but Chinese housing is at that point right now, where the housing sector accounts for 75% of China’s wealth. They can’t just simply let it deteriorate into nothing where the banks are taking it over. That can’t happen. I mean, Xi would be out in his ass. Sorry about the commentary, but Xi would be out within months if that happens. So I’m going to pick top three Chinese housing names and go for it.

TN: It’s a brave call. It’s a really brave call.

AM: All right.

TN: Do you think there’s room to run with some of these Chinese tech companies or even the broader China market, or do you think the opportunity is really limited to real estate?

AM: Well, no, they can run. The problem that we have now is the Biden administration is starting to target China, assisting Russia and whatnot. So then now you have the geopolitical risks come into the equation and you see these things surge 40% one day, you can easily see a 20% retracement the next day or even more. So that’s why I’m just trimming you take your 60% and be happy with it.

TN: Right. So we talked about Chinese fiscal stimulus, Chinese monetary stimulus. We talked about devaluation. Do the events of the last week move up the time clock for the economic planners in China to get this stuff out the door?

AM: Absolutely. I think they have to even in conjunction with the US, because the US has no fiscal coming so the Chinese have to step up to simulate the economy. Otherwise the entire globe is going into a depression. It’s as simple as that.

TN: Yeah. It’s really. I remember over the past ten years, all the talk about coordinated economic stimulus and all this other stuff since 2008, 2009. And right now we’ve got the Fed pulling back and we’ve got China aggressively moving forward. It’s just a little bit strange. Sam, I guess from a macro perspective, can that work?

SR: It can work depending on how much stimulus is actually put into the system and how it is put into the system. The how is very important in terms of how impactful it will be. Not just domestically for China. But also how impactful it will be beyond their borders.

And what you’d be really concerned about from a macro perspective is how far beyond the borders does that stimulus actually get? That’s where I get interested in it, because if it does begin to move beyond the borders, it’s very positive for Europe. That’s very positive for some US companies. But you have to have a stimulus that isn’t just a transfer to businesses.

You have to have it actually hit the Chinese consumer and hit the Chinese consumer quickly.

TN: Okay. So we’re not just talking about a couple of RRR cuts, which is what they do all the time. It’s kind of the go to. This is the reserve requirement, right?

SR: Yeah. I don’t care if they do RRR cut.

TN: I don’t think many people do, although I think they kind of have to phone that in to show that they’re doing something. I would think it’s more aggressive on the fiscal side, on the TSF, the total social finance side, where they just need to churn the cash out to SMEs, SOEs, big multinational companies, that sort of thing to almost get them to the point where they’re exporting deflation again, of manufactured goods. Does that make sense as an approach, Sam?

SR: I mean, it makes a lot of sense as an approach, but at the same time, you’re locking down due to your COVID zero process or policy. So that process would be really interesting and intriguing. But it’s a question of whether or not it would be effective given the health policy on the other side. So, yes, it would be great, but it would be probably great in three to six months.

TN: Okay, so guys, this is a great point. The COVID zero policy, it feels like much of the rest of the world has come out of this. Right. And China has gone back into lockdowns. Do you think there’s a point at which other markets have an uncomfortable call with China and go, guys, you got to open up because you’re killing the rest of us.

SR: I think they had it. I think they had it. If you look at the way they’re handling the current lockdown, they’re busting people to factories.

There’s a closed loop factory policy. While you have a COVID zero policy and “these places are locked down,” they are busing people to the factories. So I think there’s been a little bit of a let’s move on here.

TN: Okay.

AM: And also want to point out is these lockdowns came suspiciously close to the talks with the US, both with Biden and our glorious blink or Sullivan, the genius Sullivan that we have. But I think it might have been a little bit of a negotiation tactics like if you decide to play hardball with us over Russia, we can just shut down and ding our economy. So I think there was a little bit of that also sprinkle in there, right. A little bit of real politics.

TN: Yeah. Okay, guys. So as we come out of this weird week, what do you expect for the week ahead? Tracy, what are you looking at for the week ahead?

TS: So I think in the commodity markets, we’re still at that point where we’re kind of coming down after that initial knee jerk reaction to Russia, Ukraine. So I expect a little bit of consolidation across markets. Depending. It’s kind of what we’re seeing. So I think the market still be volatile, but like less volatile. I think we’re kind of like at that ripple point where the ripples really big and then we kind of get smaller and smaller.

TN: I think you’re Right. I think the consolidation makes sense. Albert, what are you looking For? It seems to me on the geopolitical side, we’re almost going through almost a geopolitical consolidation a little bit. We’ve had so much drama over the past few weeks, but I almost feel like it’s coming down a bit.

AM: It has been coming down and that’s one of the reasons they’re able to sit there and pump the market so high. I think it was overbought, to be honest with you. I think this market even considering going back to 4500, you’re just going to have every fund out there shorting the heck out of it. So I would see them try to test 4470, 4480, 4490, maybe 4500, but after that, it’s probably downside from there.

TN: Okay. Great. Sam, what are you looking at?

SR: I’m looking at the five-year I think it’s a pretty interesting place to be and I think it’s going to be highly volatile. But that’s the one to watch with inflation and growth expectations beginning to be a little wobbly.

TN: Great. Guys, thanks so much. I really appreciate it. Have a great week ahead.

AM, SR, TS: Thanks.

Tags CBOT, China, Chinese, CME, Fed, KWEB, LME, NASDAQ, OpEX, qt, RRR, Russia, shenzhen, shfe, Ukraine, United Stated, United States, US, week ahead

Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 14 Mar 2022

Post author By admin
Post date March 12, 2022
No Comments on The Week Ahead – 14 Mar 2022

This week, we saw commodities skyrocket then drop off. We saw crude oil hit levels not seen since 2008, with gasoline and home heating prices on everyone’s minds. The nickel market broke the LME. Chinese tech and real estate bloodbath. And – despite all of this – Janet Yellen assured us there will be no recession in the US. Quite a week.

As we said last week:

– Tracy called for commodity price volatility – across sectors

– Downside bias in equities with high volatility. Albert predicted 4200-4250 and pretty much nailed it.

– Sam said a Fed rate rise would become boring and talk of QT would disappear.

This episode we talked about mostly the energy commodities with the continuing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Can the US use other alternatives like the West African oil to replace Russian oil? What are the politics around Venezuelan oil and why is it the same as getting Russian oil?How about uranium — and can the US produce it and will the conflict affect rare earths? Is this war the reason for the US’s inflation? How will inflation actually play with voters in this year’s US election? Lastly, what’s happening in Chinese tech and real estate and why there’s a bloodbath and for how long will this continue?

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

For those who want to listen on Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/35aHRd7oVfj7zPvgZjyQXg?si=d74bba8f8d094e29

Follow The Week Ahead experts on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

Transcript

TN: Hi, everyone, and welcome to The Week Ahead. My name is Tony Nash. I’m joined by Tracy Shuchart, Albert Marko, and Sam Rines. Before we get started, I appreciate if you could like and subscribe to our YouTube channel. And also please know that we have a special offer for Week Ahead viewers for CI Futures, which is our market data and forecast platform. CI Futures has about 800 assets across commodities, currencies and equity indices and a couple thousand economic variables. We track our error. We have very low error rates. So we’re offering CI Futures to Week Ahead viewers at a $50 a month promotion. You can see the URL right now. It’s completeintel.com/weekaheadpromo. That’s a 90% off of our usual price. So thanks for that.

So these week, guys, we saw commodities skyrocket and then drop off. We saw crude oil hit levels not seen since 2008. With gasoline and home heating prices really on everyone’s minds. The nickel market broke the LME, Chinese tech and real estate. We saw a blood bath there. And despite all of this, Janet yelling assured of us that there will be no recession in the US. So it was quite a week.

So let’s look at last week. Tracy called for commodity price volatility across sectors. So it wasn’t just an oil call, it was across sectors. And we saw that in spades. We talked about a downside bias in equities and high volatility. Albert predicted a 4242 50 range, and he pretty much nailed that. And then Sam said that a Fed rate rise would become pretty boring and talk of QT would kind of disappear. And we’ve really seen that happen over the past week. So, well done, guys. I think we need to really focus on inflation this week. Inflation and quantity prices are on everyone’s mind. Energy is the first kind of priority, but it’s really come across, like we said, nickel and other things.

So, Tracy, let’s start there. We have a viewer question from At Anton Fernandez, Russian oil, if you don’t mind helping us understand the environment for Russian oil and what’s happening there and some of the alternatives, which we’ve covered a little bit before, but also West Africa. Is West Africa viable within that? So if you don’t mind talking to us a little bit about what’s happening in the crude market and also help us with a little bit of understanding of the context of West Africa.

TS: Yeah. So if we look at the crude market in general, what we have been seeing, we’ve seen sanctions from Canada, which is basically political. They haven’t bought anything since 2019. We also saw Australia sanctioned oil, but they had only bought a million barrels over the last year. It’s nothing. The US only 600,000 bpd. That is nothing. And UK is going to take a year to get off oil because it’s 11% of their imports as opposed to 2% of our imports. That said, what we are seeing in this market is a lot of self sanctioning. Right.

So we’re saying we have nine Afromax Russian oil tankers basically sitting aisle because they can’t get insurance and nobody wants to pick up oil right from them. Actually, what is most surprising right now, I have to say, is that looking at Asian buyers, everybody thought that Asian buyers because it would be offered at such a discount, they would be buying this stuff up like crazy. But there was just an auction for SoKo, which is a very popular grade with South Korea, China, Singapore and Hawaii, and there was literally zero bids.

TN: Really? Wow.

TS: The next auction that we need to be looking for is ESPO, which is the most popular grade for China refiners. But if we see a zero bid there, that would be indicative of saying that we’re taking a lot of brush and barrels.

TN: Chinese we’re not seeing any interest there, at least so far.

TS: Right. Which is quite incredible because the Chinese have always decided to be apolitical. Right. And they don’t recognize Unilateral sanctions and they have stressed that. So whatever sanctions that the west has, China says we don’t care about that. We saw that with Iran as well.

TN: Right.

TS: But it’s pretty incredible to see this particular auction go at zero bid. Right. In regards to looking at West Africa, I’ve been talking about this since 2020. Niama is a very interesting place. There’s been a lot of offshore activity there. And so I think that is a place to be looking for. The problem is that looking at offshore projects, they take it’s a seven to ten year timeline, as opposed to something like Shell, which is six months to 18 months. But yes, there’s definitely opportunity.

TN: So is West African crew substitutional with Russian crude?

TS: No, it is not.

TN: Okay. So is it lighter, that sort of thing?

TS: It’s lighter. It’s lighter crude oil, what we’re looking at right now. And this is exactly why the US went to Venezuela and said, we’ll be willing to lift sanctions with you as long as you only sell us oil.

TN: Right.

TS: And the funny thing is that they have a very good relationship with Russia. The problem with this sort of relationship is that we could inadvertently be buying from Venezuela that is actually Russian oil.

TN: Sure. Exactly. So it’s an interesting point on Venezuela. Albert, what are the politics around that we just pick up the phone. Does Lincoln just have a conversation with Venezuela? We send a deputy sect down there, do a deal. How does that work? And is that palatable?

AM: No, it’s not palatable. It’s an absolute joke. Like Tracy said, the Russians have their tentacles all over Venezuelan oil, that you would be self sanctioning yourself from Russian oil globally, but then buying from Venezuela, which is going to be mixed because everybody in the industry knows that if you want to mix oil, you do it in the Caribbean, especially from sanctioned oil from overseas. So it’s not palatable. It’s a joke. I don’t understand what they’re trying to do. It’s just a Wally world at this point.

TN: I guess the thing that I’m continually astounded by is the diplomatic actions of the US administration from Anchorage through this week with Venezuela. They just seem to be tripping all over themselves. What am I missing? Like they just seem to be eroding credibility by the day. Is that fair to say?

AM: It’s more than fair. They’re throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks based only upon their little echo chamber of ideology. And it’s extremely naive ideology when it comes to geopolitics or what they’re doing right now.

You can try to erase Russia and go play and then think that you can go to Iran and cut a deal with Iran, not understanding that Russia is going to sabotage that deal. Right. Like they did just today.

TN: Tight diplomatically. While we’re on this this week, the headline said that the UAE and Saudi declined having talks with Joe Biden this week. Is that true? Is the headline the reality of it? And from the time Biden came into office, he was not friendly to Saudi Arabia. So is this payback from that?

TS: No, I don’t think so. Sorry.

AM: Actually, I think it is that it is payback because you have the Saudis and the UAE that have security concerns with the Houthis and the Iranians. And if you’re sitting there approaching the Iranians playing all nice with them, what do you think MBS is going to do?

TS: I agree with Albert on that respect. I just want to interject that the OPEC + Alliance has mainly tried to stay apolitical. Right. So just because the United States says OPEC produce this much more, Saudi Arabia and UAE, which are both the producers that can produce more than the rest, had come out this week and said no, we’re in this alliance and this is how it is, which is totally understandable.

AM: Yeah, but Tracy, but the problem is OPEC saying that is one thing but not taking his call.

TS: No, I agree with you. I agree with you that we have burned bridges. I’m not disagreeing with you here whatsoever. I’m just taking a different kind of look at this.

TN: Sam, what’s your view on that? I’m not hearing you.

SR: Can you hear me now?

TN: Yes, sir.

SR: I would say the naivety of believing that you’re going to have a JCPOA deal or you’re going to be able to have some sort of comeback in terms of Venezuela. So you add the two of those together and who cares relative to what you need to replace Richmond Oil? I mean, it would be great and fine, whatever, but it’s nowhere near enough simply. Right. But it’s also a political naivety to believe that you’re going to have that type of dialogue and you’re going to have it quickly.

TN: Right.

SR: On the front of Saudi and UAE, I would say it is both an OPEC Plus. We’re not going to blow this up before it blows up on its own from the call it the allies of OPEC. Plus.

It’s also the UAE and Saudi is saying, remember, you want to be friends with us, US.

TN: Yeah.

SR: Don’t pretend you don’t want to be.

TN: Right.

SR: So I would say it’s politics in the best possible way on that front. And on Iran, JCPOA, and Venezuela, it was wishful thinking to think that the Russians were going to say no on both fronts.

TN: Well, and the Chinese. Right. I think there are a number of Venezuela has relationships with both Russia and China.

TS: That’s all I was saying is that OPEC is not going to give up that plus alliance. They’re going to try to stay apolitical. Right. Whatsoever. Do I think that the United States is pushing OPEC to Russia and China? Absolutely. Do you see the huge deal that Saudi Arabia made today? Absolutely. Right.

So they’re looking at investing further into China because they are being pushed away from the United States. So agree on that aspect. But I’m just trying to say that they do try to stay apolitical. If you look at the history of OPEC, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been able to subsist cohesively in the OPEC alliance, regardless of the years of them being enemies and having proxy wars against each other. That’s all I’m saying.

TN: Okay. Let’s move on to the next thing. There are a couple of questions about commodities, Tracy, and let’s just cover these really quickly. We have a question about uranium from @JSchwarz91. Will the US ban or will Russia restrict its uranium and could the US actually start producing uranium on its own? Is that a possibility?

TS: The US won’t restrict uranium. It hasn’t restricted uranium because we actually buy a significant amount of uranium from them. It’s easy to say we can skip 600 barrels per day of oil, but not as easy to do with uranium. We’ve stayed away from that.

Will Russia decide to not sell to us? Again, it’s about money, so probably not unless we really push a button in there. Can we produce that amount of uranium in the United States? Absolutely not.

TN: Interesting. Okay. Let’s also move on to rare Earth. So we have a question from @snyderkr0822. He’s asking about the impact of Russia and Ukraine on the availability of rare earths. Is that a factor or is rare Earth more of a China thing?

TS: That’s more of a China thing. We all have to watch to see if China sides with Russia and see how that market ends up. But really, they’re the largest producer in the world, and that’s who we are largely dependent on for rare earths.

TN: Okay, great. Thanks for that.

Now let’s move on to kind of this war driven inflation narrative that we’ve seen over the past a couple of weeks. We had February inflation come out today, and I feel almost as if we’re being tested as a trial balloon for an inflation narrative that inflation is kind of Russia’s fault.

So, Sam, can you talk us through some of the economics of this? Is inflation a new thing like did it just happened two weeks ago?

SR: No. So the inflation narrative going forward, there’s some validity to Russia being the reasoning behind an increase over a base case. Whatever you want to decide that base case is. But in February, January. December and November, those are not in any way related to Russia generally.

What’s interesting to me is how many people are kind of forgetting that, we kind of had a little bit of a log jam breakup in supply chains beginning to occur. It looks like we were going to get a little bit of respite from that narrative. But now if you looked at what’s going on in the neon market, if you look kind of six to twelve to 18 months down the road, it looks a lot less like we’re going to have that log jam broken up and a lot more like we’re going to have somewhat persistent inflation that there is no way for the Fed to solve. There’s no way for the ECB to solve BOJ, et cetera. You’re just going to have to continue to have this hawkish language to try to tamp down those longer term expectations.

TN: Demand destruction.

SR: Demand destruction. But it’s really hard to destroy demand for semiconductors when they’re in everything from my daughter’s doll to my laptop. It is very difficult to destroy that much demand and create an inflationary environment that is less toxic to the Fed or to the ECB without breaking something.

So if the Fed isn’t willing to break something in the next call it six months. They’re not going to break inflation. And if you print out six months from now, you’re breaking something into a midterm election.

TN: Right.

SR: So I’m so much skeptical on the Fed’s ability to do anything at this point.

TN: Right. That’s a great transition to Albert. So how is inflation playing with voters?

AM: Oh, it’s absolutely nuclear football. Allowing inflation to go this high is just going to be devastating to the Democratic Party and Joe Biden. But I want to go back because I have a couple of contentious things to say. Right.

TN: Please do.

SR: Oh, God! Right.

AM: So everyone is pricing in five, six, seven hikes at the moment. Right. But inflation at the moment has probably taken three of them out of the equation because the money’s gone. It’s erasing money left and right at the moment, from the federal point of view, it’s like, why really get rid of it all? That why really attack it when it’s doing our job for us where we only now have to hike three times. Right.

And on top of that, something even more contentious is everyone knows that once the VIX gets to a certain price, somebody sells it off. Right. Somebody industry. Right. But everybody knows that. And when everyone knows that, the house casino usually moves to a different area. What about oil? What if somebody with a big account has bought oil futures and every time it gets to the 120s or 130s, they just crush it for $1015 and the market rallies again.

So this artificial inflation that obviously we have real inflation just because of wage inflation and supply chain. But there’s a little bit of artificial, artificial aspect to it that I think the Fed has been using. Politically, it’s going to be extremely damaging. But for their point of view is if they can get over it and then get the rate hikes out of the way and then maybe probably start QE later in the summer, They could suck their voters at the beginning of the economy back on track again. I don’t think it’s going to work.

TN: Let’s say a month or so ago there was suspicion that we would be doing QT in say June, July. That’s off the table now because of the money that inflation is taken out of the market, right?

AM: Absolutely.

TN: But we’ll do rate hikes and have QE potentially?

AM: That’s right. That’s my point.

TN: You’re in an insane phase of economic history.

AM: It’s just look around, Tony. What’s not insane at the moment?

TN: Undoing this.

TS: That’s 100% fact.

TN: Undoing this is going to be insane. Okay, speaking of undoing crazy stuff, the Chinese techs and real estate stocks really have some problems this week.

So Albert, Sam, can you guys talk a little bit about that? And we have a tweet showing some stocks from Tencent, Alibaba, JD, other ones down 50, 60, 80%. So what’s happening with the tech blood bath in China?

SR: I’ll just do a quick start. Did you see the numbers coming out of JD? They were horrible. I mean, they were absolutely atrocious. So, yeah, you’re going to get a sell off in tech broadly across the board in China. When your numbers are horrible, then you’re going to have additional pressure put on the potential for delisting in the US and the general call it risk off move in markets. So you’ve got the trifecta of horrible for Chinese tech in a nutshell.

But the JD numbers were absolutely atrocious on a revenue growth line. And there’s no way to save Chinese tech if you’re going to have numbers like that. If you continue to have numbers like that, guess what? Look out, because the bottom is not in.

On the Chinese real estate front, I think Albert has a much better view on this than I do. But I would say if you’re going to have a risk off in tech, good luck having a risk on in real estate.

TN: Sorry. Let me stop you before I move on to real estate. So the tech story, what I’m pulling away from there is that it’s potentially disposable income story at the retail level, at the consumer level, and tells me that China is way overdue with its stimulus. Is that fair to say?

SR: That’s harder to say.

TN: Okay.

SR: I would be very careful in saying that the Chinese consumer is not there. China is coming with stimulus. If you’re trying to hit 5.5 by the end of this year and you’re going into a plum, guess what? You got to hit the pedal.

TN: Well, they better hurry up.

SR: They’ve got time, but they’re going to hit the pedal. And the question is how do they hit the pedal? And it’s got to be the consumer because they’re not going to hit it on real estate.

TN: No, they’re not. Going through some of the real estate.

AM: Yeah, well, I have a couple of points to make on. I have a couple of points about the tech. China tech. What was interesting is Sam is right. JD numbers were horrible. Right. This SEC Delisting thing pointed out five companies. Right. Just five. And the big ones. Gamble is a big one. And whatnot. But why only five? It happened to be the only five that actually did their accounting and submitted their accounting numbers. Right. And would that actually let a snowball effect out to say, Holy crap, they will take down every single Chinese number, Chinese company in the market. That’s why a lot of this actually sold off harder than you think it would sell off.

Going to the real estate market. I mean, 75% of China’s fault is real estate. So unless Xi wants pitchforks and torches coming after him, he’s going to have to stimulate the economy, something to support the real estate market.

TN: Yeah. It seems like it’s going to have to come hard and fast. I could be wrong. But, you know, with.

AM: I think by June. I think by June he’s got to do something. He has to.

SR: Hit through the middle.

AM: Absolutely.

TN: Good. And do you guys have any ideas on what exact forms that’s going to take? I mean, of course they’re new triple R, of course, taking a new infrastructure spending. They do the stuff. They announce it every other year. Are there other forms that you have in mind that will take that?

AM: I don’t, to be honest with you, that is $64 million question. To be honest. That’s a big question. That’s very complex.

SR: Yeah. And if I had the answer to that question, I probably wouldn’t be on this call.

TN: Come on, Sam. We know you would.

SR: I would be on a yacht somewhere.

TN: Yeah, that’s right.

TS: It’s interesting about that. If you look at the energy perspective, they just had a meeting and they totally decided that they’re going back to coal other than anything else. So that to me that signifies we have stress in other markets. Right. We cannot spend the money in other places. So we’re going to go back to what we do best, what we know best. And they also offered, if you look at internal documents that are offering huge discounts for going back into the coal industry or whatever. I just like to.

TN: So there’s still 73% coal for their power generation, something like that?

TS: Yes. So for them, they backtracked on COP. They need the money right now, in other words.

TN: Right. So the whole Paris agreement is a convenient agreement, is that what you’re saying?

TS: Correct.

TN: Okay, very good. It’s good to know that we’re all committed to the future. Okay. So guys, speaking of the future, finally, what do you view for the week ahead? Albert, let’s start with you. Maybe with China. Do you think there’s more to come with the blood bath in China?

AM: I think there’s another week or two to come with China blood bath. And I think that’s going to obviously lean on our equities going into Fed week.

TN: Right.

AM: So yeah, I think we’ll be another down week.

TN: Okay. And guys, what about US equities? Are we on a steady decline down to some number 4300 whatever it is, or are we kind of about there? What do you feel is going to happen over the next week?

AM: I think we’ll be sub 4000 by the end of the week at some point.

TN: Okay.

SR: Yeah. I wouldn’t be anything other than market neutral until immediately following the Fed meeting and then you just rip it to the upside.

TN: Okay.

AM: Yeah. The only thing that I have a concern about is we still have this Ukraine war going on which is giving outrageous headlines and then if the Fed hikes 25 basis points and then extremely hawkish tones while Putin is shelling Kiev.

TN: Right.

AM: It’s hard to rip until after that’s all settled.

TN: So sorry, Sam, in your scenario, are you saying the first half up until say Wednesday we have a pretty quiet market, then Thursday and Friday, things are pretty active to the?

SR: Oh no, I am not saying that you have a quiet market until the Fed. I’m saying you don’t want to take a position period until the Fed and then you either want to grip it or rip it one or the other.

AM: I agree with that one wholeheartedly.

TS: These markets will continue to be volatile until we have some resolution with this Ukraine Russia situation just because of all every day we’re seeing new sanctions against Russia and against commodities within Russia, at least for the commodity sector. I think we’ll continue to see volatility, but over the long term I’m still very bullish commodity.

TN: Okay. So Tracy, Sunday night, futures open, crude traded very high. Do you think there’s a possibility of us seeing another dramatic spike like that in the next week or two?

TS: I think that mostly been priced out of the market. I think that was priced in right. We saw a lot of that risk premium come out of the market, which I was very glad to see. I would personally be happy if we saw it traded in the 90s again before going into high demand season because I do think that we will trade higher on fundamentals. But it scares me when we have these big kick ups due to headlines and geopolitical risk.

So for me right now I would like to see this market come down a little bit. I’d like to see it pull back some and hopefully things will resolve quicker than sooner with this situation. But still going forward, I’m still very bullish this market.

TN: Okay. We didn’t talk at all about nickel and metal’s markets, but we saw the LME close today because of a nickel trade supposedly. Will we see those markets reopen and will we see nickel trade? Is it scheduled to trade again on Monday and is there the potential for commodity specific disruption and markets closing over the next week or two because of the volatility.

TS: There’s been a very high contention discussion right now, especially within the commodities industry. I would just say that it was kind of unprecedented what we saw there and the fact that they canceled all the trades. I would say that hedge funds are kind of backing away from that market right now because they’re skeptical of that market right now. But again, it’s not like I don’t want to say this is going to be the norm or anything like that.

TN: Okay.

TS: I think this was a one off crazy thing. It happened in the aluminum market years ago and you can even look it up on Wikipedia, right.

TN: Okay. Last thing week ahead with bonds. Sam, what are you thinking about bonds? We’ve seen the ten year go back up to about two. Are we going to see that continue to take up?

SR: I don’t know. I think the ten year is a little less interesting than the five year and the seven year.

TN: Okay.

SR: The five year and the seven year are really what you want to watch because if the fed goes 25 and goes really hawkish, it’s the five and the seven that you’re going to get the juice from and the ten and the 30 you’re going to get a little less so watch the five and seven. I think the five and seven are really interesting here. If you want to take a bet on a really hawkish Fed.

TN: Fantastic. Okay, guys. Thanks very much. Really appreciated. Have a great week ahead. Thank you very much.

AM: Okay. Bye.

SR: Thank you. Bye.

Tags Alibaba, boj, Canada, ci futures, ESPO, Fed, JCPOA, LME, MBS, opec, qt, Russia, Russian, saudi arabia, Tencent, UAE, United States, US, Venezuela, week ahead

Week Ahead

The Week Ahead – 28 Feb 2022

Post author By admin
Post date February 27, 2022
No Comments on The Week Ahead – 28 Feb 2022

Last week’s big news is Ukraine and Russia. So in this episode, we want to talk you through some context and what this means for markets in the near term. First, the guys talked about the most surprising thing that happened and then we moved on to answer a few viewer questions like what’s the implication of Russia being disconnected from SWIFT? Will anything change between Europe and China? Will the Russia-Ukraine inspire China to actually invade Taiwan? How disrupted the energy markets will be? And finally, what happens to the world economy – Fed, QE, QT, consumers, etc.?

Listen to this episode on Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6ynTFaOtWF6rl1xNKX1Cnq?si=439f4977cb3743fd

Follow The Week Ahead experts on Twitter:

Tony: https://twitter.com/TonyNashNerd
Sam: https://twitter.com/SamuelRines
Albert: https://twitter.com/amlivemon
Tracy: https://twitter.com/chigrl

Transcript

TN: Hello. Welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. And I’m joined by Tracy Shuchart, Albert Marko, and Sam Rines. Before we get started, I’d like to ask you to subscribe to our YouTube channel. And like this video. It helps us with visibility and you get reminded when a new episode is out. So thanks for doing that right now.

We had a lot on this week, especially around Ukraine. So today we’re really focused on Ukraine. We want you to understand the context around Ukraine. We want you to understand what it means for markets. And we’re going to take a lot of your questions that we’ve been gathering off of Twitter.

So just a quick recap of what we said last week. Coming out of last week’s episode, we said it’s not a time to make big decisions. We said to keep risk tight and be careful of volatility. And we said that crude markets would move sideways. So we did kind of come into this assuming risk would be there this week. And obviously, we saw that.

So first, guys, can you walk us through some of your observations of the past week? What are you seeing directly in and around Ukraine or Ukraine, and how is that affecting markets? And as each one of you talk, Albert, I want to start with you, but name something that surprised you most in the past week in markets. Okay. Can you give us a quick overview? I know you’ve got deep networks in that region. So can you talk to us a little bit about what you’re hearing and seeing there?

AM: Well, I mean, concerning Ukraine and the markets. What I was most surprised and a little bit taken aback by was the amount of mainstream media just decorations of World War Three and whatnot then how much it affected the markets? So much so that you have to look at the markets and say what is going on?

Because this is just not normal behavior for markets to respond to a situation in the Ukraine that’s really kind of not really attached to the United States market at the moment. I mean, it isn’t commodities and that’s something Tracy will get into. But it was an overabundance of bad news, just an overdrive. And that’s what actually really took me aback.

TN: Good opportunities out there.

AM: There is absolutely good opportunities. But the problem is the volatility goes way up higher. The VIX exploded. You can’t get into options because they’re just far too expensive. You’re going to get burned doing that. And what do you do? Maybe sitting on your hands is the proper thing to do until things stabilize. But yes, there were actually great opportunities.

TN: What are you hearing on the ground, Albert? I know you’re really close to that part of the world. So what are you hearing on the ground?

AM: Well, the situation is really fluid and really tense at the moment. I think the Russians were taken aback. I know that the Russians were taken aback about the actual veracity of defense by the Ukrainians. Their main objective is to take Mariupol and then take Odessa. That is their number one and number two objective. Their next objective is to take not really to take you because I don’t think they can actually do it unless they want to do some kind of redo of the Chech and guerrilla warfare and just start massacring people. They’re not in that business at the moment. The world’s eyes are on it.

So I think political change, maybe snap elections is what they’re probably going for in Kiev just to surround it, stress the city, stress the residents, force a change where Western governments can’t get a bigger say in the matter on a nation that’s right on the doorstep.

TN: Okay, so I’m seeing on say on social media like TikTok videos of burned out Russian tanks and all these things, and I think it seems to me that Russia is losing the PR war right now and that’s really important in the early days and with different demographics even within Russia. Do you think Russia or Putin kind of underappreciated the impact that social media would have, at least on the early days of this?

AM: Of course, Russia has a vast network globally of PR campaigns in the west. So for him, it’s definitely a concern where you have negative images of Russia, Russia’s military trying to enact power projection. It’s a little bit daunting for him at the moment.

However, from a military strategic point of view, we don’t know exactly what their exact strategy is. Whereas they’re just trying to expand Ukrainian defenses, trying to get the best of their defenses out already. So they have a shortage of supply later on. That’s what most professionals would say is happening.

So we really have to see over the weekend to see what kind of resources have been expended by the Russians trying to take back Mariupol and Odessa.

TN: Do you think the Ukrainians can get stuff resupplied? Do you think they would have any difficulty getting stuff resupplied from the west?

AM: It’s totally up to the west and what they’re going to supply them and how they’re going to supply them. I’m sure that the west have Special Forces sprinkled without inside of Kiev assisting as advisers to the defense forces there. So it just depends on the will of the Europeans at the moment.

TN: Okay, Sam, what have you seen this week in markets that’s kind of gotten your attention or surprise you?

SR: I would say what really caught my attention were two things. One, how quickly Wheat went up and how far it went up and then how quickly Wheat went down and how far it went down.

There were two days where Wheat was just skyrocketing. I think it was 5.5% day followed by negative. I forget where it closed, but a significant negative day in the six to range at a minimum. That really caught my attention.

Ukraine is incredibly important on the wheat front. That’s a pretty important one. And then I would say how quickly and how far gold went. Right. Gold was almost $2,000, and now it’s below where it was prior to the invasion, and it did that all in a day. I mean, that was an incredible move in my book and somewhat shocking. And I think it was kind of interesting when people caught on that if you cut off Russia from being able to really sell, call it dollars, Euros, et cetera, on the market openly, it’s going to potentially have to sell gold if this thing drags out.

So you have an overhang of gold in a war scenario. Not necessarily, I call it a tailwind. I thought that was a really interesting call it knee jerk reaction up in gold, and then kind of a realization of, oh, crap, this might not be the thing to own here.

And then the final thing and I’ll make this one quick is crypto and how war was supposed to be great for crypto. And as the war started, you saw crypto sell off pretty hard. I think it’s interesting on two fronts. One, there’s a significant amount of crypto activity in Ukraine and Russia.

Russia is the second largest country when it comes to providing hash rate to the market for Bitcoin. And if there’s any sort of disruption there, all of a sudden the US could become 50% of the hash rate awfully quickly, which could become an interesting scenario there.

TN: How does the hash rate for people who aren’t crypto experts? How does the hash rate equate to say, the crypto price?

SR: It makes it, call it’s basically an efficiency mechanism where you can either do transactions more quickly, more efficiently, and somewhat of a lower cost. That’s basically what you do.

So if you lower the hash rate, you increase the cost of doing transactions and slow the general system down.

TN: Okay, great.

AM: This is interesting, Tony, because this actually leads into a lot of my arguments against crypto being decentralized, saying, hey, when push comes to shove, governments have control of the networks and the financial system. You can’t get away from that.

TN: Yeah. And if you cut off the electricity supply, it becomes even more difficult.

AM: Nearly impossible. Puerto Rico.

TS: And if you’re Russia that has control of the entire Internet, you can cut off whatever sites that you want. Right?

TN: Right.

SR: Yeah, that’s right. Yeah. It was interesting. There was something floating around yesterday where it appeared that Russia was at least partially geofencing their country from the rest of the world. And if it does that, that could become problematic if it does it in a meaningful way for crypto.

TN: Sure. And taking down the RT site doesn’t help their paranoia there. Right. Tracy, what happened for you over the week? What’s one of your observations that really kind of surprised you?

TS: Well, I mean, to be honest, because I’m focused on the commodity side of everything, pretty much how I saw the markets going or how I pretty much thought how the markets were going to go. Right. I posted a bunch of stuff on Twitter.

TN: You saw all this coming?

TS: No. Well, I didn’t do this. I don’t want to sound like arrogant. I focus on energy, metals, materials, agriculture. And because Ukraine and Russia are such large hubs for all of these commodities, wasn’t really surprising to me that we saw a jump in all of these.

TN: Yeah. Were you surprised the magnitude of the jump?

TS: Yes. And in some respects, I actually expected Palladium to have a bigger jump than it did because Rush is 43% of that global markets and wheat went far beyond bonkers that I thought it was going to go.

Was I surprised about oil? No. On the upside and on the downside today.

TN: Great. Okay, very good. Let’s jump into some of these viewer questions. You guys know that we saw a lot of viewer questions at the start of this.

So the first one I’m going to read out is from Keith Snyder. It’s @snyderkr0822. He says, what would the implications be of disconnecting Russia from SWIFT?

I’ve inspired your knowledge and have to be informed. So there’s been a lot of talk about SWIFT over the past few days. Sam, do you have some insight there on what would happen if Russia was taken out of the SWIFT network?

SR: It would be less bad than it would have been call it three years ago. Russia has somewhat insulated themselves from SWIFT, but not entirely by no means. Right. The SWIFT system can cut you off from dollar denominated, at least dollar denominated transactions.

That’s a pretty important thing, particularly when you’re selling a lot of things that are denominated in dollars. Right. Oil, et cetera. That becomes somewhat problematic. I would say that would be a very significant hit to Russia.

And it would also be a significant hit. And by significant hit, I mean that’s putting you on par with Iran and Cuba. Right. That’s basically putting you at Code E country without saying it. That’s Iran, your Cuba, see you later, bye.

I think that what I would be paying very close attention to is the reaction of European banks. That’s $330 billion worth of Russian liabilities assets on their books. So you’ve got to figure something out there pretty quickly because those books are going to get smacked if you can’t actually get on the SWIFT system.

TN: Okay. And Tracy, if they were taken off a SWIFT on Friday, Germany said that they would be okay with imposing that sanction, how would Germany pay for its electricity?

TS: I mean, Germany said that with a caveat, let’s say, because they did say we’re going to look at this, but we need to look at the implications of this. So obviously the problem there in lies that if you take a Rush off SWIFT, then Europe is screwed energy wise. Right? Unless they choose to scramble and make long term contracts with, say, the United States.

They could go through the United States. They could go through Azerbaijan on the Tap pipeline. They could go through Israel and Egypt if they wanted to, through the Southern gas quarter. I mean, there are options for them.

The problem is that they should have been looking at long term contracts this summer when we already knew that Nordstream Two was going to be delayed.

TN: Four, three, four years ago. I mean, they’ve had this optionality on the table for a long time.

TS: But those options are still on the table for them. But by delaying SWIFT, if you cut Rush off SWIFT, the big problem Europe has to decide is do we cut off SWIFT and hurt ourselves or do we hurt Russia more? And I could argue that both ways. Anybody could argue that both ways. But that’s a big decision that they have to make.

TN: Well, everybody hurts, right? That would not be a sanction that would be pain free for anybody.

TS: Right. Except maybe the US.

AM: Well, Tony, despite the rogue status of Russia, it’s still well attached to the Western financial system. It’s not seen as able or even as aggressive as the Chinese are and detach it from the financial system.

There would be a lot of problems if they were banned from SWIFT. But it’s certainly a valid deterrent if the west wants to actually use it. They keep a lot of their bank and central bank money in the Euro dollar market. So no SWIFT would mean no more Treasuries, but they’d just move into the Euro dollars itself.

Maybe that’s why they were buying gold because of this tension that they saw coming. It’s a risk to their global market.

TN: Sure. Okay, let’s move to China now. We’ve got a few questions on China. We’ve got one from @NathanDallon. He says, does anything in Europe change the situation with China?

There’s another one from Ritesh @chorSipahi, he says question for Samuel Rines and Albert, Ritesh. I’m not taking offense at this. What is the deterrence for China not to invade Taiwan or now to invade Taiwan?

And then we’ve got another one from Rich @rm_ua09. How could China benefit the most out of the Russia Ukraine situation? A, supporting Ukraine in some manner, B, remaining neutral, or C, taking measures to whether Putin.

So there’s a broad spectrum of questions there, guys.

TS: Take the first one, I think, Tony.

TN: Okay, let’s go for it. What happens in Europe?

AM: Well, Europe. I think that the Europeans are going to be actually more dependent on China trade after this because they’re seeing a problem with the Russians politically.

You can’t sit there and tell me that they’re going to be able to support the Russians like they were in trade, whether it’s commodities or whatnot on steel. I mean, name your commodity. Name your.

TN: Chinese already own like 70% of the global steel market. So is it going to make that much of a difference?

AM: It’s, well, I mean, they still diversify. They’re still going to have to play ball in the global trade. So I think at this point, politically, Russia’s poisonous, and then you’re going to have to steer even more towards China.

TN: Right. So, yeah, it seems to me that China could actually use this as an opportunity to distance itself from Russia. Right. If it goes bad, China is very silent right now. And if it goes bad, they could distance themselves from Russia and make some really tight allies in Europe at Russia’s expense. Does that make sense to you guys?

AM: It does to me.

SR: 100%. I think that would be the spare play from China in a lot of ways, because you get two things. You’re going to get tighter ties to Europe, which diversifies you somewhat away from the US even more. It gives you call it a barrier to the United States and whatever the US wants to do, and it also, to a certain extent, raises your profile on the international stage. Right.

TN: That’s key. China really wants to be seen as a credible diplomatic player and I think there’s still a bit of a chip on their shoulder about not being seen as an equal with a lot of the larger Western Nations. So I think your last point is really important.

There seems to be a view that Russia invading Ukraine somehow enables China to invade Taiwan. What are your thoughts on that?

AM: I absolutely disagree with that wholeheartedly. I think the two situations are nothing alike at the moment. I mean, Ukraine is in Russia’s eyes, it’s own territory. Same as is China views Taiwan.

However, Taiwan has a much more active defense military force and more of a backing from not only the US, but Australia, Japan, India. That’s a problem for the Chinese, too. So I think the two. I don’t like to draw a comparison between the two. I don’t think there is anything related to it.

TN: Sam?

SR: I have almost nothing to add beyond that. And I think the one country that’s really interesting in there is India, because India did not step up on the Ukrainian front and India would step up on the Taiwan front.

AM: Yeah. And on top of that, on top of that, let’s just be realistic here. We know that the Chinese probably have military observers inside of Ukraine watching and taking notes.

TN: Sure. How to conduct right now. If you’re a Chinese PLA officer and you’re looking at what’s happening in Russia versus what the United States did in Iraq, what would be your assessment? Russia gives us nothing against the United States.

The United States is a juggernaut. That’s what I think nobody’s even talking about.

TN: Yeah. If Russia didn’t just roll into Ukraine and take it over in 24 hours, what kind of model are they for China?

AM: And that’s on their border, Tony, that’s on their border.

TN: Exactly. No, exactly. So logistically, Russia’s logistic supply chain for their military, it seems like it’s pretty horrific. Their intelligence, like everything. It just seems like a mishmash of let’s just go get them.

AM: They are a professional military force. They have budget problems. That’s what. If they really wanted to go into Ukraine and just smash the place, they could. But the problem is you’d have to kill many civilians in the meantime, which they can’t do that.

So the Chinese are sitting there probably looking at like, what do we do here? Who is this military partner that we’re actually partnering up against the United States? It’s not sufficient.

TN: Yeah. It seems to me that on some level, going back to the social media comment I made, Russia is kind of embarrassing itself. China doesn’t want to be seen allied with someone who’s embarrassing themselves. Right. They’re happy to.

TS: That’s why they’ve been so quiet. They haven’t said nothing.

TN: Yes. And I think China is always looking also looking at how unified is the world’s response against Ukraine. Right. So if they were to go after Taiwan, how unified would the response be?

So going back to what I said earlier, I think China has a real opportunity here to distance itself from Russia, to play nice on Taiwan and really benefit from trade and finance and diplomatic relationships.

AM: 100%.

TN: Tracy, do you have anything else on that on China? Any other thoughts?

TS: No. I think you guys…

TN: Awesome. Okay, very good. Let’s go to the next ones. Okay. Tracy, these are all energy related. So primarily, if we look at this @DaveRubin15, he says, what are the energy implications if Ukraine has no choice but to make this a war of attrition rather than surrender, bleeding Russia out from exposure and can this catalyze an energy super cycle? Okay.

And then we’ve got another one from Giovanni Ponzetto asking, assuming that gas from Russia is kept flowing at the same rate of the past couple of months, will the EU be able to restock gas reserve? So, Tracy, you’re the expert here. Take it away.

TS: All right. So for the first one, there are two extreme scenarios that could happen. Either somebody blows up a pipeline by accident or somebody blows it up on purpose and blames the other side. And if you look at the chart that’s on the screen right now, you can see the choke points where this could easily happen to really hurt gas flows into Europe.

That said, if we look at the role of Ukraine in the gas markets, they’re much smaller today than they were in the 1990s. Right. There was a time when 90% of gas that came from Russia to Europe went through Ukraine. And now it’s about less than a quarter percent.

The other extreme is that Russia just cuts off gas flows entirely. Right. And that hurts EU way more than it hurts Russia because they don’t really actually make that much money selling gas. They make way more money selling oil. They have $640 billion in reserves. They could live without the gas for a few months. And that’s kind of why the US has had problems getting the Europeans on board with sanctions against existing flows from Europe.

In addition, Europe also has other options. They can go again to the United States, Azerbaijan or Israel and Europe.

Now there are about 2.9 million barrels at risk of oil exports that are exported from Russia to the United States and Europe, which is about 30% of their exports. And that would be much more catastrophic than, say, natural gas in the oil markets. But as far as oil flows through Ukraine, it’s very limited. Again, you can see the map.

TN: Okay.

TS: The second question.

AM: Sorry about that. I had a related question for you. How possible is it or how necessary do you think it would be for the Italians to take the initiative and become Europe’s energy hub?

TS: Actually, they really could with Greece. Right. And I’ve been talking about the Southern gas border for a very long time, which branches off, you could go Cypress into Greece and then you could go straight into Italy from the Southern gas corridor.

I think that region is really something you really want to keep an eye on right now. And I’ve kind of been talking about this for a couple of years right now because there’s just so much supply. And although people say that region is geopolitically unstable, so is everywhere. But that’s never really stopped oil and gas flows.

Personally, I think as an investor, I would be looking at that particular area of the world because they really have a lot of gas supply. And now we have pipelines built, and I think it’s more stable than, say, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, that have had a lot.

AM: You know what’s funny, though, Tracy, is every time the Libyans or Egyptians or whoever try to export gas and oil and whatnot, the Russian Wagner conveniently shows up.

TS: Conveniently shows up. Right. Exactly.

AM: Here we are, guys.

TS: Exactly. For the second question, as far as, I think that you were asking about gas flows, if Europe could restock. Absolutely. They can restock because of the things that, because of the alternative sources that I mentioned before, and we’re headed into a season that we don’t need as much. So I think that as we head into summer, it will not be as dire as the dead of winter.

TN: Very good. Okay. Thanks for that.

Sam, let’s look at some economic questions now. We’re looking at from @_0001337 probability of rate hikes and tightening now. We just let inflation run amok. When we see price controls. That’s one question. There’s another one, wondering how North America will go about continuing to grow consumerism, things like cuts on gas taxes, that sort of thing.

And there was another question about gold, which you covered a little bit at first from @Mercerandgrand looking at gold prices. So if you don’t mind, let’s talk a little bit about kind of Fed options now. Are we still expecting given the volatility, are still expecting the Fed to act in March? Are they going to continue to are they going to stop QE? Will they hike? Is QT still on the table for June?

SR: Yes, 25 is going to happen. They will end QE, and QT is still on the table, at least a runoff, not a sale. They’re not going to go over their skis here and start selling mortgage backs or do anything along those lines.

TN: Okay.

SR: But they will continue with their tightening path. I think the broader question here is just how far they actually can go this year. I do think that the limiting factor of highly volatile energy prices at the pump, which is something that monetary policy just can’t solve. Right.

Tightening 5100 basis points isn’t going to push the cost of oil down unless you somehow spark a recession or something. So I think it’s going to be interesting to see how their language evolves around future hikes. I think we kind of know that it’s 25 basis points. 50 is simply not priced in enough for them to do that.

And how we see and how they see monetary policy evolving, call it in the September and onward is going to be really important with the midterms coming up, et cetera. So I think that’s important.

On the consumer front, maybe you see call it a gas tax holiday or something along those lines to lower gas prices at the pump. That could happen. But generally the consumer is not in horrible shape. The consumer is not great, but it’s not in horrible shape. So I don’t really think they have to do much there. And I don’t see any point in buying gold here with the type of move you’ve seen over the past week. I think that if you had narratives that went from invasion of Ukraine to World War Three and you only got it to $2,000 and you couldn’t hold, I think that’s a little bit of a problem for the gold narrative.

TN: Sure. Okay, great. So let’s wrap it up and let’s start looking at the week ahead. What do you guys expect to see the week ahead? Albert, I guess we’ll start with you. Part of it is what do you expect to see on the ground in the week ahead in Ukraine? I expect that to impact markets.

AM: I think that we’re going to get a little bit more bloody, a little bit more daunting headlines. It’s going to affect the markets. I think we probably start shooting a little bit lower depending on how low we go. I think that’s going to make a big impact of what the fed does. I agree with Sam. I think it’s going to be 25 basis points. If the news is okay out of Ukraine, I think they even go 50 basis points.

TN: Wow. Okay. Tracy, what do you expect to see in the week ahead?

TS: I’m looking at the equity markets in particular. So just came out and global flows despite the fact that equities are coming off globally, we’re still seeing people pile into equities, right. We’re still seeing flows into equity markets.

So that to me says that the current situation with Ukraine in Russia is likely to be temporary and that perhaps the big funds and managers are thinking that we’re going to see less of a rate hike in March than most anticipate because they’re still selling bonds and they’re still buying equities.

TN: Okay. Interesting. Sam?

SR: I think you’re looking at a lot of chop here as we transition from as pointed out a moment ago, as you transition from Ukraine grabbing all the headlines to the Fed getting back in the headlines that’s going to be a choppy hand off. When the fed was in the headlines. It wasn’t exactly great for markets and a little bit of a relief rally here off of world war three going into.

TS: Sorry to interrupt. I think that’s a bit of a little bit of end of month rebalancing too, right? What we’re seeing right now.

TN: It could be. Yes, that’s right.

SR: Yeah. Definitely. But I think the hand off from Ukraine headlines back to the Fed headlines creates a lot of chop and probably some downside bias across asset classes or at least we’re assessing.

TN: Sounds like a very interesting week ahead, guys. Thank you. You so much. I really appreciate this. Have a great week ahead. Thank you.

SR, AM, TS: Thank you.

Tags Albert marko, Azerbaijan, bitcoin, Chech, China, china and russia, china and taiwan, Chinese, complete intelligence, crude, Cuba, Cypress, cyprus, Euro, Europe, Fed, gas, germany, gold, Greece, hashrate, India, intelligence quarterly, Japan, Kiev, Mariupol, North america, Odessa, Oil supply, Palladium, Puerto Rico, Putin, QE, qt, Russia, russia and china, russia and crypto, russia military, russian invasion, sam rines, Swift, Taiwan, The Week Ahead, TikTok, tony nash, tracy shuchart, Twitter, ukraine and crypto, ukraine and world markets, ukraine invasion by russia, ukraine russia, Ukrainian, United Stated, United States, usa and russia, VIX, week ahead, Western Nations, wheat, world markets and ukrain russia, World War Three

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Complete Intelligence is in partnership with:

Products

Resources

Company