Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, spoke to BFM about what is moving international markets.
The recent April headline CPI numbers were better than the projected 5%, coming in at 4.9%. However, core inflation still printed at 5.5%, and so the Fed is unlikely to cut, making it hard for them to stop raising interest rates. The Fed’s rate rise vote was unanimous this month, indicating that the Fed will continue to raise by 25 basis points in June. Tony said the Fed will look at wages and employment figures along with consumer sentiment, producer prices and credit indicators as well.
With regards to the debt ceiling, Tony said it was a US domestic political tool, and in the end, it would last longer than most people wanted it to last, and we would see some melodramatic brinksmanship.
85% of S&P 500 companies have reported actual results for Q1 2023 to date, and of these, 79% have reported actual EPS above estimates. Tony explained that a lot of this is down to margin expansion, and as raw materials prices fell, labor costs rose quickly, allowing companies to raise their prices further.
However, companies are starting to slow down on price rises as consumers are fatigued with the rises. Some tech companies have started laying people off or signaling no pay rises this year, as they realize pushing price rises is something they won’t be able to do much longer in 2023.
Transcript
BFM
This is a podcast from BFM 89.9, The Business Station.
BFM
BFM 89.9. Good morning. It’s 7:07 A.M. On Thursday the 10 May. You are listening to the Morning Run. I’m Shazana Mokhtar with Keith Kam and Mark Tan. Now in half an hour, we’re going to zoom in on the outlook for Chinese equity markets, specifically the Shanghai Composite and the Hang Seng Index. But let’s recap how global markets closed overnight.
BFM
In the US market, stocks mostly climb as better inflation data offset worries about the stalled talks between political leaders that have raised fears of a US default. The Dow was down 0.1%, but S&P 500 up 0.5%, and Nasdaq up 1%. In the Asian markets, it’s rate traffic lights Nikkei down 0.4%, Hang Seng down 0.5%, Shanghai Composite down 1.2%, STI down 0.2% and FBM KLCI down 0.5%.
BFM
So for some thoughts on what’s moving international markets, we have on the line with us Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Tony, good morning. Always good to have you. Let’s start with CPI numbers. April headline CPI numbers came in at 4.9%, better than the projected 5%. Do you think this will have an impact on the Fed’s policy decision in the near term?
Tony
Yeah, I think it’s unlikely by the next meeting. So what we have to look at is what’s called core inflation. And core inflation still printed at five and a half percent. And so that is hitting people enough that it’s really hard for the Fed to stop. They’re certainly not going to cut, but it’s really hard for them to stop raising when core inflation is still at 5.5%. So we have things like food inflation is still up 7.7% on an annual basis. Electricity is up over 8%. Transportation inflation is up 11%. So as these things are still rising at this rate, it’s really hard unless we see some other compelling data come in, it’s really hard to see the Fed either pause or cut. Now what we also have to recognize is the Fed’s rate rise vote was a unanimous vote in favor of a rate rise this month. Typically, before we see a change in policy, we’ll have votes that are not unanimous. So it seems to me that going into the June meeting, at this point, it’s likely the Fed will continue to raise by 25 basis points in June.
BFM
What are some of the other indicators that the Fed may be looking at in order to help refine this decision, Tony? What are you going to be watching coming out next in the weeks ahead of the June meeting?
Tony
Yeah, they’ll look at consumer sentiment, they’ll look at producer prices, they’ll look at wages, these sorts of things. They’ll look at employment. So the key things they’re looking at are really wages and employment. That’s really it. There are a number of other macro metrics that come out, like retail sales, that the Fed doesn’t really look at that stuff. So you don’t really hear markets here moving on retail sales. It’s more at this point in the cycle. It’s things like wages. They may also be looking at things like credit because we’re staring down, really a credit crunch, which is tight credit because rates have moved and because of the banking risks we’ve seen in the US over the past probably six to eight weeks. And so they may start looking at more credit indicators to see how that’s slowing down.
BFM
Now, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has sounded alarm over possible financial market consequences if the debt ceiling was not raised by early June. What would those consequences be, and how likely would it be for Congress to strike a deal by then?
Tony
Yeah, I want to kind of help you guys and your listeners understand that the debt ceiling is really a US domestic political tool. Okay, so the debt ceiling is an annual ritual that we have here where each party threatens the other to cut programs, so say programs that the other party loves. Right. So at the end of the debt ceiling, all of the politicians just agree to spend anyway. So there will be threats that the US will run out of money, but it won’t. It’s not going to happen. The Treasury always finds money. You will likely see us get to some point where, for example, they’ll close national parks or they’ll say federal employees can’t come to work. Those are really signaling more than substantive because all of those employees get paid. We know that the debt ceiling will be signed three or four or five weeks after that happens, and all those employees get their back pay. It’s not as if anybody’s going hungry. They all have their health care while this is happening. So what will happen, and this is very predictable, and it’s a big eye-roll for most Americans. In the end, this will last a lot longer than any of us want it to last.
Tony
And we’ll see some sort of last minute melodramatic Brinksmanship to kind of save America. When we hear about the debt ceiling, we hear breathy headlines about the debt ceiling. Most Americans just kind of ignore it because this is really a Capitol Hill Washington, DC issue more than it is something that really affects real life here.
BFM
Tony, overall, 85% of S&P 500 companies have reported actual results for Q1 2023 to date. Of these companies, 79% have reported actual EPS above estimates. How would you explain this outperformance? Is it time to chill the bubbly?
Tony
Yeah. A lot of this is down to margin expansion. So in 2021 and 22, we saw goods price inflation, which allowed these companies to raise their prices a bit. As those raw materials prices fell, we saw labor costs rise quickly, and that allowed companies to continue raising prices further. So we’re starting to see companies slow down on their price rises. Consumers here are really fatigued with price rises, so we’re starting to see companies slow down. And some tech companies started this laying people off. Some will signal that there’s, say, no pay rises this year. Microsoft has already signaled that. Some of those are prudent measures that leadership teams are taking in the event of a recession. But some of them are just a realization that pushing price rises is just something that we won’t be able to do much longer in 2023.
BFM
And let’s take a look at oil prices, Tony, they’ve been pulled or they are being pulled in opposing directions. We have deteriorating global demand outlook that has been countered by some bullish supply news from the Biden administration as well as Russia. So where do you think oil prices might be heading in the next one to two months?
Tony
Yeah, you’re right. There are definitely mixed messages in crude markets and it’s easy to take either a bearish or a bullish view, depending on what data you’re looking at. Our view is that crude could rise 5% to 10% in the next month or two, and that’s a typical annual seasonal trend. After, say, June, maybe mid, late summer, we’ll definitely see a sell off in markets. Again, that’s pretty normal for this time of year. So we would expect prices to rally a little bit from here and then we’ll see a calm, say, mid summer.
BFM
Tony, I just want to pick your brains a little bit. Gold prices, they’ve managed to stay above $2,000 for some time after hovering like just below that level for the longest time that I can remember. What do you think the direction is going forward?
Tony
Yeah, so our expectation is that gold prices are going to fall a bit over the next two months back below 1900. So we do not expect gold to stay at these elevated levels. It’s possible, but it’s just not within our forecast. So I would be careful with gold at these levels. And if your listeners believe that it’s a rally, go for it. But that’s just not what our data is telling us.
BFM
1900 is quite substantial. What do you think the reason would be to bring it down to that level?
Tony
Well, if risk is taken out of the economy, so if there’s some systemic, say, relief that the Fed or Treasury gives for banks or something like that, investors typically go into gold and crypto when there’s risk, when they fear risk, or they feel devaluation of the dollar or something like that. Right. And so if there were to be programs to support banks, to backstop banks, these sorts of things, from the position that they’re in right now, I believe it would really turn a lot of that gold trade off. And so it’s quite possible that stuff’s happening because it is a concern with the government here and the government especially as we enter a tight credit cycle, they have to make sure that banks are stable. This is a real concern for them. If there isn’t confidence in the banking system, then you’ll see this domino effect of banks to firms and so on. That’s just one scenario, but it’s possible that some sort of federal backstopping of banks for a temporary period, I’ll say additional backstopping of banks will put the risk on trade back on.
BFM
All right, Tony, thanks very much for speaking with us. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his take on some of the trends that he sees moving markets in the days and weeks ahead.
BFM
I like what Tony said about the debt ceiling issue in the US. Right? That’s all political showmanship, and I guess here in Malaysia we’ll call it Wayang Kulit. Right.
BFM
So once all these shenanigans are over with the politicians who agree at Capitol Hill, and they’ll just continue spending their respective programs.
BFM
It’s nice to know that our politicians all over the world are just in it.
BFM
They’re the same. They have the same in a way. It doesn’t reflect well, though, and I think it does cause volatility, at least in the eyes of observers, regardless of what happens there. We’ll be watching that space, but let’s take our attention over to some of the earnings that have crossed our table. We have Walt Disney Company. They reported revenue and profit that were in line with Wall Street’s projections. The company did also reduce streaming losses by $400 million from the previous quarter. And this is thanks to price increases that helped offset the loss of 4 million subscribers at Disney Plus. So, on the one hand, they narrowed their losses, but they also lost subscribers.
BFM
So on the TV side of the business, disney’s direct to consumer segment, which includes the flagship Disney Plus streaming service, posted a loss of $659,000,000. However, this was significantly lower than the Street’s expectations. Right. The company plans to expand its streaming offerings by the end of the year with a new app that combines Disney Plus and Hulu.
BFM
And on the theme park site and Parks Experiences and Products division remains a bright spot for Disney. This saw a 17% increase in revenue to $7.7 billion during the most recent quarter. But I have to point out as well, disney movies, especially with their new live action version of their animation movies, haven’t been actually doing well. The Little Mermaid is coming out on May 26, and there’ll be something interesting to see if you just glean through social media.
BFM
It’s a bit controversial.
BFM
It is controversial, to say the least.
BFM
I think a lot of the live action films have been the subject of controversy in some form or another. I tend to be of the old school.
BFM
Yeah, me too.
BFM
Feeling. I mean, I like the cartoons. I’ll stick with the cartoons, thanks. But they’re trying to court a whole generation of younger viewers with their live action films. So I guess time will tell whether everything will pay off. Don’t forget that Disney is facing a number of challenges ahead. They’ve got their federal lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and the writer strike is still ongoing. That is going to have an effect on some of the production that is stalled, such as with Blade and also the Disney Plus Star Wars series. Andor so all these things to watch when it comes to Disney Plus. We are coming up to 720 in the morning. We’re taking a quick break, but we’ll come back with more top stories in the newspapers and portals. Stay tuned. BFM 89.9 you have been listening to.
BFM
A podcast from BF M 89.9, the business station. For more stories of the same kind, download the VFM app.
In the latest edition of “Week Ahead”, Tony Nash is joined by Daniel Lacalle, Chief Economist at Tressis, Albert Marko, and Ralph Schoellhammer from Webster University in Vienna to discuss the key themes in the market. The trio begins with a discussion on market optimism, macro earnings, and money growth, and how the market participants are overly optimistic despite interest rate rises, bank failures, and persistent inflation. Lacalle highlights the factors that are driving this optimism and provides insights into how investors can navigate the current market conditions.
Moving on, the discussion shifts to the Fed’s stance on interest rates. Albert Marko shares his view that the Fed would likely stay strong given the inflation environment and predicts two more rate hikes. He explains why he expects two more hikes and what it means for the “higher for longer” duration. The conversation provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the market and offers practical insights into how investors can stay ahead of the curve.
Finally, Ralph Schoellhammer takes the floor to discuss the nuclear power industry’s future, specifically the differences in approach between Germany and Japan, and other countries. The discussion offers a unique perspective on the challenges facing the industry and the potential solutions that could be implemented.
Key themes:
1. Market optimism: macro, earnings, & money growth 2. 2 more Fed hikes? 3. Nuclear: Germany vs Japan (& others)
This is the 62nd episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
With CI Futures, you can access AI-powered market forecasting for as low as $20 a month. Get 94.7% market forecast accuracy for over 1000 assets across commodities, currencies, equity indices, economics, and stocks. With weekly updates, one-month and three-month error rates, and top-ten and bottom correlations. You can rely on CI Futures to help you make informed decisions. Join a growing number of satisfied users who have already transformed the way they invest with CI Futures. Don’t wait. Start forecasting with confidence today for as low as $20 a month.
Tony
Hi everybody, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. We’ve got some great guests this week. We’ve got Daniel Lacalle. He’s the chief economist at Tressis. We’ve got Albert Marko, and we’ve got Ralph Schoellhammer from Webster University in Vienna. There’s been a lot happening this week, guys, and I think what we want to start with is Daniel had talked about market optimism and how it may be a little bit off and inappropriate for where kind of some fundamentals and other things are right now. So we’re going to jump into that at the start. Albert’s talked about two more Fed hikes. So I want to see kind of where that is and what he’s thinking and what the conditions are for that. And then for Ralph, we’re going to look at European energy. There have been some movements around nuclear energy in Germany this week and so we want to talk about that and a little bit of kind of the European environment for energy defense, those sorts of things. So guys, thank you so much for joining us.
Tony
Daniel, you had this great video out early this week talking about market optimism.
And I’d really like to kind of get some of your thoughts on that. Where is that optimism now? Is it overly optimistic? Why is it overly optimistic? And where do you think things go from here?
Daniel
Thank you so much for inviting me to start. I think the first thing that we need to understand is that we have gone from a moment in which if you look at the greed and fear index that CNN publishes, we went from extreme fear to extreme greed in less than a month. This was basically triggered by the Federal Reserve’s decision to make whole all of the depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and to implement this incredibly outrageous policy of purchasing at full price the sovereign bonds and the asset base of lenders in exchange for immediate liquidity. So that immediately reversed the reduction in the balance sheet. Federal Reserve Federal Reserve’s balance sheet has basically consumed 70% of the tightening that had happened in prior months. And with that, the market went back to extreme optimism. But interestingly, it has happened in a period in which the earnings season has started and the earnings downgrade cycle has actually accelerated. So we are not seeing it’s not like we are seeing a great earning season. It’s probably one of the worst earning season in terms of sales surprise, earnings surprise is relatively acceptable. However, it comes fundamentally from buybacks, as all of the people that are watching us or hearing us know.
Daniel
So what we are back is in multiple expansion mode and viciously in multiple expansion mode because it started with technology and it started with more cyclical stocks to the point that despite the fact that, after and we will talk about energy afterwards. But despite the production cut from OPEC and the limits to exports from Russia, oil prices are still down WTI 5% on the year. And the energy sector has seen the largest multiple expansion of them all because the earning season in energy is coming with an expected year-on-year first quarter results that will be down between 20% to 30%. Yet the market still seems to be very optimistic about that. So my concern, we’re going to be talking about maybe couple of rate hikes that very few people expect in the near future. And what most people are estimating is that the reason to buy the market in this environment is because there’s not going to be any further rate hikes. Actually, the market is discounted rate cuts in the second half of the year and because the effect of the Federal Reserve balance sheet coming back to the levels where it was prior to the tightening might reduce that liquidity crunch.
Daniel
So I’m concerned about that because the combination of multiple expansion greed and a lack of understanding of the reality of where rates are going to be may create a very significant level of volatility, probably in May, if, as we will probably discuss later, those rate hikes, which I would agree actually happen against consensus estimates.
Tony
Danielle I feel like with earnings season, when we saw banking earnings, certainly for the globally systemic banks, but with some of the regionals as well, there was a huge sigh of relief that oh gosh, it wasn’t as bad as it could have been. And I kind of feel like we’re in that zone in markets where people are like, well, everything’s fine, it’s not as bad as it could have been. Is that kind of where your head’s at, what you’re thinking? And are people positioned for things being great when we just kind of like escaped something? Are people thinking things are really good when we just kind of barely escape something?
Daniel
We need to start by this completely erroneous concept of everybody’s bearish completely. One thing is where people investors are saying in surveys, which is rubbish, okay? And the other thing is where they’re positioned and everybody is positioned for things going great, not going well, going great. And yes, you’re absolutely right, earnings were not as bad as feared. The economy might not get into a recession, but consumer confidence ism PMIs all show a very weak level of growth. So yes, I’m happy to understand why investors would be positioned for a not so bad environment. My concern is that investors are positioned for a hugely positive environment. It’s very cyclical, very involved in the stocks that plummeted in 2022 and therefore getting in those that actually require multiple expansion. So my worry is that the narrative becomes, well, things are not as bad as the doomsayers were predicting. Let’s go crazy. And that’s not obviously.
Albert
One little comment on the earnings season. And the whole not so bad sentiment of the market is how much of that is reliant on inflation? Because a lot of these companies passed on the inflation numbers to the consumers 20, 30, sometimes 40%. But now, as consumers demand destruction has taken hold, those companies can’t pass those numbers along. So how much of those earnings were affected by just inflation tailwinds versus the reality of it?
Daniel
It’s very evident what you just said, and it’s a key element because many people blame corporate profits on inflation, which is stupid, because corporate profits don’t cause inflation. They are a symptom of inflation. But when demand destruction is happening, as you’re saying, then those corporate profits and margins go back very, very quickly and people are not taking into account demand destruction. I would agree with that.
Tony
So when you talk about demand destruction, one of the things I think about is auto loans. Auto loans in the US have really started to look terrible with defaults and other things coming along. I don’t have the numbers in my mind, but I’ve seen this over the past couple of months, whereas we saw in 2021 used cars and auto loans just booming. So to me that’s one indication, especially in the US where people are in their cars all the time, when we start to see destruction in auto loans, that tells me there’s something really concerning about consumers. But what Albert just said about companies passing on inflation to consumers and Sam Rines, who’s here regularly talks about price over volume, where we’ve seen volume destruction at the expense of price rises. Are consumers starting to be tapped out? I see evidence every day of people saying, oh, consumers are tapped out, look at auto loans, look at other things. I see evidence on the other side where people say consumers aren’t tapped out, they have plenty of capacity left. So what are you guys seeing in terms of where the consumer sits in the US and in Europe?
Ralph
I would just add one thing kind of alluding a little bit to what Albert and Daniel said. When we look at the potential rate hikes, and this has been truth in the past as well, but it’s a little bit different. I would argue now is the central banks are not just hiking against inflation or market inflation, they’re also hiking against government inflation because governments try to offset inflation with more government programs, which then of course leads down the road to more inflation. So central banks, and this is probably worse in Europe because they’re the central bank is kind of an external actor for many national governments. So this is a little bit of an additional twist. I mean, this has always been a little bit the case, but I think in Europe this time, austria has been, in a recent statistic, the country with most handouts over the last three years. And this was really it was, quote unquote, “helicopter money”. It was government giving checks. I had it myself. I opened up my bank statement and there it was, the energy bonus, €500. And then there was the heating bonus, €1000. So me adapting my spending behavior according to inflation was psychologically very difficult because I got these extra 500 here, these extra thousand there. So that makes it also, I think, harder to get inflation down because the central banks have to react both to inflation from the market and inflation from central government.
Albert
Yeah, but let’s differentiate central banks versus economic policies versus the political realities where these politicians need to be reelected so they’re more than willing, for short term gain to sacrifice long term outcomes.
Daniel
You bet they will. Absolutely. Yeah. I think that the reason why the consumer is behaving relatively in a more positive way than what many would have expected comes down to the fact that we still have negative real rates and that credit is abundant. And if you look at Europe, consumption in real terms is down in absolute terms. If you look at GDP of the eurozone, you look at the part that’s the consumer the only reason why consumption was slightly higher than zero was because the GDP deflator is lower. The inflation print, which is the typical way in which governments boost GDP. The GDP inflator is lower than the real inflation rate. So the nominal number adjusted is actually coming higher in real terms. But I think it’s basically because of credit. For example, with employees and with people that work with us, we find that a lot of people are finishing the month taking short term credits, and that’s a sign. And the reason why they’re doing it is because they believe that inflation is going to come down dramatically very quickly. And that’s not what is happening. What we’re seeing is a deceleration in the pace of growth, which is very different.
Tony
So, Daniel, in this environment…
Albert
Real quick, Tony, real quick. I’m glad that you said that, Dan, because Daniel because that’s one of the Fed’s tools now is calling up the banks and telling them to restrict credit and tighten that way because there’s no real liquidity left in the market outside of corporate and the financial sector. So their plan on tightening involves bank lending and stopping it, of course.
Tony
So the capping off the transmission mechanism or one of the transmission mechanisms, which right now just makes things harder.
Tony
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month we give you the one and three month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
Tony
So Daniel, where do you, since there is this optimism in the market that remains and seems to me that it’s people trying to eke out that last kind of, that last trade right before things maybe head down. How would you recommend people take a look at this in terms of positioning or strategy or something like that?
Daniel
Well, the first thing that I would do is to tell everyone that is being told that “now is the moment to buy long duration in bonds” is not to fall into that trap. The second thing that I would do is to avoid the view that commodities are going to go through the roof because monetary contraction, fundamentals matter, but the biggest fundamental is the quantity and the cost of money. And, and if monetary contraction is going to continue, commodities may not fall, but certainly not go through the roof, which is what many people expect. And I see a lot of people betting on one thing and the opposite. And we discussed this this morning with my team, how on the one hand, people are betting on energy commodity prices going through the roof, buying emerging markets, buying commodity linked assets, and at the same time betting on inflation coming down very quickly. What the hell are you talking about? So I would make people sit down with their portfolios and say, okay, maybe I’m wrong, but at least don’t bet on one thing and the opposite. Don’t bet on inflation coming down at the same time commodities going up.
Daniel
Don’t bet on central banks normalizing, and at the same time buy long duration assets. I think that all those things are the ones that worry me. So I would avoid long duration bonds, I would avoid ultracyclicals, and I would stick to stocks, to be fairly honest, I would stick to gold. And I always like to have US dollar exposure, because when the market corrects, having US dollar exposure gives you the cushion to look for opportunities. And we need to be, I have to start with this. We need to be 100% invested all the time. We don’t come in and out of the market.
Tony
Very good.
Albert
I think that’s important. That’s the key point. I mean, I talk to a couple of Eastern European governments all the time, and they talk about the de dollarization nonsense. And I always tell them you have to have dollars in your reserves just to combat hyperinflation. That’s just the reality of the story. No matter what some cockamania financial analysts want to talk about there’s no such thing as the dollar station if you want to combat hyperinflation.
Tony
Great points.
Daniel
I agree with that.
Tony
Great points. Okay, let’s move on to Albert.
Tony
Albert, you had earlier this week sent some tweets out about Fed hikes.
And I think the conventional view right now is that we’ll see one more hike, one more 25 basis point hike in early May. You’re contending that we’ll likely see two more. Can you kind of talk us through some of your thoughts there on why that’s happening and what some of the impacts will be?
Albert
It’s really basic. It’s the inflation issue. It’s not going away at the moment, and Europe being in a zombie status, China opening up in a staggered sense and slower than expected. Inflation still hasn’t come down. Forget about the top line numbers that you see in the media and the politicized number that goes out everywhere. But if you look at SuperCore and core inflation, it’s trending up again. It’s not coming down. Since a lot of the central bank’s tools have been already expended, the only thing they have left, really, is rate hikes. And for that reason alone, I think that we’re looking at at least well, one for sure in May, but we’re probably looking at at least another one after that, at the very least.
Tony
Okay, and then Daniel talked about how stimulating the banks has really kind of offset a lot of the QT that had been done over the last year or so. Do you see any movement on the Fed to tighten their balance sheet, or are they kind of just in this holding position until there’s 100% confidence that the banking system is stabilized?
Albert
The whole banking crisis was completely, in my opinion, falsified. I mean, they needed something to stop QT, and they got it. They unwound nine months of QT in a week. It was absolutely stunning to see that. And this is why you actually see a lot of the people in the market talk about, no, this is the new QE. This is New QE. No, it’s not QE. It’s just the stopgap measure and trying to place status quo until they hope that inflation stabilizes in the next three to six months. However, I don’t see that happening. I think that we’re looking at probably at a secondary inflation event, not as high as it was last year, but marginally higher from this point on.
Tony
Okay, so when we see rates rising, say, another 50 basis points, and we see banks not lending, and we see some of these credit issues coming up, how does that impact things like housing? We continue to see house prices stay pretty stable, actually.
Albert
The problem that we have is, although the banks are tightening from the West Coast of the United States and New York Fed, but the middle part of America and southern part of America, the banks were still lending. I mean, you can still go out in the housing market and still see an appreciation in prices in housing at the moment, right? You don’t see that in New York, you don’t see that in California, but everywhere else in the United States, it’s happening. So the problem I see is that it’s a patchwork. They’re trying to do a comprehensive policy for tightening specifically the housing and consumer markets, but it just doesn’t work because it’s so fragmented at the moment. You can’t tell banks not to make money after six months. It’s just not going to happen. I mean, they’re going to find ways to give loans out to people because they’re banks. They rely on margins.
Tony
Right. And you also mentioned SuperCore and kind of the inflationary aspects of that. What are you seeing on wages and what will slow down wage growth, especially in the middle of the US.
Albert
Nothing. I mean, the tourist season is upon us now in the United States and also coming up in Europe, and I don’t see wage inflation slowing down one bit. And this is actually something that Janet Yellen and Brainerd wanted. They wanted wage inflation because it’s politically advantageous to them.
Tony
Okay, so the Fed is looking at SuperCore. Wages aren’t slowing down. Wages are a big contributor to that through services prices. So it feels like we’re in this continuous loop that just doesn’t stop. What is that? Is there kind of just no end to this or at least for the next, I don’t know, six months or something?
Albert
This is what we’ve talked about numerous times on this podcast, is this doom loop of, like, Fed policies and then political policies intermixing and muddying up the waters, and you just get an inflationary loop over and over again. I mean, nothing’s been actually fixed. I mean, the supply side okay, a little bit. It’s come back online to a marginal degree, but like I said, European in a zombie status. They’re not even really opening. I mean, manufacturer is not opening in Europe again. China is staggered in their opening. So we’re just going to get this doom loop until political policies start coming back into more realistic terms.
Tony
Okay, so, Daniel, you had mentioned something about May around some events potentially happening in May. So with more Fed rate hikes, do you expect markets to take a bit of a turn in May?
Daniel
I think so. I think that if all these things that we’ve just mentioned are absolutely critical because it’s the opposite of what the average of the market thinks. The average of the market thinks that inflation is coming down dramatically and that, yes, core inflation is rising, but core inflation lags by they invent these things that core inflation lags by months with headline inflation. It’s something that has been completely she just gets so angry as an economy. No, the reason why core inflation is rising is because all those secondary effects of the previous inflationary wave are building in the economy, and ultimately the money supply growth is coming down, but money supply growth continues to be above real GDP. In May, you will probably have a few things now. To start with, the base effect that has given these headline positive numbers on inflation fades Away, because basically everybody oh, inflation is coming down. Yes, of course, over a 9% number. The second one is that right now there is this very optimistic view about the global growth. I find it amazing to see that the Chinese slowdown, that the Chinese recovery being virtually in existence is not something that has created more headlines.
Daniel
In fact, it’s rather the opposite. And the stagnation that Albert was just mentioning is something that is not embedded in people’s estimates. People are estimating 3% growth for the global economy with the Eurozone escaping recession with a one and a half percent growth, the United States not entering into a recession, despite all of the indicators that we have mentioned before. So all those things tend to happen between May and June because also, if you remember Tony, is that a lot of people that sell the bullish argument for the economy always talk, every year, the tale of, oh, but from June onwards, it gets better. Okay, so people do the back half of the year.
Tony
The back half of the year in every economy is the back half of the year.
Daniel
It’s a tale of two of two years. I’ve been an investment banker as well, but with the point that I’m trying to say is that for those first five months, there’s a lot of confidence in that story. But then reality bites and we see consumption stagnant, growth stagnant, persistent inflation. And central banks have only one tool, which is rate hikes. They’re not tightening the balance sheet because they can’t. So this is like the Pringles advert once you pop, you can’t stop.
Tony
Yeah, it’s interesting you mentioned 3% growth. My view of these IMF releases the world economic outlooks. They’re PR. They’re not necessarily solid economics. And our view has been, is China going to grow at 5.3 or whatever? The IMF is saying no. Is the US. Going to grow at 1.8 or whatever? No. Our view is the US. Is going to grow maybe at one kind of right around there. Q2, Q3 are going to look really difficult. And so we do get these kind of pump pieces out of the IMF saying, and they always say global growth is going to be better unless the prevailing sentiment is totally negative. Then they’ll be really bearish just to align with that. But these are really PR pieces, more than solid kind of economic outlooks. Is that kind of your view?
Daniel
It’s absolutely spot on. The IMF has hundreds of top-notch economists looking at all sorts of models and analysis of the economy. But ultimately, and I’ve worked with a few of them, ultimately, when they have to put together the estimates for the world. Each country goes to each of the analysts and says, “wow, come on, you’re not going to put 1%, it’s going to be 2%.” And what are they going to say? “Okay, fair enough.” Have you ever seen a government say, we’re not going to grow this year? Never. So the IMF has, interestingly, a tremendous level of predictive capacity of recessions, but never predicts it publicly. Predicts them publicly because as you said, it’s hugely diplomatic. So that’s why it’s always a downgrade of growth story. And now what they do is that we have to do with the CFO and C meeting is that we have to read between the lines. And what they do now is that they maintain the polish argument, but they give sort of subliminal messages about weaker things here and there. And it’s usually buried between page 20 and page 30 of their release. And between page 20 and page 30 of their release, what you have is that credit impulse is plummeting in developed economies.
Tony
That’s right. So far, very happy show, very optimistic show, guys. I just want to thank you for that. It’s been awesome so far. So, Ralph, let’s move on to Germany and energy in Europe. So the Germans announced this week that they’re halting or that they stopped their nuclear plants.
Tell me about that. Why is that happening?
Ralph
Well, they did, right? So this was on April 15, they shut off their last three nuclear power plants. So Germany is, at the moment of us speaking here, is a nuclear power-free country. I mean, inside the country, Europe has an integrated electricity grid. So they still on occasion get plenty of nuclear energy from the Czech Republic and from France. But Germany has left the world of nuclear power. And that’s of course the problem. It’s an integrated grid. So some people pointed out, why is everybody making such a drama out of this? Germany was a net electricity export the last year. That is all true. But this is the problem. So it’s not just a problem for Germany. It’s a problem for the entire energy situation in Europe. And just to put a few numbers on this, at the moment the average megawatt hour in Europe is still about twice as much as the average megawatt hour in China. So that is a problem for manufacturing. And if you take the United States, you have this absurd situation that in the shale patch, right? The oil production has natural gas as kind of a side product.
Ralph
So they literally have to burn natural gas because they don’t know what to do with it. So natural gas prices are down. So to quote Emmanuel Macron, he wants to make Europe the third superpower. But if we look at energy prices in these hypothetical three superpowers, Europe is at the dead end. Energy here is still much too expensive. And if we look at the manufacturing sector versus the service sector, the service sector in Europe is not doing so bad at the moment. It’s even expanding, but manufacturing is suffering. And some and I think those people are not entirely wrong, would say that manufacturing is in a recession and it makes a lot of sense. And we kind of enter now what Albert mentioned, we enter this doom cycle because now you have in Germany and other European countries this idea, “oh, this is not a problem.” We’re going to make a special industry energy price where the government guarantees a specific price per megawatt hour, but the government guarantees a specific price for the access to energy. But that energy still must come from somewhere. Currently you have the German energy minister and the chancellor traveling all the coastal cities in Germany because there’s a lot of local resistance against new LNG ports.
Ralph
But those LNG ports are the promise how they’re going to solve the problem of having abandoned nuclear. So a lot of the things that are supposed to replace nuclear are things that are currently in planning that haven’t materialized yet. So I would argue that for the foreseeable future, whether we will call it an energy crisis kind of overdramatic, but there’s definitely going to be a lot of pressure on prices in the energy market because energy production, whether it’s electricity or other areas, is not keeping up. Will there be a shortage? I don’t think there will be a shortage. Europe is still rich enough to buy it, but it’s going to be more expensive. And that price is going to end up one way or another on the bills, on the monthly bills of the consumers.
Tony
So I had dinner last night here in rural Texas with two Germans and a Belgian, and I was asking them about this.
Ralph
That’s the beginning of a great joke.
Tony
It is. It really is. But when I asked them about started asking about energy and nuclear in Germany, they said, we’re going to stop here and we’re only going to give yes no answers because they were so annoyed by the policy and so annoyed by kind of just how crazy some of these decisions are. So it sounds to me like it’s kind of just a nod in my backyard, a NIMBY type of deal where Germans don’t want nuclear energy in their country, but they’re happy to take energy derived from nuclear, not their countries.
Ralph
Not not at all. That’s what the really frustrating thing about the story is. The majority of the German population is by now this was not the case five, six years ago, but by now, after the energy crisis of last year, a majority, according to the most recent polls and I think Tracy talked about this in one of the most recent episodes of The Week Ahead as well. A majority is now pronuclear. There’s even now an idea that the German states, Bavaria particularly, they want to keep them running. They want to basically buy them from the federal government and keep them running on their own. And even for that there would be a majority. There is a broader issue. Albert tends to allude to this, and Daniel also kind of talked a little bit about it when he talked about kind of politicians or certain forecasters, not necessarily saying the truth. In the last decades, the economic expansion and the globalization under US and Germany was so comfortable and ran so well that we could afford to have very unrealistic politicians and elect them into office. And with the Greens in Germany, that is the case. But now we have kind of a reassertion of reality.
Ralph
And I think many governments, I would argue also in the United States, struggle with that. And I don’t mean this to be facetious or provocative, but we also have a problem in recruitment, let’s say in civil service. And these.
Tony
Oh my gosh.
Ralph
Bureaucracies in some areas they are good, right? Finland, I think, is very well managed. Denmark does a pretty good job. So there are some that are well managed. But areas in the United States, the major powers at the moment, like France and Germany and Europe, they have a problem. Their bureaucracy is not what it was in the course my favorite time span in the 19th century. And they still live off the capital. They still have their reputation, right? When you say Germany, you think about clean streets and a well run bureaucracy and all these kind of things. But we saw during the COVID Pandemic something that Tony and I we talked about before the show, that it was not that well run like the Germans, for example, the way they communicated throughout the country, the numbers of infections, they did it via fax machines because the entire health system was not fully digitalized.
Ralph
So that is a problem that’s a little bit under the surface. But given a world, let’s say that is where politics becomes more important because countries are becoming more risk averse and kind of very often want to hedge their bets. I think some countries are not at the moment in a position to do that because we have neither the politicians nor the civil service to do this. I mean, just a quick example, no offense towards the United States.
Tony
Be offensive for the US. It’s okay.
Ralph
If you look at Congress, I mean, you literally have people that are either demented or at the brink of dementia or who had recently had a stroke. Nothing against these people personally, but that’s a luxury you can afford when everything is going well. I think that once somebody said we’re rich enough to be stupid, I think we’re no longer that rich to be that stupid. And I think that’s going to be a bigger problem. I know it’s a little bit metaphorical, but I think that’s going to be a bigger problem going forward.
Tony
No, it’s true. I tell people all the time, our people in congress and in the federal government. They’re all like, 124 years old, and they just can’t relate to people who actually work. But we elect these people. I don’t understand why. European Bureaucratic in Aptitude. I’d like to introduce you to Washington DC. Because Europe is perfect compared to what we have in DC.
Ralph
And it’s there’s one thing I think Albert is going to love this. I don’t know if it’s true, but supposedly in this leak document from last week, it turned out that two thirds of employees at the Pentagon are under 30 years old. And one would argue that at least in some ways, if you look at foreign policy and diplomacy as it is conducted, again, also by Europeans at the moment. Right.
Ralph
I think there is a lack of skill. There is a lack of fine tuning. Again, I don’t think that these are bad people. I don’t think they do it because they’re ill intentioned. I think they simply do not have the required skill set.
Tony
But let me push back on that a little bit. If they’re young, at least they have a stake in their future. When we look at US politicians who average 124 years old, they don’t have a stake in their future. Okay? They’ve been in these roles for decades. And honestly, will they be around in five or ten years to deal with the ramifications of their policy? I just don’t believe they are, and I don’t believe they care.
Albert
Yeah, Tony, but the problem is they don’t have the experience and they’re ideologically biased. This is the problem when you start working in diplomacy, is you have to be very fluid and very gray area, and a lot of people aren’t. Whenever you take a position based on your political ideology, it hurts things. I mean, look what Blinken did in Brazil and Colombia. Shifted them over to the left, and then now they’re sitting there talking, damning, the United States at the UN for perpetuating wars and stuff. Like I said, when you lack experience and overly politically biased, it’s a problem in diplomacy, it’s on both sides of the aisle.
Tony
Yeah, absolutely.
Daniel
It’s the worst combination. You have 120 year old people in the leadership positions that don’t want change, and you have all the ground staff and the people that are doing the work that are less than 30 years old and that have been told that two plus two equals 22, and that the money making machine will solve everything. So I’m like, oh, my God. The condemnation. However, I will say one thing in the defense of the United States, the massive bureaucratic machine doesn’t weigh more than 50% of the economy in the European Union.
Ralph
It does. Oh, yeah.
Daniel
And what you were mentioning before is scary because think about this. You have a massive energy crisis. You have the evidence that you have to rely more on, that Germany had to go and suddenly depend more on late night on coal and massively import energy from the United States. We have been saved in the eurozone of a massive recession by an extremely mild winter. Despite having all the luck and understanding that you have made a massive mistake, you double down on the mistake. This is the same, by the way, it’s happening in Spain, it’s happening in Italy, where they’re trying to completely overrule the shareholders decision on the major utility company. And you’ve mentioned a critical thing is that you cannot expect the European Union to provide growth and manufacturing improvement with those levels of energy costs. Today’s, PMI manufacturing PMI is at 43 month low after the next generation EU, massive monetary and fiscal expansion and all the subsidies you could imagine to industries, as you very well mentioned.
Tony
So it feels like we’re facing a bit of a hangover. So this is kind of a very doomy episode, guys.
Albert
It’s the free money policies that’s been around for decades. And everyone thinks, especially the younger, under 30 people, they listen to Bernie Sanders and say, oh, everything should be paid for by the government and this and that. But they don’t want to talk about the ramifications 15 – 20 years down the line. They see money now and that’s it.
Tony
Right? Yeah. Okay. So, Ralph, you and Albert talked about US DOD, and we had a viewer question come up on Twitter when I talked about this episode, asking about Europe paying for NATO and Europe paying for their own defense. And the question said the Trump administration tried to get Europe to pay more of their NATO costs, and the Biden administration is trying to get Europe to pay more of their NATO costs. Is that something that will ever happen? Will Europe ever pay their own way fully of their NATO costs?
Albert
Well, go ahead.
Ralph
With few exceptions, right. Poland does Greece, of course, for different reasons. Greece does because they feel threatened by yet another NATO member in the form of Turkey, which has a certain irony to it. And I think there’s two Baltic states to do as well. But, yeah, I agree. I agree with Albert. You see, it even there was all this excitement about Sweden’s joining NATO, but one of the first things the Swedes said was, well, but we’re not going to meet the 2% of GDP target before 2028, which means when the new government is probably going to be in power. So they’re already pushing this forward to the next government. And Albert also tweeted about this. Even in Germany, they asked the parliamentarian in charge of the armed forces, and she said they haven’t seen her words, like I’m quoting here, “we haven’t seen a single cent of the promised additional 100 billion for the titan vendor.” The time change. So this has been in Germany, at least a lot of this has been talk, but not much have happened. And even if you look at European military spending, for some of them, not all of them.
Ralph
But again, if you take Germany and some others, if you subtract pensions and wages and all these kind of things, the kind of money that really goes into military readiness is very small. I always argue this always gets me a lot of hate, but I argue I think the United States should make I don’t know what the English word for this is but a kind of cold turkey for the Europeans and say, we have provided defense for you long enough. You have the economic power. You can provide it for yourselves. As Albert well knows, and I’m sure Daniel as well, from the occasional Twitter fight, there are so many Europeans who claim we are on the US occupation and Macron means we are the vassals of the United States. All right? I mean, if we are that good as Europeans, if we can do it on our own, I think the Americans should call our bluffs. And then there will be a rearrangement, right? Poland will become more important. Germany will become less important unless they step up their game. But I think this idea that if you tell Europeans the Americans will always continue to pay, you create zero incentives for the Europeans to pay more.
Tony
Right?
Daniel
But even if you do say the Americans are not going to pay any, the problem in Europe is that that ship has sailed, is that people are still going to think that we are going to get the level of security that we have out of thin air, that you don’t need to spend in military. That problem is not easy to solve. The only way that I see it is that if the United States looks at it as a vendor financing scheme, as in the sense that it continues to provide the support for the military in NATO, et cetera, and quid pro quo, that means opening agriculture, automotive, et cetera, et cetera, of all of those hyper protected industries in the European Union. The problem, from my perspective of the United States policy, is that it continues to pay for NATO and all the military spending and continues to allow, one by one, each of the US presidents, the European Union, to enter into bigger and bigger and bigger protectionist measures under the disguise of environmental requirements.
Albert
I’ll make this quick, Tony. Europe has a decision. Either they fund their military or fund their social programs. They can’t do both. And if you want to win an elections in Europe, you cannot cut social programs. As simple as that.
Daniel
Okay?
Tony
I hear that. With such a large gray cohort in Europe, can they continue to pay for those social programs? Do they have wage earners who can pay for that? Is there too much of a demographic issue? So is it not one or the other, but is it neither of them? Right?
Albert
Well, the problem is then you start talking about best swap lines and the political aspects of those things keeping Europe afloat. That’s where that comes into.
Ralph
I think that we again have the problem, and I do it too, but I try always to kind of get myself to stop doing it. We talk about Europe in very general terms, but to give you one example, in Sweden, for example, the retirement age is directly tied by law to average life expectancy. So in Sweden, automatically the retirement age goes up if life expectancy goes up. Now, as you see in France right now, it’s absolutely impossible. This is a little bit due to the unpopularity in many areas of Macron, but it’s basically not possible to increase the retirement age from 62 to 64, which is absolutely necessary just to make it somewhat viable. I mean, I would argue that’s a problem all Western nations in a sense have. I mean, at some point because in the United States the whole debt ceiling debate is breaking out again. But at some point Medicaid and Social Security will need one way or another to be reformed because that also cannot go on forever. But Daniel said, I think another very important point, and that always bothers me in these debates both about so called multipolarity and dedolarization, there is this idea that all of this could hypothetically happen and yet nothing would change.
Ralph
It’s mostly Europeans who talk about this. You have Europeans who say other new multipolar world and the dollar will be replaced, but none of this would be great for Europe. In a sense, I’d rather be the European Athens to America’s Rome than to be some province squeezed between the Middle East, the US. And China. That both economically and militarily is not as strong as we might like to be. But as Albert pointed out, we’re also not willing to put the money would have to go in order to be that powerful.
Tony
If you had to put a probability on the latter scenario, do you think that’s probable? Do you think that’s 40% probable that Europe becomes squeezed between China, US and Middle East, given where things are going?
Ralph
Well, I think what we got to increasingly see is the EU will always remain as, “always” I take that back. Will remain as an institution for long because as you all know, institutions and bureaucracies have a tendency to perpetuate themselves. But what we, for example, saw last week when Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland announced that they going to basically ban all imports of Ukrainian agricultural goods into their countries. This was in direct violation of an authority that was given legally to the European Union. And the EU has a quasi free trade agreement, particularly in the area of agricultural goods, with Ukraine. So what they did was they basically ignored one of the key competences of the European Union and the European Commission. And I think we’re going to see this more often in the future. So the EU will remain in one way or another, but I think there will be certain areas where countries occasionally go it alone. And what we also then, and this is going to depend on the United States, but there are already talks, whether they’re going to be fruitful or not, to something else, whether the United States should refocus, let’s say, more on Poland as their main partner in Europe, whether they should focus more on Central and Eastern European countries.
Ralph
So I think there is something is going on. I cannot yet say what exactly, how it’s going to end, but something is going on in Europe. And this started in 2004 with the expansion towards the east because that was a new kind of countries in many ways good, but definitely different from the Western European Union as it existed. And I think this is increasingly more difficult to keep together.
Tony
So maybe Blinken will adopt a very Rumsfeldian view of old and new Europe.
Albert
Maybe don’t hold your breath on that.
Tony
Guys. Gosh, this has been such an optimistic discussion. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Seriously, this has been really informative. I can’t wait to see what happens over the next week with regard to some of these things, Daniel, especially with your market kind of optimism. So, guys, thank you very much for your time. Have a great weekend and have a great week ahead. Thank you.
In the latest Week Ahead episode, three experts – Todd Gentzel, Chris Balding, and Sam Rines – discuss the impact of AI on the job market and the enterprise.
The conversation delves into the macro environment and the rise of AI, with Sam Rines framing the discussion by noting the fast adoption of AI tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney, which are taking out low and mid-level writing, creative, and analyst tasks. This is a threat at a scale not seen before as this generation of AI is targeting professional, corporate, and office jobs.
Todd Gentzel, who has consulted and led strategy for some of the world’s largest companies, discusses the current state of AI in the enterprise. He notes that many AI projects are just pet projects to tick a box and the “AI” portion of these projects is extremely limited. However, he believes that AI has the potential to change the enterprise significantly and identifies the factors holding the enterprise back from adopting useful AI.
Chris Balding, the founder of an AI-NLP firm, discusses whether AI will steal jobs. He notes that starting his firm has changed his view of the application of AI and its potential to take on whole job functions. The conversation covers the impact of AI on labor and capital, the potential for AI to be deployed to take on individual functions, and whether AI can only be used to augment job functions or take on whole job functions.
The discussion raises important questions about the impact of AI on the job market and the enterprise, and how it will change the way we work. While the experts have different perspectives on the potential of AI, they all agree that it will have a significant impact on the economy, the job market, and society as a whole.
Key themes: 1. Is the macro environment to blame for the rise of AI? 2. How will AI change the enterprise? 3. Will AI steal your job?
This is the 60th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi everyone, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Todd Gentzel. Todd is an industry and technology strategist spanning healthcare, mining, oil and gas, transportation, and consumer goods. Todd, it’s your first time on the show. Thanks so much for joining us.
Tony
We’ve also got Chris Balding. Chris Balding you guys all know well from Twitter. He’s the founder of a stealth mode AI firm, and he’s also the founder of New Kite Data and a recovering academic.
Tony
We’ve also got Sam Rines of Corbu, who’s on here regularly. So guys, I really appreciate your joining us for the program today. This means a lot.
Tony
I’ve wanted to look at the hype around AI for quite some time. For non-experts, it’s really hard to tell what’s hype and what’s real. We see stuff about ChatGPT or whatever every day, and we can’t tell what’s real output, what’s simulated output, or whatever. So we try to assemble you guys, some experts, to tell us what’s happening. And there’s some real critical answers that we want to address. Why is AI on the rise right now? There are some reasons why AI is coming to the forefront right now. So what are those?
Tony
Will it take your job? A lot of people are, and some people are joking about that. Some people are taking it seriously, some not. But really, will it?
Tony
How will AI change corporate life? What impact will AI have on markets and regulations and so on? These are all things that we don’t know all the answers to right now, but we’re kind of figuring this out as we go along.
Tony
So, just over a year ago, I published a fairly rudimentary illustration showing the pace of impact that I thought at the time AI would take in the workplace and on jobs. So if you notice at the bottom, most of the kinds of infield jobs are retained. A lot of stuff has to physically happen. And my view, at least over the next, say, a few years, is 5% to 10% of jobs need to be automated. And I think that’ll largely grow toward the end of this decade.
Tony
So we have some key themes. First, is the macro environment to blame for the rise of AI? I think that’s a real concern, and we’ll talk about that with Sam. Second is how will AI change the enterprise. We’ll talk about that with Todd. He’s a real expert there, and I can’t wait to have that discussion. And finally, will AI steal your job? That’s kind of a silly question, but I think it’s one that everybody really wants the answer to, and we’ll talk about that with Chris.
Tony
So first, Sam, I want to frame up the discussion with a little bit of an understanding of the macro environment. We’ve had AI enthusiasm before. You have these really robust AI eras, and then you have kind of AI winters. We had a really robust era in 2018 when S&P bought a company called Kensho, which very few people talk about now.
This was just five, or six years ago. They bought Kensho for $550 million and really, nothing happened with it. They were folded into S&P. At the time I talked with people who had visibility to Kensho. They didn’t know what to do with it. It really wasn’t obvious value. But S&P kind of got the opportunity to tick the box on AI. So, in part, S&P wasn’t adopted by S&P’s customers. At least this is my running thesis. It wasn’t adopted by S&P’s customers because wages had been pretty stagnant for 30 years.
Tony
So even in 2018, you could kind of throw people at analysis problems and the type of things that Kensho was built to solve. But now we’re seeing ChatGPT, MidJourney, and those types of large language models and image models being adopted pretty quickly.
Tony
ChatGPT, as you guys know, had millions of users in the first hours, in the first couple of days. So we can say that processing power and coding and that sort of thing are responsible for advancement in AI, which is true. But adoption seems to be different than the actual capability. So when we see ChatGPT and MidJourney adopted so quickly, they’re really taking out low and mid-level writing, creative and analyst tasks. That’s what they’re taking out right now, are those tasks. These are things that earlier had 10-15 years ago, had been sent to, say, India and other offshoring places, but now it’s being experimented with doing this stuff virtually in developed countries. So I realize I’m talking a lot today. I don’t normally do this at the top of the show, but I think we need to introduce some of these ideas for people to watch.
Tony
I’m sorry I’m talking so much today, but one key point here is that AI has always been discussed more than robotics. So where it would take over the job of physical laborers, like people in warehouses, blue-collar workers, as Americans would call them. But this generation of AI is different. This generation is targeting professional jobs, corporate jobs, and office jobs, which are new. It’s kind of unprecedented, where this level of fear for white collar jobs is discussed to be replaced by technology. So, Sam, after that long intro, can you talk us through some of your thoughts on this? This is my hypothesis. Is there anything there? Can you talk us through some of the kind of capital versus labor and wage issues that we’re seeing right now? And is that having an impact on the adoption of AI?
Sam
Yeah. So don’t throw too much at me at once. Okay, so let’s take a big view of the history and kind of parse this out, because I do think it’s worth kind of going back to previous periods to look at what exactly spawns the adoption of various technologies. Because AI is a technology and it’s incredibly useful for those people that want to become, or can become much more productive over time. So I think that’s kind of the level set there. But if you look back at 70s and the level of inflation there, it spawned a significant amount of capital investment in things like computers, right. It was expensive to hire an individual, inflation was running out of control, and you wanted to maintain your margins if you were a corporation. So what did you do? You made people more productive by employing technology, specifically the computer at the time. Right. It sounds kind of ridiculous to say that the computer was a productivity enhancer because we all know that now productivity is not necessarily enhanced by a computer in front of you. But then it was incredibly enhanced for productivity. So when you have significant inflation pressures against a business, it spawns the want and the need to go ahead and invest in incremental technologies.
Sam
So kind of fast forward to COVID, and if you were a leisure and hospitality company or a company that faced individuals, you had an incredible incentive to invest in an underlying technology to allow your business to either exist in a couple of years or to survive and maybe even thrive. If you were very good at it. You had to go out and you had to make sure that your website could offer delivery or pickup options for food. You had to really invest in technologies that previously didn’t necessarily have to do. Were they emerging? Were they interesting? Yes. But all of a sudden they became existential to your business and the ability to survive going forward. So you saw an incredible amount of investment in platforms that allowed for delivery and pickup of food, et cetera. Kind of coming out of COVID. Now what you have is an incredible shortage of workers and a significant amount of wage pressures, and you have inflation pressures. So if you’re a business looking to maintain margins, grow going forward, AI is an incredibly interesting potential tool for you to be able to make some of your best workers and best thought leaders and intellectual leaders much more productive and allow you to grow going forward without having to worry about whether or not you’re going to be able to find that incremental employee.
Sam
And I think that really is an understated catalyst for why ChatGPT-4 is so incredible, right? I love it. It makes me a lot more productive at my job. I’m still playing with it and I don’t actually publish anything.
Tony
Can I just give you a tangible example of what you’re talking about? I know that you understand this Sam, but for our viewers. So my staff last week put together a persona in a large language model and called it Nash, and it looked at all of our previous shows of The Week Ahead and then it came up with a persona for Nash. So last week’s newsletter, Complete Intelligence Newsletter, and going forward, they’re largely written by this persona in Chat GPT. So we don’t have to spend the time anymore to actually write our newsletter. Of course we clean it up a little bit, but it has my voice, it has my word choice, sentence structure and so on. And so largely our newsletter is automated and of course there are little tweaks here and there, but for the most part those are the types of things where maybe I had to hire a newsletter person before, even if they were offshore. But now it’s done in three minutes.
Tony
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month we give you the one and three month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
Sam
No, again, that’s productivity enhancing for your team, right? And it allows you to say, okay, now that we really kind of come up with a way to automate this newsletter, what else can we do? So it allows you to be not only productivity enhancing, but potentially revenue enhancing, potentially bottom line enhancing, producing new products, new services, et cetera, et cetera. So in my mind, that is the one of the tailwinds to AI adoption at this point is that you really have not only called a curiosity with it, but also a need to replace the incremental employee because you can’t find them. If the incremental employee doesn’t exist, you’re not destroying jobs, you’re creating/enhancing ones that exist. The idea I’m kind of running ahead of us. I know, sorry. But to me that’s really the catalyst behind the current adoption, right? And if you look at one of the most labor intensive businesses out there and we kind of touched on this while we were chatting before reporting if you look at agriculture, I mean, John Deere has been working on AI tools for farmers for a decade and has bought up a significant amount of IP around that to not only allow farmers to become much more productive, but potentially make it so the farmer doesn’t have to be in the tractor during planting, during when they’re spraying the plants early on and during harvesting, the farmer can go do other stuff.
Sam
So I think as we begin to really understand that there aren’t enough farm workers out there. That there aren’t enough people to hire into various businesses, I mean, just look at the participation rate. The participation rate is not exactly coming back the way anybody thought it would after COVID, and it’s unlikely that it’s going to recover anytime soon with the number of retirees. Retirees have a significant demand for services. If you’re going to provide those services, you’re going to need to not only adopt new technologies and new tools, you’re going to have to come up with new ways of doing things generally. So I think AI always was going to be something interesting, but it’s something interesting at the right time with the right catalyst moving forward. And this is not something that’s going to be… There’s a little bit of fattiness to it in different ways, but I don’t think it’s going to be one of those passing fads that everybody’s like, “remember when AI was a thing?” I think it’s much more of something that we’re going to interact with on a daily basis across a whole lot of services and a whole lot of businesses that we did not anticipate prior.
Tony
So two things there. Technology generally is deflationary, right? I mean, aside from like $1,400 iPhone or whatever, generally, technology is deflationary for kind of status quo activities. Is that fair to say?
Sam
Sure.
Tony
That’s good. And then you said something like, we’re going to X with AI. But people are already experimenting with that stuff. So we do have people who are already doing that. And it’s really a question of it going at things going broad market. Like, I don’t want to be the AI hypester here. I’m really just kind of asking these types of questions just to understand your view on this stuff.
Sam
Sure. I think it’s pretty straightforward. Right. You have to have some way of replacing a nonexistent labor market, and AI does that in a fairly efficient manner.
Tony
So it’s demographics, wages, participants, demographics, wages.
Sam
Demographics change slowly than all at once. It’s not as though you can simply incentivize the demographics to change. Right?
Tony
Exactly.
Sam
That ship sailed a long time ago. Generally, to your point, demographics are a powerful force where when you have a significant amount of people that are older and out of the labor force demanding a significant amount of services, you have to figure out a way to deliver those services into them. With fewer people in the labor force, which is a massive long term catalyst to tools like AI, like ChatGPT, that type of thing, and it’s not going to stop there.
Tony
Yes. Okay. Good points. Okay, so let’s move from the kind of context and thanks for that, Sam.
Tony
Let’s move into how will AI change the enterprise? Todd, you’ve consulted and led strategy for really some of the world’s largest companies. In enterprise circles, we hear about AI projects from big consulting firms or a firm like Palantir, which really is a consulting firm. These are largely pet projects to tick a box. But at least in my mind, the kind of AI portion of these projects is extremely limited at this point. So given the economic context that Sam discussed and the corporate dynamics that you’re aware of, is AI in the enterprise a real thing right now?
Todd
Yeah, I think that you probably have to break it into a couple of groups. I think the earlier statement about agriculture and John Deere is true in oil and gas is true in healthcare. I mean, there are lots of companies that have been at this for a while, and they’ve got relatively mature environments, and in those environments, they’re really playing a different game. It’s not a check the box. It really is kind of fundamental to business models. I think there’s sort of a sort of much larger group of organizations that are just beginning to be aware of the opportunity in the kind of intermediate and long term. I’m super positive. I think this is unquestionably, the direction this has been headed for a long time. I think in the short term, we’re going to see what we always see during these periods of technical transition. It’s going to be messy. I think it’s important to always remember that there are real power dynamics around any adoption of new technologies. And in a lot of cases, the people who are in leadership and the people who are making these decisions are the authors of the current state.
Todd
And so they struggle to sort of conceptualize what the world would look like under a completely different set of norms. And I think unlike some of the previous generations of technical advancement, I would argue we’re coming out of the age of digital enablement. We’ve talked about transformation. I think there’s been very little transformation. I think it’s mostly just enabling some core things we were already doing and gaining some minor improvements in productivity. AI is one of a dozen exponential technologies that plays a very, very different role in accelerating innovation and accelerating business model development and changing operating models. That’s where things get really dicey. And I think there are going to be winners and there’s losers. And I know, Tony, you and I have talked over the years about when you do scenario planning, you sort of right off the bat, assume that there’s really no good or bad future. It’s good for some and it’s bad for others, and I think that’s going to be true here. I think what we’re going to see is there are organizations who have spent the last decade really creating the kind of agility, the kind of resilience that’s necessary to make a transition like this and really capitalize on it.
Todd
And there’s going to be some organizations that really struggle. And that’s why I actually think that this may not be the age of the incumbents. I think that the people who are really intending to disrupt have a window of opportunity here while people are kind of working through the internal dynamics of what it means to adopt these new technologies and brand new ways of working. People who are unencumbered by those cultures and those kind of leadership norms are going to be able to move much more quickly and likely be able to sell into that world. And I think that’s going to give rise to a whole new group of consultants. I think there’s always the system integrator model and we’re going to sell the big thing and we’re going to work it out over five years and rest of that. I think that the people who will play most prominently in this next phase really are hyper specialists and they’re going to come in and they’re going to solve significant real problems.
Tony
When you say that, I think you said the current operational architecture is a reflection of the current leadership or something like that. And it sounds like they won’t change willingly. Just to be a little bit brutal here, is there going to have to be a wave of retirements or something like that for AI to really hit larger firms or what would push larger firms to attract or to adopt really interesting levels of, say, technology and productivity?
Todd
I think that we’re at a kind of a unique place where a lot of the things that made us successful in the past are the things that actually inhibit our progress. And you know, if you’ve got folks who are relatively intransigent, I mean, really the only option is to move on. We used to have a firm I worked for. This sounds really crass. We had a phrase you either change the people or you change the people. And I think we’re at that kind of a moment where if you find yourself in an environment where the leadership and the operating norms really are not particularly conducive to making these key pivots, everything Sam said is right on the money. I mean, these are economic realities. You’re going to have to make these changes to remain competitive and you’re going to have to find a way to a new way of operating that will allow you to do that again and again and again. Because this isn’t an embrace AI. It’s embrace tool after tool after tool that’s solving these problems. It’s a very different discipline, but it’s also spinning up a bunch of interesting challenges. I was just talking to somebody this week that was working on some things around material science and leveraging AI in that space.
Todd
And we are so rapidly spinning up new materials that it’s difficult to find people who are capable by way of their training, of conceptualizing the utilization of those materials. And so these opportunities in some cases take a little while not just to ingest but to train up people to leverage these to their full extent. Which is why I think the short term is going to be really a story of fits and starts. There’s going to be some big wins and there’s going to be some significant resistance. One of the places where I’m kind of most interested right now is what was mentioned earlier about sort of the top of the food chain right. You’re talking about very elite, top level professional jobs. We’re already seeing some really incredible things in the healthcare space around second reads of scans.
Tony
What does that mean, second read? Can you walk us through that process? Yeah.
Todd
So the radiologist takes a look at your X ray or MRI and says, this is what I see. And then it automatically goes out to an AI engine that goes in and makes sure that everything was caught. And what we’re finding is that we’re routinely catching things with the AI. Well, that’s beginning to tell a story, not just about supporting the work of a radiologist, but potentially, over time, the machine actually becoming a superior mechanism to leverage as a first read and a second read, and you can actually create alternate models. And these are things that are not science fiction. These things are already happening. These are institutionalized systems are doing it really to mitigate risk. I now can say I’ve looked at it multiple ways, and we feel fairly confident at what we’re seeing. That’s happening in industries right now, where we’re actually seeing real life, serious use cases that are mitigating risk, lowering costs, improving outcomes that needs to be scaled. And that’s really what I’m getting at. I think that you see these really interesting spot treatments, right, where we’re looking at something saying, I can solve that. The question is, how do enough of those actually begin to be leveraged?
Todd
It becomes a way of working rather than just a tool in the box that we go to in very specific and very narrow circumstances.
Tony
So what about those people who say, “oh, I’ll never let AI be my doctor, I’ll never have a robot for a doctor, or I’ll never let AI be my CPA” or something like that? Will they have a choice?
Todd
Yeah, I don’t know that they will. I will tell you that there’s some pretty sophisticated tools that are already on the market that are very close to being able to achieve the same level of efficacy and diagnosis as the very best physicians that we have. When you think about that as a language model, I mean, if you think about, like, a Physician Desk Reference and you’re asking questions and you’re getting the medical history and you’re making decisions and there’s things that the machine is capable of doing that’s, just far more capable in the human mind in evaluating the different levels of risk and the likelihood that this is what I’m seeing versus this other thing. Because we’ve seen such a remarkable advancement just on that front in the last four or five years, and you’ve seen its adoption. You look at the NHS or you look at Medicare and you say, there’s absolutely no way, at least at that first level of diagnosis, that we’re not moving very aggressively in that direction for a lot of reasons. Number one, it’s much cheaper, but number two, it’s super available. It’s easy access. We’re actually catching these things long before they become genuinely problematic and cost the public a whole lot more by way of health care dollars.
Todd
So I get it. I understand it. I think there’s sort of an impulse initially to say “I’m very uncomfortable with that.” But increasingly there is a whole lot of diagnostic stuff that’s happening behind the scenes that people aren’t seeing that’s already in place. That’s pretty significant part of their care.
Tony
Right. Okay, so this is where I’m going to give a little shameless plug for complete intelligence, just to give people a little tangible idea of what can be done.
Tony
So we do budget forecasting for companies, and we have one company, a client, $12 billion in revenue. They have 400 people who take three months to do their annual budget process. We did that in 48 hours, taking one of their people less than a week of their time to transfer knowledge to us. We had better results in 48 hours than what 400 people did over three months. And this is a very tangible way of identifying the opportunity that’s available with AI tools and other technology tools. It’s not just replacement. It’s not RPA, robotic process automation. It’s not that it’s better. Right? And that’s where people should be a little bit aware, where we’re talking about doctors, we’re talking about people with MBAs, we’re talking about highly educated professionals where we can have a machine do that work better and faster. And that brings us to Chris Balding to give us great news, Chris. Thanks, Todd. I really appreciate that. And you guys jump in on this anytime.
Tony
Chris, the real question here is, will AI take my job? Right? My job? I’m hoping it does. But for most people, will AI take their job? I think you’re about to launch an AI NLP, a natural language processing firm. First question, I guess, is how has starting that firm changed your mind about the application of AI today versus even just a few years ago?
Chris
I think there’s this discussion about will it take people’s jobs? And if you look back on really any technological breakthrough from the cotton gin to fracking, what you really had is the per unit price would drop of a T shirt or how much it costs to get that oil and gas out of the ground. But what happened was it consumed people that had the technical training, higher levels of technical training. If you think about AI, people will say, well, hey, we don’t need as many coders. Well, you know, what’s going to happen is that opens up a whole new field of cybersecurity risks. And all those coder jobs are going to migrate into cybersecurity because all you’re doing is opening up cybersecurity risks, as a simple example. If you talk to any IT guy inside big companies or whatever, there’s typically a list of about 40 projects management wants them to work on, and there’s 20 that are constantly at the top of that field and they never get to those more advanced, maybe investment, longer term types of product. Well, if you’re able to blow through those 20 faster, as a simple example, you can move on to those more creative, risky type of projects.
Chris
So when I hear people talk about, well, it’s going to take my job, I think it’s absolutely going to change how people work. I think it’s going to change the types of jobs that we do. For instance, one type of coding might move more into cybersecurity. Is it going to eliminate these jobs so that the total level of employment disappears? Absolutely not. It’s just going to change how we work and the specific jobs we do.
Tony
So is it at least at this phase, is it more augmentation than it is automation?
Chris
So it really kind of depends on what you’re specifically saying. One of the things, and I think OpenAI has, has even said things to this effect, you know, we talked about macro and other stuff, but really, what has, what is undergirding this is that really, for the past, let’s say five to ten years, you’ve basically seen this exponential increase in AI type stuff. And that is really driven by, just to be blunt, the hardware of what you can do with GPUs. And part of the reason that we talk about this is, going forward, the amount of GPU capacity that you’re going to need is I mean, you’re going to start sucking down. I mean, the the amount of energy that they were sucking down from GPUs to do bitcoin will pale in comparison if it really takes off the way people say it will. I’ve used it for a lot of coding and similar types of things. And what you really see is, especially on more complex types of projects, you kind of use it to kind of seed what you’re doing, maybe take specific steps. It absolutely, I don’t think, is near the point where it can basically manage entire significant projects.
Chris
And so it’s absolutely a time saving tool. We talk about this with coders. It’s absolutely a time saving tool. Is it taking over their job? No, absolutely not. It’s going to help them do things faster, move on to more complex types of processes that they’re trying to automate.
Tony
Okay, but if it helps people do things faster, then that means they’re spending less time doing the job they have now. So somebody’s losing, right? Somebody’s losing a job, right?
Tony
Because if it’s helping people do stuff faster, then companies have to spend less time on headcount. Right? I’m trying to get out of the, hey, this is replacing jobs. But we kind of end up there with this type of technology.
Chris
Yeah. So think about it two ways. Let’s assume you have an IT department. All of a sudden, that IT department is doing less work, making sure that there’s not a paper jam at the printer and that the computer can talk to the printer. Okay. There’s less time spent doing that. But I guarantee you there’s hackers in Russia that are now using ChatGPT to say, “how do we break into this?” Part of the issue is that guy who started out in It is probably going to move over to cybersecurity. Okay? Or they might say, “hey, we can let go of a couple of people, but now we want these other guys to focus on these bigger investment type projects that maybe we had kept on the back burner because they just didn’t fit within our budgetary priorities.”
Tony
Okay, so those are relatively fungible skills. But if you’re like the Radiologist that Todd’s talking about, can those skills be repurposed to something else?
Todd
Well, honestly, I think it’s case by case, but I mean, Radiology is a great example and just health care generally. I think we’ve all probably heard that we have a nursing shortage and that you can’t find an endocrinologist and we’re constantly dealing with this really serious labor issue. A lot of that is because across the board in healthcare you have people really failing to operate at the top of their license because they’re spending an incredible amount of time doing the paperwork, meeting the CMS requirements. And so you have doctors who are doing 30% doctoring because the rest of their time is basically meeting all of the obligations to all the different stakeholders. Right.
Todd
I think what we’re likely to see is these people who are sitting in that sort of, again, that sort of top tier of kind of professional expertise, really spend more of their time doing value creating work. I think if you think about what’s really going on, we have effectively an opportunity cost that’s baked into everything that we’re just not doing because we’re doing all of these things that really don’t require somebody operating at that level.
Tony
Right.
Todd
What we’re trying to do. I think and I think this is really the way we should be framing the future of AI is that if you really get focused on value creation and you start talking about that opportunity cost gap, I need every one of these employees operating at the very top of their capabilities, regardless of whether they’re a physician or a coder. And I need most of their time being pushed against real value creating activities rather than all the stuff that really should be relatively easy to put off to this other way of operating. And I think you can be threatened by it or you can recognize that the greatest inhibitor to innovation over the course of the last decade has not been our ability to produce technology. It’s our ability to free up capable people to really focus on the innovative things that need to get done in order to make things go to the next level. This is that linchpin moment. And every leader ought to be asking the question like, “how do I maximize the value of every single human asset that I have and really get them operating at top their license.”
Todd
And if that’s not the focus, then this probably is going to be a challenging period and it will become about cost and it’ll become about reducing by way of eliminating positions. That’s not, I think, the way to go. I think that’s actually probably the wrong way to think about it. I don’t doubt that there will be people who will be in that trap because they just are going to have a hard time to make the move, but the smart companies are going to be able to understand that very quickly and move aggressively to make that happen.
Sam
Yeah. And I think that’s a critical point that should not be overlooked is you can be scared of it or you can embrace it and use it as a tool to enhance your one, your life, because none of us like doing the lower end of the spectrum stuff that we always have to do. If you use it to eliminate that and get to do the stuff that is much more highly value add, that is incredibly accretive not just to the business but also to your lifestyle in general. Right. I think embracing it and actually having a positive attitude about it and saying, how can I use this to make myself more productive and generally more happy? Because hopefully we’re doing things that we love to do. How do I use this to do that? I think it’s all about the mentality of approaching it rather than saying, “oh my word, is this going to take my job?” I think it’s a fundamental thing that if you think it’s going to take your job, it probably is simply because you’re not going to embrace it and learn and try to adapt to the new technology, you’re going to fear it and shut it.
Sam
And I think that’s going to be the fundamental difference between those that succeed with the new technologies that are coming and those that fail and fail in a meaningful way.
Tony
Yeah, but I think fear is a natural response to something like this. Right. I mean, we’re all kind of not all of us, but a lot of us are afraid of new stuff. We’ve had our same job for 10-20 years. We have a routine, we go in, we do our work, we leave it five and call it a day. That’s most people, the vast majority of people, and I don’t necessarily think maybe I’m a skeptic here and maybe I’m a bad person for thinking this, but as Todd you talk about people want to look at the greatest value add they can have within their job and that will help them from being kind of automated. I don’t know that most people think that way. Maybe they do. But I think most people are just kind of going in for hours to do a routine job and those are the things that are the most dangerous, I think the positions that are the most dangerous.
Tony
Before we kind of wrap this up, I don’t want people to think that I just kind of loaded this with people who I knew would have the same view as me.
Tony
So, guys, let’s take the other side of the table for a little bit. And I’m not accusing you of having the same view as me, but let’s take the other side of the table a little bit. Let’s assume that large language models and Chat GPT and all these things are overhyped right now, okay? What could stop the implementation of these technologies so that they aren’t adopted across companies and across the economy? What could stop this stuff? Chris, you’re muted.
Chris
I think one of the things is Todd has alluded to this is you’re going to need so basically the basic technology that ChatGPT used is really probably just ten years old. They just added a lot more data and a lot more GPUs. I mean, the fundamental technology is not new in the least. What you’re really going to need, what is going to stop this is now you have to get domain experts coupled with those tech geeks to say, what can we do together? So whether it’s an endocrinologist, whether it’s a financial analyst, whatever it is, and one of the things is outside of the mainstream that you’ve seen a lot, is how can you develop these language models that are providing very precise answers for very specific fields? I’m a tax accountant. I am an endocrinologist, I am whatever. So if you don’t bring those domain experts together with those tech geeks and you’re just stuck with ChatGPT, which is basically trained on the Internet, you’re going to get a lot of bad answers rather than being able to augment what those humans can do.
Todd
Well, I would go further on that and say that those domain experts are critical, especially at this moment in time, right? Like, you start thinking about healthcare, aviation, mining, oil and gas, places where there’s really some very significant risk, and you say, look, those domain experts working side by side, they see that risk coming, they bake that into the conversation. They talk about what to actually put in that learning model to actually create an environment where you accomplish those kind of incremental improvements, but without exposing the organizations to exponential risk. I would tell you right now, the issue is it’s early. And so there’s not a lot of domain expertise that’s actually fluent enough in this to have a dialogue that’s meaningful to kind of push this forward. And the risk that’s inherent to that is the sort of ugly pre adolescence, as we sort of learn our way into using the technologies appropriately, getting out over our skis and getting some things really profoundly wrong, that really creates sort of a downdraft, right? Like, oh, this failed, or this didn’t work or it opened up this massive amount of risk, that’s a human error question. That’s really just a function of moving more.
Chris
Just to kind of add to that, Todd. Give me 1 second, Sam. I’m sorry about that is one of the issues that especially in an issue like the medical field, and I’ve heard this talked about in multiple other fields, is humans are there for a reason and especially if there’s a license, if there’s legal liability, et cetera, et cetera. No human, no matter how good the technology is, even if the technology is demonstrably far superior to human, no human is going to turn that legal liability over to a computer without saying, I’m going to sign off on this, I’m going to check it. And as you said, Todd, that machine learning was basically double checking what the radiologist was doing, just verifying.
Sam
Yeah, to Todd’s point and to Chris’s point, and I think this is really important, if we don’t get the domain experts in there to actually help and make better decisions, better outcomes, better reporting by the by ChatGPT 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, we are going AI in general is going to end up being regulated in a meaningful way. It only takes a couple of really big incidences, car crashes, et cetera, before you end up with the FAA, before you end up with the Transportation agency, et cetera, et cetera, Department of Energy. However you want to look at it, the amount of regulation that will come down on top of this in a landslide like way if you don’t get it right from the beginning and have some sort of self regulating mechanism, whatever it might be, is another, I think, understated suffocating factor, right? There’s nothing that suffocates innovation like regulation. And if you don’t get it right and you don’t get it right pretty quickly the amount of regulation that’s going to come down on this, particularly when it’s consumer facing, when it’s labor facing, those are some very powerful lobbies that are going to absolutely hammer this if it’s deemed to be unsafe or dangerous. I mean, it’s that simple.
Tony
Interesting. So basically what I get from you guys is we’re likely to have at least a few years where it’s more augmentation, where those experts are feeding back into the models to help them understand what they do before these things can really go off on their own. Is that fair to say? So we can’t just open the box today, replace a bunch of jobs and everyone’s on government payments or whatever for the rest of their lives. It’s going to take a few years for this stuff to really get some practical momentum in the workplace.
Todd
I think that’s right. But I think to that previous comment, the industry has to be very careful to sort of self moderate here. I mean, there are going to be folks who really very diligently go about the process of ensuring that we do it right. And then there will be people who inevitably will play it fast and loose. It’s the folks on that side of the fence that actually create the downward pressure from the legislative and regulatory environment. And so it’s just kind of an interesting moment in time because it’s sort of the learning period that really puts it on a solid footing. But it’s also a period where there’s a great deal of volatility and potential for there to be some kind of significant things that happen that actually harm the long term ability to get it implemented in a way that makes sense for the public.
Tony
Very interesting. Yeah, I think that regulation point is so super important. Okay, guys, anything else to add before we wrap this up? This has been hugely informative for me. Anything else that’s on your mind about this?
Sam
I’ll just say don’t fear it. Use it. If you’re not using it, if you’re not trying to learn about it, then make it make you better or get out of the way.
Tony
Exactly. Watch a few videos, learn how to do some mundane tasks. Use it to your advantage and do things like we do with our newsletter. Just get some really routine tasks automated and then just start learning from there. So guys, thanks so much. This has been really, really valuable. Thank you very much. Have a great weekend.
In the latest “Week Ahead” discussion, three experts delve into three crucial topics: synchronized global risks, the spending patterns of the US consumer, and the copper gap in the energy transition.
Keith Dicker of IceCap Asset Management and Loonie Hour Podcast takes the lead on synchronized global risks, highlighting how a banking crisis in Silicon Valley has led to crises at other regional banks in the US and abroad. He also discusses the potential risks of the Hong Kong dollar breaking its peg and its impact on the Canadian dollar.
Albert Marko shares his insights on the spending patterns of US consumers, presenting surprising findings on mainstream companies like Carnival Cruise Lines and McCormick, which have been able to raise prices despite the economic recession. These findings challenge the notion of the Federal Reserve’s ability to pivot or pause.
Tracy Shuchart from Hilltower Resource Advisors warns about the copper gap in the energy transition, which is emerging just as the energy transition gains speed. She provides insights into what this means for copper prices in 2023 and how it will impact the energy transition.
The episode concludes with the experts’ predictions for the week ahead.
Key themes: 1. Synchronized global risks 2. The US consumer isn’t slowing down 3. Copper gap & energy transition
This is the 59th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash, and today we’re joined by Keith Dicker. You’ll know Keith on Twitter as @IceCapGlobal. He’s with Ice Cap Asset Management. He also hosts the Looney Hour Podcast, which is one of the most popular business podcasts in Canada. So we’re really lucky to have them today. We’ve also got Tracy Shuchart from Hilltower Resource Advisors and Sam Rines from Corbu. Sam Rines will be joining us a little bit later.
Tony
So let’s get started, guys. We’ve got a few key themes this week. First is synchronized global risks. And we saw that recently with the banking issues, and we’ll get that into a little bit into that a little bit deeper with Keith. With Sam, we’ll talk about the US consumer and how it really isn’t slowing down. And we’ll go into some detail on company annual reports and quarterly reports on that. And then with Tracy, we’ll talk about the copper gap and the energy transition and a message that she’s been talking about for maybe about a year, but is really kind of coming to the forefront now. So, guys, welcome. And Keith, thanks again for joining us for the first time. We really appreciate it.
Keith
Yeah, thank you for having me here. And I think with Tracy, I consider you like half Canadian, sort of with the Quebec ties, but still like one and a half Canadian against one guy from Texas. We’re still not winning, are we?
Tony
Yeah, you’re welcome here anytime.
Keith
So I’ll just talk a little bit about how we do things. We manage money for individuals and family offices, basically across Canada, as well as some European clients, in the US, and Asia. And so we’ve had a lot of success with our strategy and just a couple of things to get the view started, which I think is important. We’re Canadian. I founded Ice Cap back in 2010-2011ish around then, but prior to that, I was offshore in Bermuda for over a decade. And then before that, I was with one of the big bad Canadian banks. But I like to share this Bermuda story because I think it’s really important today because I think a lot of people today get so focused on the day-to-day and short-term factors, what’s happening. And the other challenge a lot of investors have, we tend to see the world through the eyes and minds of where you live and where you’re from. And our view, the financial world does revolve around the US. That’s just the way it’s put together. But being offshore, you don’t really belong to any country. You’re living in between the seams.
Keith
So you get to see and feel and live the world from the perspective of all these other ex-pats you hang out with and so forth. So I just share that with you because, like up here in Canada, if you know the Canadian environment or not, Tony, you should head up when it’s a bit warmer. Maybe for you, I know, but Canadians have this very insular view of our banking system and our housing market. Everyone around the world should behave and act and walk the way Canadians do and so forth. As we all know, that’s not the case at all. It’s a very bigger world out there. With just that in mind, just before I go into the immediate view that we have with the world, it’s our view that long-term interest rates, looking at the ten or 30 years, really did peak in 1982. That’s when it peaked. Back then, rates were called 20%. So from the early 80s right up to eight nine, they went to 0%. And everybody makes money when that’s happening, especially the bond managers. And when that hit zero in 809, policymakers should have let the world reset.
Keith
But we know, of course, that wasn’t permitted, and some jurisdictions did a better and worse job than others that trying to protect that. But effectively, what happened then, for the next decade-plus, we’ve been living in this world with zero rates, negative rates, unbelievable re-escalation of borrowing at both the sovereign debt level households and companies, and so forth. And the other part I like to add to it a bit of a joking way, but it’s also factual. We now have basically two generations of university kids coming out for their entire university academic careers. And now ten years of working in, say, the investment world has been in this period that just doesn’t exist. It’s zero rates. Nothing exists, because as we know, Tony, you put a zero in your denominator for any number. You’re calculating what happens. It doesn’t work. Right. So what we see now today in response to all the policies we have with the Pandemic and COVID, for better or worse, all of the economies and central banks in the world, now they’ve all synchronized. So risk has been synchronized in the US. Canada, Australia, Asia, Europe, you name it.
Keith
And now we’ve gone from this period with zero negative rates. Short term rates are now they exploded higher, and it’s created this moment where increasingly we’re starting to see these risk just come out of the blue.
Tony
Just to clarify something, and I want to make sure that I understand correctly, when you have a zero or negative interest rate, the cost of risk is only the nominal cost of the money that you put at stake. But with an actual interest rate, you have a multiplier on that risk. It may be just a small portion of the multiplier, but there is an accelerator on that risk, right? And so I think this is what it’s been really hard for people well, really easy for people to fall in love with, with zero risk, I think, is that if I risk $100 and I lose it, the value of it is only $100. But if I’ve got a 10% interest rate, then I’m not just losing $100, I’m losing $110. Right. So as we transition back into a positive interest rate environment, the financial planning and the investment planning for people, as you mentioned, say, two generations of people coming out of school, this is an environment people have never had to deal with before. Right. And at the same time, we have BOJ, ECB, and the Fed, who to varying degrees, have had zero or nerp environments where nobody’s had to deal with that.
Tony
And it’s crazy. So I know that is just some basic, basic stuff compared to the advanced calculus you’re talking about, but I think we really kind of need to highlight that that there is an actual cost to risk now that we have real interest rates.
Keith
Yeah. And it’s something we haven’t experienced for a long time. So people tend to forget that. In school, and these CFA studies that we all went through, we call that the risk free rate of return. And it’s been zero for a long time, and it’s been reset. I think this is the greatest global macro setup that we’ll ever see in our lifetime. I mean, if you’re a money manager and you’re not enjoying this right now, then I think you should get a different career, move along somewhere else. But if you think about, for example, over the last five or six months, the Brits had their crisis in their pension fund and guilt market. Of course, then we had Silicon Valley Bank just recently, and then right behind that, Credit Suisse was there. So one good result about that, policymakers, which is mostly the Fed Reserve, of course, were able to react very quickly to prevent contagion. And so they should be complemented for that. I know it’s not nice to compliment or it’s not cool to compliment Central Bank. Yeah, definitely not cool. But that’s something that is a result that did happen. However, it’s also telling us here at Ice Cap that if you went back six months ago and I said, hey, I want you to list ten things that could blow up over the next six months, you wouldn’t have had those three events on your bingo card.
Keith
Maybe the Credit Suisse story, maybe, but the other two were pretty hard to find. So that tells us that, hey, there’s other events that are out there lurking around. And because they’re out there, it doesn’t mean they have to occur. It just means that the probability of them occurring, in our opinion, it’s a lot higher than it normally would. It normally would be your normal distribution chart or graph. So we have that happening, and it seems like every day there’s increasingly more data coming out. We just say, wow, I can’t believe that’s still going down that path. But these are the things that we look at. And again, we find it’s incredibly interesting. It means it does create a lot of opportunities coming up for people managing the portfolios. But you have to be aware of these fattail events that are out there because they could happen and maybe the next one is central banks are not able to save us.
Tony
So let me ask you on the, on the kind of synchronized risk part, seems to me that developed markets are highly calibrated to these risks. A small issue causes a huge reaction in developed markets. I spent a lot of my life in emerging markets, China, Sri Lanka, India, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, all over the place. And so it seems to me that emerging markets can bounce around a lot and the perception of risk is a bit lower. I know that there’s a perception that if the US or if developing markets have problems they’re going to be felt even more in emerging markets. But is that true when you talk about these synchronized risks? Do they necessarily feel worse in emerging markets?
Keith
I think in a normal cycle that is the case. You just go with it because from a fundamental perspective, emerging markets look awesome. You know, they have lower debt, faster growth rates, younger, you know, younger demographics and, and things like that. However, again because we’re in this world again I call it synchronized risk. And a quick example is housing markets, real estate markets like Canada and Australia as an example. Again it’s our view that if risk does re escalate, so it happens rapidly. Then because the world.. It operates on the US dollar, that’s just a fact. That’s the way it works. All of a sudden liquidity dries up and liquidity comes out of those markets. So then it doesn’t matter how strong or weak the fundamentals are. If you don’t have dollars to operate, you have US dollar tax revenues coming in or economic gross domestic product revenues, all that stuff, then it’s going to push someone off sides. I think back prior to the 809 housing crisis it would have been hey yeah, just ride it out and you’ll be fine. But these days for example, we’re avoiding these markets. We’re not in the EM markets at all.
Keith
And sometimes that’s great, other times it’s oh wow, you missed one there Ice Cap. The main goal with investment management that we look at is if you avoid the large drawdowns for your primary portfolios then the return side will take care of itself. But if you get these big chops in value and I mean we know the numbers, if you’re down 50% you need a 100% return to get back to where you started. Again it’s being cognizant of these risks that are out there and we keep going back to this US dollar wheel that’s greasing the world.
Tony
Yeah. Speaking of currencies, Keith, you had posted this tweet earlier this week responding to a message from Kyle Bass about the Hong Kong dollar breaking and you said if the Hong Kong dollar breaks, the CAD also breaks. Can you talk us through that a little bit?
Keith
Yeah, because obviously we’re Canadian up here and the challenge that most Canadian investors have is that they don’t appreciate that the Canadian dollar and the Canadian economy and the yield curve up here in Canada, it can be significantly influenced by an external factor and that’s lost on most investors up here. So if you’re reading, like, big bank research, like, they’ll never. Sorry, they’ll rarely talk about these outside events. It could be something within the eurozone, for example, like the Italians or something. We know China is struggling quite a bit, but I will frequently talk and write and chat about these events and that if they happen, it is going to affect Canada. So the comment this week sort of stems back to… So we know the Fed opened their USD swap lines with all their friendly central banks that are set up for it and everyone drew on it. Everyone immediately. “Hey, yeah, we need the dollars.” But they also have this other repo line set up. It’s FIMA. I think it’s Foreign International Monetary Authorities. I think it is that stands for. So basically it’s a repo facility for central banks that are not attached to the swap line option.
Keith
That’s my understanding of it. And at some point, it was one week ago Friday, someone out there borrowed 60 billion USD for that. And if I think of people if you’re not aware how the repo facility works, Tracy, if I’m giving you $60 billion, you have to exchange with me at least 60 billion plus in US Treasuries to act as collateral for it. Even though you have Treasuries, you don’t have US dollars. We like to joke about if you go to a restaurant, you get your bill at the end of the night. You can’t pay it with a T bill. They’ll laugh at you. You need US dollars for it. So someone needed US dollars last week. And because of the size, and because they’re not one of the USD swap line friendly nations, you’re looking around who has that much in Treasuries that they can use for a repo? It really looks like it was or is China. And Hong Kong is the conduit for capital flows coming out of China. And it happened on a Friday afternoon. And as you know, if anyone here is running a bank, your goal is to last Friday afternoon and then you try to sort it out to get through to the weekend.
Keith
And then with that then 60 billion, it went to the Chinese, supposedly. And then every day this week we’ve had the Hong Kong dollar peg. It’s been up against its upper range, so it’s been sitting at 785, basically. And when it did open on Sunday evening, it actually broke through the range. So for this brief moment in time, it was up there. And so when I referenced that tweet, I’m more or less just pointing out to Canadians that, hey, if this peg was going to break, it is definitely going to affect world capital flows. Money will flow into the dollar, which means it’s coming out of the Canadian dollar. I like to poke Canadians sometimes with these things because they know we all feel we’re the best in the world at a lot of things, but that was the message with that.
Tony
Okay, so just staying on the Canadian dollar for a second, do you think the sensitivity with CAD, where outflows from CAD is as sensitive as, say, Hong Kong dollar could be? Especially given that CAD is so resource driven, do you think that would have an impact on it?
Keith
Yeah. So just be clear, if the Hong Kong dollar peg broke, this would be a once in two lifetime financial economic event. It will reverberate around the world several times over. If it doesn’t, and we’re just having a normal economic cycle, Canadian dollar is just going to ebb and flow with the demand for commodities and something else. But up here in Canada right now, we have a very tightly wound housing market. Everyone is familiar with that. There’s lots of reasons to support why it is strong. Our population growth has been unbelievable. We’ve had a million immigrants come in. In Californians, too. I don’t think they would last with the weather.
Tony
Albert’s got the New Yorkers. Albert and Tracy have the New Yorkers. We have the Californians.
Keith
So Albert and I met a few years back. I’ll give you guys one guess where we met in a location.
Tony
I don’t know if we can talk about that publicly.
Albert
It was actually Orlando. It was actually Orlando. I do like the Canadian dollar short term, anyways. But speaking about the population, I mean, the demographics for Canada is excellent. Probably the best they’ve had in a generation. The housing market is interesting, though, because I saw a statistic where in 2003, the average income for Canada was $60,000, yet the average home was 213. Now it’s $64,000 and $612,000 for a home. So the housing market is quite an anomaly in Canada. It’s over my head, but it’s something that I definitely should pay attention to.
Tony
I don’t mean this to sound stupid, but do you have the generational loans like they did in Japan back in the day? Do you guys do that up there?
Keith
What do you mean? No, our mortgage is…
Tony
One generation to nother to pay off a house.
Keith
No, we have 25 year amortization periods. The banks now have to do a few funny things to keep these loans from being impaired. So they’re extending to amortization period. But just a couple of quick things with Canada to be aware of right now. We have basically five major banks up here, and their loan portfolios are homogenous. They will tell you, no, we’re a little bit different than the next guy, but they’re all the same. So if we were to experience some kind of crisis in our economy or in the housing market, it will affect all banks at the same time. So we also have our term deposit insurance up here. It’s $100,000 canadian. It’s highly likely they’re going to need to increase that, but they’re not able to increase it to any level. That would actually be helpful if we were to experience a crisis because if one bank ran into trouble and they had to go to the CDIC to make a claim, all the banks are going at the same time. That’s just a function of what it is. But we are in this sort of precarious moment right now. We just had a budget came out yesterday, or the day before, I think it was.
Keith
And again, it’s like deficits forever, debt is going to grow forever, there will never be a recession. All these perfect scenarios are lining up. Again, we just like to highlight that we are in this global world and some kind of event can happen outside of your country. It doesn’t matter if it’s Canadian or Australian or British, something can happen that will trigger most likely would be a shift in your yield curve in some way where the credit spreads are hit or the long end of the curve gets hit, or banks have to take actual losses and things like that. And that’s when things get a bit funny out there. But that’s the story on what we see. Again, we think it’s incredibly interesting. There are great opportunities coming up, especially in the commodity world. We’ve been adding that space over the last three to four weeks. And the path that we like to talk about, not journey. The path, and it seems to be going where we’re expecting this year.
Tony
Perfect. We’ll talk about Canadians or commodities with Tracy in a little bit. But first, how is the Canadian consumer doing? We’re going to talk about the US consumer in a second with Albert, but how is the Canadian consumer doing?
Keith
You look everywhere, everyone is over levered. So you have that happening. Employment growth is fine, but if you look under the hood, it’s really in the service sector. One person might have they’re running three jobs, they’re an Uber driver, they’re running Uber food or DoorDash, whatever they call it, and maybe something else at the same time, because it’s kind of interesting in that we’re all expecting a recession to hit up here, but the data is still not showing that it’s going to happen. And the most important contributor, the positive contributor again, is population growth. So again, we’ve taken in over a million immigrants this year and I think that works out to about two and a half percent population. So our GDP per capita is actually declining, right? So if you take out the population growth, then we are struggling a bit. But Canadians right now, and banks are tightening their standards on lending. There’s increasing evidence that if we do start to see job losses, then it could be a bit rough. A lot of Canadians have bought houses over the last three years. They went with variable overnight mortgages, and all of a sudden, they’ve been resetting lock and step with the Bank of Canada.
Keith
So the good news is the Bank of Canada is done. They ain’t hiking anymore. Yeah, maybe we’ll get some relief with that. But the Canadian story, if something bad happened in Canada, it’s not going to affect the rest of the world. If something outside of the rest of the world happened, it will affect Canada. So we have this bit of a challenge here.
Tony
Okay, great. Keith has been it’s been really helpful to I mean, for people outside of the US and Canada. We’re different. The US and Canada are different. And Americans, I’m sorry to say, don’t really pay a whole lot of attention to what happens in Canada. So this really is helpful for us to understand this stuff. It is America’s largest trading partner, but we are a little bit selfish. And I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true. So it’s helpful for us to learn this stuff.
Tony
So let’s move on to the US consumer and little programming note. Sam Rines does not look like Albert. This is actually Albert. And so Sam Rines is ill. So Albert has so very graciously jumped in to this spot. And so, Albert, thank you so much. So I want to ask about the health of the US consumer. And Sam had done this newsletter earlier this week, and this is very much in line with things that you have been saying about inflation, Albert. And so let me just bring up a couple of things. And Sam brought up Carnival Cruise Lines earnings. And the highlighted part of this thing on screen says the company experienced the highest booking volumes for any quarter in its history, breaking booking records for both North America and Australia and Europe segments.
Tony
Okay, so Carnival Cruise Lines is not exactly a high end cruise line. This is a middle America cruise line. And they’re seeing bookings that are far beyond what they’ve ever seen. And next, Sam looked at the earnings for McCormick, a spices company, and McCormick talked about 11% growth from their pricing actions while they saw a 3% decline in volumes.
So this goes along with this concept that Sam has been talking about for about nine months called price over volume, where companies have been passing on their costs through their prices to their consumers while accepting a small volume decline. And so we’re definitely seeing the broad basis of prices continuing to rise in the US. And Keith mentioned this, that there is some broad expectation that we’re going to see a recession in the US. But Albert, we still see hiring relatively strong. We still see service wages strong. We still see price rises coming. What’s happening? How are we going to see a recession? First of all, what is your view of the US consumer. And second of all, how are we going to have a US recession while all this stuff is happening?
Albert
Well, the US consumer has been surging. It’s been relentless. I mean, wage inflation is at the core of it. I mean, people are finally the public is getting a 20-30% jump in their wages after 40 years of stagnation basically. It’s become such a problem for the Fed that they’re resorting to bank crises now to stop lending and credit from the banks. It’s just the reality of what’s happened. I don’t see it lighten up. They want the market up. That’s providing liquidity. Consumers are getting liquidity from all over the place. Certain states still have stimulus. It’s just relentless. And it’s really problematic for the Fed.
Tony
Wait, certain states still have stimulus?
Albert
Yeah, they still have stimulus programs. California has inflation checks and certain unemployment benefits are still rolled on. I think it’s 16 or 22 states still have some sort of stimulus programs kicked in for unemployment.
Tony
Okay, so one of the things that I’ve said today actually on Twitter about trying to pull back on the consumer is that we’re going to have to see some change in the housing market in order for the consumer to stop spending in the US. Because the perception of wealth in the US. Comes more from the perceived value of your house than it does from equity markets. There is this belief that as equity markets rally, there’s this broad basis of spending that comes from consumers. And while that’s certainly true for a portion of them, the value of someone’s house is so much more a part of their spending habits in practice. So does that make sense to you?
Albert
It does, but it creates another problem politically. Washington wants housing more affordable for their constituents. But on the flip end, the boomers don’t want to give up their increased prices of their homes. And on top of that, people are taking out Helocs and buying secondary and third homes for rental income. So this problem is just simply not going to end in the near term. And on top of that, thinking about jobs, when you talk about layoffs, it’s only tech. There’s not any construction jobs that are being laid off. I don’t know one company in the housing or construction field that’s dropped workers, the significant amount of workers, zero.
Tony
Right. Well, because there’s supposedly an undersupply of housing. That’s what we keep hearing. But when we hear about people taking home equity loans to buy a second house to rent out, how real is that housing shortage? I just don’t know. I mean, you can see all kinds of different data showing that there’s a shortage or not a shortage. But when we have a synthetically low interest rate and we have the Fed holding a lot of mortgage backed securities, we do have an interest rate that’s lower than it naturally would be.
Albert
Of course, there is. But when it comes to the housing shortages or oversupply or whatnot, you can’t even look at it at a national level. You have to take it state by state or even city by city. I mean, Florida and Texas are absolutely booming, but the same can’t be said for Pennsylvania. So I think we have to look at it from that aspect. It’s really hard to look at the housing.
Tony
We’re still seeing wages surge in the middle of the country, although they may not be surging on the coast. We’re still seeing prices rise and price and margins expand. With a lot of these consumer companies and services companies. We’re seeing patchy housing values rise or stagnate. What does the Fed do? Will we see a pause this year? Will we see a pivot this year?
Albert
I don’t think pivots even in the cards at the moment. A pause certainly is in the cards. The problem that the Fed faces is super core inflation. It’s just services like, even in Canada, like Keith was saying, is just sky high, rocketing up. It’s just not stopping. This is the biggest roadblock that the Fed has for combating inflation 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 forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one and three month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
Tony
Right, so we expect to see, I think you said before, at least a couple more 25.
Albert
I think two more before a pause hits.
Tony
Is it possible they could take some action on QT for MBS to hit the housing sector a little bit?
Albert
They could, but again, they’re facing headwinds from the boomers that are up there with Hank Paulson and Larry Summers and their crews. They certainly don’t want to hear from them that the housing market is crashing and their wealth being erased slowly. So that’s just again, there’s two dynamics. You have the middle class voters that can’t afford houses, and then you have the boomers that don’t want to lose their value and their wealth. So that’s what we’re stuck between.
Tony
I suspect that at some point that might be one of the only levers they have to pull to slow things down.
Albert
It’s a dangerous level to pull.
Tony
It is, but I don’t know.
Albert
I don’t even know if the banking sector can absorb too much of that kind of pain. I don’t know. I haven’t really analyzed that in any way. But theoretically, you start dropping housing prices 20, 30%, and I don’t even know what. That does to loans for people and the banks.
Tony
Keith, what do you think about that?
Keith
Just to add to that, back to the Fed comment, Albert. If you have the Fed hiking another 50 basis points and everyone else has effectively stopped, I think the ECB has stopped or they’re pretty well close to that. You could have this environment where maybe the economy does slow somewhat in the US. Yet the dollar is surging. Like it’s continually gets stronger and you just get this vicious cycle going back and forth with it. But it’s funny because everyone has been watching the Fed now since Jackson Hole back in August, expecting that they’re going to pivot. They’re going to pivot. And in my mind, I think the Powell has been very clear with which direction they want to go. And somehow they dodged that there at their last meeting, they had every opportunity to pause if they wanted to because of the banking crisis, and they just plowed straight through. So I agree with Albert. They want to continue hiking until they’re told they’re not able to do it anymore. And if they can get through several banks basically going under within a few days of each other and to continue hiking, then maybe there’s a world to get more than 50.
Keith
And again, if that happens, it’s going to push someone off sides out there. But that goes back to the whole global macro view.
Tony
Right? Well, we used to talk about how the Fed is going to push until something breaks. And so we saw some banks break and they’re continuing to push. So something else has to break. Right.
Albert
Something bigger.
Tony
What’s that?
Albert
Something bigger has to break. Something with more gusto to limit to help out the Fed right now. I mean, they unwound six months or nine months of QT in a week. Exactly. We’re back to square one now.
Tony
Right. And so banks failed, didn’t break enough. They want something else to break.
Albert
Joke. This bank failure thing is an entire joke.
Tony
Of course it is.
Albert
It’s a pre planned event. I mean, when First Republic loses 90% or 60% of their deposits and the founder is pushing back on the FDIC about a plan for salvaging the bank, it’s a joke. It really is.
Tony
Okay, so, Keith, you mentioned Fed continues to rise, stronger dollar. That seems to me to put pressure on downward pressure on commodity prices. Not necessarily everything, but it seems to put some serious pressure on commodity prices if we have a rising dollar, is that fair?
Keith
Yeah. I mean, our expected path this year with commodities prices that we go lower Q1 into Q2, and that’s exactly where we are. We start to see slower economic data coming out, Q2, Q3. They should bottom before any recession actually hits. So in that world, unless there’s a major supply disruption or discovery or something like that, we’re using this as an opportunity to start building small positions in that space, but you keep going back to like, is it a normal cycle or is there something else that may happen here at this point.
Keith
I think everyone’s been calling out for a recession. Say, hey, if you go from zero to five with overnight rates and the yield curve gets inverted so much, no matter which way you want to look at it, the recession is here and people have been looking for this back in Q4. Here we are, like five months into it and still no sign of it coming. Again, something is a bit odd out there. Maybe it’s just delaying the inevitable or maybe it’s as, you know, a bubble. You keep blowing into a bubble. I don’t mean that the economy is in a bubble or anything like that.
Keith
It just means that, again, everything has been synchronized around the world that it is giving the opportunity for something to go off sides. And when that happens, because everyone has so much risk on the table, people can start running around. And again, that doesn’t mean that you go all into cash or whatever your favorite overnight holding is. It just means you had to be aware of it and be positioned for it. And then when it does happen, it’s funny how nobody buys low and sells high anymore and most people do the opposite. So I think, though, maybe you can be a bit traditional, that opportunity will come up.
Tony
A recession is whatever we call it. So we had two quarters negative growth last year with strong employment. Right. So will we see the opposite of that this year with employment weakening but continuing GDP growth and maybe call that a recession? I have no idea.
Keith
Yeah, I think one of the main contributors to recession coming up is when banks stop providing credit to the economy or they slow the growth of credit. That’s the main thing to look for. And just using the Canadian economy as an example, that is happening. It’s now more difficult to get a mortgage. If you need credit, you’re using credit cards or stuff like that. I know the boomers are doing well. We always have access.
Tony
Boomers have always done well. It’s been good for boomers since they were 18 years old. They’re never going to suffer until they die.
Albert
That’s exactly what Keith is saying, is until the banks stop lending out, this is just going to continue. And this is most likely why this bank crisis was preempted, to stop the banks from lending.
Tony
Okay, so, Tracy, we started going down the path of commodities and with Albert and Keith, Albert thinks we’re going to see at least two more rate rises. If that strengthens the dollar. What’s your view on that in terms of general commodity prices? Does that push commodity prices down or do we start to see growth toward the end of the year pick back up and that helps commodity prices?
Tony
Sorry, you’re muted.
Tracy
Sorry. I think that it’s really going to depend on multitude of factors. The thing is that if you’re looking at some of these base metals, battery metals and things of that nature between energy transition and in Europe and North America have committed to this at all costs, even asking central banks to look past inflation in these areas. And so I think that demand particularly, and if we see pickup in China, which is also one of the largest EV makers in the world, I think that we’re going to have a problem where we’re going to have these metals go higher even in conjunction with a higher dollar. I think it’s very possible.
Tony
Okay, so let’s look at a comment you put out on Twitter earlier this week about copper.
Copper is critical to the clean energy transition. Europe and North America have committed to the transition. After 2023, incremental copper supply decelerates into 2030. And then you actually sent out a chart in November of ’22 showing kind of the copper supply gap. So can you talk us through why is there a copper supply gap? It looks like the supply just kind of flattens after growing. Why is the supply flattening out as demand is rising?
Tracy
Because we don’t have, because nobody’s mining it, really. We have about 1.1 million tons being added this year to supply as far as supply growth is concerned, and new supply coming online from new mining. But after that it levels off. And I actually sent you those charts so that you can show everybody, but you can see where supply growth literally goes from 1.1 million tons to literally nothing from here to out to 2030.
And then you have this incremental supply growth. When you’re looking at just take for example, an EV, right, it requires four and a half times the amount of copper as an ice vehicle. And when you start talking about buses, that’s twelve times as much. This doesn’t even include solar, wind, charging infrastructure and stationary energy storage that also require huge amount of copper.
And you have the green plan in the United States, and you have Europe’s rendition of a green plan, right? And so they’re planning to build all this out, and we just don’t have the supply available, and we’re just not going to have it. And if you add into this, for the past seven years, the mining industry suffered from the same problem that the oil industry has. Lack of capex.
Tracy
So you’re coming from already seven years of no cap, barely any capex, declining capex. So you’re not having supply really come haven’t had supply really come on in any notable amounts in the last seven years. And then moving forward to 2030, we’re not seeing that increase at all either.
Tony
Do you know that Simpsons meme, where they’re like barts in class and they say, say the line, say the line.
Tony
We’re going to think about that there when I say why has there been a lack of capex in mining?
Tracy
Because it’s dirty.
Tracy
Right? Is the reason.
Tracy
And nobody wants mining. Same with the oil sector. Nobody wants oil to drill for oil either. It’s dirty. Right? ESG these things are dirty, but yeah, we need them. So here’s our conundrum, and it’s not going to I think that not get any better. Regardless if we’re in a recession and regardless if we see the dollar spike. I mean, we’re already seeing copper prices are still holding up very well through this banking crisis, where we have seen oil wobble a little bit and the dollar has been over 100 and we’re still seeing these metals. We did see a pullback from the summer high when we had the electricity crisis or the natural gas crisis, right. So we did see those metals pull back from 2022 highs, but we’re starting to see them all spike again because again, we have these green programs that are coming to light now, particularly in the United States, and then again with Europe having their own kind of rendition of the IRA plan.
Tony
What will win? If you look five years out? Okay. And we have these ESG constraints on upstream development and mining and other things, and it almost seems like we’re going to have to continue to have some sort of subsidy for energy in places or some of that ESG regulation or legislation can change what will happen? Will ESG loosen or will we just continue to subsidize these things until we’ve kind of finished the transition, whatever that means?
Tracy
I don’t think just to reach 2035 goals right now, we need $35 trillion, right?
Tony
Because we’re just making money up now, right? So what is that $35 trillion spent on?
Tracy
And that’s just to get us to where the countries have their 2035 goals. So really, that’s not going to happen. You know, that’s not going to… Europe is not going to cough that up. United States is going to cough that. Canada is not going to cough that up.
Tony
Remember the Kyoto Protocol from the UN talking about green goals? It was done in 1992 or whatever. And I think the only country that did it was I think there were only two countries that did it, maybe three, like Canada, the US, and Iceland or something like that, right? So everyone signed this deal. These were all aspirational the goals were far enough advanced that nobody who signed the treaty was going to be in office when the accountability was made.
Tracy
Exactly. And that’s where it gets me to. My next thing is that they’re going to have to push these goals out. You know that, right. Because everybody decided these 2035 goals, whoever’s in office, we have the UK, and all these people are going to be gone, right?
Tony
Whoever is the chancellor in Germany will still be there because they keep those guys.
Tracy
That’s true. So my opinion is we’re not going to have enough money. You still aren’t getting these mining companies excited enough to you can’t get oil companies excited enough to drill right now. Right. They’re all focused on investor returns, paying down debts, capital discipline. It’s no different in the mining industry. Right. So we’re going to have a problem. So you’re going to have to pull just by pure logistics. You’re going to have to push those out. I mean, it’s just logistically impossible. We just don’t have enough metals, period. And you can’t just wish that into existence.
Tony
I don’t necessarily need to get into company names. And Keith, I know you want to comment. I just come to you in just a second. But I’ve been trying to think of how do you play this ultimately, because all of these green things plug into a grid. So is the ultimate play for the energy transition power companies or the companies that provide hardware for the power grids? What is the real play here?
Tracy
I think that it’s infrastructure to build all this stuff out. Right. So I like things like heavy machinery, steel, things that make infrastructure to actually build this out or to mine, right. Not necessarily the actual metals themselves because those tend to be very volatile. So I would look at what goes into making these metals, what goes into making these grids. That’s where you’re playing. Utility companies are, I think, going for the utility companies, they always get screwed in the end. That wouldn’t be my go to for an investment longer term, looking at this sector. So I was more into kind of the infrastructure again.
Tony
Good. Okay, Keith, you had a couple of things you wanted to say.
Keith
Yeah, I just love this conversation. And maybe one thing for us to think about is that maybe the current path we’re on, it changes. So we get the pendulum swinging to the other side where it’s no longer whether it’s socially or politically, you don’t have that huge push towards green technology and so forth. It doesn’t mean that people don’t want it, but it’s not going to be pushed by the public sector. Instead, it’s going to be into the private sector. And that could change a lot of things. I do think that a lot of countries are going to be prohibited from doing a lot of these investments because they just won’t be able to raise the capital in their bond markets. And there’s also going to be other needs coming up. Again, I go back to here in Canada right now with their budget that just came out. 10% of our at the federal level of our tax revenues are now going to interest expense on the federal debt. Again, I suspect everyone is in that kind of position. So what worth goes. I love the concept of stranded assets in the energy and commodity space.
Keith
I’m incredibly bullish on this space and maybe the dirtier that the commodity is is probably the better opportunity for return. And again we’re just in this world now, we’re even having this conversation. It’s not acceptable by some sides but I think we have to be realistic that we live in a period of extremes and I think if we’re using linear thinking that that’s going to be wrong. Like something will swing back to the other side.
Tony
Extrapolate today until forever.
Tracy
I actually tweeted out a German survey today. So only 10% of Germans believe that renewable energies will be able to meet energy needs for the foreseeable future. Even among the Green voters, that figures only 18%. Instead citizens want natural gas 59% and nuclear power 57%. And that’s across all parties in Germany. So the citizens wants, needs, likes are not necessarily coinciding with our government overlords. Right.
Tony
Because they’ve lived over the past year. Right. They’ve seen how this stuff can’t meet their needs.
Tracy
Swinging.
Albert
Well, the wall of reality is starting to hit these governments. Like what do you do here? You got a budget, you have to increase your defense. Specifically for the Europeans, you have to increase your defense budget. You still have to maintain your social programs. You still want to push these subsidies for renewables. There’s no money for that.
Tony
It also comes at a time where you have a lot of baby boomers retiring so you don’t have the income taxes on those guys going into your budgets. Right. So you’ve got a gap of say ten years until millennials hit that income level. And so there is a revenue issue and a spending issue and yeah, I think there are so many things in this calculation that it’s just a very.
Albert
These renewable programs are nothing more than tax schemes by the government. They see their budgets dwindling so they know that they can tax and spend a little bit more by throwing out these beautiful narratives like the Paris Accords where nobody but the United States had haired to.
Tony
So whatever we’ll go from there just a little fact and I’m sure I’m not going to become anybody’s friend from this, but I actually co authored a couple of papers with my friend David who was the person who pulled the US out of the Paris Accords in 2017 on behalf of the Trump administration.
Albert
Good. Exactly what they should have done. If people are going to make up their own numbers and have no mechanism for enforcement, then what do we do?
Tony
Exactly. So that’s where I sit in that anyway. Okay guys, really quickly to wrap up. Keith, your first. If we look at the week ahead, what are you looking for in the week ahead? I’m not looking for companies or anything here, but what are you looking for in terms of issues whether in Canada or globally or the US or something? What do you see in the week ahead?
Keith
I mean for one week ignoring any economic data points coming up, we’re finishing quarter end today it’s been risk on for the last ten days. I suspect on Monday morning we might see a bit of a shift in that stance, but that’s it. We continue on this. I keep going back to this path and where’s the next kind of crisis going to escalate from.
Tony
Good call. Great. Tracy, what are you looking for?
Tracy
Well, OPEC meetings this week. I expect no change, so nothing really to get that excited about in the oil sector.
Tony
Even with crude prices continuing to wait.
Tracy
No, I think they’ll stay the course right now because I still think that we did have Russia come out and say they’re cutting 500,000 barrels per day. It was just supposed to be just for March. They pushed that out to June. So I think that OPEC will kind of look at that and want to see how that is factoring into everything as it is.
Tony
Very good. Albert?
Albert
Specifically grains. I’m very curious to see how grains are in the commodities market, and whether food inflation starts to go up because wheat starts going up also. The Ukrainians said that they’re 10% lower on their crop yields. The Russians have been starting to make noise about Cargill. So I’m going to be very curious to see if we can catch a bid and drive itself up into the 800s.
Tony
Okay, very good, guys. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your time. Have a great weekend, and have a great week ahead.
In this podcast episode, BFM 89.9 Market Watch speaks with Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, to discuss the current state of the economy and the stock market. Nash predicts that GDP growth will be around 1% this year, which is a downgrade from previous estimates. He suggests that, due to inflation, firms have been passing on their costs to customers, but with lower volumes expected, there will be a focus on efficiency in the latter half of 2024 and into 2025. Nash also notes that there is a lot of excitement in the tech industry surrounding generative AI, which could bring about efficiencies and revenue opportunities for companies. This has resulted in a rally in tech stocks, despite the lower GDP growth estimates. However, Nash acknowledges that it’s difficult to predict how long this rally will last and whether companies’ valuations will come back down to earth eventually.
Regarding the bond market, Nash suggests that it has historically been more accurate in predicting interest rates compared to central bank prognostications. Currently, bonds are indicating that a recession is coming, but Nash believes there is only a slowdown expected, not a full-blown recession. Furthermore, he suggests that the Fed may be late to respond to this slowdown, as central banks are typically reactive organizations. Nash also discusses the recent performance of safe-haven assets such as the yen, gold, and the US dollar, and suggests that this is due to concerns over the Omicron variant and rising inflation.
Overall, Nash predicts that there will be a focus on efficiency and cautious optimism in the stock market in the coming years. He also suggests that it’s important to remain cautious and vigilant in the current economic climate, as there are a number of uncertainties and potential risks.
Transcript:
BFM
This is a podcast from BFM 89.9. The business station.
BFM
BFM 89.9. 7:06 A.m. On Thursday the 30 March. Good morning. You’re listening to the Morning Run. I’m Shazana Mokhtar with Wong Shou Ning. In half an hour, we’re going to discuss whether the worst is over for the Sri Lankan economy after it secured a 3 billion U. S. Dollar bailout last week from the IMF th. But as always, we’re going to kick start the morning with a look at how global markets closed overnight.
BFM
It was almost perfect. Almost perfect because almost every market was upset one. So let’s name the guilty one. It was the Shanghai Composite Index, which was down 0.2%, but otherwise us all in the green. The Dow was up 1%, S&P 500 up 1.4%, Nasdaq up 1.8%. In fact, if you look at the Nasdaq, this is the shocking thing, right? I thought tech was dead. Growth is over. Well, it ain’t the case because the Nasdaq is up 14% on a year to date basis, this has been the stellar outperformer. Now, if we look at Asian Nikkei was up 1.3%, Hang Seng up 2.1%. Shanghai, like I said, was the one that was down 0.2%. Singapore Straits Times Index, up 0.2%. And our very own FBMKLCI currently up 0.8% to 1420 points.
BFM
All right, so for some thoughts on what’s moving markets we have on the line with us, Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Good morning, Tony. Thanks, as always, for joining us. Now, given recent performance in US. Equities, investors seem to be looking beyond the challenges in the financial sector and recognizing that US economic growth continues to be resilient. Could investors be headed for a rude shock, though?
Tony
Well, it’s a really interesting question. I think those investors who expect rapid GDP growth, I think will be disappointed. We expect GDP growth to be kind of around 1% this year. That’s downgraded from a couple of months ago. And so it’s not necessarily overall economic growth that will happen. There will be secural growth. And what we’ll see through the rest of, say, this year and into 2025 is a focus on efficiency. What’s been happening is, because of inflation, firms have been passing on their margins or been passing on their costs and more than their costs to their customers. Okay. And so with a lower volume. So we’re going to see a focus on efficiency in the back half of 2024 and into 2025. So you will see equity performance in pockets. But in general, we’ll likely see things sideways unless we see the Fed change footing dramatically, which is still not really expected.
BFM
Okay, so, Tony, is that pocket the Nasdaq? Because help me understand this. Right? Since December, it’s actually up 20%. And I thought growth is great. What’s going on?
Tony
Well, in tech right now, there’s a lot of excitement over generative AI. This is ChatGPT and the other kind of applications of generative artificial intelligence. And so investors are looking at companies everything from semiconductors to say, Meta and saying gosh generative AI, which is kind of the next milestone for AI, could really change these companies and could really bring about efficiencies and could really bring about these revenue opportunities. So there’s a lot happening in tech, of course, but in general, when you look at companies like Microsoft that has made the major investment in OpenAI and you look at Google and their new AI kind of chat item that’s out there and then other companies. It’s similar to I know you guys are too young to know this, but in 2000, whenever a company would release a website, their stock would get a bump. And so what we’re seeing right now is whenever companies release an offering or say they are implementing some sort of generative artificial intelligence or ChatGPT or something like that, they’re getting a bump in their equity price.
BFM
Okay, but how long can this rally kind of last? There seems to be a disconnect because you just told us GDP is 1% and then companies earnings probably aren’t going to be that great for the moment. Yet markets seem to ignore the news. Will they all come back down to earth eventually?
Tony
Well, it depends on how you define down to earth. Right? Is down to earth 2018 valuations and 2018 market levels maybe. Again, it really depends on how the market views, I think generally, how the market views activities by central banks and the Fed. So if the Fed has really isolated the banking crisis, which I believe they have, then the Fed can continue to raise rates and then they can continue to shrink their balance sheet. Now they just grew their balance sheet by a lot by bailing out banks. But they can shrink their balance sheet in certain areas, say mortgages, those sorts of things. So that can help to bring some of these valuations down to earth. But keep in mind, we’re going into a presidential election year in 2024. And so it’s really hard to determine, does the US administration not want a recession or do they want a terrible recession so they can be seen to be passing a fiscal stimulus plan. So I don’t know what their calculus is. They can either keep the economy steaming ahead or they can try to drive the economy into the recession so they can be seen to be passing massive stimulus packages.
BFM
Tony, in one of your panel commentaries, a suggestion was made that bond markets were more accurate in predicting rates compared to central bank prognostications. Why is that so? And what are they currently saying about future Fed hikes?
Tony
Well, the first thing kind of every amateur loves to be a central bank prognosticator, so those are rarely right. But bonds. So if you look at a year ago, bonds were telling the Fed that they needed to raise rates because inflation was coming and they waited until too late. Right now, bonds are saying that a recession is coming and the Fed is continuing to tighten and the Fed is always late. Central banks are typically always late because they are a reactive organization and that’s how they’re designed to be. Are bonds going to be absolutely right about a recession coming later in the year? I’m not really sure. Again, we think there’s a slowdown, but we don’t necessarily think there’s a recession. And when we use the R word, we also have to be careful because it can be defined any way we want. Right. Because we had two consecutive quarters of negative growth last year and nobody says that we had a recession last year. So a recession kind of is whatever we define it as today.
BFM
Okay, well in the last two, three weeks there’s been clear, three clear safe haven assets: yen, gold, and US dollar. Do you think these three asset classes still can be safe haven assets?
Tony
It’s really hard for the dollar and gold to be safe haven assets at the same time. For the yen, I think with the change of the governor, the chairman of the BOJ, and Japan of course is already doing this, but I think they have to be very careful. That happens in, I think late next month. And so if they can handle that transition in an easy, seamless way, I think we can probably continue to do that. Gold? I’m not entirely sure. I know there are a lot of people out there pumping gold right now, and there are a lot of people kind of naysaying the dollar right now. Trying to say that Saudi signed some agreement. Saudi Arabia signed some agreement to deal in US dollars, and Russia signed Chinese Yuan and Russia signed an agreement to deal in Chinese Yuan or whatever. But those are very small, nominally very small. So I do think the dollar will remain a safe haven in times of turbulence. Japanese yen probably because currencies are all on a relative basis. They’re all on a relative basis. Gold, I don’t think gold is going to fluctuate a lot, but I think gold investors can be very fickle. So I’d be really careful of that one.
BFM
Tony, thanks as always for the chat. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his take on some of the trends that he sees moving markets in the days and weeks ahead. Commenting there a little bit about the difference in market exuberance in tech sector compared with, I suppose the sentiment that perhaps the US could be heading towards a recession or at least markedly slower growth than what was anticipated early on.
BFM
But I think it’s interesting that Tony brought up the reason why, which is, it’s generative AI, well ChatGPT, right. So much excitement about it and I think questions about is it a disruption or is it an opportunity? But I think markets thinking, hey, which companies are going to get involved in this.
BFM
If you see a company that’s involved in AI, if they have their own AI bot or whatever, oh, that must.
BFM
Be a good thing.
BFM
It reminds me so much of the hype over the Metaverse not that long ago when Facebook or Meta decided to take that angle. And right now, there’s no no one’s talking about the Metaverse metabolism.
BFM
What are you talking about, Charles? Everybody’s forgotten about it. Right. So there are always trends that come and go. Let’s see who really can monetize it. That’s the thing at the end of the day.
In the latest episode of The Week Ahead, Tony Nash is joined by Michael Nicoletos, Tracy Shuchart, and Albert Marko. The panel first explores Russia’s recent announcement that it would use CNY for trade settlement outside of the US and Europe. Michael Nicoletos explains that this move could be viable, but it would depend on whether all countries would accept the terms of trade.
Albert Marko believes that the recent rate hike was the right thing to do and predicted that the Fed would raise rates twice more. He also criticizes the lack of depth in the economics department of some central banks, citing examples from the RBNZ and the ECB.
The panel also analyzes the energy market and predicted when we might see an uptrend. Tracy Shuchart updates the chart and pointed out that crude seemed to break the down cycle a bit, leading to a good week for the commodity. The team answers a viewer’s question about the possibility of energy prices remaining low for a long time and offered their perspectives on the matter.
Finally, the panel discusses what they expected for the Week Ahead. Michael Nicoletos predicts that the energy market would remain volatile, and Tracy Shuchart believes that the focus would be on the stock market, particularly the Nasdaq. Albert Marko highlights the importance of watching the inflation data and suggests that investors should keep an eye on the bond market.
Key themes: 1. Russia ❤️ $CNY. Why? 2. Where does the Fed (and other central banks) go from here? 3. When will we see an uptrend in energy?
This is the 58th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, and welcome to The Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash and today we’re joined by Michael Nicoletos. Michael is the founder and CEO of DeFi Advisors based in Athens. We’re also joined by Tracy Shuchart of Hilltower Resource Advisors and Albert Marko. Guys, thanks so much for joining us. We have a couple of key themes and I was really in questioning mood when I put these together. The first one is around Russia and the CNY. There was an announcement this week. My question really is why? What’s the point of that? Next is where does the Fed go from here? And really where do all central banks go from here, but mainly the Fed, ECB. Albert is going to lead on that and I know Michael has some views on that as well. That’ll be really exciting to talk through. And then we’ll talk to Tracy about energy. For the first part of this week, we saw energy on an uptrend and we’ve seen a little bit of turbulence on Friday. So when do we expect to see an uptrend in energy? So again, guys, thanks for joining us. Michael, I really appreciate you taking the time from Athens to get involved with us today. Thanks so much.
Michael
Thank you. Happy to be here. Great, love to talk to you guys.
Tony
Great. So first, Michael, I know that you know a lot about China and you follow a lot of their economic activity. And I saw you commenting on this Russia announcement about CNY. Of course, they announced that they’ll use CNY for trade settlement outside of the US and Europe, which is Latin America, Africa and Asia is what they said in their announcement. So that’s about 37% of Russia’s exports. So I put a little chart together. I used UN ComTrade data.
This is 2021 data, which is the latest data that UN ComTrade has. So if they’re really doing that, Latin America is 2% of Russia’s trade, Africa is 3% of Russia’s trade. China is 14%. Okay? And so I guess is all of their trade with China settled in CNY? I seriously doubt it. And then Asia is rest of Asia is 18%. And of that about 1%, just under 1% is Taiwan. So I seriously doubt Taiwan would settle in CNY. But what’s obvious from looking at this chart is Europe is more than half of Russia’s trade. So it’s not as if this is necessarily a massive bold announcement that everything is going to be in CNY from here on out.
Tony
It really is just kind of putting a stake in the ground saying I think it’s almost a best efforts thing. So I guess is this viable? That’s really the question. And Michael, you put out this thought-provoking tweet.
You said if that were the case, China would have no issues running out of USDs. Let’s take that on and help me understand why is China trying to do this and what is the US dollar question that you have around this arrangement?
Michael
Well, first of all, again, thank you for having me. It’s great to be here. Now we need to segregate two things: wanting to do something and being able to do something. It’s clear that a lot of countries which are highly dependent on the US dollar for trading would rather be on something else and not be dependent on the dollar. We saw what happened with Russian FX Reserve when the war started. So clearly this was a warning shot or a lot of countries said we could be next if we go into a fight with the US. So clearly there is a tendency and China wants this to happen as soon as possible. Now, for this to happen, there are a lot of things that need to happen first. I’ll give just an anecdotal example because we get all this news flow and all these headlines where one signs an agreement with another and then two people or two prime ministers come up and say we’re going to do it, and everyone takes it for granted, especially on Twitter. It’s either a fanatic from one side or a fanatic from the other side. So again, I agree with everyone who is afraid of this happening in the sense that a lot of people are saying that the end of the dollar is close and that everyone’s going to go to something different.
Michael
I agree there is the willingness. I’m not sure this can happen soon, and I don’t think it can happen without some conflict occurring somewhere. So an example is that in 2018, Iran signed an agreement with China to sell oil in Yuan. Still, after four or five years, the volumes are ridiculously low. So again, there are agreements, but in order to enforce them and in order for them to happen, they take a lot more time than one would want. So Russia had no option. So because of the sanctions, they still sell to Europe, a few things, but they’re trying to outweigh it by selling more to China. And China and Russia are trying to make these agreements where they will be settling in Rubles or in Yuan. And they try to make these agreements. They want to expand them to other countries as well. However, you see, for example, India. India doesn’t want to settle in Yuan or doesn’t want to settle in ruble. They want to settle in Dirhams, which is back to the dollar. So you get all this information and the data, at least until now, does not support that there is a threat to the dollar.
Michael
There is a threat to the dollar in terms of willingness. There is no threat to the dollar in terms of data which says that this is going to happen tomorrow. So I think that this will eventually happen, but I don’t think it will happen soon. I think until it happens, we’re going to see a few episodes. And these episodes are not straightforward, how they will evolve.
Michael
Now, regarding China and its macro, the reason I’m saying what I’m saying and I’m saying that China needs dollars. China has been dependent, first of all, on its real estate, which was like 30% of its GDP. We saw what happened to the real estate. The second leg was it was highly dependent on exports. There’s a global slowdown. So these exports will have some issues. And now, how has China managed to keep this economy running? I’ll give you a few metrics to understand. The US is an economy which is like 26, I think 26 trillion of GDP. And if I’m not mistaken, its M2 is around 21 trillion. In China, the GDP is around 17 trillion, all in dollars. Okay? And M2 is $40 trillion. 40. Four, zero. So what does that mean?
Michael
The China government prints money. Prints money. Prints money. Because there are capital controls, the balloon gets bigger and bigger and bigger, but the money can’t leave, or it can leave for selected few, and I’ll explain how it leaves. And for the rest, because our capital control, the money can’t leave. So it stays in. But this is in one. Some try to buy gold, some try to invoice over invoice to Hong Kong and take it out of Hong Kong. But when the disparity is so big, clearly there is a problem. There’s an NPL problem. Chinese banks are like four times China’s GDP.
Tony
Sorry, NPL is non performing loans.
Michael
Non performing loans. Sorry. Sometimes they’re non performing. You cannot have an M2 of 40 trillion and a GDP of 17 trillion and not have non performing loans. Chinese banking system.
Tony
Sorry, I just want to go back and I don’t mean to interrupt you, but I just want to make sure that people understand. China has currency in circulation of $40 trillion, and they have a GDP of $17 trillion. Whereas the US has a GDP of what you say 24 trillion. I don’t remember what number you’re… 26 trillion. And they have 21 trillion in circulation. Right. So for all of these people who talk about China being this economic model for other people, why does it matter that their M2 is more than double the size of their economy?
Michael
Let me say something. First of all, let’s put something that the US. Is also the global reserve currency. So everyone in the world wants dollars. It’s not like only the US wants dollars. At this stage, less than 10% of the world wants Yuan. So it’s not like everyone wants to get.
Tony
I think it’s 2.1% of transactions or something like that.
Tracy
2.8%?
Tony
2.8, yeah, transactions.
Michael
Okay. I saw a number which was around 6%. Maybe I’m wrong. Okay. But again, it’s a number which is very small.
Michael
All this money that is in the economy, if Chinese people were given the choice, they would be able to take it out. The economy is growing at a faster pace than its potential. I’ll give you a number. Right now, Chinese banks are more than 50% of global GDP in terms of size. The US, I think its peak was 32% in 1985 and Japan’s 27% in 1994. So we’ve passed all metrics in terms of the world dominant power or the dominant economy, if you want to put it this way, being a percentage of GDP in terms of banking assets. So the banking assets clearly have a lot of bad debts in there, which we cannot know what they are because the Chinese economy wants the Chinese government wants to control that. Now, there was a special committee put in place this month, I think, in order to oversee the financial situation in China. So I’m pretty sure they’re a bit worried about it. They want to switch from an export oriented economy to a consumption driven economy. But this is still less than 40% of GDP and this takes a lot of time to go like the US is around 70%, but it takes a lot of time to go for 40%, 70%.
Michael
Now, all this money stays in China. They have no option, they can’t do anything. So it’s an issue. And I’ll give you a ratio. If you take their FX reserve, it’s around 3 point something trillion. If you divide FX to M2, it’s around 7%. So if that money were to want if that money wanted to leave, in theory, only 7% can be covered by FX reserves, the fixed reserves of the government. Just to clarify, the Asian tiger crisis in 97, the tigers collapsed when the ratio went below 25%. So they didn’t have that support to keep it up.
Tony
And just be clear for the US that’s 100%, right?
Michael
The US doesn’t have any problems. So this is something that needs to be addressed and I don’t know how they will address it. They try to make all these agreements so that the one becomes a tradable currency and they can invoicing one. So if the Yuan, in theory was to become the global reserve currency tomorrow morning, their debt would become the world’s problem. Now, they haven’t managed to export that, so they need these dollars to keep that balloon, let’s say, from all the area in the balloon to be taken up. They need these FX reserves to keep the money in and they need to build confidence, and they try to build confidence with narratives and not with data. But again, they don’t have a choice right now, in my opinion.
Tony
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one- and three-month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
https://youtu.be/yYom7Zqezio
Tony
The difference between, say, the onshore and offshore CNY or CNH or whatever, there is a huge difference in perceived value. I would think you can’t change the perceived value of CNY onshore, but offshore, if people are nominating contracts in, say, I’ll say “CNY” in quotes, there is an exchange right there. But again, this M2 issue, which I can’t stress how important that is, I haven’t heard anybody else talking about this. And it’s so critical to understand the fiat value of CNY itself, right, because it’s not limited, and the government because they’re effectively fun tickets with Mao’s face on it.
Tony
Right. And that’s how the PBOC was treating it. And again, when people talk about CNY as a global reserve currency, nobody is looking at the integrity of the PBOC and nobody is looking at how the PBOC manages monetary policy in China.
Michael
I’ll give you anecdotal information. I haven’t checked the number for a few years, but the last time I checked, if you look at the import-export numbers from Hong Kong to China, and you look at the PBOC, and then you go and see the same numbers in the HKMA, you would assume that these four numbers should be the same, not the same. Import should be export and export should be imports. The numbers should be very close. The discrepancy is huge. These numbers do not reconciliate, which means that in some form there is some over invoicing to Hong Kong.
Tony
And you’re not talking about 30%, you’re talking about multiples.
Michael
You’re talking about a lot. It’s ridiculous. So I think if you see the Hong Kong peg has been stable to the upper bound lately because I guess because of the interest rate differential, a lot of money is leaving. So it’s putting pressure on Hong Kong as well. So it remains to be seen what happens there.
Tony
So let me go to Tracy. Tracy, in terms of Russia using CNY, okay? And I know you look at a lot of their energy exports, and of course there’s all this official dumb around sanctions and stuff, but what’s your kind of guess on Russia using either USD or proxy USD, Dirhams or something else as currencies for collecting on energy exports or commodity exports more broadly?
Tracy
Well, first, I think that they prefer dollars no matter what this kind of China saying we want to trade a Yuan. And Russia said, okay, but that was a suggestion. That does not mean that it’s necessarily happening. But what is really interesting is earlier this week, on Monday, Russia laid out conditions for extending the grain, the black seed grain deal, right? Because it was supposed to be for 90 days, but they cut it to 60 days because they’re trying to use that as leverage. And one of the things that they are trying to use as a leverage is they will extend the deal or they’ll give or the other part is they’ll give African countries just free grain instead of selling it. But one of the big conditions for that was for the removal of some Western sanction, specifically to get them back on Swift. And so if that happens, forget it. Everything’s going to be all the trade will be all euros and dollars.
Tony
I thought Swift was terrible and everybody wanted on Swift.
Tracy
I just thought it was important to point out because if they get back on Swift, obviously that’s going to make trading in dollars easy for everything, all commodities across the board.
Tony
Right. And so that goes back to what Michael said initially about kind of these guys really want dollars and all this other stuff. There’s the official dumb of the prime ministers meeting each other, right. And then there’s the factual activities they undertake based on the reality of their position in the world economy. Right. What are your thoughts here?
Albert
I agree with Michael and Tracy to talk about the reserve currency. Switching from the dollar to the Yuan is a joke, to be honest with you. You do have some people in other countries in the Middle East and China and whatnot talking about the death of the dollar and actual serious tone. But anyone with even like a shred of financial backing and insight knows that it’s just an impossible thing. From what it sounds like, it’s more of like a barter system. But that introduces even bigger problems. I mean, you can’t scale it up. There’s no standardization. How do you value things to begin with?
Tony
That’s it.
Albert
Valuing goods and services without using the dollar right now is just an impossibility. And on top of that, you have the political problems that come along with it. I mean, like the Saudis, they want dollars for their oil. They need defense assistance. The Greeks needed US defense assistance. The Turks, as much as they want to make noise again, they’re reliant on the US and NATO for defense and whatnot. These components not just financially, what Michael talked about and decided much more eloquently than I would ever would, but there’s also political components that you just can’t get around in the near term.
Tony
But even if they had a barter system, they would reference the price in dollars, right?
Albert
Well, yeah.
Tony
10 billion.
Tracy
Your chocolate is back to iran did that when they were first sanctioned over a decade ago. They were trading oil for gold, but it was still referencing dollars.
Albert
On top of that, you run the risk of hyperinflation eliminating dollars from your FX reserves and starting to trade away from the dollar. You’re going to end up in a hyperinflation event.
Tony
Right.
Michael
Can I say something? Can I say something? About all these points? I agree with all these points. There’s one more thing. Let’s say you trade in rubles and you trade in Yuan, okay? It means that you’re going to keep FX reserves in rubles or in Yuan. So you feel more comfortable keeping a currency from an authoritarian regime than holding the US. Dollar, which is fully liquid, fully tradable, and anyone in the street will take it at a split of a second. You need many years of track record to build that trust. There are a lot of bad things about the dollar. We agree that I don’t think anyone will say that it’s a perfect mechanism, but right now, it’s very functional, it’s very liquid. And if you want to keep your reserves in US Treasuries, you can sell them at the split of a second. You don’t have any issues with that. If you have Yuan, you’re going to do what? You’re going to buy Chinese government bonds? And how will you sell them if the PBOC calls you and says, it’s not a good idea to sell your Chinese bonds this week? We would prefer you didn’t.
Tony
Bet on the central bank, right? If you’re holding rubles, you’re betting that the Russian central bank is trustworthy. If you’re holding CNY, you’re betting that the Chinese center. So what central banks are out there that you could potentially trust? You have the Fed, you have the ECB, you have BOJ, right? Those are really the only three that are visible enough that have the scale and transparency to manage a currency. And look what the BOJ has done since Abenomics. And on and on and on. Do you trust the ECB? I don’t know. And it becomes, do you trust the ECB or the Fed more? I mean, sorry, but I just don’t trust the ECB.
Michael
I don’t trust ECB. But it’s relative. I mean, you don’t have a problem keeping Euros. Maybe it’s not your preferred choice, but you don’t lose your sleep on holding Euros. Let me put it at this stage.
Tony
That’s exactly right. That’s exactly right. Okay, guys, this is great. Let’s move on to the next thing, because I think we all agreed violently here, but I think we’re going to not agree on the next one, which I’m really excited about. So let’s talk about central banks. And where does the Fed and where do other central banks go from here? So, of course, we saw the Fed raise this week. I think it was the right thing to do. Albert, I know you think it’s the right thing to do. Markets have been up and down since then. And Albert, you’ve said that you expect the Fed to raise two more times, and I want to talk about kind of what’s behind that assertion. And then we get silly statements like this one from the RBNZ in New Zealand, where the chief economist basically says, if inflation expectations don’t fall, we’ll be forced to do more regarding interest rates.
Well, of course. Why wouldn’t you do that. So can you walk us through a little bit, kind of just very quick, because there have been thousands of hours of Fed analysis this week. But why do you think the Fed is going to raise two more times?
Albert
Supercore is trending up and it continues to trend up. Services are on fire. Real estate numbers have been on fire. There’s no slowdown in reality. I mean, even the layoffs have been slow. They’ve come from the tech sector. They haven’t come from construction or any other blue collar jobs at the moment. So until we see that, the economy is going to be red hot and it’s a problem for the Fed, inflation overall.
Tony
Okay, so play devil’s advocate here. Banking crisis, Fed had to bail out banks, all this other stuff. So why isn’t the Fed saying, let’s pause on the banking crisis worries?
Albert
Because banks are fully liquid. The big banks have no problem whatsoever. Some of these smaller banks that have no risk protocols are getting exposed. The tech heavy investments are getting exposed. Everyone knows that higher rates hurts the tech sector the most. And those banks were at fault. They didn’t hedge properly.
Tony
Now you have duration risk. I just want to be clear. I just want to make sure that people understand. You’re not saying that they failed necessarily because they’re tech, but they failed because of duration risk and then their tech depositors took their money out. Right?
Albert
Absolutely. But the banking system overall is not really at risk. They’re just shaking out some of the weaker players. But that was inevitable as interest rates have risen. A lot of the problems stem from the Fed and them guaranteeing four, five, 6% deposits, while the banks only do 1%. They can’t compete with that.
Tony
Right. Michael, I know that you think this wasn’t the right action. So what’s your perspective?
Michael
Well, let me say something first. I believe that it was a mistake, and I’ll say why it was a mistake. I think it’s a mistake when you raise interest rates as a central bank and the banks follow by raising rates on the loan side and on the deposit side, what do you do? You make debt more expensive and then you make people because you have, let’s say, a 5% interest rate on your bank, you create an opportunity cost so people want to save. So you reduce liquidity from the deposit side, and also you reduce loan demand because it’s more expensive, and that creates a slowdown. What happened now, because we had ten years of QE, everyone forgot that there was an interest rate on the deposit side. So the Fed, MDCB and all the central banks raised the interest rate. So the loan side adjusted. That became more expensive, but the deposit side stayed zero at 1%. I don’t know where this is in the US. But it’s really low. At some point, people started waking up when it arrived at 4% and they suddenly started saying, okay, I don’t have any interest on my deposit.
Michael
Let me put my money in the money market fund. How much does it give? Three, four, 5%? I don’t know. It’s a much higher rate. So I think I saw somewhere today that around 5 trillion have gone into money market funds. The numbers close to that. So when you take your money out of the deposit and you take it to a money market fund, this is the equivalent of a bank run for the bank that you’re taking the money, it’s a deposit living. It might not feel like a bank run, but on the balance sheet of a bank, it’s a bank run. So this started happening, and again, because of what you mentioned, they had invested in Treasuries and the duration risk was a mismatch. They didn’t do some of them at least hadn’t done appropriate hedging. They started losing money and they started selling this bond at a loss, although they had them at the Healthy Maturity portfolio where you don’t need to take a mark to market loss. And suddenly both sides of the balance sheet were screwed. Let me put it this way. So a few banks started going under. Now, I know that the central bank has come up and I know a lot of people come up.
Michael
And I do agree that there’s no systemic risk. And I mean that I don’t see a cascade of people losing their deposits. But nevertheless, people feel uncomfortable and try to do something about it. Either take them more money market funds or take their money from a regional bank, if they can. To JP morgan or one of the big guys. This creates a big problem for the economy. Yes, there are some signs which show that the economy is still robust. But I think a lot of leading indicators suggest that the economy is slowing down and most of the metrics coming from the inflation side have collapsed. Yes, core CPI is still high and it’s a lagging indicator, so it will take time for it to come down. But I think that given the stress we saw this week and why do I say that? Because we look at the US as a closed system. It’s not. When you raise interest rates as the Fed and you are the global reserve currency, you create a global credit crunch. You saw that last week. The Fed had come out with swap lines for everyone. You saw today that foreign banks borrowed 60 billion in liquidity, the ones that didn’t have a swap line.
Michael
And we see today Deutsche Bank being in the headlines and Commerce Bank being in the gate. So you might think that the US system is okay, but it creates a domino effect, which we’re starting to see. We saw Credit Suisse going under in a deal, which was not, I’d say, what we would think of. I believe that that deal in combination with the high rates is probably the root of the problem in the sense that they destroyed the capital structure, they wiped out all the 80 ones without wiping out the equity holders. Which means now that in Europe everyone’s wondering if my 81 is of any value. And that creates another uncertainty in combination with the higher interest rates and the stress that has started to build up. I think we’ve passed the moment where, okay, it could be debatable if they did right or if they did wrong. The US bond market is saying that it was wrong. It was a mistake. The two years at 370. And so the bond market went from the one side and the Fed went on the other side.
Tony
Why? The two year at 270 is important.
Michael
373, 70. Sorry, yeah. Three seven. Because if in two years you’re getting 3.7% and the Fed fund rate is five someone, it means that someone is buying a two year bond getting much less. Which means what? It means that the market is saying rate cuts are coming soon. So the market is saying there’s no way we can keep it this way. And the Fed is saying the opposite. Historically speaking, the bond market has been right. If you take it into context, it could be this time that they are wrong. It feels to me, at least from the stress I look in global markets and not in US. Only, that things are getting a bit out of hand. And having a bank like Credit Suisse go under, which is a big bank, and having all the central banks come in together on a Sunday night to give up swap lines, it means that the stress in the system, it’s much bigger than with yeah, but Sunday night.
Tony
Is the best time to get swap lines. Okay, so you talk about European banks, but we had Mueller from the ECB out this week saying, I wouldn’t worry about a financial crisis in Europe.
So we have ECB guys out there going, yeah, Credit Suisse happened and we know Deutsche is an issue, but I wouldn’t worry about that in Europe. So I think we’re seeing statements from Yellen, the Fed, the ECB, other guys who are saying, no, there’s nothing to see here, but then we see things kind of blowing up all over the place. Right, and then we have a question especially specifically for you, Michael, from a viewer who said, I’d like Michael’s thoughts on the EU, particularly banks, pensions and future growth prospects. So can you talk us through? How do these banking issues in Europe flow through to European pensions?
Michael
First of all, let’s say something. We’re talking about the US and.
Albert
Duration.
Michael
Risk on the bond losses. Let’s remind everyone that at the peak of QE 18 1818 trillion worth of bonds had negative yield, and these were mostly Europe and Asia. So pension funds and banks in Europe which are forced to buy these bonds were buying bonds. With a negative yield. So they were losing on day one these bonds from -50 basis bonds have gone to two and 3%, the losses on these are much greater and pension funds will have much bigger issues than the ones that have in the US we were talking about a pension crisis in the US. But the European one is pretty bad too. Just look at in France, they raised this week the year that you take your pension from 62 years old to 64 and the country is burning to the ground. Now, you understand that it’s 62 to 64. It’s not like they made 62 to 70 years old. So it’s very delicate. And the situation in Europe, given the negative bonds, given the interest rate hikes and given one more thing in Europe, given that Europe doesn’t have the dollar and it has the Euro was mostly a supply driven issue.
Michael
It means that we were importing oil and energy from Russia and from everywhere and all these commodities were priced in dollars. So as a Europe tell, the price of these commodities were more expensive. So inflation was a supply driven problem. I think there’s a report, I think from the San Francisco Fed two thirds of the inflation was supply driven in Europe. So when inflation is supply driven and you raise rates to stop it, you’re using the wrong medicine to stop the problem. You need to crash the economy in order for this to stop. This is not really efficient. Now, in the meantime, you have yields going higher and now the yields that we see on our screen on Bloomberg or anywhere are not the yield real yields because the ECB is in and tries to contain the spreads. If you left the market low, I’m pretty sure the spreads would be much, much wider. And you have the new thing which came up this week when the Swiss National Bank decided that tier one, additional tier ones would be written off and equity holder, an equity holder would be saved. Now, imagine what happened. You probably saw what happened this week, all the 80 ones in Europe got smashed because everyone says I don’t trust this instrument.
Michael
I don’t know. Yes, central bankers will come out.
Tony
These are the cocoa bonds that came out in I think, 2013, right?
Michael
Yeah, there are a few of them, yeah, but it’s a cocoa, it’s contingent convertible. It means that they’re convertible be converted to equity if something happens. Let me put it as simple as it is, but these are supposed to be wiped out before the equity. So the question is what prevents for something else similar to happen again, the ECB came out, BoE came out, they said this is not accepted. But the fear and the is now everywhere. So you have a combination of factors. You have a factor that this ECB has been raising rates when I don’t think it’s a proper mechanism to address inflation in europe, they’ve created a slowdown. If you see Germany’s numbers and everywhere’s numbers in Europe, the economy is slowing down fast. You have a discussion on the capital structure of lending, which is very critical in the way companies and banks go and borrow themselves and all this at the same time and when the US. Is draining liquidity from the global system. I think the situation in Europe is very tough. Again, after 2008, I don’t think we have a systemic risk on our hands and the risks never materialize in the same place.
Michael
But I think things are about to get tough and it’s going to be much worse before it gets any better.
Tony
So what I would offer back, and I think everything you’re saying is valid and Albert Tracy, let me know if you want to think about this, but in the US. We have a presidential election next year. There is almost no way that we will see the US economy crash in the next 24 months because Janet Yellen won’t let that happen. And so we may see issues in Europe and we may see Europe and the rest of the world suffer based on US interest rate and monetary policy. But the US. Will do everything, the current administration will do everything they can to keep the US. From crashing in that time. And I’m not just saying this because they’re Democrats, Republicans would do the same thing to keep the economy afloat in the year before an election.
Albert
Albert, what do you think about that? It depends on what is happening specifically with debt ceiling, right? I mean, Janet Yellen and the Biden administration would gladly let the economy sink, the market sink anyways if they could blame it on escape both the GOP on the debt ceiling not getting hyped. So that’s definitely something you need to watch over the next six months because it is campaign fundraising season and they can’t really agitate their voters all that much, to be honest with you. Certainly the political component is going to be high over the next twelve months.
Tony
Okay, great. Let’s move on. Thank you for that, guys. Let’s move on to energy.
Michael
Can I say something?
Tony
Absolutely. Yes, please.
Michael
What appears to be happening right now, at least in my eyes, is that the Fed is using interest rates to attack inflation and it’s using the balance sheet to give liquidity. So these two do not go in the same direction at this point. The question is if they can do this for a long time. It doesn’t feel to me that they can. But at least right now they’re giving liquidity on the one side and they’re raising rates on the other side. I’m not sure they can do this for us.
Albert
We’ve actually talked about that at length here. But it’s not the Fed. It’s really the treasury. Sterilizing QT They’re coordinating.
Michael
They’re coordinating.
Albert
Of course they coordinate for the most part, but sometimes in the last six months or the last twelve months. Powell and Yellen have been at odds with each other in policy. So this is a lot of the reasons why the markets has just been topsy turbine. Don’t understand which way it’s going because you have conflicting policy and agendas from the treasury and the Fed.
Michael
So you feel it’s conflicting or do you think it’s coordinating? They’re doing it on purpose. That’s what I haven’t figured out yet.
Albert
I think the want to eliminate excess cash in the system is coordinated but I think the policy of how they’re doing that is conflicting and that’s going to be a bigger problem, say second half of this year.
Michael
Okay, sounds logical, but it’s one of these things that pass on me. I don’t know if they’re doing it on purpose or if they do any as you say, because they’re using other tools and they step on each other doing so.
Albert
My rule of thumb is to side with incompetence rather than conspiracy.
Tony
Okay.
Michael
It’s not conspiracy when the Fed chairman talks with the treasury guy?
Albert
No, I am absolutely in your corner on this one. I absolutely believe that they talk and coordinate things for sure. I just think that their agenda at the moment doesn’t line up 100% of the time.
Michael
Okay.
Tony
Very good. Okay, thanks for that guys. Tracy, let’s talk about energy for a while. Up until Friday we had a pretty good week for crude. I thought we were breaking that down cycle a bit, but we’re seeing some chop in energy markets. And so we had a question for you from a viewer saying when do you see oil and natty in a sustainable uptrend?
Tracy
Yeah, nat gas is a whole other issue. I think it’s going to be very difficult really. We’re trading in the range that we’ve been trading in most of the time for the last 20 years or so. That $2, $3 range has been very comfortable for nat gas. We produce a lot of nat gas. Yes, we are building out LNG facilities and yes, we have had problems with freeport and such. I just think that we probably won’t really see a big spike in prices unless we see another energy crisis in Europe, do you know what I’m saying? And then we’re going to have to force to sell even more. So for right now I would kind of get comfortable with nat gas about that range. But if it starts breaking above like 375 or so I would start getting bullish. But for right now, just kind of in that area where it’s been comfortable most of the time. Right. So I think it’s going to be a while for that. So we got to kind of assess the situation in Europe as we get to summer air conditioning use and to next winter if they have a bad winter, I think it’s going to be a few more months at least down the line for natural gas as far as oil is concerned.
Tracy
Brent said about $75 right now, saudi Arabia would like it around 80, 90 range is where they’re really comfortable. I think right now what we’re going to have to get through is we’re going to have to really assess we need more time to assess Russia’s situation. They just extended that 500,000 barrel a day cut out until June. The latest records do show that they actually have cut that much so far in March. So the cut is happening, which also means that they’re experiencing kind of a pullback in demand, even though they have really it’s more on the product end rather than, I should say, rather than the crude oil end, because they have floating storage, they have ships piling up everywhere with product. And so I think that will help clear their excess product a little more. So it’s really on the product end and that we also have to see everybody’s freaking if the Fed again decides to stop raising rates or pause. I think commodities really like that situation just because of the cost of carry and transportation and storage for all these commodities is very expensive. Right.
Tony
Because.
Tracy
You get bank credit lines for that. Right. And so I think that’s putting downward pressure on markets right now. And then obviously fear of recession is kind of kicking in again after the recent bank crisis in the US. And in Europe. And so I really don’t think that we’ll see higher prices. I mean, typically this is the time of year we do start seeing higher prices heading into high summer demand season. But we’ve also been seeing, I think everybody expected China. China demanded to shoot up right away. That’s taking longer than anticipated, which I kind of have been saying that on this show for quite a few months.
Tony
Long time. Exactly.
Tracy
So I think that there’s a lot of factors involved right now. I do think, again, it’s higher for longer. Historically still, prices at $70 is high for oil. The market is crashing by any means, just coming down from geopolitically induced spike last year. I think it’s higher for longer. And definitely I could see prices go into that $110 range, but likely into 2024. Not really this year, obviously, unless something happens. Okay.
Michael
Do you think if the Fed poses or whatever reason, or if they do a rate cut, do you think that commodities will explode or do you think.
Tracy
I think if they cut, commodities would get really excited. I think if they pause, they would get excited. Right. I think we would see a rebound in a lot of these commodities, grains, things of that base metals and industrial metals and oil. But if they start cutting, then I think that they’ll really like that because then they don’t have to throw product at the market because they can’t afford to store it.
Michael
Thank you.
Albert
I’m actually quite bullish for oil in the near term. One of the reasons is I’ve heard through the grapevine that the Chicanery and the futures market and I’m reading that hedge funds and other money managers sold the equivalent of 139,000,000 barrels of oil in futures over seven days a week and a half ago. So, I mean, to me, it’s like they’re almost out of ammo when it comes to suppressing oil at the moment. And any little flare up or anything is probably going to be bullish for oil and probably shoot right back up to 80.
Tony
So what could that be, Albert?
Albert
It could be a natural event. It could be weather, I mean, some kind of economic policy stimulus from Europe coming out there, or even the United States going into, like Tracy was saying, the travel season and whatnot. It could be anything, really. I mean, I think the market is just begging for some kind of bullish signal for them to run it up.
Tony
Okay. And Tracy, if you’re sitting in Europe because energy prices were such a factor in 2022, what are the main things that you’re worried about? Their nat gas storage. Has that been depleted much over the winter?
Tracy
No, it wasn’t depleted. They just had to start injections again because what we are seeing is that this really started in fall of 2021. Everybody kind of forgets that the crisis started before the Ukraine invasion, but what we saw is industry start to shut down, especially industry like smelting and glass blowing and things of that nature that require a lot of energy. Right when nat gas prices started spiking, and that was well before that summer of 2022 spike, they didn’t need to spike much where we saw a lot of those industries shut down. So what we’re seeing now is that since prices have been muted for long enough now, now we are seeing manufacturing and whatnot pick up with the numbers came in overnight for Europe. We’re seeing manufacturing pick up again. We’re starting to see some drawdowns finally in storage. Spain in particular has really ramped up a lot of their industry that had shut down prior. I have to say, natural gas prices are still more expensive than they typically are in Europe. Even at this price, right, they’re still higher than normal. So this is also why we’re not seeing a flurry of activity.
Tracy
As soon as prices came down, you have to realize that relative to where they were, they’re still generally high. But we are seeing, I think people are getting used to kind of this price range for Ttf, which is Dutchnet gas. And so we are seeing in manufacturing and industry pick up again in some of these traditional industries that require a lot of energy. So we’ll have to see, and if that really picks up, companies are going back to where they went to fuel instead of gas. We’re seeing them go back to gas now. And so that’s really what I’m watching on the energy end. Is this just one off, kind of, or does this continue throughout the summer?
Michael
Okay.
Tracy
Sorry.
Tony
And then everybody’s favorite energy secretary, Jennifer Grandholm, had some comments about refilling the Spr this week. Can you fill us in on that? And what does that mean for markets?
Tracy
Basically, she said we’re not filling in the Spr, refilling the Spr anytime soon.
Michael
Sorry.
Tracy
She said a few years, which means a lot more years unless there’s a change of administration and a policy change. But I would say from until the election not going to see an Sbr, which makes sense because they know that if they fill the Spr, what’s going to happen? Oil prices are likely going to go higher, and they can’t afford that going heading into an election year. And so I think that’s really why they kind of pushed that off. That’s kind of what’s going on with that.
Michael
Can they be saying something and doing something else?
Tracy
Yeah, but we would know if they’re actually filling the Spr or not because it’s a public auction.
Tony
Okay, why don’t we just stop calling it the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and just call it the Petroleum Reserve? Nothing strategic about the way they’re using the Tactical Petroleum Reserve.
Tracy
They’re using it as a piggy bank. Right.
Albert
Instead of strategic, you use slush fund, petroleum reserve.
Tony
Right, exactly. Okay, guys, one last question, I guess. What are you looking for in the week ahead? We’ve had a lot of volatility over the past couple of weeks. Michael, what are you looking for in the week ahead?
Michael
I’m focusing on central banks and interest rates. I think the issue will be banks. Again, I think the big stress in the economy is private markets and not public markets. BCS, private equity, all these investments need to do write downs. It will take a bit more time for them to do that. It doesn’t happen that fast. They don’t adjust as fast as public market. I believe that bank we will see that stress mostly on banking stocks. A because the cost of funding goes up, b because the capital structure is put into a discussion. C because they continue to raise interest rates. And there is a stress within, I think, focusing on what happens to the banks and to the two central banks. Again, we’re looking at the same thing, unfortunately, but the problem is not in the same place. But these are the indicators you need to look. I believe that you’re going to see inflation coming down fast. That’s my expectation. Maybe I’m wrong, but if you see inflation coming down, it’ll make the life much easier for central bank. Yeah.
Tony
And for all of us. Do you expect to see, like VCs, for example, some VCs close up because of the cost of funds and a lot of these banking issues, or do you think it really doesn’t impact them much?
Michael
I don’t know if they’re going to close down because it’s a 510 year investment. It depends if they can reinvest or if they have to liquidate. But I think funds that are coming up to their maturity, they need to liquidate or they need to roll over. It’s going to happen at a much lower price than they thought, or they’ll have to wait one or two years more. So I think that stress is going to show up somewhere.
Tony
Tracy, what do you see over the next week?
Tracy
I think it’s type based markets. There’s not really a lot coming up as far as oil is concerned. OPEC meeting is the following week, which we already know they’re going to do nothing. So really, next week, end of month stuff, there’s not a whole lot going on in the commodities world, really newswise next week. So I think probably see the same sideways action.
Tony
Okay, great. Robert, what are you looking for? Let me ask a little bit of a kind of loaded question with that. As springtime is coming in in Ukraine, do we expect that to heat up at all as things warm a bit there?
Albert
Well, yeah, I would say yes. Geopolitically? I think it would be advantageous for Russia to do something to stay face. Absolutely. But for the week ahead, I think the narrative shift I’m watching for the narrative shift of interest rates to banking, like Michael was talking about, I think Yellen is most likely going to come out and try to guarantee 500,000 in deposits and even talk about 750 and get it up there and just get the crisis over and done with. So that’s what I’m looking for.
Michael
Okay.
Tony
Wow. Would that require congressional no, they can use emergency powers. Everything’s. Emergency power is great. Perfect. Okay, thanks, guys. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your time and all your insight, and have a great week ahead.
Explore your CI Futures options in this March Madness Promo: bit.ly/3T7Htlr
This Week Ahead features a discussion on banking systemic risk versus inflation with Hugh Hendry, Tracy Shuchart, and Albert Marko. The group covers recent events in the banking sector, including Credit Suisse and the potential risks posed to the global economy, the impact of higher interest rates on crude prices, and China’s growing diplomatic role.
To start, Hugh expresses concern over the lack of GDP per capita growth since the Great Financial Crisis and the failure of the remedial work undertaken since then, labeling the current environment as “The Great, Great Depression”. He warns that raising interest rates in this environment could be disastrous and discusses the creation of credit and the muted credit cap, as well as the contraction of the M2 series.
Hugh questions the need for central bankers and believes that the totality of credit creation should be examined. He suggests that the bond market has been more accurate in predicting rates than central banks and he notes that there are persistent trade surplus nations that create surplus capital, which is being invested in the United States, resulting in asset price inflation. He argues that the problem lies in the flow of capital rather than the currency (the US Dollar) itself.
Next, Tracy highlights how rising rates are affecting the prices of commodity cargoes. The discussion digs into the possible impact of falling cargo rates on the supply and pricing of commodities. Meanwhile, the discussion anticipates that the upcoming CPI report could inform the Fed’s expected raise of another 25bps at this month’s meeting. They also discuss the ECB’s recent 50bps raise to offset European inflation.
Finally, Albert leads a discussion about China’s shift from an aggressive “wolf warrior” foreign policy to one of a peace negotiator. The discussion explores the motivations behind China’s recent diplomatic efforts to negotiate a Saudi-Iran agreement and facilitate a Russia-Ukraine peace agreement. They also explore the position and potential level of involvement in these discussions by the United States.
Key themes: 1. Banking systemic risk vs inflation 2. Higher rates & commodity cargoes 3. China: From wolf warrior to peace negotiator?
This is the 57th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. My name is Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Hugh Hendry. I don’t think he needs an introduction, but Hugh is a founder of Eclectical and Macro, as well as being a hotelier in St. Bart’s and a lot of other things. We’ve also got Tracy Shuchart with Hilltower Resource Advisors. And we’ve got Albert Marko. Guys, thank you so much for joining us. So much has happened over the last two weeks in the banking sector and especially over the weekend with Credit Suisse. So looking forward to a lot of this discussion.
We’ve got some key themes today. The first is banking systemic risk versus inflation. As the Fed meets, and as we sort out a lot of these banking backstops, I think there’s a lot of discussion about which is more important right now. I think a lot of it is focusing on banking systemic risk panic, but we’ll talk through that with Hugh. We also want to talk about higher rates and commodity cargo prices. Tracy brought some thoughts about that earlier, I guess, over the weekend. So we want to talk through that today. And then we’ve seen China kind of come forward as kind of a negotiator for the Middle East and Russia, Ukraine and other things. And I want to talk to Albert about kind of how real is that, how much of a good faith negotiator is China in those areas?
So, Hugh, first of all, thank you so much for joining us. Hasn’t been easy to get you, and we’re really glad to have you. So we really appreciate having you here. Great. So first off, banking systemic risk versus inflation. Everybody knows the Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic and the BTFP stuff here in the US. All the Credit Suisse and UBS stuff happened over the weekend. What are you watching there? Like, what’s your biggest worry? Is it these 81 bonds? What are you focused on there?
Hugh
Well, I have been focused for some time. My focus has been this impending car crash, which is now becoming more apparent perhaps to the many. And my concern had been Fed by my observation, my belief that we’ve been operating in a silent form of depression ever since the remedial work undertaken since the great financial crisis. Let’s date that to March 2009. It has been a spectacular failure. I will share with you a chart. Maybe we’ll be looking at it now. And it comes from who does it come from? I want to say I always get these names mixed up. Michael Klein. I think the wonderful economist academic works of Michael Barr, doesn’t work with Michael Pettis, but collaborated on trade wars, of political class wars. And he shows the indexing of US GDP per capita from the starting point of the Great Depression. And likewise, he superimposes a similar series for now, if you will, from that March 2009 and over the period spanning to almost 15 years us. Per capita GDP in the Great Depression went from 100 to almost 190. And this time around we’ve gone from 100 to 115. So I said silent.
We should call it the Great Great Depression that no one is allowed to speak of. We went through the pandemic environment to realize that there are some terms where there’s almost a censorship and it would seem that in US financial literature the word depression has been assigned to the past and not to the present. So raising interest rates in a Great Depression has filled me with dread and I think that is what has come to light in the last ten days or so.
Tony
So when we look at the amount of credit that’s been created since the financial crisis and kind of the payoff in terms of GDP per capita, is that one of the variables that concerns you most? I know it’s everything and I think we’re all looking at everything, but it seems to me that the payoff for every dollar of debt incurred by the government and by individuals is rapidly kind of falling down.
Hugh
Yeah, I would say that the credit cap has been muted. And again, I make a distinction between sovereign dollar creation and by that I mean the dollar creation from onshore domestic US banks entering into new loan agreements and if you will, printing dollars versus the dollar creation. I would call it non sovereign, which is the Euro dollar which is taking place offshore and where with the ability to provide collateral, new dollars will be created. Now, the Fed I believe, is less interested in the latter and I believe over the last 40 years the latter, these non sovereign dollar creation have come to be really much greater than the sovereign onshore and the credit provision there has been really to fund assets and it’s funded asset price inflation. And I think market participants have been very aware that that credit spigot got turned off, let’s say 18 months ago very dramatically. So I would say it’s been contracting. And now we’re seeing I don’t like discussing the M two series because I think it takes away from this non sovereign creation, but we’re seeing that the onshore M Two series is now contracting as well. We don’t have much per capita GDP augmentation to show for for that.
Tony
Right. So so wouldn’t, after all of the creation of money in and I would say through, largely through government spending and obviously Fed balance sheet in 2000 and 22,021, isn’t this kind of a normal reaction, kind of a normal medium term reaction to that much creation and distribution of money into economies?
https://youtu.be/yYom7Zqezio
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics. We forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices. Every Monday morning. We do new economics forecasts for 50 countries once a month within CI Futures. We show you our error rates. So every forecast, every month, we give you the one and three month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. Cfutures 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.
Hugh
Well, again, it’s kind of crossing my arms. It’s a funny money conversation.
I keep saying, I go to Starbucks and ask for a caffeine latte, and I promise to pay it in bank reserves, and they kick me out. The Silicon Valley Bank was acutely sensitive because their corporate customers are startup businesses, which are very much at the riskier end of the spectrum. And typically that bank would be funding between the last six to three months. Your cash is disappointing. You need another fundraise.
But the bank steps in and it holds you over. There was no prospect of more fundraising, so it was kind of exaggerated. But I think with the other banks, what you’re seeing is that and with Silicon, you were seeing that their assumptions with regard to operating cash flow from their client, from their clients, just was not being met. That actually the economy is weaker. That we’ve we’ve, again, within this kind of silent depression, we’ve imposed I mean, I don’t dispute we’ve imposed structurally higher prices, but without again, without the legacy of a dynamic of credit creation, which left, like, a really strong economy, which was to be tamed and to be tempered by the Federal Reserve’s oversight. To my mind, it’s been a muted economy for the real folk. If we move a kilometer or so outside the financial centers of the world, the real world just seems rather grim. And that real world is being hammered by higher rates. And again, with the prevalence of debt, I keep saying, if debt was one X GDP in the so we’re taking out decimal points, then I’d say we’re four X today. And so the Fed at 5% rates is really the Fed at 20% rates in the 70s.
If I can get away with that kind of leap and you break things and we’re breaking things, that’s been my concern. My concern is, I believe, that the depression has been fueled by Bernanke. Back in was it 2013 when we had the taper tantrum, where he encouraged the private sector to raise rates on his behalf? We had seven and a half percent adult unemployment. He was saying, Heavens, I’m beginning to worry that the economy is getting overcooked. The market doubled ten year rates. You know what? The economy hit a wall. Then we had John Yellen, tentatively, in 2015, trying to raise rates again. Why? There was never this economy which was running away. And then you had Jay, and Jay is just being determined from his first day in office to kind of be some kind of volcker guy, what was it called? The Duke of York. He marched them up to the top in 2018 and promptly had to take them down and then he came back again and finally I think I feel like particularly the American economy has been crucified on the cross of Jay’s miscommunication. During the pandemic, he explicitly said on daytime television that they were printing money.
I get why he said it. He was saying it to alleviate the real fear of that time. But it was I mean, I’m going to say it, it was a lie. And so he now owns the price, I would say. Is it causality? Is it something I don’t think the inflation that we saw is monetary. I say it was a supply side thing. I think it will abate because the monetary power will not be there to perpetuate it. But Jay couldn’t escape that. He was the guy who said I’m printing money and then you had an explosion in prices. And so they’re fighting desperately to kind of preserve or reign back their reputation. But it’s the economy and these banks and other actors which are feeling that.
Tony
Yeah, I guess so if the Fed is kind of trying to bring back in their reputation I know this seems a little bit random, but who has a better reputation? Like all central banks have terrible reputations right now. No. So are they in fact the best of the major central banks or are there other people that are more credible? ECB raised 50 basis points last meeting. So is that a credible trajectory?
Hugh
There’s only one thing we know for certain that the ECB will raise rates at the wrong time.
And again, it’s like the pushback I also have is just tell me the last time any central bank made a glorious decision, you thought, gee, these guys, they got it, they got it. Maybe it was 1994 and there was a kind of preemptive hike by Greenspan maybe, but 1994 is a long time ago. So in terms of do we need central bankers? Given I mean the American central bank is the regulator of the onshore banking sector and I maintain that we should be investigating and spending a close amount of money to examine the totality of dollar creation, credit creation because I believe it’s tremendously larger outside the review of the central bank. And then finally, who does it better? Well, the inversion of the treasury curves, not just the US treasury, but it’s a global phenomenon. If you’ve seen what the German curve has been doing, especially the last really if following that huge eruption in the UK pension market when we had the fake budget or whatever, when you have an inversion, it is not the bond market telling you it’s best guess of where rates will be. They create the inversion via a desire to hedge against the expectation of negative consequences like unforeseen consequences of Federal Reserve tightening in a world of tepid demand.
And in a world of great leverage, the bond market has been spot on. Those inversions are at record levels. And again, we are seeing a record form of banks going wrong and needing record forms of financial intermediation from the central bank to fix it.
Tony
Right. So it’s interesting when you say do we need central banks? I know that’s a hypothetical question, but especially over the past week and a half, as we’ve seen the Fed come in to backstop bank runs, that’s precisely the reason why central banks were created. Is that right?
So they kind of are with this BTFD, they’re kind of doing what they were created to do. And I guess with the Swiss central bank, what they did over the weekend, they’re kind of doing what they were created to do. Although nobody loves the fact the kind of bank bailout discussion nobody loves that, but they’re kind of doing in the purest form what central banks were created to do. Is that a fair categorization.
Hugh
At the tail end of the process? Yes. I don’t dispute what they’re doing. I wouldn’t ask them not to do it. Right. But I feel that especially this time around, they are the malignant force that is causing the failure in the host banks. I mean, Credit Suisse credit Suisse has been a problem that should have been addressed at least a year ago. Oh, yeah.
Tony
It surprises nobody. I mean, the fact that anybody’s surprised is surprising.
Hugh
And there’s no bailout. Even if you bought the equity on Friday, I think you lost 60%. The equity lost just about everything. And of course, that spread into one of the tiers of the kind of quasi debt debt structure. So again, we accept that. The wider question is just why is it happening and why is it caught out the central banks? There’s no dispute that the central banks are responding. And I don’t take huge exception to how they’re responding. I take exception to the fact that they’ve been the custodians of a if you were to accumulate the myths in potential GDP you know this, Tony, that in the 30 years up to 2007, most kind of g seven. Economies outside the phenomenon of China were kind of compounding like 2.7%. And it’s been more like one and a half in those years since then. So the miss is now the equivalent of the entirety of the Chinese economy. It’s a big mess. I think it stems from a change in the risk seeking behavior of the horse bank supporting the euro dollar system. They had a near death experience and they’ve been regulated to bring it down.
Okay. And secondly, it’s been periodic preemptive hiking by the central bank, maybe with a noble cause, but actually ending up doing wrong. Those those two functions. I actually believe at the end of this, I think we’re I think the generational time clock where you get profound, you know, like ray Dalio talks about these things, you know, 75 years. He has different clocks, and they all have like, a variation of 25 years, give or take. But we’re in one of those variations in terms of where we look at the underlying monetary system. We had a gold standard. It failed. Great Depression. People talk about bread and woods. I think bread and woods was a kind of in between. It didn’t really work. Private banks went, this doesn’t work. Let’s work it to our ends. And I think that Eurodollar system from was it NatWest Bank in London in 1956 or something, I think that system is near its death as well. I think we’re getting to the point where we’ll have to invent a better way now that’s not to kind of come back and see the dollar is doomed. It’s actually that the system that America accepts is really no longer doing it.
It’s not an unfair advantage. It’s the opposite. You have to really question why they support it. What do I mean by that? Why they support being the recipient of the world’s surplus capital inflows? Why are the world’s capital inflows going into the US. Where they have absolutely no desire for investment beyond the domestic pool of savings? Okay? And so the result of that is we get profound asset price inflation. We turn an economy famed for its entrepreneurial ship, and we turn it into an economy of speculation. That speculation is being unwound with the advent of GDP. When debt accumulates or debt to GDP rises, then you end up there’s a danger that you’re overstating the current GDP at the expense of future GDP. And as you overstate growth, you kind of create a fictional wealth in terms of the price of property, the price of price of stock market, the price of private equity. And it’s not done through kind of sinister means. It’s a miscalculation. And the US. Now, for the last heavens, the last 25 years, we’ve had, what, three or four events within 25 years that in a normal distribution, if there is such a thing, you’d expect these things to be spread out over 70.
We got four events that you would expect to kind of come to bear over maybe 100 and 5200 years. And yet we’ve seen it within 25. It’s no longer doing the US. Any favors. And so I think ultimately the US. Will have to look to perhaps mimic China and say and put up barriers whereby you cannot be the recipient of all these surplus capital flows. I think there would be a better place for that, but that’s perhaps for another time.
Tony
That’s really interesting.
Albert
I’d like Tony. I don’t want to be the one to defend central bankers, by all means, but how much of it is political influence for central bankers to combat supply side inflation? I mean, voters in each of these countries are facing 2020 5% inflation on goods and services and the way I look at it is those politicians need to get reelected. And for them to push back on the central banks to try to do something to combat inflation is the way that I would work it.
Hugh
I agree. It’s an agency to my mind, this is an agency problem and not an economics problem. I mean, it’s creating an economics problem, but it’s the agency of government. It’s the government being the principal and turning to its agent, the Federal Reserve, and saying, you guys messed up and messing up. You affect me, okay? And if you affect me, I’m really going to affect you. So do something about it. It’s mafioza. But my point is this is not an economics problem. Inflation I was saying she was going to have all my tombstone. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, okay?
Tony
Many tombstones, not just yours. Yeah. So, Albert, what you brought up about the euro dollar kind of out kind of outlasting its use. What are your thoughts on that? I know you know the euro dollar inside and out. Can you talk us through your view on that?
Albert
The problem that I have with that argument is there’s just no alternative at the moment. And I understand what she was talking about is, yeah, maybe we should look at a different alternative. And I think I was on this podcast maybe two weeks ago where saying that theoretically the Anglo sphere could come up with a digital currency founded by the dollar and whatnot to come up with a new system. But these are all theoretical policies that I don’t know how would they work. I don’t know what it would do to the economies, how things would even transpire at that point. There’s a lot of unknowns, in my opinion. But I don’t think that the euro dollar I don’t think even Hugh believes that the euro dollar is in any danger of going away in the foreseeable future.
Tony
Right now, the Euro, if we go back 20 some years, the Euro was supposed to kind of be that offshore mechanism, but it never really worked that way. Partly because the Dutch and the German.
Albert
Different national interests tony the different national interests, different financial policies, different political interests. It just doesn’t work right.
Hugh
But it’s also tony but it’s this point that Europe is founded still upon the rock of Germany, Holland, et cetera. And these are persistent trade surplus nations that create surplus capital, and that surplus capital is invested in the United States. The housing crash of 2007, 2008, the majority of mortgage credit was provided by European banks, not American banks. So again, Europe and China, Asia are less open to the flow of capital than principally the US. And the United Kingdom. I don’t believe to Alba’s point, that we have to invent a new currency. I don’t believe it has to be digital or physical or, God forbid, commodity. There just has to be a greater regulation in the conduct and behavior of trading blocks with regard to each other.
Albert
I agree. There’s a problem where Yellen is the one she’s done this before in 2013, where she drives up US. Dollar policy and hoping that capital comes back into the United States to keep asset prices elevated just purely for her own labor ideas and political leanings. So that’s something like for me, if you don’t put any controls to stop yelling and others from doing this, they’re going to just keep doing it over and over again. We’re going to be stuck in a doom loop of capital flows coming into the United States.
Tony
Okay, but that’s interesting. What you said, Albert and Hewitt, you said about almost trade flow. So it’s the flow that is the problem. It’s not necessarily the currency is that my point.
Hugh
And again, there are achievable. Here we are, and we want to talk about Greta’s recent Silicon Valley, but it’s buried so deeply the underlying problem, which has been with us for at least 25 years. I want to say that the last time the kind of Charles Kindleberger handbook to a currency crisis actually worked out with the great logic of his orthodoxy, where you could monetize it was the Thai bat. And since then and what was the change, because it was the specter of China et al. Seeing the vulnerability to those Asian currencies from being so open and so those bolt fast to being effectively closed or very much controlling the money coming in. So in return, the US. Has had profound asset price inflation. Now, if you wanted to discourage that, you could put a withholding tax on treasury holdings by central banks, by foreign central bank. They already have it at custody with the New York Fed. And and I don’t believe that these institutions are like hedge funds, that they are profit seeking. They are working to a political goal and they will pay it. And if you squeeze it enough, you may actually discourage them, but at least you could impose a rent on their behavior and the disturbances that that behavior is, as we see the disturbances today, play out again.
Tony
Okay, very interesting. Okay, so we’ve gone into kind of the core of the problem. But if we go very short term because we have a Fed meeting coming up, everyone’s nervous about the systemic banking crisis or inflation, what do you think takes the priority in the next Fed meeting? Do you think the Fed stays on its trajectory? And all you guys, Tracy, Albert, Hugh, what are you guys views on this? Do you think the Fed says, hey, this banking thing scared us. We’re going to stamp pad on zero for a meeting and then we’re going to see what happens? Or do you think they proceed with 25s as they’ve been talking about and saying, hey, we put the backstop up. The Swiss central bank came in and put their backstop up. All is good with the banking crisis. Nothing to see here. We’re going to keep fighting inflation. What scenarios do you see them coming through again with a very short term mindset.
Hugh
Or Tracy, forgive me, Tracy, we haven’t heard from you. Why don’t you contribute?
Tracy
That’s fine. I hate having an opinion. Because everybody has an opinion.
Tony
Yes, that’s why you’re here.
Tracy
Everybody’s talking. I would think they stay at 25. That said, I think that if they decided to hold, that would be great news for commodities, and the commodity markets would react very positively towards that. But I think that they’re going to stay with the 25 because they’re going to say everything’s contained, just like we’ve heard a million times before. But we’ll see.
Tony
I remember in 2007, at the beginning of the financial crisis, the early indication said, it’s a 200 billion dollar loss. We’ve got it contained. Nobody talks about this today, but it’s $200 billion. Don’t worry about it. It’s all fine. We’ve got it contained. Is it possible that we’re in one of those scenarios now where 2007, $200 billion, it’s all fine, and we just kind of keep kind of raising into this when there’s a bigger specter living out there, or do you think it’s done? Tracy?
Tracy
I feel like this is not a repeat of 2008. I think it’s completely different. So I don’t want to equate it with 2008 exactly, but I feel like the rhetoric is kind of the same where everything’s contained. It’s okay. We took care of it.
Tony
Yes. Okay. Very good. Albert, what’s your view on the next Fed meeting?
Albert
You think they’re going to do 25? I don’t know what they’re going to do, but I think they should do 25. Going to zero. Pausing is, I think, a bad sign for the market. I mean, it might be bullish for a few days, but realistically, it’s not going to help solve anything to do with inflation, specifically supercore, which is what I think the Fed is. Powell has said himself is what he’s been watching, and its trajectory is going up. So I think they have to stay the course and do 25. That said, they could do zero just because this banking issue has gotten, at least in the press, out of hand, with a lot of bazookas being sent out by central banks to squash it. So we’ll see. But I hope they do 25.
Tony
So if they do zero, do you think it indirectly confirms everyone to worst fear? It’s like, oh, my gosh, they did zero.
Tracy
It must be worth really bad.
Albert
Yeah. Narrative wise, that’s exactly what I would be thinking. It’s like, what’s going on? Why are they overreacting like this? So that’s exactly what I think the sentiment would be. Definitely negative over the long run.
Tony
Right, Hugh?
Hugh
You’re all blinking crazy. May I remind you, for the last 15 years, the growth in per capita GDP for the average American has been catastrophic. It’s been one 6th that experienced during the Great Depression. And we’re talking about the Fed hiking rates further. I recall my trading experience, Tony, you mentioned 2007, and I always sat on big dumb leverage positions and we had northern rock go under. We had some French banks kind of have closures, but it was still modest. It wasn’t really what we’ve seen of late. And the Fed cut rate and the S and P was like pretty much at his all time high. And they won’t do anything. They’ll talk about it. They’ll express concern, boom, cut interest rates. The question is, is that an old Fed? And that may be relevant in the sense that I think the Fed should have been cutting rates six months ago. I think that the sovereign curves have been telling you that. But they’re kind of trapped again to the agency point and to the assumption, as Tracy said, hey, if they hold, can you imagine they cut, your commodities would be off to the stars and risk assets would explode.
And I think the Fed is very conscious of that. And so a Fed that should be, I think, should be cutting. Can I just say, banks have discovered that they have funding deficits. These regional banks, they’re not money center banks. They don’t have colossal sums of other instruments that they can sell off to meet liquidity needs. They have illiquid pools of mortgages to corporate America. And what you can do with that is you can package them like a CDO, these illiquid tranches, and you can offer it to the big money center banks and they’ll give you Treasuries. And then with the treasury, you into the eurodollar system and then they’ll address your funding. Now, the funding is coming I believe the funding is coming from the inflation in that everything is 15% or more expensive, but the underlying business health and revenue isn’t there. And so the corporate customers are their cash balances are coming down and down and down, creating the deficit which these banks can’t fund. Like I say, we’re in a depression. And the preoccupation is how far will the Feds raise rates? It’s going to get worse. The economic fallout, the consequences of this, like finding you remember, we have what percentage of the economy is the Frankenstein businesses that were supported by the fact that the carry was so low?
How much of the economy is the conceitful economy, which hasn’t marked the market, is I am full of angst.
Tony
But are we here partly because interest rates were kept so low for so long? I mean, that was really on some level, what was behind Silicon Valley Bank is they were holding this debt that was so far underneath the market that they couldn’t keep up with their cash needs. So is that part of the problem? If they cut rates, it puts us back into that environment?
Hugh
Yeah, that is the problem. But the deeper problem again, is beg of thy neighbor policy. We’re. Missing, like I say, $15 trillion of global economic demand. And I think that’s because China et al, pures a policy of making things cheap and keeping its current. Imagine if where are we on the remembri? We’re six.
Tony
Nine.
Hugh
Yeah. Seven. Eight. They call it seven. It was at nine when we created NAFTA many years ago. So nine to seven in terms of appreciation, the damn thing should be at four. The Chinese should be the citizens in the household sector should be really rich, they should be buying tons of overseas products and we wouldn’t have that deficit. But again, owing to the Thai pad episode and how we’ve organized trade flows, that hasn’t happened. And so, again, that’s why the per capita GDP for the ordinary folk in the States has barely budged, which is why we’ve had to keep rates on life support. But of course, the consequence is you blow up asset prices and trying to get the two balance between the two. I don’t envy anyone that decision.
Tony
No, it’s painful. And as we see housing prices come down to earth, if that happens here in the States, that’s where most people’s wealth is based. Right. So if their portfolio is coming down a bit, if their house price is coming down a bit, there are a lot of delicate balances, delicate, say, household balances, that will be upset here in the States, if not globally. So I think you have a great point. I think it’s a really difficult dilemma. I hear people all the time talk about how dumb the guys of the Fed are. They’re not stupid people. I don’t think they’re stupid people. I think they understand the problem. I think it’s a very complex issue that they have to get out of.
Hugh
Right. Yeah. Can we ask Tracy? But on oil, why is oil so weaker? And where that huge surplus has come and it’s changed the shape of the curve, there’s no demand for it. Can you speak to that?
Tracy
Yeah. I think part of the problem is a lot of Russian oil is still on the market that most were anticipating. It not be. We are seeing China demand come back, but not as fast and furious as everybody had anticipated, and still kind of very soft, even though mobility data has improved significantly. Still, their demand for oil is because they were stocking it for a year in their surplus. So they have a lot of surplus. So obviously they’re going to drain that first, while oil prices are high and making deals with Russia for cheap oil. And the other part of it is that interest rates are high, and that is because when you’re talking natural resources, they’re particularly exposed to rising rates, right. Because trading houses rely on bank credit to buy, transport and store these commodities. So with higher rates, what is happening is these companies are either having to sell right away at any price because they can’t hold it like they used to and wait for a better time to sell when the price was higher or the opportunity was better. So they’re having to sell it right away for whatever price that means, which is also causing downward pressure on prices right now, realistically speaking and hearing from some of the big trading houses that they’re having to forego some trades.
Tracy
Right. And so that’s stranding product with the producers. So I think that’s why we’re seeing weaker commodity prices pretty much overall.
Hugh
Do you have data on the driving statistics in the continent of North America?
Tracy
Yes, I do.
Hugh
Am I making it up to say that here we are, so many years after the pandemic when we know that everyone was kept at home and that the mileage is not really changed much?
Tracy
It really depends on the area, I think. Right. So we’re kind of still seeing more limited in, say, some of the blue states where you’re seeing a lot of uptake in some of the red states. Obviously, in the south there’s a lot more mobility, or the mobility data is a lot better. If we go and we look at TSA, I mean, TSA, we’ve been wobbling, like just above 2019, just dipping just below and then just above. So that data is still pretty strong. So that looks good. But mobility data is very regional in the United States.
Hugh
And I guess with anyone shouting at the screen saying it’s the adoption of Teslas and electrical vehicles, I hear you. But the whole notion of this curse of inflation, that it doesn’t persist, or a sign that it’s unlikely to persist, is when you see changes in economic behavior where you have discretion. You cut back because you just don’t. Have the financial wherewithal to support a wallet which your wallet is not 15% higher. But the price of goods and services are 15% higher. And so maybe driving would be discretion in that sense. Anyway, thank you for that.
Albert
Yeah. On top of that, I’ve talked a lot about Spr releases timed with the Fed selling oil futures to bring down the price of oil in their mind to help combat inflation. I mean, that’s something that’s happening.
Tony
Happened.
Albert
Last year for a little while. And I know that they’ve been doing it again this year. And, I mean, I heard through the grapevine that it was up to $800 million worth.
Hugh
Really? So, Tracy, I thought that had come to an end. The biden policy of selling the reserves, the oil reserves.
Tracy
We have the last little bit sold in December of 22, and that was from that 180,000,000 barrel release that was released throughout the year. There’s about 26 million barrels to release this year. That was scheduled back in 2015. That’s part of a whole different deal. It was part of the upgrading of the Spr, paying for the upgrades of the Spr. So that release will still happen. The thing is, traders were looking at at these prices the government was going to rebuy. Right? And so they did hold an auction on in January and they didn’t get any offers. They didn’t get any bids so they decided not to do that. And people are definitely looking at prices this low because really their target area was $68 to $72. So at these prices they were looking for the government but it looks like that’s just not going to happen because I think they are very happy with prices this low and they know if they start reflecting the spr that’s going to raise prices.
Tony
Okay great, thanks for that and Tracy, I appreciate the cargoes or the pricing and the urgency of the finance of commodity sales. How long do you expect that to last? Do you expect that to continue to last for the next couple of months or is that something that we’re just kind of in this period where things are changing really fast and it’s a relatively temporary issue?
Tracy
Yeah, I think it’s a relatively temporary issue. I think really what we’re going to I still think we need a few more months to really see what Russian oil is or is not off the market. And by the way that is getting very difficult to track these days because they have their own fleets and you have a whole gray market there. But from whatever Sts satellite information that those people gather they are seeing a lot of product build up on water that’s not going to be able to be sold because February 5 is when that policy enacted with the ban on products. So I think we still need a few more months to see where that goes. I still think we need a few more months and I’ve said this for months now when China started to reopen I said I think this is not going to be like it’s going to cause commodities to skyrocket. I think it’s going to be very bumpy. I think particularly the property sector is still a mess. They’re not building anything there’s not really creating a lot of stimulus right now and they have a lot of oil stored.
Tracy
So I think they’ll need to kind of work through those issues a little bit before we really see China demand take off. Maybe an H, two of the share if the whole world is not in a global depression.
Tony
Yeah I remember a few months ago I remember a few months ago talking about that when China was kind of supposed to open in Q One and there were a lot of cheerleaders saying it’s going to be a rocket ship, it’s going to take off really quickly. And I think what we talked about here was it’ll be slower than most people think and that’s come to pass right?
Albert
Yeah they’re pragmatic, they staggered their reopening. They’re making moves for the next six to twelve months on commodities. Which leads me into my section today is what they’ve done in the Middle East with brokering a deal between Iran and the Saudis. I mean, this is specifically done because the Chinese are the biggest clients of both parties. So you’re going to have to appease your biggest client and come up with some sort of truce. But it’s a short lived truce. As the Russians, the Iranians and Saudis start competing for more Chinese market share, since they are the biggest buyers on the Earth at the moment, tensions will inevitably come back up. They’ll bubble up again and this truce just doesn’t have any legs to it.
Tony
The most surprising part to me is that China just a few months ago was still under this kind of wolf warrior diplomacy kind of theme, right? Very aggressive, very direct, very unlike what I’d seen in China for decades before. And now they’ve changed really quickly to this dove policy of we’re going to negotiate peace in the Middle East, we’re going to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine. What happened there? Why is it just easier to sell stuff in a peaceful environment than it is in war environment? Or what is it? Because they’ve been the biggest buyer of tiny crude for a while, so that’s.
Albert
Not necessarily it’s mainly to do. The United States is leaving vacuum, their newest foreign policy, leaving vacuum in the Middle East. They’ve just basically abandoned it. We abandoned Afghanistan, we’ve pretty much abandoned Africa at the moment. And the Middle East is we’re not visible at the moment. So inevitably people like China and Russia are going to sit there and go and fill the vacuum. And it’s very easy for them to leverage their purchasing power on Iran and the Saudis and say, hey, cut a deal between you two so we can keep these trade deals going. Now I think also the Saudis are leveraging their oil reserves versus the United States and say, hey, if you don’t become a little bit more friendly with us in the defense sector and start pushing back on the Iranian nuclear aspirations, we’re going to cut deals with China. And I mean, I would do the same thing, to be honest with you.
Tony
So why this may sound like a stupid question, but why doesn’t the US come alongside these discussions and say, hey, it’s peace, let’s negotiate. Let’s get involved with this and support it? Why would the US. Not do that?
Albert
Well, it’s much more complex to say, let’s just have peace. I mean, the Iranians and the Saudis absolutely despise each other. The Israelis are also a major lobbying group in the United States. They certainly don’t want to see Iran benefit financially over this and push that right into their nuclear program. So there’s a lot of moving parts at the moment. And specifically when you talked about Russia and the Ukraine brokering peace there, the reality is the Russians are not going to leave their annexed areas and the Ukrainians are not going to accept that at best, you can get to a status quo, as we were a few years ago. But in terms of peace deals, it’s just not realistic.
Tony
But over the weekend, didn’t the White House come out and say, ukraine is a sovereign nation, but basically we won’t let them negotiate a peace deal with Russia right now? There was something like that that came out over the weekend. So how can the White House supposedly recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation, but also not allow Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal? That doesn’t really make sense.
Albert
Ukraine’s defense is completely based on US. Armaments at the moment. So of course they can use that as leverage. And, I mean, the United States loves specifically the Biden administration loves to have Putin as a scapegoat for inflation. The moment the Russians marched in there, the term Putin price hikes came out and all over the news. It’s just one of those things where politics has reared its ugly head trying to influence economics. And here we are.
Tony
Great. Okay, so let’s take a quick look at what we expect, say, this week or the week ahead. What are you guys looking for? Tracy, we’ve seen crude way down over the past two sessions. What do you expect to happen in energy? Is this likely to continue with crude continuing downward, or is this very temporary?
Tracy
I think it is a temporary move. I mean, if you look at this, even though we have some softer demand, we are heading into higher demand season. Right. And so, again, there’s a lot of recession fears right now, too.
Tony
Right.
Tracy
So that reared its ugly head again, because of all of the banking crisis. And you also had a lot of what we saw, too, is when US treasuries spiked, right? Because everybody was short spiked. There were a lot of margin calls. And so it was kind of sell what you have to. Oil been sideways for three months, and so sell what you have to. And so I think that was part of that initial push down just from the price action, because we’ve seen that before. But I think it’s going to take a couple of months to digest all of this, to see where we’re at. Let’s see what the Fed does decide to do. Again, if the Fed decides to do nothing, commodities would love that, right? Yeah, they could.
Tony
Love it. Everyone would love it.
Hugh
I’m not sure I’d love it. I’m not sure I’d love it. And I’m not sure commodities would fly. When you say the Fed does nothing, the Fed sits at 5% rates. Or if we’re in the 1970s, the Fed sits there content with rates at 20%. I think oil has done something extraordinary. I mean, from the high tick with the Ukrainian invasion. I mean, oil the oil price is halved. I mean, oil is trading at levels prevailing 2004. That’s extraordinary. And it speaks more, I think, again, to my notion of this silent depression, an aggressive tightening of policy which is appropriate for asset price inflation, but is sheer misery for the ordinary folk.
Albert
I’m actually looking for a 25 basis point rate hike just to agitate you. But I agree with actually, I agree with you. I think that the Fed needs to actually cut rates if you want to see commodities start going these sky high parabolic moves again. And I don’t think we’re close to that at the moment. I do think that a pause would push commodity prices up, but I don’t think it would go parabolic like it did before.
Tracy
Oh, yeah, definitely it would be parabolic.
Albert
Yeah.
Hugh
Of course, if I was to talk my book, I want the Fed I want them being ECB. Like, I have to be cautious of how I say this because I don’t want them doing malevolent things to ordinary folk. But if I was to top my book, I’m really very enamored, very long of the very long end of the treasury curve. Because, again, to repeat myself, broken record depression in terms of price, if we ignore the Carry On Treasuries, which is, again, you could say fanciful, but we’ve wiped out 20 years of price performance, which is to say you’ve had profound mean reversion. And so I do like mean reversion events in terms of global asset. I don’t like mean reversion for individual stocks or individual kind of eclectic risk positions. But the generic give me something trading at the 20 years. So to my mind, where the treasury bond trades, where the inversions are trading, is that most likely we have for the curves to be correct? They’re really imagining a situation where the Fed could rapidly unwind like it did from September 2007 from five and a quarters to terminal of zero. Not a terminal five and a half, six or terminal of zero.
Hugh
And so you’ve got to think, how do you get to a terminal of zero? Well, you get there by inflicting, again, just a colossal deadweight cost of economic pain on the economy. So you can conspire how that would come about from this intellectual reputation or agency trap where they’re just forced to continue with hiking.
Tony
Yes. Over the next week. What are you looking at here? What are you looking in the very short term? What are you paying attention to in the very short term?
Hugh
You don’t want to know.
Tony
Oh, I do.
Hugh
My insights for these markets come from not watching them a great deal. I mean, I’m heading to the most outrageous party in Paris on Wednesday, thursday night. I’ll restock maybe Monday on the West Coast, next week in the US, and we’ll see what’s happened. If I had to guess, I’d expect there’s a huge desire to buy the markets here. The fed’s done something. We’ve even resolved the long standing corpse of Credit Suisse. You look at the equity market, it’s not really indicative of any great danger. The commodities. I mean, yes, I was talking about oil, but the commodity complex, it’s not kind of signaling any profound falling off a cliff. There’s just been a profound revision, I think, coming from hedging activities at the very short end of the treasury curve. Even the long end of treasury curve, it’s not really done anything. So the notion, I think and I was speaking to friends who manage risk, and they’re all agitating, and we were looking at banks. If you look at Irish listed banking securities, they’re way above where they were trading september, October last year. They’ve had a pullback for certain, but they don’t look whole.
Hugh
So I think the presumption is still going to be to feed and come back and try and chase a rally higher. That would be my guess.
Tony
Very good, guys. Thank you so much. This has been a fantastic discussion. Hugh, I’m glad we can keep up with you. Really good kind of long term views, and I really appreciate your perspective. Tracy, Albert, as always, thank you so much for your time, guys. Really appreciate it. Have a great weekend. And you have a great time at that party in there, right?
The European Union will allow members to offer subsidies that match those offered by the US Inflation Reduction Act to prevent an exodus of green energy projects. The White House’s $369 billion initiative has been criticised by many countries, which fear it could attract local companies to move across the Atlantic.
Roger Hearing discusses this and more business news with two guests on opposite sides of the world: Stefanie Yuen Thio, joint managing partner at TSMP Law in Singapore, and Tony Nash, chief economist at Complete Intelligence in Texas.
Tony Nash, CEO and founder of Complete Intelligence, joined BBC Business Matters podcast, to discuss a range of topics from autonomous vehicles to green energy subsidies.
Nash shared his thoughts on the future of AI and autonomous vehicles. He discussed the challenges of ensuring self-driving cars can navigate changing road conditions and the safety concerns that come with autonomous driving. Nash also discussed the potential of AI in the transportation industry and the need for continued development in this area.
Nash also provided insights on Joe Biden’s tax plan, specifically focusing on corporate taxes and unrealized gains tax. He discussed the potential impact of the tax plan on companies and individuals and offered alternative solutions to the proposed policies.
Nash also discussed the transatlantic race for green energy subsidies in another episode. He explored the role of government grants in spurring innovation in the green energy industry and discussed the challenges facing countries caught in the middle of geopolitical forces. Nash also highlighted the importance of consumer pressure in driving environmentally friendly products.
Transcript
BBC
Hello, and welcome to Business Matters. I’m Roger Hearing. Coming up on the program today, the European Commission is allowing member states to subsidize companies with green energy projects. They’re trying to forestall a drift of such firms to the US. Where state aid is already in place. Also, as pro Western protests go on in Georgia, we take a look at the strength for the economy in a country that really desperately wants to join the European Union. President Biden’s budget plan see a big tax rise for rich individuals and companies. So how’s that going to go down?
Stephanie
What he’s promising is we’re going to have European style benefits, but still have incredibly progressive taxes, and that’s just not realistic.
BBC
And self driving cars are on their way, but how can we make them safe on crowded urban roads? And I will be joined throughout the program by two guests on opposite sides of the world. Stefanie Yuen Thio, who’s joint managing director at TSMP Law Corporation, is joining us from Singapore. And Tony Nash, founder of the AI firm Complete Intelligence, joining us from Houston, Texas. So clearly, Tony, let me come to you and ask, well, what’s going on down in Texas at the moment?
Tony
Hey, Roger. Well, we have the Houston Rodeo, which is the largest rodeo in America, and it sounds like a throwback, but it’s actually a really big deal. They raise about half a billion US. Dollars for scholarships for Texas students. So it’s a big deal here in Houston, and it sends a lot of kids to university.
BBC
Yeah, and worth watching, too, I imagine, isn’t it?
Tony
Yes, it is. Yes, sir.
BBC
But you don’t take part, I imagine, Tony. I mean, the picture in front of my mind at this moment is quite.
Tony
Last year, but I’m not good for 8 seconds on a horse, so I’ll just sit in sidelines.
BBC
The let’s hope you’re good for 60 minutes on the radio, and I’m sure you will be. Anyway, welcome both. Let’s first of all talk about what’s happened here in Europe, because really it’s a transatlantic issue. But Europe has moved to try and level the playing field for companies there who want to set up green energy projects. There’s been fears that very generous new subsidies for US firms brought in by President Biden would drain Europe of green energy projects as businesses moved across the Atlantic to take advantage of what was over there. Well, now the European Commission has relaxed the rules on state aid for projects aimed at speeding up energy storage and the use of renewable energy and wants that take out carbon from industrial processes. EU member states will have until the end of 2025 to set up their schemes. What’s your take on this? It’s your side of the Atlantic that has really upped the ante on this with the Inflation Reduction Act covers a multitude of things, but one of them is this enormous amount of subsidy, over $300 billion, and then it starts this war with the EU over it, really.
Tony
So, Roger, the first thing I want to do is start a green energy company to game both sides of the subsidy plan. Right. So I think it’s interesting. It started in the US and obviously it’s just a truckload of money, and like everyone has said, it’s just a race to get somewhere. And I think it’s really hard to believe that this race is a credible one when Germany is burning more coal than they have in decades. Right. So I think that is it going to stimulate innovation? I don’t think so, because it’s grants, right. These are grants that are being given out by government, which I think I.
BBC
Don’ think they’re necessarily direct grants. Some of them may be, but it’s a mixed picture, I think.
Tony
Yeah, it’s mixed. And so those grants will be the first to go and they’ll be given very inefficiently, and then the tax credits or the other things that are done, if they’re in small batches, then they could kind of engender some competition. But if there are very large tax subsidies to be given, then it’s just going to be pigs at a trough. That’s all it’s going to be here in the US, in Europe. Europe is not unique. It’s the same thing here.
BBC
Well, indeed, but at the same point, I’ve put to Stephanie, I mean, isn’t in the end, Tony, the problem that you can’t leave it up to the market to do something that actually matters much longer term than most markets really have anything to do with?
Tony
Oh, well, you can. When you look at emissions, the US has been well ahead of kind of targets for years, because for the most part, we’ve had markets that haven’t subsidized kind of inefficient companies to do this. Of course, we have companies like Cylindra, which was a big story 15 years ago or something, and other wasteful green tech companies. But for the most part, when you look at, say, the US auto industry, other industries, they’ve done they’ve worked very, very hard to reduce emissions. And the US auto industry, even on petrol-fuelled cars, has done an amazing job at reducing emissions. And of course, there are subsidies that go to US automotive makers, but they’re not new and they’re not a large part of the revenues that those auto makers get.
BBC
What’s the incentive for them to do this? Because there has to be some incentive.
Tony
Consumers want it.
BBC
Consumer pressure.
Tony
Why do people make a car Blue? Or why do people put a Bluetooth connection to your ipod or your iPhone in the car? It’s because consumers want it. So the more consumer pressure there is to have environmentally friendly automobiles, it moves in that direction.
BBC
That’s very interesting. But Tony, let me bring you in on this, because it is an interesting picture of a country that is in a very difficult position, caught between Russia and the west but also with an economy that clearly doesn’t basically function. It seems to be held together entirely by aid.
Tony
And wine.
BBC
And wine. The wine is very nice, don’t get me wrong on that.
Tony
Yeah. It’s in a tough position. It’s between some big powerhouses and they had a conflict with Russia a decade or so ago, so it’s a very kind of tenuous position, and it’s definitely not something that’s easy to get out of, I don’t think.
BBC
Tell me, the other thing is that being caught in the middle of very big geopolitical forces, what was very interesting, Georgia. Georgia’s economy right now seems to be run by mainly by Russians who fled from Russia, which is an extraordinary situation, isn’t it?
Tony
Yeah, it is. Roger, I’m really not sure. The basis of this protest is supposedly that NGOs have to register because of their foreign influence, foreign money. But that is required in a lot of countries, so it’s required in Singapore, for example. Right. So I’m not really sure why this is such a problem. If foreign newspapers, like in Singapore, every foreign newspaper has to be approved. Yeah, and I I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be picking on Singapore, but but this is the case in a lot of countries, and so I’m just puzzled as to why this is a problem, especially if there’s so much foreign aid there. I just don’t understand it.
Stephanie
Tony, can I hazard stephanie, come in. Yes. Yeah. Let me hazard a guess. What’s happening in the Ukraine is a very big part of the consciousness of that part of the world right now, as it is for the rest of us as well. How Ukrainians are getting their message out there, how they’re garnering support internationally, is through social media and the foreign press. So I can imagine that any move that tries to muzzle foreign ownership of media is going to look like it is a very authoritarian move. And by and large, we get worried about things like that. And Singapore has been criticized, as Tony, you’ve pointed out, for having those rules, and I can accept that. I can appreciate that that is an issue. Having said that, international interference in national issues has become an increasing thing. We’ve seen the effect of troll farms in Russia on the US elections in the past, for example. And while we think we don’t want there to be constraints on independent and credible news organizations, what if you had an Islamic State take a very large percentage of the news outlets shareholdings?
BBC
Yeah, it’s one of those issues. It has to be applied not in general, but in specifics, and then see how it plays out. And I think that is absolutely the problem in Georgia. No doubt we’ll hear more from that country… Of the Manhattan Institute. Right. Tony, I’m going to let you get your teeth into it, but I will say, first of all, there’s a sense in which this is a phony budget, isn’t it? Because he doesn’t even expect necessarily to get it through Congress.
Tony
Yeah, it’s not going to make it through Congress. I mean, it’s just not. I mean, look, the capital gains tax that he’s proposing is higher than the ordinary income tax of the US. Meaning if you work for a living and you pay taxes from your salary, the capital gains tax he’s proposing is higher than that. And so these people who are actually taking risk on investments, they’re going to pay a higher tax for putting investment money into the market. That’s just ridiculous, and that stuff won’t make it. The thought that companies are going to pay higher tax is just silly because it’s not going to happen. I mean, there are several tax attorneys who, if you believe that’s going to happen, then you need to talk to tax attorneys and understand and CPAs and understand how things really work.
BBC
You’re saying, Tony, that the taxes are not going to happen because he won’t get through Congress, but you’re saying it’s a silly idea.
Tony
I’m saying the corporate taxes won’t happen because it’s unrealistic. So companies pay tax and that’s fine, but they also employ a lot of people. They make investments, they generate intellectual property and so on and so forth. So do we want to tax them more? Sure, maybe a little bit more. But to take a plan like this and aggressively state that you’re going to make companies pay a lot more, it’s really questionable, especially as earnings are collapsing. Publicly earnings in publicly traded companies are collapsing right now, so we’re going to put higher tax on them. And you saw this in the UK when there was the pressure on Gilt six months ago, right? You can’t put this type of thing forward if you don’t have a legitimate plan. And so for Biden to say, if you don’t have a better plan, well, I have a better plan. Why don’t you tax electric vehicles for the miles they drive? Because they don’t pay any fuel tax in the US.
BBC
Yeah, but that’s not going to fill the gap, is it? I mean, if you compare these enormous companies with huge profits, some of them, particularly in the energy sector, the financials as well.
Tony
It’s net positive, right? So it’s net positive. And anybody who thinks like your guest said, people are going to game that $100 million. I mean, that’s just silly, right? Anybody who makes under $100 million, they’re going to distribute it to family and shell companies and LLCs and other things. Nobody’s going to be worth $100 million.
BBC
It’s that they tax people. The people who earn over $400,000. That was the figure, wasn’t it? That’s where the burden is going to fall. But to a lot of people, that seems very reasonable. It’s an awful lot of money.
Tony
What’s? An awful lot of money for $400,000. Yeah, but how many people who earn $400,000 are really going to pay it? Right? I mean, they will, of course, but most of them are also going to have a lot of deductions, too. So you would have to raise the standard deduction unless those guys are going to circumvent. The other really silly thing which your guest was really good at talking about was the tax on unrealized gains. Okay? So imagine if you own a stock and it’s gone up two or three times and you haven’t sold that stock yet. That’s what an unrealized gain is. So imagine this. You own a house and the value has gone up by 50% and the government comes to you and says, hey, I know you haven’t sold your house yet, but I’m going to tax you on that sale of that house anyway, right? That’s exactly what this unrealized gain tax is doing. It’s saying everybody who owns a house that’s gone up in value, the government’s going to come in and tax you on that gain in that house. And you own a house and you’re like, wait, that’s not fair.
Tony
I haven’t even got that money yet. Right? So let these guys make their gains and tax them on those capital gains. That’s fine. We don’t need to hate rich people just for being rich.
Stephanie
Also, Tony, does the house owner get it back if the house price falls?
BBC
And how do you measure it? What’s the measure of value anyway? It’s full of difficulties, clearly. Well, definitely they will find ways around it. Well, let me come back to you then, Tony, on this, because we’ve said basically what you don’t think will work with what Joe Biden is promising or suggesting. If he is attempting to increase the size of the state, which it seems he is, and perhaps a bit parallel to what’s happening in Singapore, how should he be seeking the money for that?
Tony
Well, I think the first thing he needs to do is look at why he’s hiring 17,000 new Environmental Protection Agency agents, right? I mean, you know, we need to understand why we’re hiring more people into the government rather than just putting the heads aside and saying we’re going to grow government, we’re going to be greener, and so on and so forth. There was a law passed last year that said there would be something like 70,000 new Internal Revenue Service agents. And once the new Congress came in, the first thing they did was attack that and defunded because Congress has the power of the purse. So effectively what Biden is doing is he’s trying to anchor the budget discussion. I don’t think many of these things are actually going to happen. This is a negotiation. We have the debt ceiling coming on. We have a number of other things happening with regard to federal government revenue. So all he’s doing here is trying to anchor the conversation very high. And I think what you have in Congress right now is you have a set of Republicans who are not going to negotiate with that.
Tony
What they’re doing with the budget ceiling is they’re ticking off item by item the things that they want and getting the federal government to give in on things one by one because the bureaucrats do not want the debt ceiling to be a problematic issue.
BBC
Well, yeah.
Tony
Is it likely to Republicans on things one by one? Of course.
BBC
Are we going to find the new debt ceiling problem, which seems to be.
Tony
Oh, my gosh, Roger, there’s going to be so much drama about the debt ceiling. Oh, my gosh, it’s going to be the end of the world and full fifth grade of the US. Government and all this garbage. It’s it’s not going to be an issue. It’s never going to be an issue.
BBC
Okay. Interesting. I mean, Singapore, I suppose. Tony, would you would you put your faith in in autonomous vehicles? I mean, they, they have tested some, I think in Texas.
Tony
Yeah. I was driving in Dallas probably a year or so ago, and I was on a very crowded highway, and I looked next to there was a big semi truck next to me, and it was supposedly an autonomous driven semi truck, but of course there was a driver there. And to be honest, I found it terrifying. I heard an interview with one of the grandfathers of AI. His name is Stuart Russell. This was probably about three years ago. And he has been in AI since the 70s or something, and he was involved in self driving cars in the 90s. According to him, and I’m sure the technology has come a long way in three or four years. But at the time he said that we were no further with self driving cars at the time of that interview, which I think was 2018 or something, than we had been in the 1990s. That’s extraordinary. It is. And I work for an AI company. I mean, it’s not magic. It’s code and math. And that’s really what it is. It’s computer code and math. And as Stephanie pointed out, we have trouble updating apps. Right. And so if you’re going to be moving along at 100km/h or whatever and put your faith in a car and other people’s cars, I think when everything is automated, that’s different.
Tony
Right. If we’re 100% self driving cars, then that’s a very different story. But when you have some self driving and some not, there are so many unknowns in the environment, and how can a car know if something walking along the side is a child or a mailman or whatever, right. And you just don’t know what they’re going to do. So I don’t think cars on their own have the compute power to understand what’s going on around them. I suspect that a lot of what we’re being told is marketing more than actual capability. I would really like to talk to somebody and understand if it’s actual capability, because I just don’t believe it. I want it to happen, but I just don’t believe it’s.
BBC
Isn’t it I mean, what you said they want it to happen because I certainly feel it will be hugely useful. I mean, elderly parents being able to get places, for example. But all sorts ways in which actually it’d be really useful to have such a thing. I suppose we feel. And, Stephanie, I’d be interested to get your intake on this. We feel that at this point, with all the technical know how, we have self demonstrated that we should be able to do this. I mean, it’s been a staple of science fiction films, probably going back to the 19th century, that these kind of things would exist.
Stephanie
Yeah, but I have a question on AI. We’ve been talking about Chat GPT and how biases get into it. Now, if you’re trouble, who is setting the safety standards for these self driving cars? If there is a person walking on the street, is it going to make a distinction between a minority race? If there are two people and it has to pick one to hit and it can’t stop, for example, does it pick the minority race guy to hit? What does it do?
BBC
That’s like the famous trolley example in a philosophy class. Do you run over the fat person or not? And these kind of things, which you can’t really expect, I suppose, a self driving car to think of. But I suppose that the point of this. If everything is autonomous, then, as Tony says, perhaps the issue isn’t really a big one. But I would say with all these caveats you’re putting in there, Stephanie, the fact is there are a lot of very bad drivers out there already. Is it worse to have one that’s autonomous?
Stephanie
No, I totally want to have a self driving car, frankly. I would like to not have to drive me around. I would like my husband to not have to drive around. He thinks he’s a race car driver. He’s not really that good. So I think that would be great. But I agree all the cars should be autonomous. And maybe we should have speed limits.
BBC
Well, yes. And you could impose them automatically very easily, couldn’t you? That would be one of the things. And Tony, I suppose you’re in AI. Okay, I take on board your point. You’re saying it hasn’t come people reporting it hasn’t come that far since even the 1990s. But it must be something that AI can take on, surely.
Tony
Sure, AI can take on a lot of things. But is it there right now? And would I want to drive in it right now? Probably not. And Roger, going back to your question about is it worse for a machine to, say, be a bad driver than a human? Absolutely. Yes, it’s worse.
BBC
Why?
Tony
Because the unique function of that machine is to drive you around safely. That driver person does not have a unique function, right? So if that machine is specifically made to drive you around safely, that’s the only thing it’s there for. So it should be able to drive you around safely. And until that can happen, we should absolutely not have autonomous vehicles on the road.
BBC
Okay, but take the bad drivers. Who knows what the function of the bad driver is? But if they hit you, they’ll still do damage, and that’s really what matters. Principle, surely.
Tony
Of course they will. And to go into any country and get a driver’s license. Anybody can get a driver’s license, right? And so that’s a kind of least common denominator standard. The worst driver can still get a license.
BBC
And the worst robot might be a better driver.
Tony
Yeah, but that’s that robot’s 100% job, and unless they can do it in the top, I would say, decile of drivers, it shouldn’t be on the road.
BBC
All right, well, I think they’ve got a big, long way, I think, to persuade either of you, really, that it’s happening. I think Stephanie probably would prefer it probably more than you would. I certainly would love it. Not least for the fact I can go to a lovely English country pub and after perhaps consumed a little bit of lovely, I can just get in the car and it’ll take me home. No issues. That’s what I’m all about. Anyway, thanks to both of you for being with us. Your rodeo of business Matters has been survival, I’m very pleased to say, Tony. And we’ll welcome you all back soon, I think. But thanks for listening to Business Matters. Bye.
In this episode of The Week Ahead, the hosts discuss three key themes: Silicon Valley Bankruptcy, the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Tightening (QT) and systemic risks, and America’s energy policy.
The discussion begins with a focus on Silicon Valley Bank (SIVB), which had a major issue raising capital and faced a bank run on Thursday. On Friday, the California bank regulator shut the bank down. SIVB had $175 billion in deposits, $151 billion of which were uninsured. One of the discussions surrounding the SIVB collapse is how venture capitalists have been affected.
The hosts then move on to discuss the Federal Reserve’s QT and systemic risks. They note that the US has been experiencing strong data and inflation, and Fed Chairman Powell hinted at a 50 basis point increase this month. The hosts discuss whether the Fed will accelerate QT in this environment, what that could look like, and what risks it would pose to the US financial system.
The third theme discussed is America’s energy policy. Host Tracy Shuchart mentions a speech given by US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, which didn’t seem to give her more confidence in Granholm’s competence as an energy secretary. The discussion touches on the problems with America’s energy policy and how it affects the country’s overall economic outlook.
Finally, the hosts share their expectations for the week ahead.
Overall, this episode offers a comprehensive analysis of current events and trends in finance and policy, with a particular focus on the implications of SIVB’s bankruptcy and the Federal Reserve’s actions. The hosts provide insightful commentary and thought-provoking questions that will be of interest to anyone following these issues.
Key themes: 1. Silicon Valley Bank(ruptcy) 2. Fed’s QT & systemic risks 3. America’s feckless energy policy
This is the 56th episode of The Week Ahead, where experts talk about the week that just happened and what will most likely happen in the coming week.
Hi, everyone, and welcome to the Week Ahead. I’m Tony Nash. Today we’re joined by Joseph Wang. You may know him as @FedGuy12 on Twitter. He’s a CIO at Monetary Macro and a former senior trader at the New York Fed. Joseph, we’re really happy to have you here. Thanks so much for joining us. We also have Albert Marko and Tracy Shuchart will be joining us during the show. There are some key things we want to talk about. First is a hawkish Fed of course we can’t talk about that without the Silicon Valley Bank things, events that happened today. So we’ll cover that a bit. We’ll get into the systemic risk of quantitative tightening and the likelihood of that happening, as well as America’s rudderless energy policy. And we’ll talk to Tracy about that in detail.
So guys, thanks very much. There’s been a lot going on this week. Albert, I know you’ve been on the road. Joseph, it’s your first time here, so I’m really glad we can have this conversation. Guys, let’s start out with Silicon Valley Bank. I mean, this is something that just kind of happened yesterday. It actually happened with a communications announcement on Wednesday coming in the wake of another bank failure.
And it was really bad timing, it was really bad advice for them to do this. And we’ve just seen a bank explode right, or implode. So can you help us walk through what actually happened from your perspective?
Joseph
Yeah, well, first of all, thanks for having me on the show, guys. I love your show and I do listen to it. So it’s real honor to be here today.
Silicon Valley Bank. So as of recording today, it looks like they’ve been taken into receivership by the FDIC. So basically it’s bankrupt. Now, Silicon Valley Bank over the past couple of years, if you look at their equity prices, they soared really high, especially during the crypto boom. They were known as a bank that would lend a lot to the financial tech sector. And as the financial tech sector imploded, it seemed like that kind of hurt them as well. These past few days you saw it stock price steadily decrease. So if you’re a bank, you have two big concerns. The one is solvency. Are your assets worth more than your liabilities? And the second is liquidity. Do you have enough cash on hand to meet investor withdrawals. When I put money in a bank, so I am an investor in that bank, right. So I eventually lent money to local bank and local bank bought from me and I can go and get that money back anytime I want. And that is part of the problem of a bank. Your liabilities, they are short term, so they can disappear anytime you want. But your assets tend to be longer dated, things like loans, let’s say a five year, ten year loan.
So I can’t really comment on the solvency situation of Silicon Valley Bank. I suspect that they are insolvent simply because I read that they’ve been making a lot of loans to these fintech companies and we all know how that turned out. But you can actually get pretty good insight on their liquidity situation by looking at their regulatory filings. If you want to study a bank and I study bank, so you want to look at something like this.
That’s all this is a call report. A call report is a financial report that banks file. It’s literally 100 page reporting form, and it comes with instruction manual that’s 800 pages in leads. So that’s why I can actually keep a reference here. So if you look at Silicon Valley’s financials, you’ll see that it’s a bank that is vulnerable to liquidity runs. It might not seem so on the surface, but so just for the audience, Silicon Valley Bank has about $210 billion worth of assets. It’s largely funded by deposits. Now let’s look at their asset side first. Now if you’re a bank, you got to keep liquidity on hand because what if everyone starts to ask for their money back? You want to have some liquidity on hand to meet those redemptions. So Silicon Valley Bank has actually a pretty good portfolio of liquid assets. Of the 210 billion in assets, about 120 billion are securities. Securities are good because you can sell them. That’s what a security is. If you have a loan to local company, you can sell them. That’s illiquid. Of the 120 billion, 80 billion are high quality liquid assets. So in the banking world, you want to have high quality liquid assets because you can sell them easily to raise cash.
These are Treasuries and Agency MBS. So so far, $80 billion of high quality liquid assets. Sounds like a great liquid bank. You dig down a little bit more, you find out they’ve already pledged about 50 billion of those away. So they’re already using that to either to secure borrowings. For example, let’s say you are a huge investor. You’re putting money into Silicon Valley Bank, but you don’t really know if you want to take that risk. So you could ask for some collateral. So that could be a possibility as well. So the bottom line is they don’t actually have that much liquid assets, even though they look like they do. Now let’s look at their liabilities. It doesn’t look good either. So normally if you and I okay, I don’t know about you guys, but when I put money in a bank, I have less than 250,000. So it’s within secured by the FDIC. But if you have a lot of money more than 250,000, then it’s not secured by the FDIC. Then you have credit risk. When you look at the depositor profile of Silicon Valley Bank, you can see that they have $150 billion unsecured deposits.
So those are institutional investors who basically lent maybe unsecured, maybe definitely uninsured to Silicon Valley Bank and they could lose everything. If Silicon Valley Bank goes bad, down really badly, they probably will, they’ll get something back. But it’s not good to lose money when we put it in the bank. So they have liabilities that are runnable and they began to run. Now I’ve been hearing anecdotally that everyone was like, get your money out of Silicon Valley Bank. So I’m sure they were. Now you have if you’re a Silicon Valley Bank, that’s a huge, huge problem. You have no liquidity. Everyone is asking for their money back. Your last lifeline is to borrow from, let’s say, the Fed or a Federal Home Loan Bank. It looks like they’re already borrowing from the Federal Home Loan Banks and I don’t know if they can borrow even more. A Federal Home Loan Bank is basically a government sponsored agency whose job is to provide cheap loans to the commercial banks they’re already lending to to the Silicon Valley Bank. In theory they could lend more, but they have a lot of exposure to Silicon Valley Bank. So the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, which is the bank that’s lending to Silicon Valley Bank, 20% of their loan book is to Silicon Valley Bank.
So if you’re a CFO there, do you want to increase your exposure to this bank that’s probably going bankrupt? So yeah, it’s over for them, which is why the FDIC souped in.
Tony
Those are amazing details and it’s exactly what I wanted to hear. Now what I had read earlier was that there are $171 billion of deposits at Silicon Valley Bank and 175 billion but 151 billion of that is uninsured. So basically $24 billion people can pull $24 billion out, but there’s $151 billion that they may or may not get back. Right. So for a lot of these VCs, early stage tech companies and so on, I don’t know if private equity firms or investment funds bank there, but certainly it seems to me to be a systemic risk, especially in the venture capital community. Is that a fair assumption to make?
Joseph
I don’t think it’s systemic to the banking sector and we can talk about that. But these guys who in that community for sure, Tony, I imagine that a lot of people in that community are banking with Silicon Valley Bank. And if Silicon Valley Bank goes under, they’re going to have to have haircuts and maybe it’s a lengthy process. Maybe they get tied up in bankruptcy court or something. So that’s a liquidity problem for them. And so for that community, yeah, I agree, it could be a big problem.
Tony
So if I’m a limited partner in a venture fund today, I’m checking with that venture fund to make sure that my cash is okay. Is that the process that people would be doing? For people who don’t know, limited partners are the investors who put money into a venture capital fund. And my assumption is a venture capital fund would likely store that money in Silicon Valley Bank. And if they can’t access all of well, they could take the first $150,000 of that. But if they can’t get beyond that, then it’s not just the VC that’s hurt, it’s that limited partner. Is that correct?
Joseph
Yeah. So that losses, like you mentioned, partnership losses flow through from the entity to the partnership. That’s what being a partner is about. I imagine there are some rules depending on your general partner, limited partner, things like that, but yeah, it’s investors that get hurt.
Tony
And so the allocation just both of you guys probably know more about this than I do, but the allocation of, say, venture capital from, say, a pension fund is a relatively small allocation of all of the allocations of, say, a pension fund. So I would suspect that this probably isn’t a systemic risk back to, say, pension funds and other investment funds like we had maybe in 2007-8. Right. It’s probably less of a systemic risk than that was.
Joseph
Yeah, I totally agree. I don’t view this as a systemic risk.
Albert
I agree with that. Tony. I don’t think anything systemic is going to happen because SVB Bank goes under. I mean, SVB Bank is the FTX of the fintech banking world. I mean, everything on there, everything that they invested in, is based on trust, and not very much for the fundamentals at A. So it’s not a surprise that it went under as the Fed has been raising rates. Everyone knows that if the rates rise, the tech sector is one that gets hit the most. So it’s not really a surprise that this happened now.
Joseph
Yeah, I totally agree. When the Fed is raising rates, it’s trying to slow down the economy through sectors that are interest rate sensitive. I think the great irony here is that we all expected that to be real estate, right? But real estate is fine, but we miss the fact that the other really interest rate sensitive sectors is tech. And we see big layoffs in tech. So it’s actually all the well paid people who complete on Twitter who are having a bad problem, but the more blue collar industries seem to be doing fine.
Albert
Yeah. Housing got a boost because there’s a lot of cash buyers. People were cashing out at the behest of bloodstone, buying everything, but they were cashing out three and four times the value of the homes that they had a mortgage on. So they go and buy other homes, pure cash. There’s no mortgage risk in the system for the rate. Just like you were saying, the housing sector is not really affected by rates at the moment. You can see that because the houses are still going up and still a little bit of a shortage. But the tech sector was always the biggest loser of the hawks.
Joseph
One of the things that I hear is that there’s the fiscal stimulus from all the construction stuff, like is flowing into the state and local governments. And so that kind of construction spending seems to be supportive of employment, at least in the construction sector. So the guys who, if they’re building residential houses, maybe they can go and do something that’s benefiting from fiscal stimulus.
Tony
Sure. Here in Texas and probably in Florida, where Albert lives, there is construction all over the place, and it’s helping the tax base, it’s helping the overall impact of related jobs and other things. So it is still very strong, at least in the south.
Albert
Well, look at the layoffs. It’s all been tech and no construction. Construction has a shortage of workers at the moment, that’s the best indicator that you can have at the moment.
Tony
CI Futures is our subscription platform for global markets and economics, we forecast hundreds of assets across currencies, commodities, equity indices, and economics. We have new forecasts for currencies, commodities and equity indices every Monday morning. We do new economics forecast for 50 countries once a month. Within CI Futures, we show you our error rates. So every forecast every month, we give you the one- and three-month error rates for our previous forecast. We also show you the top correlations and allow you to download charts and data. CI Futures is available for $50 a month, $75 a month or $99 a month. You can find out more or get a demo on completeintel.com. Thank you.
Tony
Right. Okay, in talking about that strength, let’s talk about the Fed a little bit. Okay. If we were talking two days ago, there would probably be a bias toward the Fed becoming more hawkish. Right.
All the buzz two days ago was, well, we’re going 50. Fed is going to be more hawkish. It’s going to be tough. But over the last 24 hours, things have really started to lean away from that. So what do you see as drivers of the Fed being hawkish and drivers of the Fed being less? So we can’t say that they’re dovish. Right. But it’s more the degree of the rate rise. So what do you see in the calculus that they’re thinking through?
Joseph
Yeah, so let’s level that a little bit. So at the last FOMC conference, Chair Powell basically said that from now on, we’re going to do 25 basis points. He said that through his statement. So the language was that rather than talk about the pace of the hikes, we’re going to talk about the extent. So that’s kind of a that would seem like a done deal. And from my experience with the Fed, very slow, very conservative organization. 75-50-25-25-25, you know, you don’t go from 25 to 50. Now, that’s what everyone assumed. And also corroborated by, let’s say, President Mester. And then Chair Powell kind of threw that whole thing upside down this past week when he was testifying before the House and Senate. He was basically suggesting that, you know, if the data is still strong, we’re going to do 50 until the market began to price that in. So the question ultimately is, is data strong? And that has to do with what happened today with the non farm payrolls and what happens with the CPI report next week. Now, when you’re looking at market pricing, like you suggested, Tony, they seem to be taking out that 50 basis point hike today, Friday, and that could be in part because of fear contagion in the banking sector, I don’t know.
Now, looking at the non farm payroll itself, it looks like the jobs number over 300,000 was comfortably above Bloomberg expectations of about 200 some thousand dollars. But there was a little bit of a mix in it as well because of the unemployment rate increased. I think the pace of a wage increase is also moderated as well. So it seems to be on the stronger side, but not unambiguously. So my perception from this is if the Chair Powell is basically upending everyone’s expectations and putting 50 on the table, the presumption is 50. And this was not clearly weak. We got to watch CPI next week as well. As long as CPI is not like super, like a big disaster, I think the presumption should be about 50 basis points for the March hike.
Tony
So you think the presumption is 50 now?
Joseph
I think today’s headline employment was pretty strong. It’s not something that is weak enough, I think, to take away the presumption. Again. Everything could change with CPI next week, but we’ll see.
Tony
Thank you very much. That’s okay. We know you’re busy, so thank you so much. So Joseph, with the jobs data, there were 50,000 department store jobs in that jobs data. And to me that seems like a statistical extrapolation from an old model or something. I mean, I don’t know of any department store that’s hiring. So when these things come out, what are we supposed to think about that type of data?
Joseph
Yeah, so a lot of people get into the guts of the report and the Fed actually, internally, they have their own model for stuff like this. I would be hesitant to be looking into too much into these adjustments. As you mentioned, they matter. But then you can look at every single job report and say, oh, it’s actually not as strong as it is, or not as weak as it is. For all these little idiosyncratic reasons. I would just take it as it’s presented and knowing of full well, of course, that it is a statistical abstraction of what reality is.
Tony
So is it fair to say you see it more as a kind of a direction than something that’s more specific?
Joseph
Yes. And also if you just average this one with the past few months, it does seem like the labor market not slowing, has decent momentum and there could be revisions going forward. I mean, January was revised slightly, slightly weaker. So it’s just not obvious evidence that data is weak from my reading.
Albert
Tony, for a long time I’ve been saying the Fed should have been doing 50 basis points months ago, but here we are now talking about 50 after doing 25 a few times. I don’t think that they’re going to do 50. I think more that what they’re going to end up doing is talking about QT and doing QT for longer rather than rates at the moment, just because I think Powell and Yellen and the entire crew over there is a little bit worried about the economy, especially after the bank failed. And looking at the jobs numbers, I just can’t see more than that’s. I just think that things will start breaking. If we go 50, we’ll be down 200 points on the S&P, and things will start breaking. And you start wandering down to 3500 on the S&P, you actually make it a financial crisis.
Tony
Isn’t that kind of what they like? They kind of want some things to start breaking. Right. Not that they don’t bankrupt people, but they do want some things to start breaking.
Albert
They keep talking about a soft landing, and that’s the plan at the moment.
Joseph
I agree with Albert. I think the right policy would just be emphasized QT a bit more. It makes perfect sense. I guess we’ll talk about QT in a bit, but it’s a good policy from my perspective, because when you do QT, you’re putting upward pressure on the rates that actually matter to the economy. You hike the Fed funds up and down. Nobody really cares about the overnight rate. When you’re talking about economically sensitive rates, like mortgage rates or like your auto loan rates, those are like the five year, ten year sector, and that can be influenced by QT. So you want to slow the economy down, you want those rates to go higher. But I think the Fed is pretty stubborn when it comes to QT, in part because they don’t really understand they don’t feel like they understand it well. They feel that they understand the overnight rate a bit better.
Tony
Okay, so let’s talk about that. QT is on our agenda, so let’s move to that. So in terms of rates, Joseph, you’re the 50 camp. Albert, you’re the 25 camp. Let’s move to QT. We have been undertaking QT for, what, ten months now or something, and it’s been gradual. Albert, you smile when I say that. What’s your thought?
Albert
Well, I mean, we’ve been doing QT, but then it’s been offset by Yellen’s TGA activity.
Tony
Yeah. Now what are you hearing about the TGA? Has that slowed down?
Albert
It slowed down now, but once the tax revenue comes in late April, she’ll have that again in May.
Tony
Okay. So if we have quantitative tightening, which means the Fed is selling things from their balance sheet into the market, probably at a discounted rate, which takes money out of the out of circulation and it tightens the money supply. Right, but if we have the Treasury issuing funds from the general account, it’s offsetting those QT efforts. Right?
Albert
Yeah, that’s exactly what it’s doing. She’s actually, right now, as we speak, being questioned by the TGA from the House Ways and Means Committee. That’s exactly what she’s been doing, and I think it’s more like why she’s doing it politically rather than anything with economic policy in mind.
Tony
Okay, so what are the politicians generally asking her about, Albert?
Albert
Well, they’re asking her about her sterilization of QT by using the TGA and the effects of inflation because of it at the moment. I have a list of the questions that I can definitely give you guys for afterwards if you want to post them up here. But that’s what they’re asking her about. Why is her action why is she talking about rates when she is a CFO of the country? She is the Treasury Secretary. She’s not the Fed chair. She should be talking about rates one day after Powell comes out being hawkish.
Tony
Right. It’s hard to quit the Fed, I guess. Okay, moving on.
Joseph
I have a question, Albert. Do you have any views on who might be the next vice chair? I mean, right now the frontrunner seems to be Janet Everley, this academic in Northwestern, but I watched the hearings and everyone there was like, from the Democratic side was like, “”oh, we got to have an Hispanic vice chair. We got to have an Hispanic vice chair. And Janet Everley, maybe she has distant relatives or maybe she’s going to write a cookbook about tacos or something like that, but she doesn’t appear to be Hispanic to me.
Albert
Yeah, I don’t know. That decision is going to be made by Brainard who they want is the vice chair. That goes with their liberal policies and enacting and using the Fed to push those political agendas. That’s what they’re looking for. I mean, it could be Hispanic or black or white or whatever, but the base case is that they need someone with a liberal slant in their view to help them out.
Joseph
Yeah. Janet Everly definitely has a liberal slant. For you guys who are not aware, she thought it was a good idea to have a higher inflation target. Maybe that will be in the future, not with Jay Powell, but maybe in the future, maybe like 3%, maybe 4%. Who knows?
Albert
I think 3% is definitely coming no matter what. I don’t think it’s realistic for us to get back down to 2%, especially with the Fed members being former liberal than they were a few years ago.
Tony
Okay, let’s talk about the three 4% rate at some point.
Tony
But let’s get back to QT. Joseph, can you talk us through some of the if the Fed were to accelerate QT, which seems to be something that you’d like to see them do, more of what forms would that take?
Joseph
They could just simply raise the cap for Treasury. So right now the Treasuries can match. The QT pays for Treasuries is a maximum $60 billion a month. They could raise that. So what happens mechanically is that you can think of it as the private sector having to hold more Treasuries. You’re increasing the supply of Treasury debt that must be held by the private sector. So basic supply and demand, increasing supply prices for Treasuries decline and so yields go higher. So that’s a way that they could try to tighten policy by making, let’s say, longer dated interest rates higher. And I think it’s helpful, especially in today’s context. So investors look at the world, look at the future based on their experience in the past. And our experience over the past decade was a Fed who would just cut rates at the drop of a hat. And so because the investor community believes that you have a very, very deeply inverted curve and that’s a big problem because as the Fed is hiking rates on the front end, you don’t see that as much in the ten year. And so you can see, for example, mortgage rates continue to go down as they did in January, thus essentially undoing all the hiking the Fed is doing in the frontend.
Joseph
So you really need the market to either believe that the Fed is higher for longer, or you could have the Fed engineer it by just boosting the supply of longer dated Treasuries. And it’s hard to convince the market of something and the market has a reason to believe that JPowell and his committee of largely dovish committee is just going to cut rates. So it’d be easier to just boost the supply of Treasuries through QT.
Albert
Okay, that’s something that nobody talks about, is durational liquidity. Nobody speaks about that right now with the Fed and the Treasury. I haven’t seen one analyst talk about duration liquidity.
Tony
Okay, so can you guys talk about that? How would they change? Well, first of all, if we focus more on QT, would that potentially pose a threat to, say, banking systems or there are other potential systemic threats that QT could pose for the US.
Joseph
Yeah, it could blow up the Treasury market.
Tony
Okay, tell us how that wouldn’t tell us.
Joseph
So I think there’s huge the great systemic risk today is not in the banks or the private sector. It’s in the public sector. It’s in the Treasury market. And we saw kind of a prelude to that with what happened with the gilt market in the Bank of England last year. For those of you who don’t remember, last year we saw gilt yields basically 30 year long good data gilt yields basically explode higher late last year, and in part because, one, the Bank of England announced that they were doing quantitative tightening and also because the government announced that they were going to issue a whole bunch of gilts. Now there are some levered players in that market who basically blew up. Now if you recall throughout late last year, okay, the summer of last year, there’s a lot of articles about Treasury market liquidity. This is something that I’ve been writing about since last January. And Treasury market liquidity is not really strong, in part because the size of the Treasury market is just growing so quickly. It’s not growing in proportion to the underlying market. So I think about this as like a stadium that gets bigger and bigger, but the exits don’t get any bigger.
Joseph
So 20 years ago we had about $7 trillion in Treasuries outstanding. Today we got about 25. And Biden is going to promise that he’s going to issue even more through his spending. And the underlying market liquidity in the market hasn’t scaled in the same way. 20 years ago we were doing $400 billion a day in cash transactions. Today it’s 600. So again, there is some potential for fragility. Now the market got was looking pretty dicey in the summer last summer, but it got bailed out when recession fears predominated and people began to think that Fed is going to cut rates. Recession, you got to buy Treasuries. But in the event that those recession concerns go away or inflation stays persistent, you can have, I think, some real discontinuous event there where yields spike higher like they did in the UK, which of course wouldn’t lead the Fed to respond. Yeah. So that’s what I view as I’m not really worried about banking or anything like that. So one thing that people have to be aware of is that the banking system has really changed a lot over this past decade. So an easy way to look at that is just Fed QE, right?
Joseph
So now banks have $3 trillion of basically liquidity from QE on their balance sheet. They didn’t have that preg. There’s also a lot more regulation. Now banks are really, really boring businesses. Back then it was exciting. Everyone is making huge bonuses and so forth. But now that’s all in the tech sector.
Tony
Okay, so you say that the gilt blow up happened because of long dated yields. Is there anything, if we move into QT, is there anything the Treasuries could do? Could they move that to the shorter end of the curve to avoid that?
Joseph
I think that would be a great idea. So one of the things that they floated is a buyback operation. So what they would do is they would issue bonds and use that proceeds to buy old bonds. Now I think it would be a good idea to issue shorter dated bonds and buy longer dated bonds. They basically change the duration profile. I don’t think that’s what they want to do. So far they’ve been pretty adamant that they want to make it a maturity bond. Now I’ll give you an example. Let’s say you issued a 30 year bond and. After ten years, it rolls down to a 20 year bond. Now it’s an off the run bond. So an off the run is something that was issued, not recent, and that off the run market is very, very illiquid. So what you could do is you could issue a new on the run 20 year on the runs are very liquid because they’re the recent vintage. Take that money and buy back the old 30 year, which became a 20 year. So you don’t really change the duration of the debt outstanding, just the liquidity profile. That’s what they’re floating.
And maybe that’s something they’ll do. I suspect that it’s not going to be enough. If they want to do something like that, they probably will need to rely well, it’s not going to work, so they’re going to have to rely on the Fed. Just like in the UK, they relied on the Bank of England.
Tony
In Japan. What they’ve been doing particularly kind of seven to ten years ago, the Ministry of Finance was issuing shorter duration debt to buy longer duration debt, and the BOJ was buying that shorter duration debt and letting it expire at maturity. Is that something that we could do here? Where the Treasury would issue shorter duration debt, the Fed would buy it, they would pay off the longer duration debt, and then it would just go into nowhere?
Joseph
They could totally change the maturity structure of Treasury debt. It’d be a really good idea if they did that. They don’t actually need the Fed to buy it. There’s a ton of demand for cash at the front end in the US financial system right now. There’s so much demand that people are putting it into the Fed’s reverse repo facility, which is about $2 trillion. So that means that the Treasury could issue $2 trillion worth of Treasury bills, and the market would just lap it up like that. So they don’t need the Fed to buy it.
Tony
Okay, while we’re here, while we’re talking about people buying Treasuries, I saw some notes over the past week or so where people are saying China is selling their Treasuries, everyone needs to worry. Can you talk to us about that? Joseph Albert, can you talk to us about that? To me, that seems laughable, but it is laughable.
Albert
They need dollars to keep even if you look at if you look at over the long run, I think over the last, like, five years, yeah, sure, they had bought a lot of Treasuries and now they’re selling Treasuries. But it’s pretty even at the moment, if you look going back five years, I don’t even take that kind of argument seriously. When people say that China is going to sell Treasuries and dollars going to crash and blah, blah, blah, buy my crypto, buy my gold, it’s what it usually is. So I personally don’t see it as a big deal. I mean, you know, that’s just the way I think about it, so pretty pretty explicit about it.
Tony
Joseph, what do you think?
Joseph
Yeah, it’s hard for China to find a substitute for Treasuries. So Brad sets there at the Council of Foreign Relations, he’s an expert on this and he has done some pretty interesting detective work. And one of the things that seems interesting is that the China foreign reserves actually hasn’t changed all that much over the past several years. So based on their publicly disclosed data, it stayed around, let’s say three, three and a half trillion over the past few years. But if you recall, China has been making a lot of money through exports. During COVID for example, they were exporting like trades to the US trade deficit with China between US exploded higher. Right. So where is all that money going? It’s not going to the sovereign fund. It must be going somewhere else. I think part of it is going to the commercial banks, but I don’t really know how their data works out. I think they definitely have a huge problem in that they have a lot of exposure to the US. That kind of gives the US political power over them, just like the US could seize Russia’s sovereign reserves. It’s a problem for them.
I don’t know how they can solve it. I’m sure they want to solve it, but so far it seems like they’re stuck, at least for the moment, in Treasury.
Albert
It is a big problem for China because when Yelling calls them up and said, you got to help us out in inflation and crush commodities, you’re going to have to do what Yellen and the Fed say just because of how much they’re held off. I absolutely agree with you on that one.
Tony
Let me bring Tracy in here because I don’t like it when she’s quiet. So, Tracy, what do you think about the issue about Chinese selling US treasuries? Do you see that as an issue from your perspective? Does China have other options? What do you think they’re doing with the money they’re making on US. Export, on exports to the US?
Tracy
Well, I think if we look at the big picture, right, we have seen increased central banks buying gold and selling US treasuries, but we have to look at the bigger picture. More people own US debt than any other country in the entire world, so that’s not going away soon. So I hate to cater to these people and say, yeah, central banks are wearing a lot of gold, but that means that they’re shutting us right? Because it’s simply not true. You still look at the highest countries that own US debt still continue to be the same one china, Japan, et cetera. That’s not going away anytime soon. It is notable in the fact that looking at the gold market, which has been particularly lagging, I think it’s very interesting if we’re looking at the commodity side of things because we’ve seen last year particularly we saw outflows of gold flows, people investing in gold, whether it’s physical, ETF, et cetera, literally for eight months straight. I think that kind of makes this market interesting. But again, I don’t want to conflate that with central banks are buying gold, digging US. Treasuries. That means nobody likes us.
Tracy
Debt anymore.
Albert
That’s an important fact that, yeah, whenever they sell gold or Treasuries, they’re just raising my opinion. They’re just arbitraging for dollars later on. It’s nothing systemic that’s a threat to the US dollar by any means.
Tracy
That was my point. Let’s not make this a bigger issue than it needs to be that we have often seen, yeah, central banks can.
Tony
Walk and chew gum and spin plates and all that stuff at the same time. I think they’re capable. They’re very smart people are capable of doing all this stuff. So okay, just before we move on from QT, albert, is there anything else on QT that you wanted to bring up that you’re watching?
Albert
No, Joseph pretty much talked about it extensively, and there’s not really much I can add. I just think that the proper thing for power to do right now is to accelerate QT and keep rates as they are at the moment.
Tony
Okay, so with housing remaining relatively strong, do you think that they’ll sell off more MBS as a part of their QT portfolio, or do you think they’ll just keep it in the same proportion that it’s been now?
Albert
I think they’ll just keep it in the same proportion right now. I mean, housing at the moment is a big political problem because homes are unaffordable at 70% mortgage rate. So they’re going to have to do something they’re keeping an eye on. That I can guarantee.
Joseph
Yeah. I also note that Powell has been asked his point, Blake, and just said no. He can always change his mind. Powell has a reputation for being a pivotal like he just did. But to Albert’s point, mortgage rates are 7%. That’s kind of already a big drag on housing. If it went to 8%, would that really make that much of a difference? It’s already very high, and you’ve already.
Tracy
Seen housing prices come down extensively, right? Redfin just came out and said 45% decrease in luxury homes and 37.5% decrease. So I think what we’re seeing is housing prices decrease in response to the increase in mortgage rates.
Tony
Okay, very good. Okay, let’s move on. Since we’ve been talking about the US. Government for the first two segments, let’s move on to the US. Government for the third segment and talk about America’s rudderless energy policy. So, Tracy, you were tweeting about a speech that Jennifer Granholm, U. S. Energy Secretary, made earlier this week, and I want to kind of parse that through with you because she is the spokesperson for US. Government’s energy policy.
And there just seems to be a lot of mixed messages. And I’ve got a tweet on the screen about the grand home speech where you said she said, we’ll still need fossil fuels in 30 to 40 years, then to send it into how the Inflation Reduction Act makes the US. Irresistible for new energy. So can you talk us through kind of what were you thinking of as you heard her, and what were your big takeaways?
Tracy
Well, the first thing I want to note in that speech is that for the last two years, this administration has been pushing on the energy industry, right. And has been talking about how they have all these profits and they’re not.
Tony
Producing greeny energy companies. Greedy.
Tracy
That’s been the mo, right. For the last two years. And then in this speech, she did like, 180 when asked the question.
Tony
How.
Tracy
Do you think oil companies, oil and gas companies are responding? She said, we’re very happy how oil and gas companies are responding to our request for like, she gave them props, which is literally 180 degree. So to me that I was like, what? Because really our production has not really increased at all. But suddenly she’s at Fair a week giving props to the energy companies because.
Tony
The CEOs were there.
Tracy
Well, right. So it’s a huge mixed message. The other important thing, I think, to take away from that particular speech was that the US. Wants to move on to energy transition. We want to move away from China. We want to be able to mine our own metals and minerals in the US. For this energy transition. But she was quick to add that the permitting process is a nightmare. It takes ten years just to get a permit. And then if you get lawsuits on top of that, to get to an idea from, I want to build this mine in the US. To actual fruition is a ten year permitting process, and then it’s then plus however many lawsuits you have. I thought that was really interesting and that she actually admitted that the permitting process was completely horrible. Since her administration, or the administration that she works for, has said, what we want to do is streamline this permitting process. We’re going to give people all these incentives to build mines, et cetera. Basically, what she did I take away from the speech is basically what she said was completely opposite of what this administration has been telling us, and that is we have all these incentives.
Tracy
We can build all these mines, no problem. And we love the fact that the US. Oil and gas companies have responded to us and are producing more, which is outright not true. Sorry.
Tony
Okay.
Albert
These are political pipe dreams by the Biden administration. As long as the EPA is there and staff with environmental Nazis, there’s no way that manufacturing and mining is going to propel to the next level in the United States.
Tony
Biden budget proposes 17,000 more EPA staff.
Albert
Oh, yeah, that’s a great sign. That’s a great sign.
Tony
But what they’re saying, tracy, tell me if I’m wrong. They’ve already pushed all this money or they’re already planning to push all this money out into the market. Okay. And this week, the EU developed a proposal to kind of complement the US. And compete with the US. So there’s dump trucks of cash now out there to develop alternative energy. But both the US. And Europe have very restrictive policies on getting those mines together. So out of one side of the mouth, they’re saying they want alternative energy for a safe future. But the reality is they’re paying companies to have Congolese children mind cobalt. I mean, that’s the reality of the situation, right.
Tracy
Situation is it’s not in my backyard. Right, right. That’s the reality situation.
Tony
We want cars that plug in, and we don’t want people to know that Congolese children are mining cobalt. But that’s the crude, stark, horrific reality of these policies today.
Albert
Absolutely, yeah. If you want an American built iPhone or American built Tesla, from the battery on all the way up, it’s going to cost you $5,000 for an iPhone and $190,000 for a little smallest Tesla you can possibly buy.
Tracy
Yeah, it doesn’t matter because it’s never going to be enough, but it doesn’t matter. You think Yellen went to Africa, right? Her trick on Africa, all we heard was she went into Africa to join the renewable generator. That is not why she went. She went to go make deals for mining in Africa. It’s really the back of that situation.
Tony
Wow, that’s terrible. I mean, it’s just the rainbows and unicorns of the policy as it’s portrayed versus the reality, the ugly reality of this industry is pretty horrific. So, Tracy, as you watched Grand Home, what did you think about the oil and gas sector? Did you think, okay, everything’s fine, I don’t have to worry about all this restrictive stuff for 510 years, they’re just going to keep on with status quo?
Tracy
No, I think once you’re looking at the oil and gas sector and you have to look at what actual oil companies said. So you had Scott Sheffield, a pioneer, say there’s five good years left of the permian. That’s a scary thought. Right. And there’s no incentive to drill more because the government’s telling you that in ten years, we want you totally phase out. And so we are going to have a serious problem. And I have said repeatedly, I think that the 13.1 million barrels per day the US. Produced at the end of 2019 in December is probably the height of that’s. It that’s the height of shell, unless something drastically changes within policy.
Tony
Okay, so it sounds to me, since there’s five good years left to the permian, since the US. Government wants this phased out in ten years, there is no ability for oil and gas and money firms actually to have a capital planning cycle. Right. Anything that has longer than a five year payback just is not worth investing in, is that fair to say?
Tracy
I would say that’s fair to say in the United States. Now, if we look offshore, which is really interesting, and that’s where we’re seeing a lot of investment in, say, Guyana or Namibia or a lot of offshore sector kind of seems to be the focus right now in other countries because they just don’t have the same policy hurdles that the United States does.
Tony
Okay.
Albert
Yeah. All places where the EPA is not at.
Tony
Right. So the entire US energy policy and renewables policy is just a big Nimby policy, like you said, just not in my backyard.
Tracy
It is right now. We’ll see what happens. There’s a project going on in Alaska right now which people should be paying attention to their policymakers want this to go through. I sincerely doubt that it’s going to go through because no majors want to invest up there because they run into a bunch of lawsuits. Right. And so why would you knowingly, even if you bought the land rights or the leases, it’s a horrible place because you know that you’re going to be faced with a million lawsuits and give me a million hurdles and whatever. Even if you look at the recent Gom auction, now, you have environmentalists suing anybody that bought leases. It’s a lose lose situation if you’re really trying to explore more gas in the United States right now.
Tony
Okay, so when you say it’s a horrible place, do you mean specifically that Alaska is a horrible place? Because I think we have, like, three there.
Tracy
Alaska is amazing place. I have friends from Alaska.
Tony
Okay.
Tracy
I’m just saying the problem is that you run into a whole lot of regulatory issues, and then you run into a whole lot of lawsuits that are going to take place. And really, that’s a whole separate issue. Now, I really wrote about this in 2020 was the land that they auctioned off is part of a reserve?
Tony
That’s always a good idea.
Tracy
Probably should have never been. Right? And that’s why it really got no interest. It did get a bid from Chevron again, but I don’t see that project going forward ever.
Tony
Okay. Yeah, it’s crazy. And as I try to figure out the policy and I talk to you and I talk to other people, I just can’t figure out what we’re going to look like in five years. And if I was in charge of capex budgets with upstream, downstream, midstream, I honestly wouldn’t know what to do.
Tracy
Because there’s that’s why we continue to look at these companies, continue to focus on dividends, capital, discipline, and paying down debt. I mean, you have to remember, these studies were not making money for years.
Tony
That’s an important point. So when the President of the United States says that Chevron is a terrible company for giving large dividends and doing large share buybacks, they’re doing that because they cannot spend that money on capex. Because they don’t know what the environment is going to be like in five or ten years, is that correct?
Tracy
Yes, exactly. And that’s the point. And they’re trying to gain shareholders. You have to look, two decades ago the oil and gas sector was 20% of the SF 500 weighting wise. Right. And at the lowest in 2020 we were a little bit below 2%. We’re now at about 4%. But you can see where that market has fared fairly poorly.
Tony
Yeah, but Tracy, it’s all going to be AI software forward, so just complete intelligence.
Tracy
It’s going to be chevron AI.
Albert
Yeah, I’ll fund it by a new Silicon Valley bank.
Tracy
That’s right.
Tony
Okay guys, we have a big week ahead going into leading up to the Fed meeting. So what are you all expecting? Joseph, what do you expect to see next week with the various prints coming up?
Joseph
It’s all about the CPI. I mean, I want to know if it’s actually strong. If it’s strong, then we got 50 basis points blocked in right now. Like you mentioned, Tony, that’s been taken out of the market. It could be a violent repricing. So that’s what we want to focus. So I’m suspecting that a lot of people are pricing in rate cuts in part because of what they perceive to be some risk in the banking sector. I just don’t see that. And so when we see that come out of the market, we could have rates go back to expecting a more higher for longer stance by the Fed.
Tony
Okay, great. What is a high CPI to you?
Joseph
I haven’t checked this expectations yet, but whatever is higher than expectations.
Tony
Okay, so literally higher than expectations, if it’s higher than the consensus, then that’s a high CPI.
Joseph
Yeah. If you think back a couple of months, we’re seeing CPI go down. Right. Deceleration, I want to know if it really just did reaccelerate or if it just kind of gave back. What the increase from last month?
Tony
Okay, great. That’s perfect. Albert, what are you looking for next week?
Albert
Same thing CPI is to make a break for the Fed on 25 verse 50. I’m hoping somehow they’ve managed to manipulate the CPI number to make it somewhat in line with the consensus. Hoping for a nothing burger probably be the best option at the moment. Something meaning consensus. If core CPI is hot, like Joseph said, fifty S, fifty S locked in.
Tony
And if super core CPI is hot, that just reinforces wage expectations and it’s all this super circular situation. Right? Okay, so if we do see a 50, do you see an impact on equities? Like a negative impact on equities? Do you think it’d be sideways?
Albert
Without a doubt. Without a doubt. I think if they go out and do 50, I think we’re down 200 points in the S and P pretty quickly in a week. If they do 25, we might even rally 100 points. You know how it is, we’re in bitcoin world now in the S and P. Right?
Tony
Exactly. Okay, that’s good to know. Tracy. We’ve seen oil kind of move sideways. We see energy kind of move sideways lately. What’s happening and what do you expect to see?
Tracy
You know what? I think we talked about this the other week. I continue to think it’ll move sideways. I think we’re in a range. OPEC is very comfortable with that $80 to $90 range for Brent crude oil. And so I see no reason for much to change in that. I think as we head into high demand season right, june, July, August, we could see an uptick in prices. But for right now, the market is very comfortable.
Tony
Okay. And then this Saudi Iran peace agreement that was announced today, do you think that has an impact on crude supply? Do you think that could push crude prices down?
Tracy
I don’t think that, no. Because OPEC has existed for a very long time. Iran is an original member of OPEC.
Tony
They were the founding member. Right.
Tracy
So that relationship has existed cohesively beyond any of the other geopolitical problems that they have had. And Saudi Arabia has always said that this relationship will exist beyond whatever other problems we are having. So I don’t think within the oil market, it really changes any dynamic because that relationship was already solid.
Tony
That’s good to know. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for your time. Thanks for all your knowledge. Have a great weekend. And have a great weekend. Thank you.
In this BFM 89.9 podcast, CEO of Complete Intelligence, Tony Nash, discusses the February US equities market and gives his predictions for March. Nash predicts another down month for US markets, albeit not as much as February, with China also being down markedly. He also expects Malaysia to do well and increase by about 1%. Nash also comments on US earnings season, stating that the quality of earnings reported so far is not great and that only $0.88 was matched by cash flows for every dollar of profit, with some companies passing along price hikes successfully but for how long can they keep it up. Nash also discusses interest rates and a more hawkish Fed, which could lead to the dollar rising. He also comments on a newly formed House committee aimed at examining economic competition between the US and China.
Transcript
BFM: BFM 89.9. Good morning. You’re listening to the Morning Run at 7:07 on Thursday the 2nd of March. I’m Shazana Mokhtar with Chong Tjen San and Wong Shou Ning. Now, in half an hour, we’re going to discuss Malaysia’s bilateral ties with the Philippines in light of our Prime Minister currently on a visit there. But as always, we’re going to kick-start this morning with a recap on how global markets closed.
Overnight, US markets were mixed. The Dow was up marginally by 0.2%, the S&P 500 down 0.5%, NASDAQ down 0.7%. Asian markets were also mixed. The Nikkei was up by 0.3%, Hang Seng popped it up and was up by 4.2%, Shanghai Composite up by 1%, Straits Times Index down by 0.2% and the FBMKLCI was down by 0.3%.
It’s everywhere.
That’s right. Well, we’re going to try and kind of peel some trends with Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence. Tony, good morning. Let’s review what happened back in February. It wasn’t such a great month for US equities. We did see the Dow and SP 500 both lose 4% and 2.6%, respectively. Where do you see the stock market heading in March? Is it going to be more volatility or perhaps brighter skies on the horizon?
Tony: Oh, yeah, it’s going to be pretty choppy. Generally, we expect US markets to have a down month, not down as much as it had been in Feb, but we do expect another down month. Obviously, if the Fed comes in with a very hawkish meeting, then we could see more chop there. We do expect China to be down this month as well. That kind of goes against what we’ve seen in News early this month, but we are seeing China down markedly, say more than 2% this month as well. Good news is we expect Birth of Malaysia to be up about 1%. So while we see chop in others, we may see Malaysia do squeak out a good positive month.
BFM: And Tony, as the US earnings season starts to taper off, what is your assessment of the results that have been released so far? In particular, the most cyclical consumer-facing companies?
Tony: Yes, so the quality of earnings reported so far is not great. So for every dollar of profits, only about $0.88 was matched by cash flows. That’s the largest discrepancy since at least 1990. So that means 12% are from kind of non-cash earnings. So it’s really accounting and other things. So what we’re seeing, especially on the consumer side, is some companies are passing along price hikes, and we see some of them doing that really successfully. I think we’ve talked about that here before, where they’ll hike between eight and say 15% and their sales volume will be down maybe 5%, something like that. That’s really helped the top line and margin expansion. But the real question is for how long can they keep raising those prices and kind of sacrificing transaction volume. So there’s a real question there. But many of those companies have said they’re going to continue to raise prices into later in ’23. The problem is when we run into a company like Coals, which is a retailer here in the US that reported today, and it was all bad, they’re losing customers they’re not able to keep with their costs and other things.
For those companies that cannot pass along price hikes, for whatever reason, it’s really bad news for them. The inflation they’re importing from their vendors is just squeezing their margins, and in some cases, they’re losing money. So, I don’t think the quality of earnings improves from here for at least two quarters. That’s just something to think about as we go into the next Q1 and Q2 earnings.
BFM: Okay, I want to come back to interest rates, Tony, because I’m reading Bloomberg and it seems like the Street is now expecting a terminal rate of 5.6%. Honestly, this changes every day. It was 5.4% not too long ago. But what does this mean for the US dollar? Are we back to the reign of King Dollar again?
Tony: Well, if we see a more hawkish Fed, then I would say yes, that’s probably the case. So, what we would likely see are things like 25 basis points, at least for the next three meetings, if not longer. If we continue to see hot inflation, as we have over the past couple of days, they could do a surprise 50. I don’t think that’s what they’re going to do, but we can’t rule it out. We could also see quantitative tightening, meaning the Fed could unload more mortgage-backed securities or other things, accelerating that from their balance sheet. Because housing is still pretty hot, actually. Prices aren’t moving that much, so we could see the Fed move on MBS or some other things to accelerate that off of their balance sheet. I don’t think that’s highly likely, but it’s a possibility. All of those bode well for the dollar and dollar strength. If that happens, we would definitely see the dollar rise generally.
BFM: Can we take a look at what’s happening over in the US Congress, Tony? There’s a newly formed House committee aimed at examining economic competition between the US and China. I think they held their first hearing earlier this week. What was the outcome? And do you think, as a result, we’re just going to see more trade conflicts between these two superpowers?
Tony: Yeah, so there’s a lot of focus on decoupling from China. There will never be a full decoupling from China. I don’t think we’ll even have a majority decoupling from China. But there are some key industries, like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, some healthcare aspects that people really do want to decouple from China because we saw through the pandemic that supply chains are very, very dependent on China. Americans want many of those core things closer to home. They’re focused on decoupling. For some reason, people in Congress are just becoming aware that the CCP is in charge of everything in China. So they’ve underestimated the influence of the CCP and they’re waking up to the fact that they’re central in China. We had a couple of former national security advisors suggesting things like accelerating the arming of Taiwan and helping Chinese circumvent the Great Firewall, those sorts of things. And then, of course, human rights. They talked about CCP police outposts that are in US cities where there are actually these CCP outposts that will pursue Chinese nationals within the US, among other things. It’s taking a pretty tough stance on China. I’m not sure to what extreme that will go and what policies will be adopted yet, but I think it’s definitely trying to at least uncover some of the things that Americans haven’t been aware of.
Keep in mind, a little bit of this is theater, right? It’s people in Congress holding hearings to publicize some of their agenda. So, I think it’s a little bit of that so that they can then move into legislation and move the needle just a little bit. I don’t think we’ll see anything extreme, but you will certainly hear some extreme talk over the next couple of months.
BFM: Yeah, but does this change the way fund managers invest? You’ve got this continuing geopolitical tension between the US and China. Is it going to stop, for example, American fund managers from buying Chinese stocks?
Tony: I think it definitely puts China as a higher risk for US portfolio managers. And certainly over the past couple of years, more US portfolio managers have become aware of the risks of investing in China as supply chains close down, among other things. So, I think you will see more of a tighter risk calibration and more weighting of risk for Chinese equities. So, it could potentially not be good for American money investing in Chinese exchanges. Absolutely.
BFM: Tony, thanks very much for speaking with us. That was Tony Nash, CEO of Complete Intelligence, giving us his take on some of the trends that he sees moving markets in the days and weeks ahead. As he was talking about how March is possibly going to be down, although not as down as February, I couldn’t help but think, ‘Oh, beware the eyes of March.’ But, yes, it’s still choppy out there, especially as the FOMC will be having their meeting this month. I think everyone’s going to wait and see how much they’re going to hike those rates.
Yeah, he gave some predictions on Malaysia as well. He thinks the market will possibly be up by about 1% in March, but the market has been quite disappointing in Malaysia. And he also expects the China market to be down in March by about 2%. And we spoke about the geopolitical risk which may impact US fund managers as well.
