The most significant change across my favourite market charts in the past few weeks is the fact that the US 60/40 portfolio is now eking out a small positive gain on a six-month basis. Chart 01 shows that my in-house 60/40 index—using the S&P 500 and the US 10y note—is now posting six-month returns to the tune of just over 1%. This reversal from a nadir in six-month returns of almost -20% earlier this year is driven by both stocks and bonds. The S&P 500 is up a bit over 10% since mid-October, and ten-year yields are off their highs. This, in turn, invites the question of whether we’re seeing the beginning of a reversal in the decline in stocks, and rise in yields, which have haunted investors this year. I wish I knew. To get at an answer to the question, however, it’s best to separate the equity story from the bond market story, at least to begin with.
Read MoreI’ll keep it short this week, mainly because I don’t have much new to say. I continue to think that the tug-of-war between markets and monetary policymakers in fixed income markets remains the key spectacle to watch, even if I concede that we have been watching it for a while. There are economists and strategists who will tell you that policymakers are perfectly happy with steepening yield curves, and that they in fact welcome them. To believe this, however, requires that you forget the initial stages of the pandemic-policy response in which central bankers solemnly pledged to print as much money as needed—via QE—to keep rates pinned across all maturities in order to support the monumental fiscal efforts needed to prevent economic disaster. If you’re telling me that this tacit agreement is now broken on the eve of the new US administration is about to shovel €1.9T into an almost fully vaccinated economy—that’s just shy of 10% of GDP for those wondering—I have to concede that yields can, and likely will, move a lot higher. But is that really what you’re telling me? It seems to me that observers have quietly pivoted towards the idea that central banks obviously accept, even want, higher bond yields to reflect the recovery. I am sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. While a steepening yield curve sows the seeds of its own destruction via an ever more attractive roll and carry, especially with fwd guidance on the front end, there is always a risk that markets end up questing the commitment to low policy rates.
Read MoreFirst things first, I am GBP-based investor, which means that I need to think about both the value of currency and asset, when I dip my toe into US financial markets. With GBPUSD pushing 1.40 and the US 10y motoring bast 1.5%, I had to do something last week, and that something was to buy some duration in the US. I thought that I’d put that up front, because in what follows, I will sound like a broken record It is now getting feisty in bond-land. The sell-off in US duration got rowdy last week, and is now starting to pull up bond yields in Europe. What’s more, front-end curves are steepening too, which is to say that markets are now trying to bring forward rate hike expectations into market-relevant forecast horizons. As I have explained on these pages since the beginning of the year, investors and strategists are still debating whether this is all part of the plan—reflecting a desired increase in growth and inflation expectations—or whether it constitutes an undue tightening in financial conditions. Market observers remain undecided, partly because policymakers can’t seem to figure out where to draw the line either. Higher bond yields are good, so long as they don’t become a constraint on the recovery via a tightening of financial conditions. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this position, though it also invites the situation we now find ourselves in. Put simply, yields will motor higher until something breaks, or until policymakers call it quits.
Read MoreThe flow of goods and capital across borders and between nations has featured in human storytelling and economic relations since the beginning of time. The biblical protagonists traveled and traded with each other, and often fought over the dominion of resources. The protagonists in modern historical tales of trade and war since the turn of the millennium continue the habit in similar ways. You would be hard-pressed to find a better historical account of that than in Ronald Findlay and Kevin H. O’Rourke’s Power and Plenty. The book is as much about the wars that divided empires and nations as it is about the exchange of goods and capital that bound them together, though it is reasonable to say that these two perspectives are joined at the hip. Economics plays a specific role in the study of global trade and empire-building. The exchange of goods, capital, and services across borders gives rise to transactions as the ownership of resources shifts. Over time, these processes lead to the accumulation of wealth and debt on the part of nations and economic actors—assets and liabilities, in the jargon of modern finance. It is the economist’s job to trace, identify, and record the nature and value of these transactions.
Read More