The finance and economics commentariat has been busy in the past few months educating each other about what inflation is, and what isn’t. To re-cap, just because prices are going up doesn’t mean that inflation is. Inflation, after all, is the rate at which prices are advancing, not the fact that prices are rising in themselves. More specifically, just because prices go up a lot in period 1, inflation can’t really be said to be accelerating unless the rate at which prices go up is higher in period 2, 3 and so on. To complete the circle; if prices were falling, we’d call it deflation, and the same argument on the rate of decline would apply, with an inverse sign. The amount of time spent by economists pointing out this trivial point is mostly an attempt to assure each other, and policymakers, that the spectacular CPI and PPI headlines we presently see on the screens are nothing to worry about. It follows that slowing the pace of asset purchases, not to mention raising interest rates, would be a grave and unforgivable error.
Read MoreIt's difficult to think of a more politically incorrect idea than recommending investors to allocate money to China's government bond market, ostensibly by selling a portion of their U.S. treasuries. Granted, this would actually be consistent with the rebalancing of the bilateral U.S.-Sino trade relationship that the most ardent critiques of China's economic model desperately want. Or perhaps what they really want is a strong dollar plus capital controls? It is difficult to tell sometimes. That said, it is fair to say that lending money to China's government to fund domestic investment, some of which invariably will go to defence, probably doesn't get you on the White House's Christmas list. Incidentally, and before I flesh out the trade, I should make one thing clear. I think the mismatch between the increasingly tense geopolitical relationship between China and the U.S., and the fact that capital and goods still flow more or less freely—with the exception of direct outflows from China's mainland—between them represent an enormous tail risk for markets.
Read MoreThe jury is still out, but I reckon that last week’s price action provided a foundation for markets to finally get an answer to the question that’s on everyone’s mind. The sustained climb in equities, and precipitous decline in the dollar, are interesting in their own right, but am keeping my eyes on the US bond market. The long bonds sold off steadily through the week, a move that culminated with Friday’s curveball of a NFP report—payrolls rose by 2.5M breezing past the consensus of a 7.5M fall—and a further leap in yields. All told, the US 10y rose by almost 30bp last week, to just under 0.9%, and with the front-end more-or-less locked, the 2s10s and 2s5s steepened to 70bp and 30bp, respectively, which is the widest since early 2018. A closer look at the chart won’t really raise any eyebrows. Sure, the curve is steepening, but it’s not like the move is unprecedented, and the curve is still overall quite flat. In the present context, however, last week’s move is a clarion call to the Fed. Will they allow (long-end) bond yields to reflect the deluge of debt issuance, and associated economic rebound, or will they, as some have suggested, put the Treasury market on a “war footing” via a yield cap? In other words, it’s do or die for the decision on yield curve control. Of course, that’s not entirely true. The Fed has been waffling on this issue for ages, and there is no guarantee that they won’t continue to do just that. That said, I have to say that last week’s squeeze in bonds offers a very tasty and clear setup for this week’s FOMC meeting. Will the Fed let long yields run or will they put a lid on them, either verbally, or via an outright YCC announcement?
Read MoreEquities have wobbled a bit at the start of the month, but unless they lose the plot in coming weeks, it is fair to say that Q1 will be everything that Q4 wasn’t; decent and calm. Indeed, the finer details reveal an even more striking dichotomy with the calamity that culminated in the rout at the end of last year. Between June—when the PE multiple peaked at just under 21—and the low for the S&P 500 in the final weak of December, EPS rose by 13%, but the index fell by 10%. In other words, the multiple crashed, a story which was repeated across almost all key DM and EM indices. By contrast, the story so far in Q1 is the exact opposite. By my calculation, trailing EPS for the S&P 500 and MSCI World are down 0.5% and 2.1% year-to-date, respectively, but both indices have rallied smartly. This can only mean one thing; multiples have expanded, and they have indeed, by about 14% in both cases since the end of December. I am confident that the tug-of-war between multiple expansion and deteriorating earnings will determine the fate of many equity investors in 2019.
Read More