One of the enduring discourses of our time is the idea that something is terribly wrong, with political and cultural life, with the economy, and with nature itself. The message varies, but the main message is the same. The (liberal) world order—as we have come to know it since WW2, and latterly 1989—is coming to an end, a message usually delivered with a ‘good riddance’ attached at the end, for effect. The edifice, we are told, is imploding under the weight of the decadence and complacency of centrists, citizens of nowhere, and globalists, and other similarly-spirited foul. They have dominated for too long, and must now do one thing, and one thing only; repent, and pay, for their sins. The story looks different depending on the perspective from which it is being told, though I reckon it’s possible to identify two broad categories, which have, by now, become clichés in their own right. The left-wing critique tends to home in on two scourges of our time; inequality and climate change. These can be solved by expropriating the wealth of the haves, which will be distributed to the have-nots, and by halting damaging economic activity to protect the planet. The right-wing version is a nationalist protest, rallying in opposition to hitherto staples of global prosperity such as globalisation, international interdependence and multilateralism. The election of Trump and the Brexit referendum in the U.K. are most often trotted out as examples of this movement.
Read MoreIt has been clear for a while that Covid-19 would be a big shock to the global economy, but early predictions of a quick rebound, and a return to normal, now look fanciful. I am now inclined to believe that just about everything will change. My old colleague, and good friend, Jonathan Tepper is musing on a similar note in a recent piece on Unherd.com. I recommend that you go read it; it’s a great piece. For my part, I’ll split my arguments into two observations, not necessarily market-related, but both are key to understand the evolution of markets and the economy in the next few quarters, and I would suggest, beyond as well. We are not even through the first quarter yet, but it’s fair to say that the first chart on my next page already is the chart of the year. It portrays the “optimal” strategy to combat the virus relative to doing nothing, and a policy of loose mitigation. Leaving the Chinese and South Korean outbreaks aside—as well as the grim disaster unfolding in Iran—I think it’s fair to make two overall points. Firstly, there has been a significant debate about the correct strategy to combat the virus. The responses have been scattered on a spectrum ranging from (unconfirmed?) pictures of Chinese authorities welding doors shut to apartment blocks to halt the spread, over to “herd immunity”. Or, as former SAS soldier Ant Middleton’s suggests; “fuck Covid-19”, a statement that he, in fairness, has now retracted.
Read MoreMarkets were mulling familiar themes last week. Will a wider U.S. twin deficit change the rules for the dollar and treasuries and is elevated volatility here to stay in equities? Judging by last week, the answer would be: probably and yes. The contemplation over these stories, though, were interrupted by politics. Mr. Trump announced his intention to apply tariffs on steel and aluminium—25% and 10% respectively—and Mrs. May attempted to give clarity on the U.K. government’s Brexit position.* I was unimpressed with both. Before I have a dig at Mr. Trump, I ought to provide an example of someone who supports it. I have great respect for Stephen Jen, but his argument here is like endorsing the idea of a diet by advising someone to eat nothing but kale and carrots for a decade. The analysis of Mr. Trump’s tariffs requires a distinction between the principle and the concrete measures. I concede that China is bending the rules of global trade, but Mr. Trump is stretching the fabrics of macroeconomic policy if he starts imposing tariffs on industrial goods. He is presiding over an economy close to full employment, a low domestic savings rate, and a medium-sized twin deficit. To boot, he is about to let fly with unprecedented fiscal stimulus.
Read MoreIt’s been a while since I had a look at financial markets. But I am happy to report that the laws of the natural world, inhabited by investors, are undisturbed. Volatility across most asset classes remains pinned to the floor, equities have pushed on—with the annoying exception of the majority of the portfolio’s holdings—and short-term rates in the U.S. also have crept higher. In this environment, the DXY has regained its footing, although it still looks vulnerable relative to many of its G7 sisters, and the yield curve in the U.S. is still not sure whether to steepen or flatten. It seems to have settled in the middle; a small rise across the curve. Political risks have returned to Europe—did it ever go away?—but I am unimpressed with the bears’ attempt to kick up a fuss. In Germany, I am reasonably certain that a government is formed, eventually. In Spain, I think the Catalan separatists are on the road to nowhere. Their leader Carlos Puidgemont is caught between a rock and a hard place, and I think they will need to have regional elections to settle what precisely the mandate is. Finally, we are supposed to worry about Italy leaving the Eurozone. Break-up risks in the euro area, however, is the dog that never barks. The periphery wants to use the euro, not jettison it for their own.
Read More