Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 279

Trump’s fiscal stimulus threatens stocks

We are at an inflection point when it comes to the outlook for US monetary policy because three macroeconomic realities are colliding that could lead to a sudden tightening by the Federal Reserve over the next 12 to 18 months. The risks for investors are skewed to the downside.

The first macro reality is that asset prices around the world are elevated. Asset prices are not at ‘bubble’ levels but they are expensive. Global stocks and investment-grade and non-investment-grade bonds are at, or near, their most expensive in 20 years. This view shouldn’t take anyone by surprise.

The second is that the world’s major central banks are reducing the support they have provided to markets since 2008. Even if we go back just 12 months, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank were conducting asset purchases of US$1.5 trillion a year, which helped keep down long-term interest rates. Nowadays the European Central Bank is winding back its quantitative easing while the Federal Reserve is implementing quantitative tightening. From October 2018, the Federal Reserve will be shrinking its balance sheet by US$50 billion a month or US$600 billion a year. In January 2018, the European Central Bank halved its monthly asset purchases from 60 billion euros to 30 billion euros and it plans to stop purchases by year-end. We will be in a world of no net central bank support for markets. That is a different environment compared with what markets have enjoyed over the past decade. We would expect bond yields to drift higher still.

The third important fact is that the US is injecting fiscal stimulus into a growing economy at full employment. The US budget deficit is rising mainly because of the tax cuts initiated by President Trump that Congress approved last December. The US budget deficit is about 4% of GDP now and is expected to rise to about 4.25% of GDP in 2019 and 2020.

Fiscal stimulus despite full employment

The chart below shows that over the past 50 years, the US federal budget has usually gone into deficit only when the unemployment rate was climbing. For the first time since 1970, the US budget deficit is rising when unemployment is falling. The US jobless rate fell to 3.7% in September 2018, the lowest level since 1969. Other broader measures of US unemployment are dropping too, even if they are not approaching 49-year lows. All the evidence points to a humming US economy, yet policymakers are injecting fiscal stimulus.

US fiscal stimulus arrives when the economy is reaching full employment

(US budget deficit % of GDP (LHS) and US unemployment rate % (RHS) since 1970)

Click to enlarge. Source: Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Labor Statistics

What does the intersection of these three realities mean for monetary policy?

Two main scenarios could play out

We call the first the Goldilocks scenario. This outcome describes the largely benign situation where no material increase in US inflation occurs over the next 12 months or so. It assumes that average weekly wages growth goes no higher than that annual pace of just below 3% it’s recording today.

But since 1950, there have been only four periods when the US unemployment rate has fallen below 4% and the first three led to higher inflation. We have never seen a multi-year period where the jobless rate remained below 4% and inflation stayed at 2% or below. Yet this is what the Federal Reserve is forecasting for the US economy over the next two years. Under this Goldilocks scenario, the Federal Reserve has indicated that it will increase the US cash rate to 3-3.25% by the end of 2019. If inflation stays low and the Federal Reserve were to implement such a gradual increase in the US cash rate, we would expect the yield on 10-year US government bonds to rise from about 3.2% now to about 4%.

If these events were to happen, it’s straightforward to predict what might happen to global markets. Moderately higher interest rates would be a minor headwind to economies and stocks. The US dollar would probably rise. Investors would probably want to stay away from emerging markets and yield-sensitive stocks. But we don’t see any great disruption for markets. Long-term forces are putting downward pressure on inflation and wages and the Goldilocks scenarios could well play out, something that market prices tell us that investors are expecting to happen. But this is a bet against history.

We don’t have a name for the second scenario. It’s when inflation emerges after average weekly wages growth accelerates beyond a 3% annual pace. If Trump’s tax cuts fan the economy and the labour market tightens we would expect meaningful wages growth to occur in the US. Evidence is already emerging that companies are struggling to contain labour costs so this outcome is possible.

What would this mean for US monetary policy? It would mean that the Federal Reserve is wrong to flag just four more quarter-point increases in the US cash rate over the coming 12 months or so. If inflation were to accelerate beyond the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%, we would expect the central bank to act forcibly to counteract inflationary pressures – Chairman Jerome Powell has said it would. Under the non-Goldilocks scenario, the US cash rate could climb to between 4% and 4.25% and the yield on 10-year Treasuries could rise above 5%. This could happen quickly too. By the second month of reports showing US average weekly earnings growing at an annual rate above 3%, a major reassessment of the tightening of US monetary policy could take place. If this were to happen, a 20% to 30% drop in global stocks is foreseeable.

The probabilities of these market impacts

We put the odds of scenario two taking place at about 50%, the same probability that we put on the Goldilocks scenario. In other words, we don’t know which of these two scenarios is more likely but we are not talking about a 5% probability of market ructions.

Due to these heightened risks, we have maintained a defensive stance in the Global Equity portfolio over this year. We are holding about 18% cash, which should enhance the defensive characteristics of our portfolio and act as a partial hedge against a potential market correction and higher interest rates in general.

 

Hamish Douglass is Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer of Magellan Asset Management, a sponsor of Cuffelinks. This article is for general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

For more Cuffelinks articles and papers from Magellan, please click here. You might also like to receive Magellan's Insights direct to your inbox - make sense of the global investment landscape with timely updates, articles and videos from Magellan's investment experts.

 

3 Comments
Frank Casarotti
November 14, 2018

Thanks for the question, Vinay - here are a few points:
- It doesn’t change our probabilities as this view had taken into account the likelihood that the Democrats would take the House.
- As Trump will find it more challenging to pass laws, we think there is a good chance that his actions become more unpredictable, which would raise uncertainty and weigh on market risk premiums (and asset prices).
- Alternatively, Trump’s actions could also become less unpredictable – but this looks to be a less likely scenario.
- The US jobs market remains very tight by historical standards and economic growth and indicators remain strong. But we are monitoring developments closely.

Graham Hand
November 09, 2018

Not speaking for Hamish, but here's Morningstar's election reaction relevant to the points in this article:

The market’s enthusiastic response to the US midterm elections does not alter the fact macros are either peaking or deteriorating. The bounce in equity markets provides another, possibly the last opportunity, to reduce exposure to stretched equities before a traditional end-of-bull market correction of 15–20% proportions occurs.

These macros include peaking US GDP and corporate earnings growth; a US deficit surging toward US$1 trillion and record corporate debt; disequilibrium in the bond market, where supply exceeds demand pushing yields higher; tightening monetary policy pushing interest rates higher; and an overcrowded US$ trade. President Donald Trump, the self-professed king of debt, is almost single-handedly on track to push the US deficit to over US$1 trillion by 2020. Meanwhile, the government deficit continues to grow, up from US$666bn in the year ended September 2017 to US$833bn for 2018 and is projected to rise to US$985bn in the year to September 2019, and a trillion plus likely in 2020.

At this late stage of the economic cycle, governments are normally tightening fiscal policy, reining in expenditure and collecting increasing tax revenue, and moving closer to or achieving a surplus. This buffer provides room to stimulate when economic activity eventually contracts, and contract it will. With most commentators anticipating an economic slowdown in the US over the next year or two, the US Treasury will have little ammunition to ease fiscal policy when required, other than to increase the deficit further. This is not the preferred option, but one the Trump administration seems prepared to entertain.

Vinay Kolhatkar
November 08, 2018

Does the GOP's loss of the House in yesterday's election impact the probabilities of the two scenarios for Magellan?

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Are concerns about inflation inflated?

How did you go? Australian and global stockmarket winners and losers

Quantum computing would be a world-changing technological leap

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.