30/12/15: Blink by 25bps, chew through billions: U.S. rates 'normalization'

In a post yesterday, I mentioned USD3 trillion hole in global bonds markets looming on the horizon as the U.S. Fed embarks on its cautious tightening cycle. Now, couple more victims of that fabled 'normalization' that few in the markets expected.

First up, U.S. own bonds:

Source: @Schuldensuehner 

As noted, US 2-year yields are now at 1.09%, their highest level since April 2010 and roughly double January 2015 average. Now, estimated interest on U.S. federal debt in 2015 stood at around USD251 billion for publicly held debt of USD13,124 billion. Now, suppose we slap on another 0.55%-odd on that. That pushes interest payments on publicly held portion of U.S. debt pile to over USD323 billion. Not exactly chop change...

And another casualty of 'normalization' - global profit margins per BCA Research:
"Over the past two decades, the G7 yield curve has been an excellent leading indicator of global margins. Currently, not only are short-term borrowing costs becoming prohibitive, at the margin, but the incentive to raise debt and retire equity to boost EPS is diminishing. This suggests that profit margins have likely peaked for the cycle."

Here's a chart showing both:

Source: BCA Research

Now, absence of margins = absence of capex. And absence of margins = profits growth on scale alone. Both of which mean things are a not likely to be getting easier for global growth.

Now, take BCA conclusion: "Finally, global junk bonds are pointing to a drop in equities in the coming months, if the historical correlation holds. Indeed, we are heeding the bond market’s message, and are concerned about margin trouble and the potential for an EM non-financial corporate sector accident: remain defensively positioned."

In other words, given the leverage take on since the crisis, and given the prospects for organic growth, as well as the simple fact that advanced economies' corporates have been reliant for a good part of decade and a half on emerging markets to find growth opportunities, all this rates 'normalizing' ain't hitting the EMs alone but is bound to under the skin of the U.S. and European corporates too.

Good luck trading on current equity markets valuations for long...

8/12/15: Commodities Rot Runs Ahead

Commodities rot continues unabated, as Bloomberg Commodities Index fell to its lowest reading since June 1999:

Source: @Schuldensuehner

Which, of course prompted another repricing of the commodities-linked currencies:

 Source: @Schuldensuehner

As I noted few days ago (post here) for the Russian Ruble, there is some room to the downside from here on.

Here is an interesting discussion of the historical trend/cycles in commodities busts via Carmen Reinhart: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/commodity-price-decline-will-continue-by-carmen-reinhart-2015-11. And long-view chart of same:

Trend-wise, that is 160 years of deflation...

30/11/15: WarningSignals on Secular Stagnation Threats

The readers of this blog know that I have been covering the twin theses of Secular Stagnation (long-term trend in slowdown of global growth) consistently over recent years.

Here is an interesting summary of the theses and literature on it, with extensive references to this blog (among other sources): http://www.warningsignals.org/#!Where-are-we-on-Secular-Stagnation/covf/565464fb0cf29e70f2253e70.

My own view summarised most recently here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/10/41015-secular-stagnation-and-promise-of.html.

13/11/15: Fitch Survey of European Investors' Outlook

Fitch survey of European credit investors shows that “the risk posed over the next 12 months by adverse developments in one or more emerging markets was high” at 59% up from 45% in previous survey in July. European investors continue to see EMs as the key drivers of downside fundamentals risks for 2016, with 3/4rs (80%) of all respondents saying EMs sovereign (corporate) fundamentals are likely to deteriorate in 2016 compared to 2/3rds (60%) in July survey. Some more details:

• 29% of respondents see low commodity prices as the main risk to EMs, 
• 26% see the key driver as slower global growth, 
• 24% are expecting a Fed rate rise to be a key trigger for EMs risks amplification, and 
• 21% cite high debt levels as the main driver. 

Fitch global growth forecast of 2.3% for 2015. Table below supplies IMF forecasts and historical comparatives:

Strangely enough, much of this focus on the EMs for European investors is probably down to the European economy having settled into what appears to be its 'new normal' of around 1.2-1.4% growth pattern - sluggish, predictable and non-threatening, thereby shifting focus for risk assessments elsewhere.

9/10/15: Quantitative Scaring & Secular Stagnation

One very important point being raised in this article from the Economist: "Controlling for the range of things that influence interest rates, from growth to demography, economists have attempted to gauge the impact of reserve accumulation. Francis and Veronica Warnock of the University of Virginia concluded that foreign-bond purchases lowered yields on ten-year Treasuries by around 0.8 percentage points in 2005. A recent working paper by researchers at the European Central Bank found a similar effect: increased foreign holdings of euro-area bonds reduced long-term interest rates by about 1.5 percentage points during the mid-2000s."

Which brings us to the idea of the 'savings glut' over the 2000s. I covered this in this article concerning the twin threats of supply and demand side-driven secular stagnation.

The Economist give us one side of that equation: Sovereign Reserves

All of which has two implications:

1. The commodities bubble bursting will have a second order effect on longer-term expected cost of Government borrowing in the advanced economies by removing the surplus of savings accumulated in the official accounts in the Emerging Markets. Which makes unwinding monetary policy excesses (from the balancesheets of the Central Banks in the advanced economies) so much harder. The knock on effect of this will be lower solvency of the Western pensions funds in the longer run; and
2. Depletion of savings on the sovereign side will require increased savings on the private sector side. Which will have compounding effect on demand.

Both points reinforce the adverse impact on global growth prospects.

7/10/15: Bubbles Troubles and IMF Spectacles

As was noted in the previous post (link here), IMF is quite rightly concerned with the extent of the global financial bubbles that have emerged in the wake of the years-long QE waves.

This chart shows the extent of over-valuation in sovereign debt markets:

But the following charts show the potential impact of partial unwinding of the bubbles. First up: bonds:

Then, equity:

Per IMF: “The scenario generates moderate to large output losses worldwide” as chart below shows changes in the output in 2017 under stress scenario compared to benign scenario:

And here’s what happens to projected Government debt by 2018:

         Toasty!

7/10/15: On the Illusion of Financial Stability

IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report for October 2015 is out, titled, predictably “Vulnerabilities, Legacies, and Policy Challenges: Risks Rotating to Emerging Markets”.

It is a hefty read, but some key points are the following.

“Th e Federal Reserve is poised to raise interest rates as the preconditions for liftoff are nearly in place. This increase should help slow the further buildup of excesses in financial risk taking.” As if this is something new… albeit any conjecture that the Fed move will somehow take out some of the risks built up over years of aggressive priming of the liquidity pump is a bit, err… absurd. The IMF is saying risk taking will slow down, not abate.

“Partly due to con fidence in the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) policies, credit conditions are improving and credit demand is picking up. Corporate sectors are showing tentative signs of improvement that could spawn increased investment and economic risk taking, including in the United States and Japan, albeit from low levels.” So, as before, don’t expect a de-risking, expect slower upticks in risks. The bubbles won’t be popping, or even deflating… they will be inflating at a more gradual pace.

All of which should give us that warm sense of comfort.

Meanwhile, “risks continue to rotate toward emerging markets, amid greater market liquidity risks.” In other words, now’s the turn of EMs to start pumping in cash, as the Fed steps aside.

In summary, therefore, that which went on for years will continue going on. The shovel will change, the proverbial brown stuff will remain the same.

Still, at the very least, the IMF is more realistic than the La-La gang of european politicians and investors. Here are some warning signs:

1. “Legacy issues from the crisis in advanced economies. High public and private debt in advanced economies and remaining gaps in the euro area architecture need to be addressed to consolidate financial stability, and avoid political tensions and headwinds to confidence and growth. In the euro area, addressing remaining sovereign and banking vulnerabilities is still a challenge.” You wouldn’t know that much, but the idea of rising rates and rising cost of funding has that cold steely feel to it when you think of your outstanding mortgage…
2. “Weak systemic market liquidity… poses a challenge in adjusting to new equilibria in markets and the wider economy. Extraordinarily accommodative policies have contributed to a compression of risk premiums across a range of markets including sovereign bonds and corporate credit, as well as a compression of liquidity and equity risk premiums. While recent market developments have unwound some of this compression, risk premiums could still rise further.” Wait a second here. We had years of unprecedented money printing by the Central Banks around the world. And we have managed to inflate a massive bubble in bonds markets on foot of that. But liquidity is still ‘challenged’? Oh dear… but what about all this ‘credibility’ that the likes of ECB have raised over the recent programmes? Does it not count for anything when it comes to systemic liquidity?..
3. The system is far from shocks-proof, again contrary to what we heard during this Summer from European dodos populating the Eurogroup. “Without the implementation of policies to ensure successful normalization, potential adverse shocks or policy missteps could trigger an abrupt rise in market risk premiums and a rapid erosion of policy con fidence. Shocks may originate in advanced or emerging markets and, combined with unaddressed system vulnerabilities, could lead to a global asset market disruption and a sudden drying up of market liquidity in many asset classes. Under these conditions, a signifi cant—even if temporary— mispricing of assets may ensue, with negative repercussions on fi nancial stability.”

In summary, then, lots done, nothing achieved: we wasted trillions in monetary policy firepower and the system is still prone to exogenous and endogenous shocks.

“In… an adverse scenario, substantially tighter fi nancial conditions could stall the cyclical recovery and weaken confi dence in medium-term growth prospects. Low nominal growth would put pressure on debt-laden sovereign and private balance sheets, raising credit risks.

• Emerging markets would face higher global risk premiums and substantial capital out flows, putting particular pressure on economies with domestic imbalances. 
• Corporate default rates would rise, particularly in China, raising fi nancial system strains, with implications for growth.
• Th ese events would lead to a reappearance of risks on sovereign balance sheets, especially in Europe’s vulnerable economies, and the emergence of an adverse feedback loop between corporate and sovereign risks in emerging markets. 
• As a result, aggregate global output could be as much as 2.4 percent lower by 2017, relative to the baseline. This implies lower but still positive global growth.”

Note, the IMF doesn’t even mention in this adverse scenario what happens to households up to their necks in debt, e.g. those in Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and so on.

So let’s take a look at a handy IMF map plotting their own assessments of the financial systems stability in October 2015 report compared to April 2015 report. Do note that April 2015 report covers the period right before the ECB deployed its famed, fabled and all-so-credible (per IMF) QE.

Just take a look at the lot. Market & liquidity risks are up (not down), Risk Appetite is down. Macroeconomic risks improved, but everything else remains the same. That is a picture of no real achievement of any significant variety, regardless of what the IMF tells us. Worse, IMF analysis shows that risk appetite deteriorated across all 3 sub-metrics and as chart below shows, market & liquidity conditions have deteriorated across all 4 sub-metrics.

Meanwhile (Chart below), save for household risks, all other credit-related risks worsened too.

Meanwhile, markets are sustained by debt. That’s right: stock prices remain driven by debt-funded net equity buybacks and domestic acquisitions:

Meanwhile, Government bonds are in a massive bubble territory, especially for the little champions of the Euro:

You can see the extent of IMF’s thinking on the topic of just how bad the financial assets bubbles have grown in the following post.

The basic core of the IMF analysis is that although everything was made better, nothing is really much better. In the world of financial stability fetishists, that is like saying we have a steady state of no steady state. In the world of those of us living in the real economy, that is like saying all that cash pumped into the markets over the last seven years and across the globe has been largely wasted. 

4/10/15: Secular Stagnation and the Promise of the Recovery

An unedited version of my recent requested guest contribution for News Max on the issue of secular stagnation (July-August 2015).

Secular Stagnation and the Promise of the Recovery

Recent evidence on economic growth dynamics presents a striking paradox. As traditional business cycles go, recovery period following a prolonged recession should follow certain historical regularities. Shortly after exiting a recession, growth in productivity, output, investment and demand accelerates and exceeds pre-crisis growth.

These stylized facts are absent from the data for the major advanced economies to-date, prompting three distinct responses from the economic growth analysts. On the one hand, there are proponents of two theories of secular stagnation – an idea that structurally, long-term growth in the advanced economies has come to a grinding halt either due to the demand side collapse, or due to the supply side exhausting drivers for growth. On the other hand, the recovery bulls continue to argue that the turnaround reflective of a traditional recovery is likely to materialize sometime soon.

In my opinion, neither one of the three views of the current economic cycle is correct or sufficient in explaining the lack of robust global recovery from the crises of 2007-2009 and 2011-2014. Instead, the complete view of today’s economy should integrate the ongoing secular stagnation thesis spanning both the supply and the demand sides of the global economy.

The end game for investors is that no traditional indexing or asset class approach to constructing investor portfolios will offer a harbor from the post-QE re-pricing of economic fundamentals. Instead, longer-term strategy for addressing these risks calls for investors targeting smaller clusters of opportunities in sectors that can be viewed as buffers against the secular stagnation trends. Along the same lines of reasoning, forward-looking economic policymaking should also focus on enhancing such clustered opportunities.

Investment-Savings Mismatch

The demand-based view of secular stagnation suggests that the global growth slowdown is linked to a structural decline in consumption and investment, reflected in a decades-long glut of aggregate savings over investment.

This theory, tracing back to the 1930s suggestion by Alvin Hansen, made its first return to the forefront of macroeconomic thinking back in the 1990s, in the context of Japan. By the early 1990s, Japan was suffering from a demographics-linked excess of savings relative to investment, and the associated massive contraction in labor productivity. During the 1980-1989 period, Japan's real GDP per worker averaged 3.2 percent per annum. Over the following two decades, the average was 0.81 percent. Meanwhile, Japan's investment as a percentage of GDP gradually fell from approximately 29-30 percent in the 1980s to just over 20 percent in 2010-2015.

The Great Recession replicated Japanese experience across the majority of advanced economies. Between 1980 and 2014, the gap between savings and investment as percentage of GDP has widened in North America and the Euro area. At the same time, labor productivity fell precipitously across all major advanced economies, despite a massive increase in unemployment.

Some opponents of the demand side secular stagnation thesis, most notably former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, argue that low interest rates create incentives for investment and reduced saving by lowering the cost of the former and increasing the opportunity cost of the latter.

However, this argument bears no connection to what is happening on the ground. Current zero rates policies appear to reinforce the savings-investment mismatch, not weaken it, rendering monetary policy impotent, if not outright damaging.

How can this be the case?

Today's pre-retirement generations are facing insufficient pensions coverage. For them, lower yields on retirement investments, tied to lower policy rates, are incentivizing more aggressive savings, further suppressing returns on investment. Meanwhile, middle age workers face severe pressures to deleverage their debts accumulated before the crisis, while supporting ageing parents and, simultaneously, increasing numbers of stay-at-home young adults.

To address the demand-side of secular stagnation in the short run, requires lifting the natural rate of return on investment, without increasing retail interest rates. This will be both tricky for policymakers and painful for a large number of investors, currently crowded into an over-bought debt markets.

The only way real natural rate of return to investment can rise in the environment of continued low policy and retail rates is by widening the margin between equity and debt returns for non-financial assets and reducing tax subsidies awarded to physical and financial capital accumulation. In other words, policymakers must rebalance taxation systems to support real enterprise formation, entrepreneurship and equity investment, while reducing incentives to invest in debt and financial assets.

Good examples of such policy tools deployment can be found in the areas of gas and oil infrastructure LLPs and property REITs used to fund long-term physical capital investments via tax optimized returns structures. Transforming these schemes to broader markets and to cover non-financial, technological and human capital investments, however, will be tricky.

From the investor perspective, the demand-side stagnation thesis implies that  longer-term investment opportunities will be found in allocations targeting entrepreneurs and companies with organic growth that are debt-light, technologically intensive (with a caveat explained below) and human capital-rich. There are no real examples of such companies currently in the major stock markets’ indices. Instead, the future growth plays are found in the high risk space of start ups and early stage development ventures in the sectors that bring technology directly to end-user engagement: biotech, nanotechnology, remote health, food sciences, wearables, bio-human interfaces and artificial intelligence.

Tech Sector: Value-Added  Miss

The caveat relating to technology investments briefly mentioned above is non-trivial.

Today, we have two distinct trends in technological innovation: technological research that leads to increased substitution of labor with technology and innovations that promise greater complementarity between labor and human capital and the machines.

The first type of innovation is what the financial markets are currently long. And it is also directly linked to the supply-side secular stagnation thesis formulated by Robert Gordon in the late 2000s. The thesis challenges the consensus view that the current technological revolution will continue to fuel a perpetual growth cycle.

Per Gordon, "The frontier established by the U.S. for output per capita, and the U. K. before it, … reached its fastest growth rate in the middle of the 20th century, and has slowed down since.  It is in the process of slowing down further." The reason for this is the exhaustion of economic returns to technological innovation.  Financial returns are yet to follow, but inevitably, with time, they will.

Gordon, and his followers, argue that a sequence of three industrial or technological revolutions explains the historically unprecedented pace of growth recorded since the mid-18^th century. "The first with its main inventions between 1750 and 1830 created steam engines, cotton spinning, and railroads. The second was the most important, with its three central inventions of electricity, the internal combustion engine, and running water with indoor plumbing, in the relatively short interval of 1870 to 1900.” However, after 1970 “productivity growth slowed markedly, most plausibly because the main ideas of [the second revolution] had by and large been implemented by then.” Thus, the computer and internet age – the ongoing third revolution – has reached its climax in the late 1990s and the productivity gains from the new computer technologies has been declining since around 2000.

Gordon’s argument is not about the levels of activity generated by the new technologies, but about the declining rate of growth in value added arising form them. This argument is supported by some of the top thinkers in the tech sector, notably the U.S. tech entrepreneur and investor, Peter Thiel.

The older generation of players in the tech sector attempted to challenge Gordon’s ideas, with little success to-date.

A recent study from IBM, titled "Insatiable Innovation: From sporadic to systemic", attempted to show that technological innovation is alive and well, pointing to evolving ‘smart’ tech, globalization of consumer markets, and universal customization of production as signs of potential growth capacity remaining in tech-focused sectors.

However, surprisingly, the study ends up confirming Gordon’s assertion. Tech industry today, by focusing on substituting technology for people in production, is struggling to deliver substantial enough push for growth acceleration. The promise of new technologies that can move companies toward more human capital-intensive modes of production remains the stuff of the future. Meanwhile, marginal returns on investment in today’s technology may be non-negligible from the point of view of individual enterprises, but they cannot deliver rapid rates of growth in economic value added over time and worldwide.

Disruptive Change Required

In my view, the reason for this failure rests with the nature of the modern economy, still anchored to physical capital investment, where technology is designed to replace labor. As I noted in a number of research papers and in my TED presentation a couple of years ago, long-term global growth cycles are sustained by pioneering innovation that moves economic production away from previously exhausted factors (e.g. agricultural land, physical trade routes, steam, internal combustion, electricity, and, most recently capital-enhancing tech) toward new factors.

Thus, the next global growth cycle can only arise from switching away from traditional forms of capital accumulation in favor of structurally new source of growth. The only factor remaining to be deployed in the economy is that of human capital.

Like it or not, to deliver the growth momentum necessary for sustaining the quality of life and improvements in social and economic environment expected by the ageing and currently productive generations will require some radical rethinking of the status quo economic development models.

The thrust of these changes will need to focus on attempting to reverse the decline in returns to human capital investment (education, training, creativity, ability to take and manage risks, entrepreneurship, etc) and on generating higher economic value added growth from technological innovation.

The former implies dramatic restructuring of modern systems of taxation and public services to increase incentives and supports for human capital investments and their deployment in the economy.  The latter requires an equally disruptive reform of the traditional institutions of entrepreneurship and enterprise formation and development.

From investor perspective, this means seeking opportunities to take equity positions in companies with more horizontal, less technocratic distributions of management and ownership. Cooperative, mutual, employees-owned larger ventures and firms offer some attractive longer term valuations in this context. Entrepreneurs who are not afraid to allocate wider ranges of managerial and strategic responsibilities to a broader group of their key employees are also interesting investment targets.

Within sectors, companies that offer more flexible platforms for research and development, product innovation, customer engagement and are design and knowledge-rich will likely outperform their more conservative and rigid counterparts over the long run.

The new world of structurally slower growth does not imply lack of opportunities for investors seeking long run returns. It simply requires a new approach to investment allocation across asset classes and individual investment targets. When both, supply and demand sides of the economic growth equation face headwinds, safe harbours of opportunities lie outside the immediate path of disruption, in the areas of tangible real equity closely linked to the potential drivers of future growth.

1/10/15: Emerging Markets Debt v Equity

Debt, not equity, is the real China Fault Line, even if tremors are rocking its stock markets:

What we have in the above is a record of debt/equity in corporate valuations across the EMs and China. While debt pile relative to equity valuations has grown in the EMs ex-China (though it still sits below parity), in China, growth in debt has been exponential. Inly in 2007 did Chinese debt/equity ratio come close to parity (albeit from above 1) and ever since, debt growth outpaced expansion in equity valuations.

Bad enough. Except when one considers an even more dangerous side to this markets: debt growth likely led equity valuations. Which implies, if confirmed, that Chinese markets investors have simply ignored debt valuations in their balancesheet pricing of Chinese companies. In other words, straight out of Krugmanite book (for countries), 'debt doesn't matter'.

Good luck with that...

1/10/15: Of global equities and Gold

Bloomberg's @M_McDonough just posted a fresh chart for major global stocks indices rebased to the start of 2015:

The scary bit is that this is in own-currency terms and that the rot is well beyond the EMs and China.

I cover some of these issues in a guest contribution to GoldCore's quarterly review for 3Q - read in full here.

2/8/15: Global Trade: Welcome to the Economic ICU

An interesting, if short, note on woeful state of global trade flows from Fitch (link here).

The key point is that:

1. Subject to all the talk about the Global recovery gaining momentum; and
2. Under the conditions of unprecedented past (and ongoing) monetary policy accommodation around the world'

global trade remains severely compressed from mid-2011 forward.

Most importantly, the rot is extremely broad - across all major regions, with no base support for trade flows.

One of the drivers - EMs lack of internal demand:

However, the EMs are just one part of the picture. Per Fitch, "Since 2012, global export volumes have consistently grown by less than 5%. Performance by value has been even worse due to the fall in global trade prices, again led lower by commodities. In April 2015, global export prices were down 16% year on year."

"There are several structural explanations for the continued weakness in global trade in addition to the GFC’s cyclical effects":

• Shift toward domestic growth in China - previously thought to be a catalyst for growth in trade via stimulating demand for imports - has had an opposite effect: Chinese producers and consumers are now increasingly sourcing goods and services internally. This was not predicted by the analysts, though I have been warning that this will be a natural outcome of the continued maturing of the Chinese economy away from producing low value added goods toward producing higher value added output. Thus, reliance of Chinese economy on capital and investment goods and services imports from Advanced Economies has declined. And we are witnessing an ongoing emergence of higher value added consumer goods manufacturing in China, which will further compress imports demands by Chinese markets. More significantly, over time, this will lead to even more complex regionalisation of trade, with trade flows becoming increasingly locked within the Asia-Pacific region, leaving more and more producers in the Advanced Economies facing an uncomfortable choice: shift production to the region or witness decline in imports demand. In line with this, there will be losses of jobs in the Advanced Economies and gains of activity in Asia-Pacific. 
• Fitch points to a policy driver for global trade slowdown: "According to the World Trade Organisation, the use of trade restrictions has been rising since the crisis and trade liberalisation initiatives have slowed relative to the 1990s. Together, these developments may be contributing at the margin to the reduction in elasticity of trade with respect to GDP." Nothing new here, as well. The world is amidst continued debt deflation cycle, with debt-linked protectionism on the rise. This is not just about currency wars, but also about financial repression and structural decline in overall growth.
• Fitch notes a third driver for trade decline: "There has been a change in the relative weights of domestic demand components, with investment falling compared with consumption and government spending… As investment spending is the most pro-cyclical and import-intensive component of domestic demand, a decline in investment tends to have a larger effect on trade." Again, I wrote before extensively on investment collapse in the Advanced Economies, and the fact that the main drivers for this are not a business cycle nor the Global Financial Crisis, but rather a structural decline in long-term growth (secular stagnation). You can read on this more here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/07/7615-secular-stagnation-double-threat.html.

Fitch note, while highlighting a really big theme continuing to unfold across the global economy, misses the real long-term drivers for the collapse of trade: the world is undergoing deleveraging cycle in terms of Government and private debt, reinforced by the structurally weaker growth environment on both demand and supply sides of the growth equation. The result is going to be much more painful that Fitch (and majority of analysts around) can foresee.

23/3/15: EM Currencies on the rise

Today's week-on-week changes in emerging markets currencies vis-a-vis the USD:

Source: @komileva

And for the Ruble, this with zero CBR interventions.

17/3/15: IMF Cries Wolf as Emerging Markets Currencies Plunge

Remember the Russian Ruble Melt of 2014? Now get ready for the Emerging Markets Currencies Shake-n-Bake of 2015:

H/T: @Schuldensuehner

It is a miracle that the Fed can do in the IMF-sponsored mercantilist world of Exports-led Recoveries...  And guess who is now crying wolf? Why, IMF, of course: http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2015/031715.htm. Except they don't dare call it a wolf, just 'lessons to be learned'.

13/3/15: Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Maturity Squeeze

H/T to @RobinWigg for the following chart summing up Emerging Markets exposure to the USD-denominated corporate debt redemptions calls over 2015-2025. The peak at 2017 and 2018 and relatively high levels for exemptions coming up in 2016, 2019-2020 signal sizeable pressure on the EM corporates that coincides with expected tightening in the US interest rates cycle - a twin shock that is likely to have adverse impact on EMs' capex in years to come. With rolling over 2017-on debt becoming a more expensive proposition, given the USD FX rates and interest rates outlook, the EMs-based corporate sector will come under severe pressure to use organic revenue generation to redeem maturing debt. Which means less investment, less hiring and less growth.

The impossible monetary policy trilemma that I have been warning about for some years now is starting to play out, with delay on my expectations, but just as expected - in the weaker and more vulnerable markets first.

25/12/2014: Unwinding Western Excesses, Squeezing Emerging Markets

Just in case you need a scary story for the holidays seasons, here's one from economics. Some time ago, we've learned that zero bound (extremely low) interest rates in the advanced economies spell quite a disaster for the emerging markets, where the economies are now suffering from triple pressures: declining commodities prices (on which many emerging markets economies often rely for exports, declining demand for their exports of goods, and declining investment inflows from the advanced economies.

But that's just the beginning. It seems that any unwinding of the QE deployed in the West is likely to hammer the emerging markets more.

Here's a World Bank paper from earlier this year on the topic: Burns, Andrew and Kida, Mizuho and Lim, Jamus Jerome and Mohapatra, Sanket and Stocker, Marc, Unconventional Monetary Policy Normalization in High-Income Countries: Implications for Emerging Market Capital Flows and Crisis Risks (April 1, 2014). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6830: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2419786

What the authors found is that as "the recovery in high-income countries firms amid a gradual withdrawal of extraordinary monetary stimulus, developing countries can expect stronger demand for their exports as global trade regains momentum, but also rising interest rates and potentially weaker capital inflows. …In the most likely scenario, a relatively orderly process of normalization would imply a slowdown in capital inflows amounting to 0.6 percent of developing-country GDP between 2013 and 2016, driven in particular by weaker portfolio investments. However, …abrupt changes in market expectations, resulting in global bond yields increasing by 100 to 200 basis points within a couple of quarters, could lead to a sharp reduction in capital inflows to developing countries by between 50 and 80 percent for several months."

Wait, we are witnessing this already, in part, as bond prices in a number of emerging economies are following oil prices down. And worse, if the above applies to corporate yields, the same will apply to government yields. Thus, 'normalisation' in the West can yield double shock to debt markets in the emerging economies.

World Bank paper has more on the subject: "Evidence from past banking crises suggests that countries having seen a substantial expansion of domestic credit over the past five years, deteriorating current account balances, high levels of foreign and short-term debt, and over-valued exchange rates could be more at risk in current circumstances. Countries with adequate policy buffers and investor confidence may be able to rely on market mechanisms and countercyclical macroeconomic and prudential policies to deal with a retrenchment of foreign capital. In other cases, where the scope for maneuver is more limited, countries may be forced to tighten fiscal and monetary policy to reduce financing needs and attract additional inflows."

So the best case scenario, sovereign wealth reserves (if any) will be exhausted on 'normalising' the US, UK, Euro Area and Japan, while if none are present, tough luck - the emerging economies are into a tailspin. They'll have to relieve the path of austerity-driven internal devaluations. Just because the West has ramped printing presses up so much, any 'normalisation' is going to be a disaster. If that is not a case of beggar thy poorer neighbour by enriching thy stock markets strategy, then do tell me what is?

And in another paper, "Tinker, Taper, QE, Bye? The Effect of Quantitative Easing on Financial Flows to Developing Countries" the same authors looked at gross financial inflows to developing countries over 2000-2013 (see: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6820: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2417518).

As above, authors found evidence "for potential transmission of quantitative easing along observable liquidity, portfolio balancing, and confidence channels. Moreover, quantitative easing had an additional effect over and above these observable channels, which the paper argues cannot be attributed to either market expectations or changes in the structural relationships between inflows and observable fundamentals. The baseline estimates place the lower bound of the effect of quantitative easing at around 5 percent of gross inflows (for the average developing economy), which suggests that of the 62 percent increase in inflows during 2009-13 related to changing global monetary conditions, at least 13 percent of this was attributable to quantitative easing. The paper also finds evidence of heterogeneity among different types of flows; portfolio (especially bond) flows tend to be more sensitive than foreign direct investment to our measured effects from quantitative easing."

So broadly-speaking, QE is impacting bond/debt flows and unwinding QE can be a costly proposition for the emerging markets.

6/11/2014: BRIC PMIs: Heading for a Recession...

BRIC PMIs are out for October, signalling sharp drop-off in economic activity across the EMs. Here is the updated data:

Manufacturing:

• Brazil Manufacturing PMIs slipped deeper into contraction territory for the second consecutive month, dropping from 49.3 in September to 49.1 in October. 3mo average is now at 49.5 compared to 3mo average through July at 49.0. Year on year, 3mo average is down 0.7 points.
• Russia Manufacturing PMI slipped from 50.4 in September to 50.3 in October, also signalling a slowdown in growth, but not an outright contraction as in the case of Brazil.
• China Manufacturing PMI improved to 50.4 in October from 50.2 in September. 3mo average through October is now at 50.3, up slightly on 50.0 on 3mo period through July 2014 and almost unchanged on year ago (50.4).
• India Manufacturing PMI improved from 51.0 in September to 51.6 in October, with 3mo average through October at 51.7, slightly below 51.8 3mo average through July. Year on year 3mo average through October is up very strongly 2.4 points (from 49.2 in August-October 2013).

Overall, Manufacturing activity across BRICs remains highly subdued with India being the only country posting a weak, but positive trend from Q2 2013 on.

Services:

• Brazil Services PMIs fell sharply into contraction territory, from 51.2 in September to 48.2 in October. 3mo average is now at 49.5 compared to 3mo average through July at 50.6. Year on year, 3mo average is down 1.4 points. This means both sides of Brazil's economy are now in contraction, first time this happened since August 2013.
• Russia Services PMI contracted sharply from 50.5 in September to 47.4 in October, also posting an outright contraction as in the case of Brazil. 3mo MA is now at 49.4 which is a shallower contraction signal than 48.1 3mo average through July. A year ago, 3mo average was running at 51.9.
• China Services PMI posted a slowdown in growth to 52.9 in October from 53.5 in September. 3mo average through October is now at 53.5, up on 51.3 for the 3mo period through July 2014 and higher than 52.6 reading a year ago.
• India Services PMI deteriorated from 51.6 in September to 50.0 in October, with 3mo average through October at 50.7, below 51.3 3mo average through July. Year on year 3mo average through October is up very strongly (from 46.4 in August-October 2013).

Overall: Services activity deteriorated in all BRIC economies, while Manufacturing performance deteriorated in two economies and improved in 2 other.

Summary of both PMIs changes is here:

Using a simple total of two PMIs, we can trace overall trends in the BRIC economies (without weighting these by lagged services v manufacturing shares). The dynamics are striking:

Overall economic conditions across the BRIC economies deteriorated in October compared to September, with Russia leading with a sharp downturn. Downward trend in the BRIC economies has now been in place since January 2013, with Russian economy leading in this dynamic from October 2012.

Note: you can read more detailed analysis of Russian PMIs here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/11/6112014-russia-pmis-signalling-poor.html

2/10/2014: BRIC Manufacturing PMIs: Things are getting slower...

Yesterday, I covered Manufacturing PMIs for Russia (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/10/1102014-russian-manufacturing-pmi.html) so today time to update all BRICs chart:

And from the above, things that were ugly in the merging markets continue to be ugly and get worse.

In September, according to Markit (and all its marketing partners paying for the releases of its data):

• Manufacturing PMIs posted rather significant slowdown in growth in Russia: from 51.0 in July and August to 50.4 in September. However, on a 3mo MA basis, the index is performing better: 3mo average through September (Q3 average) stood at 50.8 (anaemic, but growth) compared to 3mo average through June (Q2 average) of 48.7 and 3mo average through September 2013 of 49.3. M/M slowdown in growth was 0.6 points, which is the second best performance in the BRIC group and September level of index signals second fastest growth in BRIC group.
• In China, Manufacturing PMI posted zero change in September (50.2) on August (52.4). 3mo average through Q3 2014 was 50.7, which is better than 3mo average for Q2 2014 (49.1) and 3mo average for Q3 2013 (49.3). With zero change in growth in PMI m/m, China is the best performer in the group, but its level of PMI is only third best.
• India Manufacturing PMI posted the largest drop in PMIs in September (51.0) on August (52.4) in the group. 3mo average through Q3 2014 was 52.1, which is better than 3mo average for Q2 2014 (51.4) and 3mo average for Q3 2013 (49.4). With PMI falling 1.4 points m/m, India is the worst performer in the group in terms of m/m dynamics, but its level of PMI is still the highest in the group, which is not surprising, given there appears to be a strong upward bias in India PMI readings across data history (see chart).
• Brazil Manufacturing PMI fell from 50.2 in August to 49.3 in September, switching from growth to contraction - the only country posting contractionary PMI reading in the group. Q3 2014 average reading is at 49.5 which is almost identical to the Q2 2014 reading of 49.4 and to Q3 2013 reading of 49.3. M/m Brazil posted the second worst level of decline in PMI and level-wise it is the worst performer in the group.

Notably, there appears to be little level difference across China and Russia in Q3 2013 Manufacturing activity, despite the fact that Russia is under sanctions pressure relating to Ukraine crisis. Both China and Russia outperformed Brazil, but under-performed India in this sector. Adjusting for Indian data apparent bias upwards, there is also little difference between India and China and Russia.

Summary table of changes and levels:

5/3/2014: Who Owns Emerging Market Government Debt: IMF Blog

An interesting breakdown of the ownership distribution of the emerging markets' Government debt via "The Trillion Dollar Question: Who Owns Emerging Market Government Debt" by Serkan Arslanapl and Takahiro Tsuda

Obviously, take a look at Ukraine and Russia. The core difference is that foreign official sector holdings of government debt for Ukraine are well in excess of those for Russia. Foreign non-bank holdings are also larger for Ukraine. Overall, half of Ukraine's Government debt is foreign-held, against around 1/5 for Russia. Last point, private domestic holdings of Government debt of Ukraine are tiny, at around 22-25% against Russia's 75% or so... Ukraine more closely resembles Argentina and Uruguay in this setting...