threatening Federal Reserve independence

trying to intimidate the Fed?

Just before Christmas, news reports surfaced that President Trump was discussing how to go about firing Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, ten months after having him appointed to the post.  The purported reason:  Mr. Trump was blaming stock market turbulence–not on his tax bill, which failed to reform the system and increased the government deficit, nor on the negative effect of his tariffs–but on Mr. Powell’s continuing to gradually raise short-term interest rates from their financial crisis lows back toward normal.

Ironically, the S&P 500 plunged by about 10%, making what I think will be seen as an important low, as the president’s deliberations became public.

why this is scary

The highest-level economic aim of the US is maximum sustainable GDP growth, with low inflation.  In today’s world, the burden of achieving this falls almost entirely on the Fed (even I realize I write this too much, but: the rest of Washington is dysfunctional).  The unwritten agreement within government is that the Fed will do things that are economically necessary but not politically popular, accepting associated blame, and the rest of Washington will leave it alone.

Mr. Trump seems, despite his Wharton diploma, not to have gotten the memo.  This despite the likelihood that his strange mix of crony-oriented tax cuts and trade protection has made so few negative ripples in financial markets because participants believe the Fed will act as an economic stabilizer.

What happens, though, if the Fed is politicized in the way Mr. Trump appears to want?

The straightforward US example is the 1970s, when the Fed succumbed to Nixonian pressure for a too-easy monetary policy.  That resulted in runaway inflation and a plunging currency.  By 1978, foreigners were requiring that Treasury bonds be denominated in German marks or Swiss francs rather than dollars before they would purchase.   The Fed Funds rate rose 20% in 1981 as the monetary authority struggled to get inflation under control.

The point is the negative effects are very bad and happen surprisingly quickly.  This is more problematic for the US than for, say, Japan because about half the Treasuries in public hands are owned by foreigners, for who currency effects are immediately apparent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

the business cycle, interest rates and the tax cut

past cycles

The garden-variety business cycle since WWII has played out over about four years.   Stock market rises and falls have typically led this cycle by about six months.  Movement breaks out into around 2 1/2 years of up followed by 1 – 1 1/2 years of down.

The driving factor in the cycle has been government policy, in the form of Federal Reserve’s control of short-term interest rates.  Half a century ago, conventional wisdom held that fiscal policy took effect with such long lags that extra government spending or tax changes might end up addressing a problem that was no longer there.  So, the argument went, Congressional action would do more harm than good.  More recent Congresses have been dysfunctionally unable to pass potentially helpful bills.

a typical pattern

Let’s look at the beginning of an up cycle.  The economy has been sputtering–perhaps even declining–so the Fed lowers short-term interest rates.  In the world outside the US, lower borrowing costs make economically viable industrial projects that were previously on the shelf.  So companies build new plants and then hire new workers.  This leads to a pickup in consumer spending, which leads to more investment, which leads to more hiring…

At some point, the economy runs out of workers.  Companies still want to expand, so they begin to poach staff from rivals by offering (a lot) more money.  In advanced economies, inflation is always wage inflation, so price increases start to accelerate at unhealthy speed.

The Fed reacts by raising interest rates to cool the economy down.  Typically, the central bank goes too far.  Monetary policy doesn’t simply return to neutral.  It becomes restrictive, meaning the economy begins to sputter again.  Realizing its mistake, the central bank reverses course  …and an upcycle begins once more.

The US is different.  For whatever reason, consumer spending here doesn’t wait for new jobs to materialize.  Unlike the rest of the world, consumer doesn’t lag investment; it leads.

stocks and bonds

As the upcycle matures, bonds start to weaken because interest rates are beginning to rise.  Stocks, on the other hand, have an initial hiccup but then tend to go sideways to up.  That’s because earnings growth continues to be strong, offsetting the negative impact of rising rates.  Eventually, if/as the central bank become restrictive, stocks begin to decline as well–both because rates are continuing to rise and because investors begin to anticipate future profit declines.

this time is different

Normally, those words send chills up and down the spines of investors.  This time, however, the business cycle really is way different than the garden variety, in three ways:

–interest rate policy has been extremely stimulative for most of the past decade, as a necessary aid to rebuilding the economy after the (Washington-induced) financial crisis,  and because Congress has failed to help through fiscal policy.   Because short rates have been starting from essentially zero, they can rise a long way before beginning to damage the economy

–a little more than a year ago, as the Fed was continuing to withdraw stimulus to counter overheating (evidenced by crazy financial speculation), Congress passed tax cuts that, ten years too late, added over $100 billion annually to net stimulus

–the administration has implemented a hodge-podge of restrictions on trade, which appear, to me at least, to be much more damaging to the domestic economy than the consensus believes

the upshot

–if the trend of annual nominal GDP growth in the US is 4% – 5%, the tariffs may depress the figure for 2019 below that level

–it’s also up in the air as to how much the tariffs will take the edge off the earnings energy stocks need to fend off the negative effect of higher rates

–tax cuts boosted corporate eps in the US by about 20 percentage points.  The overall earnings gain will likely be about +25%.  Because both 2019 and 2018 figures contain the tax benefit (but 2017 numbers didn’t), the yoy eps gain for 2019 will likely drop to be on the order of +5% – +10%.  On the surface, then, earnings growth in 2019 will fall off a cliff.

Decelerating earnings growth like this is normally a sell signal.  On the other hand, the market traditionally doesn’t pay attention to one-off items, however large.  If this holds true again, the market should go sideways from here.

What are the algorithms thinking?  Better said, how are the algorithms programmed?

 

liquidity and stock price changes

daily liquidity and price movements

Liquidity has a lot of different meanings.  Right now, though, I just want to write about what I think is making stocks yo-yo to and fro on any given day.

 

The default response by market makers–human or machine–to a large wave of selling of the kind algorithms seem to trigger is to move the market down as fast as trading regulations allow.  This serves a number of purposes:  it minimizes the unexpected inventory a market maker is forced to take on at a given price; it allows the market maker to gauge the urgency of the seller; the decline itself eventually discourages sellers with any price sensitivity, so the selling dries up; and it reduces the price the market maker pays for the inventory he accumulates.

A large wave of buying works in the opposite direction, but with the same general result: market makers sell less, but at higher prices and end up with less net short exposure.

 

From my present seat high in the bleachers, it seems to me the overall stock market game–to make more/lose less than the other guy–hasn’t changed.  But we’ve gone from the old, human-driven strategy of slow anticipation of likely news not yet released to violently fast computer reaction to news as it’s announced.

Today’s game isn’t simply algorithmic noise, though.  Apple (AAPL), for example, pretty steadily lost relative performance for weeks in November, after it announced it would no longer disclose unit sales of its products.  Two points:  the market had no problem in immediately understanding that this was a bad thing (implying humans were likely involved)   …and the negative price reaction continued for the better part of a month (suggesting that something/someone constrained the race to the bottom).  As it turns out, decision #1 was good and decision #2 was bad.  Presumably short-term traders will make adjustments.

my take

On the premise that dramatic daily shifts in the prices of individual stocks will continue for a while:

–if investors care about the high level of daily volatility, its persistence should imply an eventual contraction in the market PE multiple.  Ten years of rising market probably implies that this won’t happen overnight, if it occurs at all.

–individual investors like you and me may have more time to research new companies and establish positions, if the importance of discounting diminishes

–professional analysts may only retain their relevance if they actively publicize their conclusions, trying to trigger algorithmic action, rather than keeping them closely held and waiting for the rest of the world to eventually figure things out

–the old (and typically unsuccessfully executed) British strategy of maintaining core positions while dedicating, say, 20% of the portfolio to trading around them, may come back into vogue.  Even long-term investors may want to establish buy/sell targets for their holdings and become more trading-oriented as well

–algorithms will presumably begin to react to the heightened level of daily volatility they are creating.  Whether volatility increases or declines as a result isn’t clear

 

 

 

 

machines vs. humans

…a financial Industrial Revolution?

I remember reading, years and years ago, an analysis of changes in the nature of work that happened during the Industrial Revolution.  The general idea is that, say, candlesticks had been made as one-of-a-kind items, out of precious materials and ornate decoration, worked for months by an artisan who had spent years learning how to do this.  Yes, the end product was useful, but it was also very expensive, meant for a niche audience, and acted as a sign of the owners’ superior wealth, taste and privilege.  In contrast, the “new” candlestick was made, fast and cheap, out of ordinary stuff, by a guy who knew how to operate a machine.

Today we find it hard to imagine the possible appeal of most pre-IR objects.  Yet they were once the norm.

 

The macro/microeconomic research-based stock market investment reports of the kind I used to create were made by people, like me, who served long apprenticeships under masters of the craft.  The work tended to only start to approach minimum standards after the author had, say, five years of practical experience in an investment management firm.  Buy-side portfolio managers like me also used the voluminous output of internal or brokerage house analysts who spent their careers studying a specific industry group.

By 2019, most of the experienced buy- and sell-siders have either retired or been laid off,  and have been replaced in many cases either by computer-controlled index-tracking products or by algorithms.  The main forces in today’s daily stock market trading have become machines, some programmed to carry out the wacky theories of the academic world, others to react to signals from the patterns of trading itself (i.e., technical analysis) or to news stories (typically written by reporters trained mostly as writers) or to extrapolate from the patterns of past business cycles.

progress or free-riding?

Are the research reports of a decade or two ago analogous to the candlesticks of the Pre-IR era?  Are algorithms like early industrial machines?  Are they a better and cheaper, although different, way of dealing with financial markets than having a very expensive group of human craftsmen?  Does this mean those who decry algorithms are simply Upper East Side-dwelling Luddites?

I don’t know about “simply.”  My feeling is that algorithms are here to stay.  And my experience as an investor is that it’s very dangerous to think that just because you don’t like or understand something that it serves no purpose.

Still, my suspicion is that as it stands now, there’s a healthy dose of free-riding to algorithmic trading.  In other words,  it looks to me as if some algorithms rely on reading the signals of human professional investors as they move in and out of stocks in response to their research findings.  As those humans are displaced by machines, however, those signals will disappear–implying algorithms will have to evolve if their raw material is to be something other than random noise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apple, industrial activity, the jobs report

the Employment Situation

The Bureau of Labor Statistics made its monthly Employment Situation report this morning:  +312,000 new jobs, +58,000 upward revision to the prior two months’ data, annual wage gains of an inflation-beating +3.2%.  Yes, it’s just one month and, yes, the margin of error is +/- 100,000 jobs, but it’s still a very strong report, indicating a robust domestic economy.

 

Despite this show of employment strength, the stock market has been on a sharply downward path since late September.  What is the market thinking/anticipating?

–the 10-year Treasury, which was yielding 3.22% in late September now yields 2.56%;  the middle of the yield curve is now mildly inverted.  This suggests bond buyers believe a marked slowdown in economic activity in the US is in the offing–one that will force the Fed to soon begin to lower short-term interest rates again.  Why would that be?

–the Trump tariff war with the rest of the world seems to be affecting publicly traded companies much more negatively than one might have imagined

–only about half the earnings of the S&P 500 come from the US.  Both the EU, dealing with Brexit and Italy, and China are slowing down

–some pundits argue from the bond market situation that the Fed is the problem, having –they think–raised short-term interest rates too far.

 

Two pieces of data from yesterday seem, on the surface at least, to reinforce the sharp slowdown narrative:  Apple (AAPL) and business investment activity.

AAPL

–AAPL announced Wednesday night that its December quarter revenues would be about 8% below the midpoint of the guidance it gave in October.  What makes this significant, besides AAPL’s size, is that the company rarely misses its quarterly estimates.

Two reasons given:  falloff in sales in “greater China” and slower than expected takeup of the newest generation of iPhones by existing customers (the smartphone market is completely saturated–there are no more “new” customers).  Neither reason is clearly a sign of broad-based consumer distress, however.

AAPL recently said it would no longer reveal unit sales of its smartphones, a decision I take to mean it intends to make revenue gains through price increases rather than unit volume gains.  Is the slowdown in replacement demand caused by economic weakness or AAPL pricing new phones so high that other, cheaper phones are suddenly more attractive?

Also, the latest issue of Foreign Affairs reports that popular sentiment in China has turned sharply against the US in the past half year or so as Washington initiated its tariff war.  Maybe, in addition to higher prices, flaunting the newest iPhone is no longer as culturally acceptable in China (think:  the century of humiliation), as having a home-grown product.

ISM

–the Institute for Supply Management issued its monthly report on US manufacturing activity yesterday.  It shows a continuing slowdown in industrial activity.  The reason most often cited in survey respondents’ comments is the administration’s tariff war.  Manufacturers are, predictably, shifting production out of the US to avoid import tariffs on raw materials and export tariffs on finished goods.

It’s important to remember, too, that manufacturing is not the key to US economic strength that it was a generation or two ago.  Spending on software is the largest investment item for most service companies.  Yes, this activity is also being shifted abroad as the administration makes it more difficult for foreign-born computer scientists to work in the US.   But I don’t think the ISP report is “new” news, so I’m not sure why it had such a negative effect on the market yesterday.

my take

In the short term, figuring out the root cause of the worries about the US economy is probably less important than trying to gauge how far along in the selling we are now.  Better to figure out when the storm will be over than debate the direction of the wind.  My guess–and it may be more of a hope–is that we made the lows on Christmas Eve when stocks broke decisively through the February 2018 lows.

Personally, I think the ultimate problem is Washington and the tariffs, not the Fed.  I’m all for protecting US intellectual property, but the levies on, say, steel and aluminum seem so arbitrary and generally harmful.  In a way, it would be a lot better if the Fed is the issue, since then the problem would be a familiar one, the market situation clearer and the fix relatively easy.

 

 

 

 

 

stock market issues for 2019

I see four main issues, which–now that I’m on semester break–I’m planning to write about over the next few days.  They are:

machines vs. humans.  This is the question of increased short-term volatility.  How do we cope with the apparently mad dashes in and out of the market by trading robots using, by historical standards, half-baked trading algorithms?

 

decelerating earnings growth.  EPS growth in 2018 for publicly traded companies was around +20%.  Increases for 2019 will likely come in at +8% – +10%.  This kind of sharp falloff is normally a bad sign for stock prices.  In the current case, however, the 2018 EPS surge is only in after-tax earnings and is due mostly to the one-time decrease in the Federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% that went into effect last year.   Pre-tax earnings grew at a much more sedate rate of around 10%, I think.  While the 2019 situation isn’t wildly positive, it would seem to me to imply a flattish market where the investor’s job is to identify areas of potential strength to buy and areas of potential weakness to avoid.

But is this the way algorithms will operate?

 

the business cycle and interest rates.  Typically, the Fed raises short-term rates when it perceives the economy is overheating.  Higher rates make bonds less attractive.  They make other financial instruments, like stocks, less attractive, too.  But the negative effect of higher rates is offset by surging earnings growth.  Is +10% enough to do the job in 2019?

 

–tariffs.  (A side note first:  it seems to me the Trump administration argument that it can usurp Congress’s power to set trade policy because everything economic is a matter of national security is ludicrous.  Not a peep from Congress, though.  To me, this implies that Mr. Trump is simply the spokesmodel for policies the forces in Congress want enacted but don’t want to be held responsible for.)

Tariffs have, at best, a checkered history.  They invite retaliation.  They have unforeseen/ unintended negative effects: Apple’s preannouncement of weaker than expected results in its current quarter may only be the first.   In addition, the rapid and seemingly arbitrary way tariffs have been enacted in the US has already given both domestic and foreign corporates pause about expanding operations here.  One thing is certain, though –tariffs slow economic growth.  The question is by how much and for how long.

 

the independence of the Federal Reserve.  By conventional measures, there’s still too much money sloshing around in the US.  So there’s every reason for the Fed to continue to shrink its bloated balance sheet and to slowly raise short-term interest rates (the specter of Japan’s three decades of stagnation–resulting in large measure from saveral bouts of premature policy tightening–continues to be a cautionary tale against moving too quickly).  Because of this, Mr. Trump’s musing about firing Jerome Powell has a distinctly Nixonian ring to it, conjuring up echoes of the runaway inflation and currency collapse in the US of the 1970s.  From a stock market point of view, threatening the Fed may be the single most damaging thing Mr. Trump has done so far.

 

More details over the next few days.

technical analysis–November 20th

During the course of trading on Tuesday of last week, the NASDAQ 100 touched the closing (though not the intraday) lows of February, before rebounding sharply.  Simultaneously, the S&P 500 did a similar thing, only its stopping point was the higher lows of April.

 

It looks increasingly likely to me that this action is going to serve as the marker for a selling climax–the point where short-term speculators feel all hope of a rebound is lost and dump out their holdings in a final surge of selling with little regard for price–for the market downturn that began in October.

This positive sign for the market has been reinforced by the statements of influential Fed members that short-term interest rates are presently just below neutral, meaning that that body sees little need to continue to push them upward.

Barring any further damage to the economy from Mr. Trump’s bizarre tariff policies, it looks like we’ll enjoy enough market stability for us to return to the business of picking stocks.