The enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it’s the illusion of knowledge (Stephen Hawking)

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so (Mark Twain)

Invest with smart knowledge and objective odds

THE DAILY EDGE (30 April 2018): So! What to do?

Ninja Posted yesterday: TOPSY CURVY: SMALL IS NOT THAT BEAUTIFUL
Consumers Cool U.S. Economic Growth, but Business Thrives Economic growth slowed in the first quarter, as consumers reined in spending even after tax cuts fattened the wallets of many households.

Gross domestic product—the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S., adjusted for inflation—expanded at an annual rate of 2.3% for the months January through March to $17.4 trillion, the Commerce Department said Friday. That marked a slowdown from the 3% growth rate registered during the final nine months of 2017. (…)

The annual growth rate has been below 2% on average since 2000. (…)

Nonresidential fixed investment, reflecting business investment in buildings, equipment, software and more, grew at a 6.1% rate. That was faster than the expansion’s 4.6% average. Business investment is a key driver of worker productivity and longer-run wage growth. (…)

Household outlays increased at a 1.1% rate in the first quarter, pulling back from the fourth quarter, when they rose at a 4.0% rate on strong holiday spending and consumers replacing property such as cars damaged by late-summer hurricanes. The saving rate rose from the fourth quarter to the first, meaning households pocketed added disposable income from tax cuts rather than spending it.

image

Pointing up The price index for personal-consumption expenditures increased at a 2.7% pace in the first quarter, matching the fourth quarter’s pace. Core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy categories, rose at a 2.5% rate. (…)

Core PCE, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, went from +1.3% annualized in Q3’17 to +1.9% in Q4’17 to +2.5% in Q1’18. It is still +1.7% YoY in Q1’18 but that infers that March was +2.0% following January and February at +1.5% and +1.6% respectively. This is a scary acceleration!

In this table from Advisor Perspectives, the last column should read 2018 Q1. Note how weak Durable Goods were in Q1’18 after the strong, hurricanes-induced, Q4’17 but even averaging the last 2 quarters we only get +0.35% quarterly or +1.5% annualized, down from +2.4% annualized in Q2-Q3’17. Also note the very weak Nondurables.

The Labor Department on Friday reported that the employee cost index—its comprehensive measure of pay and benefits—was up 2.7% from year earlier. That was its biggest gain since 2008.

That increase doesn’t reflect the extra money many people are taking home as a result of the tax cut.

(…) it is possible that households have reached a transition point where they will be devoting more of what they make toward saving and paying down debt.

Indeed, while the personal saving rate—the share of after-tax income that doesn’t get spent—rose to 3.1% from 2.6% in the first quarter, the savings rate was above 5% just two years ago. (…)

image

MORE ON U.S. INFLATION

After this morning’s consensus-topping GDP data, which showed real growth of 2.3% annualized in Q1, the U.S. output gap is now almost closed according to Congressional Budget Office estimates of potential. In theory, that means price pressures will intensify. True, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, the core PCE deflator, currently shows an annual inflation rate of less than 2%. But expect the latter to rise as the output gap eventually moves into positive territory. Also warranting optimism that the Fed will finally hit its 2% inflation target is the tightening labour market which is pushing up costs. As today’s Hot Charts show, the private sector’s employment cost index, which takes into account wages, salaries and benefits, rose again in Q1 and is now growing at the fastest pace since 2008. (NBF)

image

EVEN MORE ON U.S. INFLATION

Sorry to insist but Friday also saw the release of the all inclusive (wages and benefits) Employment Cost Index for Q1’18: +0.84% QoQ = +3.4% annualized. YoY it is +2.7% (private companies: +2.9%), from +2.4% (+2.6%) one year ago and +1.9% (+2.0%) two years ago.

Pretty clear trend, even scarier given current low unemployment rate and ever rising labor shortage. Note how private wages have started to increasingly outpace total wages.

image

Companies are loosening up on wages seeing their improved pricing power.

The Fed could well find itself way behind the curve pretty soon.

(…) Projections released at their meeting last month show all 15 participants expected annual core inflation of at least 2% by 2020, and more than half of them see it rising to at least 2.1% next year and staying there through 2020.

This was the first time officials have projected inflation exceeding the Fed’s 2% target, signaling they don’t expect to pick up the pace of rate increases in the case of a modest and temporary overshoot. (…)

Still, officials haven’t said how much or for how long they would let inflation go above 2% before moving to raise rates more aggressively to bring it down. “We haven’t agreed on that,” said Fed Chairman Jerome Powell at a news conference last month. (…)

Surprised smile Initial unemployment claims

cratered to 209k last week. The four-week moving average is now 229k (-14% YoY), almost a 50-year low (1969!). Relative to the labor force, we are in uncharted territory with 12 million workers (annualized) claiming new unemployment insurance payments, a low 1.4% of the labor force. It won’t be long the U.S. will run out of unemployeds.

image

Maybe Congress will wonder why maintain this costly program for such a small slice of the population. After all, the Administration, in its infinite wisdom and always caring for the bottom 90%, recently proposed to change the food stamp program to save some $13B per year distributed to some 42 million Americans.

“Under the proposal, households receiving $90 or more per month in SNAP benefits will receive a portion of their benefits in the form of a USDA Foods package, which would include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish,” the budget reads.

According to the Department of Agriculture, the program would send food boxes to 16.4 million households, representing 81% of SNAP households. The boxes would account for half of the benefits for the household and the rest would be put on their Electronic Benefit Transfer card.

The USPS, which, during the 1990s, lost volume from the monthly food stamp checks going electronic, could make up for it with food boxes sent monthly throughout the USA. No doubt the USPS can deal with all the logistical challenges in a snap! What kind of food in the box? Which producers? Size? Dietary issues? Etc. Plus these mundane issues:

Would boxes be delivered door-to-door? Would people have to be home to receive Harvest boxes — a likely challenge for shift workers? Or would people have to visit a distribution center? What happens to elderly or disabled individuals? What about transportation costs, or accessibility, particularly in rural areas?

Harvest boxes would also be less reliable, because delivery can easily be interrupted while transferring benefits to a debit card rarely is. This is particularly relevant during events such as natural disasters, which Vollinger says SNAP has tackled effectively because of its ability to electronically distribute emergency benefits through EBT. (Vox)

But these are boring matters for another day.

Allow me this last one from this WSJ article Energy, a Bright Spot in Nafta Talks, Bogged Down by Dispute Over Rule Change

(…) U.S. businesses, however, including some energy companies, are balking at Washington’s pursuit of an unrelated rule change that would weaken or end Nafta’s protection of U.S. investments in Mexico or Canada from government intervention.

At issue is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement, which allows a U.S. business to take legal action if a foreign government harms the company’s investment in that country. For example, if the Mexican government nationalized, say, a U.S-owned oilrig in Mexico, the measure would give the American company the right to appeal to adjudicating panels set up under Nafta.

The protections are valued by a variety of U.S. industries, from manufacturing to financial services. But they are especially vital to the U.S. energy sector. Energy sector investments typically require substantial investment “before the first barrel comes out,” said Mexican Finance Minister José Antonio González Anaya, a former chief of Mexico’s state oil giant Petróleos Mexicanos, in an interview.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is proposing the three member countries eliminate the Nafta protections, saying they create an incentive for U.S. companies to invest internationally and move jobs overseas. “Why is it a good policy of the United States government to encourage investment in Mexico?,” asked Mr. Lighthizer at a Congressional forum late last year. (…)

Yes! Why is it a good policy for any government to put their citizens at legal and financial risks in order to coerce them into investing only where Big Brother deems acceptable?

This is the same Lighthizer, totally focused on autos and steel, who renegotiated the “horrible” trade agreement with South Korea, claiming victory for

(…) extending the 25% U.S. tariff on Korean truck exports for another 20 years through 2041. This is the upside down world of Trump trade logic in which punishing American consumers with higher prices is a virtue. The tariff had been scheduled to phase out by 2021. Korean companies will probably evade the tariff by building more trucks in the U.S. and exporting the parts instead. (…)

Mr. Lighthizer is also trumpeting Seoul’s acceptance of a 30% cut in its steel exports to the U.S. This is a defeat for American steel users who are already paying higher prices despite the country-specific exemptions from Mr. Trump’s world-wide 25% tariff on imported steel. Reducing supply can have the same effect as a tariff in raising domestic prices. (…) (WSJ)

The problem is that this belies the claim that the steel protection was just a means to induce negotiation that would lower overall barriers. As the negotiations conclude, the barriers remain. (Forbes)

Meanwhile, Canada and Mexico have both negotiated trade agreements with the European Union, Australia, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, giving companies in these countries lower tariffs and better access to America’s closest trading partners.

Why is it a good policy of the United States government to incite the rest of the world to invest and trade easily among themselves while trying to prevent Americans to invest and trade easily with the rest of the world?

Foreign Investors Lose Some Hunger for U.S. Debt Foreign investors’ appetite this year for U.S. debt hasn’t grown at the same pace as the government’s borrowing needs, which some analysts worry could push bond yields higher and eventually threaten to slow economic growth.

Investors in a broad category known as “indirect bidders,” which includes both mutual funds and foreign investors, have been winning the smallest percentage of the bonds they’ve bid for since 2011, according to bidding data for recent Treasury bond auctions. The average percentage of the auctions won by this group fell for the first time since 2012, a decline some analysts attribute to both lower demand from investors outside the U.S. and their recent tendency to post less-aggressive bids. (…)

While the percentage of Treasurys held by foreign investors has declined, such buyers remain crucial to the bond market, holding roughly $6.3 trillion of government debt. Even simply rolling over maturing bonds at the auctions requires foreign investors’ participation. They have bought at least 17% of government auctions each year since 2014, maintaining their support for the primary market during a period where the share purchased by bond dealers has consistently declined. (…)

Foreign holdings of Treasurys rose last year for the first time since 2014, keeping pace with the increase in government debt outstanding. In February, they climbed to $6.29 trillion of the $14.7 trillion of then-outstanding U.S. government debt, the Treasury said April 16, up from $6.26 trillion the prior month.

China’s holdings rose by $8.5 billion to $1.18 trillion while, Japan’s fell by $6.5 billion to $1.06 trillion. (…)

A separate set of Treasury figures known as allotment data shows foreign demand fell below its five-year average in March, after rising to a 21-month high in February. And the backdrop for this year and the foreseeable future is more challenging. (…)

China exporters see business slow as recovery fades FTCR China Export Index at 20-month low as Washington and Beijing tussle over trade

(…) The FTCR China Export Index fell 1.1 points to 54, the lowest level since August 2016 (52.5) as respondents reported a gloomier outlook and slower volume growth. Our April freight, consumer and labour readings also weakened.  This was the 22nd month in a row that the index has been above 50, signalling improving conditions among exporters. However, key sub-indices such as those tracking volumes and prices had been trending lower even before tension between Washington and Beijing flared up over Chinese trade policies. (…)

The BlackRock Investment Institute tracks China’s economy using high frequency indicators. Bothe the GPS and Nowcast levels are pointing to slower growth:

BlackRock-Chart-China (2)

China’s slowdown is inevitable but it must be orderly given high debt levels. HNA is one of China’s gigournous zombies scrambling to deleverage:

Borrowing costs surged to about $5bn for the full year, up from $2bn in the first half of 2017, triggering the liquidity crisis that rippled through the conglomerate between November to late January. Borrowing costs exceeded its earnings before interest and taxes, and topped the ranks of non-financial companies in Asia during that period, according to Bloomberg data. 

BTW, BlackRock’s GPS for the Eurozone has also crested:BlackRock-Chart-Eurozone

…unlike that for the U.S.:BlackRock-Chart-United States

While Japan looks weaker as The Daily Shot illustrates:

 Britain and the EU Are Pulling Back From the Cliff—For Now The moment of greatest risk for post-Brexit trade disruption looks like it will be pushed off to 2021

Fears have receded that economic relations between Britain and the European Union will fall off a cliff edge in 11 months’ time when the U.K. leaves the bloc. The risk of big trade disruption has been lessened because negotiators have agreed on a 20-month transition period post-Brexit during which the rules of U.K.-EU engagement will remain essentially unchanged. (…)

SENTIMENT WATCH

SentimenTrader’s AAII Bull Ratio moving average has reached the “excessive pessimism” area:

image@sentimentrader

Tiho Brkan (The Atlas Investor) uses SentimenTrader’s AIM Model which combines the advisor and investor sentiment models.

(…) The two standard deviations, negative below the mean. In other words, when the sentiment drops into a ridiculously low bearish territory, relative to where it was, let’s say three to six months ago, the way that it compiles the indicator I’m sure, that’s about 10% or below single digits. And we just had that.

So over the last decade in particular, whenever sentiment dropped to single digits, and the economy continued to expand as it has over the last nine years, that was a buying opportunity. So that happened during the Flash Crash in May to July 2010. And in July, the sentiment indicator signaled a buying opportunity. And then the same thing happened once again in August 2011, during the Eurozone debt crisis. And the debt ceiling saga that was going on in the U.S. Congress, that was a buying opportunity. And then we had the Chinese devaluation and the oil bottom, in August 2015, and January to February of 2016. Those were single digit readings, and those were great buying opportunities too. And we just got one last week.

So it remains to be seen whether this one is going to give us the same results as the previous ones during this bull market. One thing that I want to note, is that during 2007 to 2009, sentiment would drop to ridiculously low levels as well. But when the downtrend is in full force, all that sentiment can really indicate is just a really oversold condition, to the point where we will have some kind of relief rally. But it didn’t stop the bears continuously pushing prices lower, and lower, lower, until we finally got to some kind of decent valuation, relative to where we were.

For its part, Lowry’s Research argues that the transition from bull to bear has followed a very consistent pattern of investors selling over-extended stocks near peaks over the last 100 years, which pattern is nowhere to be seen this time.

But the day of reckoning is approaching as the SPY is nearing the end of the wedge, surfing on its 200d m.a….

spy

The 200-day moving average remains positive across the world:

Here’s a nice challenge via Lance Roberts:

May Begins Worst 6-Months Of The Year

Jeffrey Hirsch of “Stocktraders Almanac,” recently penned the following note:

“May officially marks the beginning of the “Worst Six Months” for the DJIA and S&P. To wit: “Sell in May and go away.” May has been a tricky month over the years, a well-deserved reputation following the May 6, 2010 “flash crash” and the old “May/June disaster area” from 1965 to 1984. Since 1950, midterm-year Mays rank poorly, #9 DJIA and NASDAQ, #10 S&P 500 and Russell 2000, #8 for Russell 1000. Losses range from 0.1% by Russell 1000 to 1.9% for Russell 2000.

For the near term over the next several weeks the rally may have some legs. But as we get into the summer doldrums and the midterm election campaign battlefront becomes more engaged, we expect the market to soften further during the weakest two quarter stretch in the 4-year cycle.”

Just as a reminder, it pays to be more cautious in summer months.

Surprised smile EARNINGS WATCH

Factset’s summary:

Overall, 53% of the companies in the S&P 500 have reported earnings to date for the first quarter. Of these companies, 79% have reported actual EPS above the mean EPS estimate, 6% have reported actual EPS equal to the mean EPS estimate, and 15% have reported actual EPS below the mean EPS estimate. The percentage of companies reporting EPS above the mean EPS estimate is above the 1-year (74%) average and above the 5-year (70%) average.

If 79% is the final percentage for the quarter, it will mark the highest percentage of S&P 500 companies reporting actual EPS above estimates since FactSet began tracking this metric in Q3 2008.

In aggregate, companies are reporting earnings that are 9.1% above expectations. This surprise percentage is above the 1-year (+5.1%) average and above the 5-year (+4.3%) average.

In terms of revenues, 74% of companies have reported actual sales above estimated sales and 26% have reported actual sales below estimated sales. The percentage of companies reporting sales above estimates is above the 1-year average (70%) and well above the 5-year average (57%).

In aggregate, companies are reporting sales that are 1.7% above expectations. This surprise percentage is above the 1-year (+1.1%) average and above the 5-year (+0.6%) average.

The blended, year-over-year earnings growth rate for the first quarter is 23.2% today, which is higher than the earnings growth rate of 18.5% last week.

The blended, year-over-year sales growth rate for the third quarter is 8.4% today, which is higher than the growth rate of 7.6% last week.

At this point in time, 47 companies in the index have issued EPS guidance for Q2 2018. Of these 47 companies, 26 have issued negative EPS guidance and 21 have issued positive EPS guidance. The percentage of companies issuing negative EPS guidance is 55% (26 out of 47), which is well below the 5-year average of 74%.

image

Thomson Reuters’ tally shows blended earnings up 24.6% in Q1, 22.7% ex-Energy. Amazing! (Chart below from Bloomberg)

Nerd smile So! What to do?

On the one hand, sentiment, technicals and earnings tracking say go…on the other hand, rising inflation and interest rates, high volatility, so-so valuations, sell in May and go away say no…Confused smile

  • This highly volatile market is not comfortable. People are obviously nervous about interest rates, inflation and profit margins amid an apparent cost push cycle.
  • But valuation has improved to a neutral Rule of 20 P/E while earnings are truly booming thanks to a lot more than tax reform. Overall, margins are still rising even excluding tax reform.
  • Technicals are not negative per the EMA and the 200d m.a. (holding and still rising) and per Lowry’s analysis (favorable supply/demand and breadth).
  • We got sentiment back on the plus side but it is very volatile.

Sentiment and technical factors play on the short term volatility of equities. Fundamentals dictate the medium to longer term trends: inflation and interest rates are currently troublesome so late in the cycle (oil, wages, commodities and a tightening Fed). But profits are very, very strong and are not showing peaking signals just yet. Based on current evidence, profits will be winning the race against inflation and interest rates for at least another 3-6 months and we have yet to get negative signals from credible recession indicators.

The S&P 500 Index has declined 7% from its January 26 peak of 2866 (it actually corrected 11.8% from top to bottoms reached Feb. 9 (2529) and Apr. 4 (2547)). Since then, trailing earnings have increased 13% from $128 to $145 (tax-reform adjusted) and seem set to reach $152 by mid-summer after Q2. This is a very powerful backwind from the most fundamental variable for equities: profits.

The headwinds are rising inflation and interest rates, impacting earnings multiples. Inflation is up from 1.8% to 2.1%, a 16.7% advance while interest rates are up 30% (3m bills) and 25% (10Y Ts) since yearend.

And we have a fragile consumer with little savings, slow real wage growth, rising fuel prices and a tightening Fed.

And we have a highly indebted corporate America facing rising interest rates through 2019, hoping the fragile consumer keeps consuming and costs remain manageable.

But we also have tax reform which provides a bounty of cash to profitable companies and strong fiscal incentives to boost capex, do M&A and/or buy back equities (share repurchases for the quarter were up about 34% vs Q4’17, and up 43% YoY, based on the 25% of S&P 500 companies filing quarterly reports so far, according to data from S&P Dow Jones Indices).

In all, this does not look like a cycle end just yet. Maybe the best scenario would be a slowing economy leading to contained inflation and a more cautious Fed. Corporate America has shown it can grow profits in a slow-mo economy.

Cautiously positive. But also read TOPSY CURVY: SMALL IS NOT THAT BEAUTIFUL 

No Volatility Here: Cash Makes a Comeback After years of producing pitiful returns, money-market funds and even bank savings accounts offer improved yields…and a safe place to park funds.

Yields on money-market funds and other cash sanctuaries are approaching 2%, levels not seen in almost a decade. (…)

The average is 1.5%, almost a point above the level a year ago, according to Crane Data. Taxable funds now have a 0.50 percentage point yield edge over bank deposits, reports iMoneyNet. Investors have noticed—money-fund assets went from $2.6 trillion to $2.8 trillion over the past year. (…)

Another good cash proxy: Treasury bills. A three-month yields 1.78%; a six-month, 1.96%, and a one-year, 2.23%. Brokers such as Fidelity and Schwab don’t charge commissions or fees to buy T-bills, and interest is exempt from state and local taxes. (For direct purchases, go to Treasurydirect.gov.) (…)

@trevornoren

AN INTERVIEW WITH STRONG VIEWS!
Auto Jim Chanos on Tesla’s ‘stunning’ accelerated rate of executive… Short-seller Jim Chanos, Kynikos Associates founder, shares his thoughts on Tesla, Elon Musk and the mass exodus of the company’s top executives.
LIKE MOTHER, UNLIKE DAUGHTER!

Money Stock Fever Grips India, as Millions of New Investors Pile In A campaign by the Indian government is encouraging millions of citizens to open bank accounts and invest some of their nest eggs in the stock market, part of a financial-reform effort to push cash into the economy.

TOPSY CURVY: SMALL IS NOT THAT BEAUTIFUL

It’s now all about the yield curve. Inverting or not? Bad or not? Every economist, strategist or commentator has a theory.

As always, I prefer to look at the facts.

A look at this 40-year chart quickly dispels the myth. Yield curve inversions always precede recessions but do not necessarily lead to recessions, unless you are willing to wait 2-3 years.

image

Inversions occur because short term rates rise faster than long-term rates. The Fed’s arm looms very large on short-term rates while market forces, essentially dictated by inflation and inflation expectations, generally set the course for long-term rates (not quite so simple since 2009).

In effect, recessions are “engineered” by the central banks’ desire to slow economic and inflation growth rates. There have been 13 Fed tightening since the 1950s and 10 eventually ended in recessions and 3 in soft landings. It is thus a fairly riskless call to say that we are presently on a path to a recession. The big unknown is when. And do not count on the “engineers” to help on timing, they themselves have no clue as David Rosenberg demonstrates.

image

Judging from the past 10 recessions, the first rate hike preceded a recession by an average of 28 months with a range of 11 to 55 months (!) and a median of 22-25 months. It has been 28 months since the first Fed rate hike in December 2015 (red arrows in chart below). Unless this cycle beats yet another record, the latest the recession will start is August 2020.

Some could argue that the second hike in December 2016 was actually the real first hike. We would thus be only 16 months into the hiking cycle.

Being more concerned with equity markets than economic recessions, I once posted on EQUITIES AFTER FIRST RATE HIKES: THE CHARTS SINCE 1954. You can see all the evidence in the article but here’s the conclusion:

To be brief, in layman’s terms, in reality, there seems to be no consistent nor typical pattern after the first rate hikes.

However, digging a little more into the history book, I found that in 6 of the 8 years when the S&P 500 rose during the initial rate hike, inflation was actually diminishing or stable (2004). This did not verify in 1987, although the market eventually avenged itself and in 1999 when internet speculation blinded everybody.

Maybe we got ourselves a bit of a rule here: rate hike cycles are not damaging to equities in as much as inflation is not rising at the time. Since profits are generally still rising when the Fed takes its foot off the pedal, stable or declining inflation rates help sustain P/E ratios as demonstrated by the Rule of 20.

So, SHOULD INVESTORS FEAR A FED TIGHTENING? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is watch inflation.

Core inflation was 2.1% in December 2015 and 2.2% one year later. It dropped to 1.7% in mid-2017 and is now 2.1%. So far, this rate hike cycle has not met rising inflation but price pressures are seen rising in many corners.

The yield curve has actually been declining since 2014 as long-term rates dropped from 3.0% to 1.4% in July 2016 while short-term rates were slowly creeping up.

image

The real flattening move began in September 2017 when short rates journeyed decidedly upward without similar conviction from the long end. In fact, ten-year Treasury yields remain below their early 2014 level while the 2Y yields jumped six-fold from 0.4% to 2.4%.

In a December 22, 2016 post (RISING LONG-TERM RATES: THE SCARY FACTS!), I showed that rising long-term rates have almost always been damaging to equity returns:

In the 12 periods of rapidly rising long-term rates between 1965 and 1996 (I grouped a few short periods on the chart), not one was accompanied with any meaningful gains in equities while most saw equities perform a really deep dive (average –14.5%).

(…) Since 1996, there were some instances when rising rates coincided with higher equity prices, like in 1998-2000, maybe 2005-06,  and 2010. The first two instances saw equity valuations truly explode as investors bought into “great stories”, only to totally deflate when the dreams turned into terrible nightmares.

The problem this time is really not whether the yield curve inverts or not, rather that the general level of interest rates is rising rapidly amid a highly indebted world.

THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT

It really is.

  • The Fed has begun its Quantitative Tightening in a race against the economic cycle, aiming to refill its empty toolbox in order to be prepared to fight the next recession.
  • It has thus clearly set the path for the Fed funds rate: two or three more hikes in 2018 to reach its estimated “neutral policy rate” of 2.875%, and three more in 2019 to get some wiggle room in case it needs to reboot the economy.
  • Where things are very different is that the Fed is also degreasing its balance sheet, gradually and systematically shedding long-term securities into the market, thereby putting upward pressures on long-term rates. This could well prevent the “dreaded inversion” but it could lift the whole interest rate spectrum.

This “engineered” general increase in U.S. interest rates is happening when the federal government is also putting increasing pressures on the bond market with its explosive deficits and financing needs over the next several years, even though its debt ratios are already in danger zones.

More recently, inflation has picked up, also putting pressure on interest rates. And now oil prices are pushing upwards, and maybe wages as well.

Given all the above, bond investors might well be inclined to demand more than the current puny 0.7% real return on their 10-year commitments.

Meanwhile, in the real world, corporate CEOs, CFOs and treasurers have to incorporate the well telegraphed higher interest rates in their 2018-2019 budgets. Corporate America is more indebted than ever. Total nonfinancial corporate indebtedness is almost $9 trillions, up 33% from its 2008 peak and 80% above its 2000 level.

image

Thanks to the Fed’s transparent communications, corporations can confidently calculate that, even without any new borrowing, their short-term interest expense, up 60% in 2017, will increase 30% in both 2018 and 2019 simply through rising discount rates. On an after-tax basis, considering the new lower tax rate, the scheduled rise in short-term rates will cost 35% more in 2018 and 2019.

These calculations take no account of the rising spread between LIBOR and the Fed Funds rate. Whatever the reasons, the spread has recently reached 0.7% from 0.24% in mid-2016. Since most corporate short-term interest rates are linked to LIBOR, if the current spread remains through 2019, interest costs will be 20% higher than calculated above.

Ten-year Treasury yields averaged 1.8% in 2016 and 2.3% in 2017. They are presently 30% higher at almost 3.0%. For the above mentioned reasons, a good case can be made for even higher long-term rates in the next 2 years (see below for caveat). If inflation is 2.0% and real rates are 1.5% (still below their 2.4% 50-year average), refinancing long-term debt in 2018-19 could lift long-term interest rates 50-70% above their 2017 level, assuming constant corporate spreads, a rather optimistic assumption given the current low spreads amid Fed tightening.

In all, budgeting this year and next, corporate officers are facing a scheduled explosion in their financing costs. Compared with 2017, the cost of floating rate debt will more than double in the next 2 years while that of new fixed rate debt will rise some 70% (or more) on an after-tax basis.

According to the Federal Reserve Board, U.S. nonfinancial corporations incurred $490B in interest payments in 2016. Given the rise in interest rates during 2017 and assuming that 20% of long-term debt matures each year, we can infer that interest payments rose to about $530B in 2017 and could reach $580B in 2018 and $625B in 2019. While rough but conservative estimates, these numbers provide an idea of the hit corporate borrowers will take this year and next: somewhere around $100B (nearly 20% vs 2017) more cash outlays over 2 years.

Corporate cashflow was some $2T or 22.5% of total debt in 2017 per Ed Yardeni’s calculations. If interest expense rise $100B pretax by the end of 2019, after tax cashflow will decline by about $80B or 4% assuming no spread widening nor rating downgrades. Since corporate revenues will also be negatively impacted, we can safely assume that the scheduled rise in interest rates will hurt after tax cashflow by 6-8% during the next 2 years, about equivalent to the average effect of the tax reform on corporate USA.

The bulk of the hit will be felt during the second half on 2018 and in 2019.

Importantly, keep in mind that all calculations above are economy-wide and aggregate the full spectrum of companies, from cash rich to debt heavy. Obviously, the latter group will get hit much harder than the 6-8% average. Consider

  • Even median investment grade borrowers are levered like never before, in the ninth year of the cycle.

image

  • Nearly 50% of investment grade borrowers are rated BBB, up from 42% in 2014 and 32% in 2009. (David Rosenberg notes that the volume of BBB-rated bonds globally has soared to nearly $3 trillion or triple what it was in 2008). Any cashflow shortfall will hurt and any refinancing will be challenging, and costly, especially after another eventual (likely) downgrade.
  • The number of zombie companies (not earning their interest expense) is already beyond the previous peaks reached after a recession. Recession or not, this number will swell well past 220 companies in coming years.
  • Many of these zombies are of the small cap breed. While corporate America has enjoyed record margins throughout the cycle, smaller companies have experienced a rather large drop in profit margins since 2013. The recent tax reform is providing some relief, but for how long?

image

  • Actually, David Hay, CIO at Evergreen/Gavekal says that 20% of the Russell 2000 companies can’t cover interest with EBIT. That’s 400 companies. And yet, according to David, the Russell 2000 index is trading at 26x forward earnings, excluding the 1/3 or so that lose money.
  • This is a scary alligator chart from David’s latest webinar:

image

Maybe we should also get short the U.S.consumer. Small cap Alli’s lower jaw above will sink by $5B for every 100 bps increase in interest rates. Assume that the average Russell 2000 company incurred a 4% average interest rate in 2017, a doubling in that number would eat $20B off the $150B in ebitda, a 13% drop.

Now that also assumes that revenues don’t get hurt. But since Consumer Alli below also gets bitten by the rate hikes, each 100 bps effective rise eats almost $150B, or 1% off its disposable income, lifting the lower jaw below by 1 percentage point and requiring a commensurate redistribution of expenditures. If higher oil prices also get in the beat, consumers will need to seriously retrench on discretionary spending during the next several years.

image

Adding to executives’ nightmares, any American company using imported steel or aluminum (there are many, many, employing an estimated 6M workers) is now facing 10-25% cost increases and high anxiety on their competitiveness. Any company trading in goods subject to potential tariffs is anxiously awaiting a resolution of the USA-China face-off, several months away given the lengthy process.

Tax reform was an important but one-shot event. Rising financing costs, refinancing challenges and real and potential trade issues will be grinding through 2019 which already compels corporate executives to review their priorities for the next several years. This will more than likely result in renewed efforts to cut costs but, imperatively, in a sharp focus on conserving cash and reducing debt. The economic momentum will likely suffer as a result but also dividends and stock buybacks.

This could explain

  • Small corporations’ sudden and sharp swing in capex intentions (The Daily Shot):

image

  • The surprising sharp drop in expectations without weakening current conditions in the April NY Fed survey:

a38c3cd0-90a1-4bf4-8b5c-5dbc086c26cd

  • The sharp drop in expected new orders in the April Philly Fed survey:

image

  • The sharp drop in the ZEW survey of expectations in countries hit by the steel tariffs:

large image

Faced with such financial certainties and business uncertainties, several corporate officers could very well call a freeze on spending and borrowing on very short order. If they don’t do it voluntarily, the bond vigilantes will intervene and force their hand.

The whole point here is that there is a severe increase in interest rates virtually scheduled through 2019 which will hit throughout a highly indebted economy. The harsh reality is that each of these hikes immediately takes real cash out of the system and reduces revenues and profits. If companies are not yet planning for these certain events, the shock will be even bigger.

There are no buffers in this economy. The Fed desperately needs to reload, the consumer has no savings and corporations are loaded with debt.

THE BOND CAVEAT

Bond bulls have become a pretty rare breed, especially after the “big breakout”:

image

Van Hoisington and Lacy Hunt at Hoisington Investment Management have such a track record that we must pay heed to their view. This is their conclusion as of April 13:

(…) Important to the long-term investor is the pernicious impact of exploding debt levels. This condition will slow economic growth, and the resulting poor economic conditions will lead to lower inflation and thereby lower long-term interest rates. This suggests that high quality yields may be difficult to obtain within the next decade. In the shorter run, in accordance with Friedman’s established theory, the current monetary deceleration, or restrictive monetary policy, will bring about lower long-term interest rates.

So, what if long-term rates don’t go much higher, or even decline? It will necessarily mean that the economy is getting slower, vindicating Hoisington’s argument that excessive debt levels lead to slower economic growth.

What would the Fed do? So far, the evidence from the FOMC communications points to a strong desire to “normalize” as quickly as possible. Absent a recession, therefore, QT will continue. Tightening in a slowing economy!

Investors are thus trapped in this environment of high indebtedness, rising interest rates, threatening inflation and a boxed Fed. There seems little hope for a gracious and harmless exit.

Investing is dealing with uncertainty. When certain important things become certain, it is wise to take advantage of this rare advantage. We must ascertain that our investment portfolio is built with these certainties well accounted for.

What we know, at this time, known knowns and known unknowns:

  • the world is highly indebted;
  • the U.S. government is highly indebted;
  • corporate America is highly indebted;
  • more companies are more indebted than in previous cycles;
  • more small companies are highly indebted;
  • more small companies have poorly rated debt;
  • more small companies are already not covering interest expense;
  • a very large percentage of loans are covenant-lite;
  • U.S. short-term interest rates are set to rise through 2019;
  • U.S. long-term rates are up 30% from their 2017 level and could rise further;
  • tax reform has raised the after cost of financing by 22%, much more for highly indebted companies;
  • the U.S government will need to borrow heavily over the next 10 years, starting right now;
  • heavy corporate refinancing will also pressure rates in the next several years.

Therefore, we should expect difficulties for companies with high debt, high floating rate debt, and large maturities in 2018 and 2019. God forbids that rising rates also hurt the economy…

On the more macro picture, Lacy Hunt warns of the virtuous circle:

Regardless of whether there was an associated recession, the last ten cycles of tightening all triggered financial crises. In conjunction with the non-monetary determinants of economic activity (referred to as initial conditions), monetary restraint served to expose over-leveraged parties and, in turn, financial crises ensued.

Only unknown: not if, when?

Peruse your portfolio. Quality and safety deserve a premium.

image