Hedge Clippings | Friday 03 May, 2019

This week saw the ongoing debate continuing between various economists over the likelihood of the RBA delivering a rate cut following their meeting next Tuesday, with about 50% of them thinking they will (or should) and the other 50% thinking they won't (or shouldn't). Those in the first group (the "will'ers" or the "should'ers") including Shayne Elliott, ANZ's head teller, want the RBA to cut rates to save the property market (which it won't - or shouldn't) even though it was only 12 to 18 months ago that the RBA was concerned about the property bubble!

What was interesting was that Elliott's opposite number at NAB was in the opposite camp, espousing the view that at these ultra-low levels a rate cut of .25%, plus another one later in the year of a further .25%, will not only not help to resurrect the property market, but is also unlikely to reverse the low inflation levels which triggered the whole debate in the first place.

To be fair, Elliott's concerns were also directed at APRA's responsible lending guidelines which require the banks to ensure a borrower's actual rate, say around 4.25% to 4.75%, has a sufficient buffer between 4.25% and 7.25% - the rate the regulator considers prudent for future serviceability. The ANZ bank can carry on about "Responsible Lending" and APRA's margin of error, but until they were outed by the Hayne Royal Commission, all the big four were more interested in lending volumes, not lending responsibility.

And if ANZ really think 0.25% off the current 1.5% is going to help the property market, that assumes they're committed to passing any cut on to borrowers in FULL? Pigs might fly! Canstar produced figures showing that, assuming only half of a .25% cut is passed on by the banks, the monthly saving would be just $26 on the average mortgage of $400,000.

And if the ANZ (and others) were really committed to lower rates, or passing them on, why haven't they dropped credit card interest rates one iota since cash rates were 5 or 6% higher than they are now?

For the record, credit card rates are still in the 18 to 22% band for most bank customers. ANZ currently offer (or promote) 0% for 15 months on balance transfers, and once you're up to your eyeballs in debt the rate reverts to a somewhat less generous 21.47%. (oh! And with a $58 annual account fee).

And lowering interest rates to push inflation up? Monetary policy used to be used to stimulate or dampen demand in the economy, which right now is traveling ok, even if it's not going gangbusters (depending on which politician you listen to). And if you want to see how much low interest rates have done to stimulate economic activity elsewhere, take a look at Japan or Europe, where negative rates have had little to no effect on growth, consumer demand, or inflation.

The RBA's inflation target of 2-3% was set at a time when no one in their right minds considered the lower level would be breached, let alone halved. Those wanting to see rates fall further also seem to ignore the effect it will have on deposit rates - already pitifully low, but at least supporting equity prices thanks to dividends, including, for some, franking credits - for the time being.

Hedge Clippings | Friday 26 April, 2019

Reading the press - or more accurately the media as a whole - it seems many economists are predicting a rate cut from the RBA following their meeting on Tuesday week, May 7th.  However, we're not so sure - or at least not sure that it is either the right thing to do or will have the desired effect.

This of course begs the question, "what is the desired effect?". From what we can understand from the media, and even noted non-economist Bill Shorten, it seems low inflation is what is now the economy's major issue! Not so long ago it was high inflation.

The problem is that at 1.5% rates are already historically low, albeit higher than in many other developed countries, as is inflation. Negative rates across Europe haven't resulted in either an uptick in their levels of inflation or, more to the point, an improvement in their economic activity.

Dropping rates to 1.25% won't fix the problem, and Bill Shorten should be called out for advocating higher inflation as a solution to the Australian economy. Today's low inflation is not merely a result of low wages growth (although it helps); it's also a sign of a combination of falling power and energy prices; and increased productivity due to technology and increased competition, in part as a result of improved price discovery thanks to the internet.

In turn, the housing market is in a dive due to a combination of factors: 5 years of unconstrained price rises which created a bubble and an affordability crisis amongst new borrowers and low income earners, driven partly by offshore (particularly Chinese) demand; easy lending practices of the banks, and low interest rates. Dropping rates another 0.25% won't address the other causes, such as tightening of China's capital and exchange controls and the banks' new found reluctance to lend, and now the subsequent decline.

Two leading economists have suggested increasing infrastructure spending; i.e. fiscal, rather than monetary, stimulus as an alternative solution. That would be preferable to a blunt cut by the RBA who have less and less room to move, particularly just before an election where handouts - or at least promises* - seem to be falling from the sky. Tie that in with smart changes to super to ensure a portion of all super is directed towards long term investment in infrastructure, and maybe we'd be getting somewhere.

*P.S. Unless you have a short memory, beware politicians promising pre-election hand-outs. One lot won't need to keep theirs as they'll be in opposition post May 18th, and the others might have a short memory - or a well-practised bag of excuses - when it comes to keeping theirs.

Hedge Clippings | Friday 12 April, 2019

All eyes on the Federal Election. It's the economy, stupid!

I think we said at the start of the year, and maybe well back into last year as well, that in 2019 markets would be significantly dominated by geo-political issues. That's certainly been the case globally (Trump/China Trade Wars, and now Trump/EU, plus the extension of Brexit - all of which are going to dominate the global outlook for a good while yet), but now the Federal election has finally been called it is going to focus - or obscure - the local outlook.

Why this should suddenly focus investors' minds and attention is somewhat baffling. It has always been known roughly when it would be held, even if the exact date was not declared until this week. However, from the perspective of investors and fund managers it will require a decision: Will the outcome have any real impact on the local market and how fund managers manage their investors' money post May 18?

We would suggest it will, to varying degrees;
 

1. Business confidence is one, partly due to the potential for a wages push on a change of government. Consumer confidence is another, especially where it matters with those consumers with discretionary spending ability, along with taxation policy.

2. A change in government will hardly improve the current property slump given potential changes to negative gearing, perceived or otherwise, and remembering that property prices affect consumer confidence to a significant degree. Further falls will certainly improve housing affordability, but that only affects the relatively small proportion of buyers trying to enter the market, not the majority who are already in it.

3. Meanwhile, for those who have only recently purchased homes and/or are mortgaged to the hilt, they'll potentially see their equity evaporate. In addition, as they switch from honeymoon rates, or from interest-only to P&I, they'll be faced with increased repayments leading to further pressure on discretionary spending - and subsequently on both business and consumer confidence.

4. Ditto self-funded retirees, potentially hit by changes to the treatment of franking credits. Whilst they're not all the highest of discretionary spenders, the overall effect of the removal of franking credits will take its toll on the economy.

The only way to increase consumer spending will be increased wages, but refer back a few paragraphs to item #1 - business confidence - and we start to get into a circular argument…

We've previously said there's unlikely to be a further rate cut in Australia this year, but the RBA may have no alternative - and as we've also previously said, if the RBA needs to cut rates further from here, it will indicate there's a real problem with the economy.

For those who want to follow what the RBA's current thinking, today's release of their Financial Stability Review should provide a good place to start. You can find a link to the whole document here if you have the time and inclination, or use the following links to focus on Household and Business Finances and Housing Price Falls and Negative Equity.

Hedge Clippings | Friday 05 April, 2019

Impending election, RBA uncertainty and ASIC's sharpened teeth

Although we don't know the exact date yet, after this week's budget, and Bill Shorten's response, we're all set for a full scale "promise-athon" prior to the election. Apart from the usual handouts falling from the sky like confetti - or at least being promised that they'll fall from the sky - expect claim and counter claim around "they can't be trusted to run the economy" and "how can they manage the country if they can't manage their own party". And if it looks like it's getting really close (which at present, based on the polls, it's not) then we can expect some last minute scare tactics, even if this does entail dealing leniently with the truth.

However, the economy keeps rolling on - or maybe that should be grinding on, depending on which section of it one is most interested in. Our best estimate is that the RBA will keep rates on hold for the balance of the year, but if they should cut then it will be a clear sign the economy is in trouble. Factors which may influence the RBA's decision include the continuation or worsening of the property downturn (possibly due to post-election changes to negative gearing), or a contraction in consumer confidence, particularly among the self-funded retiree sector. Wages are likely to remain subdued (assuming there's not a Shorten/TWU led handout), as is inflation.

The concept of the yield inversion led recession may be topical or possible for the US economy, but the same correlation is not necessarily as strong in Australia, provided of course the US or China don't drag us down with them. Meanwhile, markets have undergone an extraordinary six months - the last quarter of 2018 saw falls of -13.52% and -8.24% for the S&P500 and the ASX200 respectively, while the first quarter of 2019 saw a reversal of +13.65% and +10.89%. Against that, fund managers in the AFM database found the going tough - particularly as no one was really expecting an overnight FED/Jerome Powell reversal from tightening to easing.

In previous Hedge Clippings we've described Brexit as a shambles. In keeping with this theme, we believe Mrs. May's advances this week can be most aptly described with use of the French saying "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose", although that may be rubbing salt into English wounds.

On the regulatory front, ASIC were given some welcome teeth in the final days of the current parliament, with product intervention powers over financial products equipping them with the power to intervene where there is a risk of significant consumer detriment. That's effective immediately, whilst design and distribution obligations will, according to ASIC's website, "bring accountability for issuers and distributors to design, market and distribute financial and credit products that meet consumer needs". Phased in over two years, this will require issuers to identify in advance the consumers for whom their products are appropriate and direct distribution to that target market.

On the surface that's good news, as long as it doesn't create more or excessive burden for quality products.

Hedge Clippings | Friday 29 March, 2019

Yield inversion and the "R" word.

Everyone's talking about the "R" word, based on an inverted yield curve as Treasury yields tank and bond markets soar following the US Fed's recent policy about-turn - even to the extent that Germany issued more negative yield bonds this week. While the generally accepted opinion is that as in the past, and under normal circumstances, inverted yield curves tend to precede recessions in most instances, one has to wonder if these are "normal circumstances".

For instance, many of the macro issues that are shaping the world's largest economies at present have not been experienced before, even if inverted yield curves have - think 10 years of global QE post the GFC; Trump's arm wrestle with Xi; China's inevitable slowdown after 30+ years of tearaway growth; Brexit's shambles and its inevitable drag on both the UK and EU's economic outlook.

Given the cause of an inverted yield curve is arguably that investors are concerned about the economic future, and thus are therefore seeking a safe haven in 10-year Treasury bonds, it is not surprising that yields are so low - or in Germany's case, negative.

Of course, it could easily be argued that these issues themselves are setting the global economy up for a slowdown, if not a full-blown recession, were it not for the changing economic world thanks to technology in all its forms in the era of the great Technological Revolution. However, if history is to be a guide, then we have 14 months to wait and see, as that's the average time lag between the first inversion date and the onset of the following recession, although take care - it normally only takes 8 months for markets to top out.

As we often warn, averages can be dangerous. According to https://seekingalpha.com, following the last 8 instances of inversion, ranging from April 1968 through to July 2006, the lag before the market topped out ranged from -1 month (February 1973 - January 1973) to 18 months (January 1989 - July 1990):

Meanwhile, exceptionally low yields are spawning the usual range of high yielding debt and credit offers promising overly generous returns, which must by default come with overly heightened risk - not so much of not being able to deliver on the promised returns, but with a potential loss of capital to boot. Our advice is to read the offer document very, very carefully, particularly to understand what the underlying investment is, as outlined here by Tim McGowan of Informed Investor.  

Next week is budget time, so expect a bout of generosity from the current treasurer, likely to be reversed by the next one if there's a change of government come the forthcoming election.

Hedge Clippings | Friday 22 March, 2019

In amongst the global political issues we cover each week, such as Trump (hasn't he been a gift that keeps on giving to the media?) and the political and economic train smash that is Brexit, today we're taking a look at equity markets over the first couple of months of 2019, particularly as everything was looking so grim at the end of December following the final quarter of 2018. For answers, take a look at US treasury prices and yields;

Last year it looked inevitable that US bond yields would keep climbing past 3.5%, and in doing so accept they would spoil the equity bull market party. Which duly happened, with the S&P500 falling 13.5% on a total return basis in Q4, and the ASX200's equivalent fall of a less severe 8.24%. Meanwhile this year's rally has been caused by sharp falls in bond yields, which has seen the US equity market pretty much recover all of the Q4 fall, whilst the ASX has done the same, plus some, to be up around 10.5% YTD.

Then along comes this week's US Fed meeting and the release of the now well publicised "Dot Plot", where the unanimous view of all members of the FED effectively ruled out the chances of any further tightening in the US for the remainder of 2019. To do so across all 12 members, and this early in the year, is unusual to say the least. However, it does point to a significant U turn, not only in Fed policy, but their outlook for the US economy.

As such, in this environment finding outperforming funds has not been easy. While over 40% of funds in AFM's database provided positive returns over the past 12 months, only around 9% have outperformed the ASX200 on a total return basis.

Lesson one and two when selecting funds: Choose carefully, and diversify!

Meanwhile, back in Australia there's mounting pressure for a cut from the RBA, in part to save the residential property market, with some so-called experts, who this time last year had failed to call the inevitable decline, now jumping on the bandwagon predicting further falls of up to 20%.

Bob Dylan once sang (ok, "singing" might be a loose interpretation) "you don't need the weatherman to know which way the wind blows". The bottom line, and economics class 101 (from my dim and distant memory), is that the price of anything is determined by the balance (or imbalance, as the case may be) between supply and demand. In the current housing environment the supply side of the equation is significantly the availability of credit, in part thanks to the spotlight from the Hayne Royal Commission, while the demand side includes a reduction of Chinese buyers and at the same time the rest of the market not wanting to try catching a falling knife.

However, back to the geo-political outlook - NO ONE can predict where or how Brexit ends up, with both the UK and Europe both likely to lose as a result, while the Trump-Xi arm wrestle looks like it will extend into a long campaign, again with each party taking some yet to be determined collateral damage.

No wonder markets, and more significantly the FED, are seeing a deterioration in the outlook for the US, and for that matter, the global economies.

Hedge Clippings | Friday 15 March, 2019

Talking, talking, talking. Sooner or later you've got to walk the walk.

Is there any point in talking any more about Brexit? It would have contributed more column inches (that's how they measured media coverage prior to TV, the internet, and social media) on any subject since the end of WW2, but without a victory, or a clear winner. 

Whatever the outcome there are losers galore (UK, Ireland, Europe, and subsequently global trade and economic stability). Winners? A Pyrrhic victory ("a victory won at too great a cost to be worthwhile for the victor") for Boris maybe, but he went AWOL while the going was good and is either keeping his head down, or his powder dry, and will emerge after Mrs May - who must be one of the most resilient (even if not the most popular) leaders since Winston Churchill - meets her eventual end.

We actually thought we'd seen (or heard) the end of talking about, or at least the demise of, the phenomenon of negative yielding bonds last October. However it appears not, with Bloomberg reporting that there's been a 60% increase over 5 months with the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Negative-Yielding Debt Index increasing in value by over $3 trillion in that time to reach $9.3 trillion - albeit well below the all-time record of $12.2 trillion in June 2016.

The concept of negative yields seemed impossible a couple of decades ago, as would Australian 10 year yields below 2% as they are now. However, as an indicator of future economic growth they tell a story worth listening to, both globally and in Australia where we might just see a risk to the crown of 30 odd years of uninterrupted economic growth. Speculation that the next move in RBA rates will be downwards is mounting, which, while it may please the under pressure property industry, doesn't auger well for the economy as a whole.

Meanwhile, talking of China, another Bloomberg report we noted this week concerned the fact that their economic slowdown deepened in the first two months of 2019, with unemployment sharply higher, industrial output posting its worst start to a year since 2009, and retail sales expanding at the slowest pace since at least 2012 even though investment in real estate rose to its highest since 2014. We're not sure the Chinese slowdown is entirely due to the Trump/Xi negotiations, a resolution of which has been postponed further, but it certainly won't have helped. It could be the sign of a maturing economy, or a slowdown in the migration of the rural farm worker to the industrialised cities, or the overall global slowdown.

Then again these are Chinese economic figures based on the two months to the end of February, amazingly collated across a population of 1.2 billion, and released in just 14 days.