Vijay Kumar Gaba

Continuing from yesterday (see here).

I am convinced that the current global monetary and fiscal conditions will have an enduring impact on the global financial system, trade, businesses, and markets. We may feel comfortable with the resilient performance of the Indian economy and markets in the past couple of years, but it would not harm if we factor in the global conditions and trends in our investment strategy. In particular, household investors with relatively smaller portfolios need to exercise due precautions to protect their portfolios from a negative shock.

I have negligible knowledge of global economics, financial systems, and markets. I therefore usually approach these larger issues with common sense and my elementary understanding of the basic concepts of economics. History, of course, always provides some useful support.

I usually study the historical behavior of economies and markets to anticipate the likely actions and reactions of the current set of market participants and policymakers. It is my strong belief that the reaction of investors and fund managers in their 30s or early 40s, who have never experienced borrowing costs in high single or double-digit; policymakers who have not governed through prolonged periods of war, human misery, uncertainty, lack of information, and are not particularly committed to ethics, ideologies, and standards seen during crisis during would react the same way as their predecessors acted/reacted during 1920-1940; 1950-1960, 1970-1980, and even 1990s.

I may be wrong here, but I believe that the policymakers today are governed by the principle of SoS (Save our Souls first). Their natural tendency is to protract the inevitable decision (kick the can) as long as possible rather than make hard decisions that provide sustainable solutions. Similarly, the market participants are also influenced by their inexperience. To me, this implies that the global policymakers and market participants are not adequately prepared to face a material event (credit, geopolitical, natural); and may panic easily and excessively if such an event were to occur. We have seen glimpses of such panic during the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in the year 2020.

Considering that the present global economic, financial, and geopolitical conditions are much more fragile as compared to the summer of 2020, the contagion will spread much faster, wider, and deeper. Therefore, hiding under the shelter of the assumption that India shall mostly remain immune to the impending global crisis may not be a good idea for smaller investors for the simple fact that their capital is much more precious (much higher marginal utility) as compared to the larger or institutional investors.

With this background, I may now share my views about the five points I mentioned yesterday:

1.    Whether the Fed is done with hiking: In my view, this question is not important as of now. A 25bps hike in the next meeting would not make much of a difference, as the previous hikes are still permeating through the financial system. The lending rates may continue to rise even if the Fed does not hike any further.

2.    Will the rates stay higher for longer: In my view, yes. I believe higher rates are arguably the most effective method to bring down the indebtedness of the US government. The federal bond prices have already fallen by 25-40% in the past year, from their recent highs. A 2% rise in yields would shave off another 20 to 30% in bond values. In the meantime, the Fed is creating leverage (through QT) to buy back bonds at half the face value. Large corporations with tons of cash parked in treasuries, hedge funds with leverage positions in treasuries, and the US trade partners with a surplus (China, etc.) would bear much of the losses. Pension funds etc. which hold most securities till maturity may not suffer much. Savers may enjoy higher rates offered by the fresh issuances. Since most new issuances would be at a much higher coupon rate, these may automatically enforce fiscal discipline over the next 2-3 years.

In the interim, however, we may see severe pain in the financial markets as the excesses of the past two decades are obliterated.

3.    Hard landing or soft landing: In my view, it would most likely be a growth recession – a prolonged phase of low or no real growth, as the US economy adjusts to a normalized monetary and fiscal policy mechanism and the USD is freed of onerous responsibility of being the only global reserve currency.

4.    Impact of higher rates on USD: In my view, the normalized interest rates would eventually result in a much less volatile and stronger USD.

5.    Impact of a softer US economy on the global economy: A softer US economy now would be bad news for the global economy and therefore markets. However, over the medium term, a fiscally disciplined US economy (with higher domestic saving rates, positive current account balance, and refurbished infrastructure) could provide strong support to the global economy, especially the emerging economies, much in the same way it did in the 1950s and 1990s.

How do I build this in my investment strategy…will share as I figure it out.

Post the latest meeting of the US Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the market narrative is primarily focused on the following five points –

(i)      Whether the Fed is done hiking rates or it may hike once more in 2023.

A larger section of market participants believes that the Fed may hike another 25bps by the end of 2023 and then pause for 6-9 months before cutting the rates from 4Q2024. Another section is however of the view that the economic conditions are too tight to tolerate another hike. This section believes that the hiking cycle of the Fed may well be over and we may see rate cuts from 2Q2024 itself.

(ii)     Whether the treasury yields and other lending rates in the US economy will stay “higher for longer”, as forecast by the US Fed, or we shall see a faster decline, as the economic conditions deteriorate.

The higher rates have already started to reflect a slowdown in the US housing market. The rate of bankruptcy filings has also reportedly reached the 2008 levels. We have already witnessed one round of trouble in the regional banks, which was contained by the Fed support; but the fragility of smaller banks and pension funds remains pronounced.

(iii)   Would the US economy witness a gradual bottoming out (soft landing) or will it contract quickly into recession (hard landing) as the higher rates permeate through the economy?

The US Fed has reduced its balance sheet by over US$940bn since April 2022, while the US public debt has increased by ~10% to US$33trn in this period. A recession may prompt the Fed to unleash another round of quantitative easing (QE) through balance sheet expansion; whereas a controlled slowdown may permit it to further contract its balance sheet (QT).

(iv)    How would the “higher for longer” rates impact the US dollar?

In recent quarters, we have witnessed a tendency to reduce the USD treasury holdings amongst some of the major holders of the US treasury, e.g., China, Japan, and Saudi Arab. Besides, the percentage of USD invoicing in global trade has also come down. Some central bankers have increased their holding of gold, and cryptocurrencies have also gained larger acceptance. The question therefore is whether we are likely to witness a prolonged phase of USD weakness.

(v)     How would a softer US economy or a US recession impact the overall global economy?

The growth rate in the Chinese economy has been slowing down for the past many quarters despite frequent attempts to stimulate growth. Despite showing promise, the Japanese economy has not been able to accelerate its growth. Most major European economies are struggling to avoid recession. Some emerging economies, like India and Indonesia etc., have shown resilience; but a slower US economy could potentially have a more severe impact on the overall global economy, as compared to the global financial crisis period (2009-2010) when growth in emerging economies like China and India sustained at much higher rates.

I am too small an insect to comment on these larger global issues. Nonetheless, I retain the right to assess the impact of outcomes on my tiny portfolio of investments. I shall be happy to share my naïve thoughts on these issues that I will take into consideration in the next couple of years…more on this tomorrow.

From various recurring events that generate significant anticipation and anxiety amongst market participants, the speech of the US Federal Reserve chairman at Jackson Hole annual symposium is the most popular one. This year the speech is scheduled to be delivered on 26^th August. Since, the markets are again filled with anticipation and anxiety. I find it pertinent to highlight a few things about the event and its likely consequences.

Jackson Hole is Davos in Wyoming

Later this week the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is scheduled to make a speech in a symposium held in Jackson Hole valley (Wyoming, USA). This annual symposium, sponsored by the Federal Reserve of Kansas City, has been held since 1978; and in Jackson Hole since 1981. The symposium is usually held in the month of August, just ahead of the pre scheduled US Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting in September.

Many prominent central bankers, finance ministers, reputable academicians and market participants take part in this symposium to discuss the currently important issues facing the global economy. In the distant past, some reputable economists, like James Tobin (Tobin Rule) and John Taylor (Taylor Rule), have presented their path breaking papers at the symposium.

It is customary for the US Fed representative (Usually the Chairman or a senior official) to present their thoughts on the topic selected for that year’s symposium. The topic for the 2022 symposium is “Reassessing Constraints on the Economy and Policy”.

There have been a couple of instances (Paul Walker 1982 and Greenspan 1989) where the US Fed representatives dropped some hints about the imminent policy changes in the ensuing FOMC meetings. But those hints were incidental and not by design. Otherwise, there has been no instance where the thoughts of the US Fed representatives have actually digressed from the given topic for the symposium. Nonetheless, various experts have been regularly conducting a post-mortem of their speeches to find mentions of the words and terms which they can use to market their own views in the garb of the Fed’s hints.

In fact in the past two decades, no path breaking paper has been presented at the symposium and Fed chairman speeches have been noted for all the wrong reasons; most notable being the Bernanke dismissal of sub-prime crisis (2007); and Greenspan’s advocacy for expansionary policies (2005), which was heavily criticised by Raghuram Rajan in 2005 and rest of the world in 2008.

It would therefore be not completely wrong to say that the Jackson Hole event is now mostly irrelevant for the financial markets. A harsher criticism would be to state that Jackson Hole is on the path to become the American version of annual outing of worlds’ elite held by an NGO (World Economic Forum) in Europe’s Davos.

For records, at the last year Jackson Hole symposium, the Fed Chairman did not say or hint anything that had not been said at previous FOMC meetings, Congressional testimonies and various public speeches. The focus was on the topic of the symposium (“Macroeconomic Policy in an Uneven Economy”) rather than the monetary policy of the US Federal Reserve. In fact, to highlight the role of monetary policy in the current macroeconomic environment, Chairman Powell had mentioned that “The period from 1950 through the early 1980s provides two important lessons for managing the risks and uncertainties we face today. The early days of stabilization policy in the 1950s taught monetary policymakers not to attempt to offset what are likely to be temporary fluctuations in inflation. Indeed, responding may do more harm than good, particularly in an era where policy rates are much closer to the effective lower bound even in good times.” (Speech of Fed Chairman Powell at 2021 Jackson Hole Symposium)

Do not rush to fill your buckets

In case an investor is feeling a rush to act in anticipation of what the Chairman Powell might (or might not) say at Jackson Hole this Friday, I would like to narrate the following to him/her:

If a geologist tells you, “the Himalayan Glaciers are melting fast and there will be no water in the Ganges in the year 2050”; what would be your instant reaction? Will you—

·         Rush to store water in buckets?

·         Begin to explore places which are not dependent on the Himalayan Rivers for their water needs, for relocation in next few years?

·         Commit yourself to the environment conservation by adopting 3R (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle) as part of your life so that the green house emission is reduced, global warming is reversed and the geologists are proven wrong?

·         Dismiss the information provided by the Geologist as fait accompli and get on with your routine life?

I may say with confidence that various people will react differently to this information, but none will rush to store water in buckets, and a very large majority will dismiss the information as fait accompli.

I believe that the finance and economics experts prophesying various policy changes are no different than the Geologist forecasting the end of the Himalayan glaciers; and the investors’ collective reaction to their prophecies is also no different. A large majority of investors dismiss the experts’ views and perhaps no one takes material investment decisions based on these prophecies. Nonetheless, these prophecies do create an environment of great anticipation with usual jitteriness and eagerness in the near term. One mistake most of the investor make in this environment of jitteriness and eagerness to do something, is to not ask themselves—

(a)   What is the situation that is being sought to change?

(b)   How the change would impact the businesses underlying their portfolio of investments?

(c)    How the action they are contemplating to take will protect them from the perceived adverse impact of the change in the status quo?

For example, if Quantitative Tightening (QT) is prompting you to take an action on your portfolio – look at the following US Money Supply chart (M2) chart and decide how long will it take for the US Money Supply to reach pre QE1 level.