Last week we learned that China’s population shrunk last year, for the first time in 60 years, by 850K, the net result of 9.6M live births, and 10.4M deaths. It is worth taking these numbers with a pinch of salt. Accurately accounting for some 1.4B people is difficult, especially down to a sub-1M difference between deaths and births. It’s possible that future revisions will show that China’s population has been shrinking since the beginning of the 2020s, or that it won’t start shrinking until 2025 or beyond. What is clear for anyone with even cursory knowledge of Chinese demographics, however, is that this headline was coming sooner rather than later. China’s fertility rate has long since declined below the replacement level, and all-age mortality is now rising as the population ages. But does it matter that China’s population is now shrinking?
Read MoreSpare a thought for the Fed. The hope that inflation had peaked in March was brutally dashed last week as headline inflation printed a new high, of 8.6%. A 50bp rate hike this month is now all but certain, with many forecasters looking for 75bp. We could also spare a thought for the BoE. The Old Lady told markets last time in convened that it expects inflation to rise above 10% by Q4, that the economy could well fall into recession, but that it will continue hiking anyway. Or maybe, we should spare a thought for the ECB. Last week, Ms. Lagarde informed investors that the central bank intends to raise rates by 50bp, at least, between now and September, followed by a "sustained and gradual" rate hikes. Yields and spreads rose on the day, likely more than the ECB would have expected, let alone liked, and the euro weakened. The central bank we shouldn't spare a thought for, however, is the BOJ, apparently.
Read MoreIt's difficult to think of a more politically incorrect idea than recommending investors to allocate money to China's government bond market, ostensibly by selling a portion of their U.S. treasuries. Granted, this would actually be consistent with the rebalancing of the bilateral U.S.-Sino trade relationship that the most ardent critiques of China's economic model desperately want. Or perhaps what they really want is a strong dollar plus capital controls? It is difficult to tell sometimes. That said, it is fair to say that lending money to China's government to fund domestic investment, some of which invariably will go to defence, probably doesn't get you on the White House's Christmas list. Incidentally, and before I flesh out the trade, I should make one thing clear. I think the mismatch between the increasingly tense geopolitical relationship between China and the U.S., and the fact that capital and goods still flow more or less freely—with the exception of direct outflows from China's mainland—between them represent an enormous tail risk for markets.
Read MoreI have a lot of sympathy for pen-wielding strategists at the moment. Every day the empty white sheet of digital paper is staring at them, the little cursor tauntingly flickering in the top-left corner. The most obvious course of action, to copy-paste their previous note, is just about the only thing they can’t do. We economists at least have a steady flow of new data, however mundane and useless, to write about. In other words, the main questions remain the same, and they remain largely unanswered. Economic activity has collapsed, and is now staging what appears to be a painfully slow rebound. Even in the best of worlds, however, it’s difficult to escape the notion that significant damage has been wrought in on both the demand and supply-side. This puts equities on the spot. A reflexive rebound from the nadir in March was always coming, but could it be sustained, and would we re-test the lows? In a normal recession the answer to those questions would be “no” and “yes”, but there is nothing normal about this recession. U.S. equities have roared higher, and the ubiquitous growth stocks, which outperformed before, are leading the charge again. The S&P 500 growth index is up a cool 32% from its March lows, and is now flat year-to-date. By contrast, the S&P value index is up “just” 21% from the lows, and are still carrying a 20% loss year-to-date.
Read More