Judging by the latest virus numbers in Europe, and government announcements to contain it, markets may soon have to read up on the math of lockdown economics. Before we get to that, though, investors have been locked in deep thought over the impact of the U.S. presidential elections, which seems to converge on trying to price in the consequences of a Biden victory and a “blue wave”. As I explained last week, investors seem to have concluded that this is good outcome for risk assets, though as I argued at the time, this isn’t entirely clear to me. To illuminate this further, it’s useful to consider how markets perceive a Blue wave in the context of the dollar and the U.S. bond market. As it turns out, the consensus position isn’t entirely clear, which is a hint. If markets can’t figure out how a Democratic sweep will impact the dollar and bonds, it’s difficult to have any view on how it would impact equities. The dollar is particularly interesting. It seems to me that analysts initially pinned recent weakness—effectively since April—on the inherent political risks associated with a Biden presidency, though it has since morphed into a bullish catalyst in the context of the expectation of surge in fiscal stimulus, funded by a benevolent and compliant Fed. Why this latter should necessarily be bearish for the dollar isn’t clear to me, especially not if it led to stronger growth in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world. By contrast, the idea, voiced in some corners of the market, that the U.S. is on its way to print away its exorbitant privilege—in effect losing its reserve currency status—seems even more ludicrous to me, even in world where China is now emerging as a potential adversary.
Read MoreIt’s fair to say that markets are now starting to pay some attention to the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections, and its potential implications for the price of key asset classes. As far the result goes, the incumbent Mr. Trump looks like a sitting duck. Mind you, that wouldn’t have been my position a month ago. I have been prejudiced towards the idea that a hapless Joe Biden and a “silent majority” in favor of Trump—or in opposition to the Democrats—would carry the president to a second term. Mr. Biden still seems hapless to me, and I suspect the silent voter is still on the president’s side. But neither of these tailwinds are likely to be enough to protect the incumbent from what is an increasingly disastrous performance in the face of the pandemic. Sure, we can argue that Trump has been dealt an unfortunate hand this year, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. My predictions notwithstanding, the simple reason a Biden presidency is worth contemplating is because it is the outcome that markets are now entertaining. Recently, this view has been augmented with the taster in the form of the idea of a Democratic sweep of the Senate and the House. To the extent that it is possible to summarise markets’ assumptions about what a triumph for the Democrats will look like, it seems to be a relatively positive story, for now. Once Republicans have been put out to pasture, the counterproductive wrangling over the next stimulus bill will make way for a huge fiscal push in Q1, and the Fed will welcome such action with unlimited and soothing QE. As analysts from BoFA put it succinctly on Friday:
Read MoreOne of the enduring discourses of our time is the idea that something is terribly wrong, with political and cultural life, with the economy, and with nature itself. The message varies, but the main message is the same. The (liberal) world order—as we have come to know it since WW2, and latterly 1989—is coming to an end, a message usually delivered with a ‘good riddance’ attached at the end, for effect. The edifice, we are told, is imploding under the weight of the decadence and complacency of centrists, citizens of nowhere, and globalists, and other similarly-spirited foul. They have dominated for too long, and must now do one thing, and one thing only; repent, and pay, for their sins. The story looks different depending on the perspective from which it is being told, though I reckon it’s possible to identify two broad categories, which have, by now, become clichés in their own right. The left-wing critique tends to home in on two scourges of our time; inequality and climate change. These can be solved by expropriating the wealth of the haves, which will be distributed to the have-nots, and by halting damaging economic activity to protect the planet. The right-wing version is a nationalist protest, rallying in opposition to hitherto staples of global prosperity such as globalisation, international interdependence and multilateralism. The election of Trump and the Brexit referendum in the U.K. are most often trotted out as examples of this movement.
Read MoreIt's official; everyone is now musing about the risk of a Fed "policy mistake" in light of the steadily flattening yield curve in the U.S. I have mused incessantly about this topic in recent weeks, so I will spare you the gory details of my view. It seems clear, though, that if markets were willing to offer the FOMC a rate hike in June for free, they are not going to roll over in September, let alone play along with a potentially fourth hike in December. In other words; the Fed is now on the spot. A swoon in risk assets over the summer—it has been known to happen—coupled with a further decline in long term bond yields would set up an interesting end of the year for the Federales. I am sympathetic to idea of one last deep dive in long-term bond yields to cement the fate of the late-comers to this rally. After all, we can't really talk about a policy mistake at the Fed before we are staring down the barrel of an inversion.
Read More