The idea of government intervention and demand-side fiscal stimulus was born by Keynes, eradicated by neoclassical economics, lazily reintroduced by the new Keynesians, and is now enjoying a renaissance. It’s fiendishly difficult to judge history in real time, but I would bet that the current shift has momentum, a position that has been strengthened by the response to the Covid-19 crisis. It is perhaps unfair to insist on a marriage between this story and MMT, but it serves as an introduction to the issues at hand. The idea that governments with sovereign Chartalist currencies can’t run out of money, and that this power should be used to achieve full employment, is enticing. It is also, however, naive. MMT easily dodges the main theoretical critique, at least in the current environment. The Phillips Curve probably still exists, but it has also flattened significantly, making it difficult to attack MMT armed with the traditional trade-off between unemployment and inflation. If MMT passes this first test, however, it fails the subsequent trials. The implementation of MMT in today’s economy requires significant shifts in the relationship between fiscal and monetary policymakers and an end to the free flow of capital. My sense is that about half the proponents of the theory don’t have a clue about any of this. The other half understands that MMT requires an end to central bank independence, and a significant reduction in capital mobility. The problem is that this latter group aren’t being honest, and for that reason, I am skeptical about their true motivation. If you want to dial back globalization, the least you can do is to be honest about what this means for households and firms. If you think that an independent central bank is a suboptimal institution, how will the alternative look, and how will it be held accountable?
Read MoreIt has been clear for a while that Covid-19 would be a big shock to the global economy, but early predictions of a quick rebound, and a return to normal, now look fanciful. I am now inclined to believe that just about everything will change. My old colleague, and good friend, Jonathan Tepper is musing on a similar note in a recent piece on Unherd.com. I recommend that you go read it; it’s a great piece. For my part, I’ll split my arguments into two observations, not necessarily market-related, but both are key to understand the evolution of markets and the economy in the next few quarters, and I would suggest, beyond as well. We are not even through the first quarter yet, but it’s fair to say that the first chart on my next page already is the chart of the year. It portrays the “optimal” strategy to combat the virus relative to doing nothing, and a policy of loose mitigation. Leaving the Chinese and South Korean outbreaks aside—as well as the grim disaster unfolding in Iran—I think it’s fair to make two overall points. Firstly, there has been a significant debate about the correct strategy to combat the virus. The responses have been scattered on a spectrum ranging from (unconfirmed?) pictures of Chinese authorities welding doors shut to apartment blocks to halt the spread, over to “herd immunity”. Or, as former SAS soldier Ant Middleton’s suggests; “fuck Covid-19”, a statement that he, in fairness, has now retracted.
Read MoreBridgewater Co-CIO Bob Prince was ridiculed earlier this month for his comments in Davos that “we’ve probably seen the end of the boom-bust cycle.” Pundits were quick to draw comparisons to Irving Fisher’s infamous remark on the eve of the 1929 stock market crash that the equity market had attained “a permanently high plateau.” I sympathise with this interpretation of Mr. Prince’s comment. They come on the back of a 21% 12-month rally in the MSCI World, in an environment where trailing earnings have declined, by nearly 5%. In other words, the P/E multiple has gone from around 15 to just over 20 in the space of a year, and this in an environment where global growth has been slowing. To pile on even further, the recent performance of global equities has been ridiculous, with monthly returns over +2% since September. Naturally, the key for any medium-to- long term investor is to make sure to be long during such periods, but I under- stand if Mr. Prince’s declaration has contrarian investors running for exits. I can’t help but feel, however, that the world is upside down. The speed with which Mr. Prince’s comments was shot down seems to invalidate the contrarian position to me. I mean shouldn’t we be worried only if investors and analysts agreed with his comments.
Read MoreAs I emerge relaxed, and slightly sunburnt, from a week on Ibiza’s still-balmy beaches, I am met with news that the world is going to hell, in a hurry. The dreadful September PMIs, and the soggy ISM headlines in the U.S., seem to have been the key catalyst for a reversal in sentiment. These data appear to have crystalised two bearish stories for markets. First, the trade wars are now a serious issue for the global and U.S. economy, and Mr. Trump either won’t, or doesn’t have the ability, to de-escalate the stand-off. At the very least, the assumption that the White House will be forced to blink into the next year’s election is now under threat. It is now just as likely that the U.S. president will double down on the conflict as a strategy to seek re-election. Secondly, the otherwise resilient consumer and services sectors are now infected by the slowdown in manufacturing and trade. Taken together these points translate rather obviously into a rising threat of a global slowdown, or even a recession. I can’t refute the fact that these two claims are looking increasingly, and worryingly, accurate. For starters, the data clearly are deteriorating, with the most recent alarm bells coming from the hitherto solid U.S. economy.
Read More