Keep Your Eye on the Ball

When it comes to baseball, successful hitters have little trouble hitting the ball when they know what pitch is coming. But when pitchers can vary the speed as well as the spin and curve of the ball, hitting becomes exponentially more difficult. An effective curveball can make even the most accomplished hitter look feeble.

As we look at the second half of 2024, we are reminding our clients to “keep their eye on the ball.” Indeed, the first half of the year has been pretty “hittable” as far as returns are concerned, with the majority of asset classes positive through June 30. However, curveballs such as Fed policy, equity index concentration, exchange rates, and a capricious election could quickly flip the script and send investors back to the dugout shaking their heads.

With that said, here is our scouting report for the second half of the year, organized by asset class. We share not only “down the middle” themes but also the curveballs that could flummox performance. A well-prepared investor is no different than a well-prepared baseball player: Insight and realistic expectations provide the foundation for a successful season!

2024 Halftime Market Insights

This video is a recording of a live webinar held July 23 by Marquette’s research team analyzing the first half of 2024 across the economy and various asset classes and themes we’ll be monitoring over the remainder of the year.

Our quarterly Market Insights series examines the primary asset classes we cover for clients including the U.S. economy, fixed income, U.S. and non-U.S. equities, hedge funds, real assets, and private markets, with commentary by our research analysts and directors.

Sign up for research alerts to be invited to future webinars and notified when we publish new videos.

If you have any questions, please send our team an email.

Say It Ain’t So, Joe!

President Joe Biden announced yesterday that he is dropping out of the presidential race and will not seek the Democratic nomination for president. The last time a sitting president declined to seek re-election was Lyndon Johnson in 1968. However, this move comes with little surprise to those who have been paying attention to the odds market. In fact, the market “priced in” this decision shortly after Biden’s shaky debate performance with former President Donald Trump just over a month ago.

The data series in this week’s chart tracks the implied probabilities available on the PredictIt website. For most of 2024, odds for Biden or Trump to win the election fluctuated between ~40–55%. Trump gained momentum leading up to the debate as questions surrounding Biden’s capacity to serve another term swirled. Biden’s disastrous performance accelerated Trump’s chances and sent the president’s odds of winning the election into a freefall.

Before this weekend’s announcement, recent expectations were that Vice President Kamala Harris had equal or better odds of winning the Democratic nomination than Biden. Reality now matches that expectation as she is the presumptive Democratic nominee after Biden gave her his endorsement. It remains to be seen whether Biden will finish out his term or if another candidate will challenge Harris at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. Even with the Democratic party throwing its support behind her, Harris has an uphill climb to overtake Trump. Her odds of winning in November currently stand at 38% versus 59% for Trump. The former president’s odds peaked after the assassination attempt on July 13 at 69% and have since fallen after the Republican National Convention and Biden’s withdrawal. This reflects the fact that it may be more difficult to defeat a candidate other than Biden.

How the stock and bond markets reacted to the shifting odds after the debate was predictable in hindsight. The Trump Trade — which includes a steepening of the yield curve, a rally in small-cap equities, and a rotation out of tech stocks into “old economy” sectors, among other trends — was back on. As Biden faltered, sectors and strategies benefitting from Trump and Republicans’ preference of looser fiscal policy, higher tariffs, more aerospace and defense spending, as well as weaker regulations saw tailwinds as investors piled into the Trump Trade. Now the market outlook is much less certain. While Trump still has favorable odds to win the election, Democrats almost certainly have a better chance to keep the White House without Biden. In addition, it is less likely that Republicans will also gain control of Congress.

Trump may not be as likely to beat a non-Biden candidate, which is causing investors to potentially recalibrate their bets on the Trump Trade. Which sectors ultimately benefit from the shakeup to the presidential race remains to be seen. As the odds show, Biden dropping out was expected. For investors wondering what to expect now, a word of advice: Between now and November only expect the unexpected.

What Does Elevated Index Concentration Mean for Active U.S. Equity Managers?

Indexing has risen in popularity over the last decade, particularly for U.S. equity investors. The fees are lower and indexing is perceived as less risky, with investors primarily seeking beta exposure to the market. However, these indices have evolved against an ever-changing economic and financial market backdrop. As a result, several unintended structural issues have emerged, particularly related to concentration risk. Understanding this evolution and how it could alter the overall exposures within a broader portfolio is critical, as these indices are not static. Notably, the composition of some indices alongside the increase in passive capital has created headwinds for active managers and helps to explain recent performance challenges.

This newsletter examines the progression of passive management, how and why U.S. equity index concentration has increased in recent years, and the effects and risks investors need be aware of across the market capitalization spectrum.

Disappointments to the Downside

Many readers likely know that when it comes to investor sentiment and market performance, economic results relative to forecasts can be just as important as the results themselves. To that point, the Bloomberg U.S. Economic Surprise Index currently sits at roughly -0.6, which represents its lowest level in nearly a decade. According to Bloomberg, this index is an objective and quantitative measure that aggregates the differences between actual economic data and the median forecast from surveys of economists. Said another way, the index measures the degree to which U.S. economic data releases surprise to the upside or downside relative to market expectations. The index compiles various U.S. economic indicators, including employment numbers, GDP growth, inflation rates, and consumer confidence, then each economic data release is compared to the consensus estimate and the difference is standardized. A positive index reading indicates that economic data have, on average, been better than expected, while a negative reading indicates that data have been worse than expected.

Recent data releases that have driven the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index lower include U.S. manufacturing activity, which contracted for a third consecutive month in June as measured by the ISM Manufacturing PMI. Many economists expected this gauge to increase from the 48.7 figure exhibited in May to 49.1, but it instead fell to 48.5. Additionally, the U.S. ISM Services PMI, which measures the economic condition and performance of service-based companies, dipped to 48.8 in June. This represents the sharpest contraction for that index in more than four years, meaning forecasters who were expecting the June figure to be closer to 52.5 after a 53.8 reading in May were far off the mark.

Interestingly, equity markets seem to be largely unphased by these disappointments to the downside, as the S&P 500 Index has returned nearly 12% since the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index fell into negative territory roughly 10 weeks ago. This is likely in part due to the fact that readings of inflation, perhaps the economic metric investors are currently watching most intently, have actually come in below consensus expectations over the last three months (as measured by CPI). That said, continued downside surprises could spell trouble for equities, as major stock indices have tended to display a material degree of correlation to the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index over the last several decades. In the months ahead, investors should consider both the absolute levels of indicators, as well as releases relative to forecasts, in order to properly assess the impact of economic data on market performance.

“Renew” Your Opinion on Policy Bets

During election season, investors are often tempted to position their portfolios based on expectations related to potential changes in government policy. That said, market dynamics in the wake of various political events can be confounding and notoriously difficult to forecast. There is perhaps no better example to support this statement than performance of the energy space over the last seven years.

When Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, his administration sought to rescind many environmental regulations and attain energy independence via the use of fossil fuels. His term saw the approval of multiple controversial oil pipelines, a large expansion of oil and gas leasing, and support for energy development on federal land. Since coming to office in 2021, however, Joe Biden has aimed to reverse many of the energy policies of his predecessor, as well as promote an agenda focused on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of renewable energy sources. Based on this information, many readers might have expected robust performance of traditional energy companies during the Trump presidency, as well as more challenged returns for clean energy stocks. The policies of the Biden administration, on the other hand, might have been expected to lead to a reversal of these dynamics. Readers may be surprised to learn, however, that the Energy sector of the S&P 500 Index returned -29.6% during Trump’s term in office, compared to 136.1% since Biden assumed office. Conversely, the S&P Global Clean Energy Index returned 305.9% in the four years of Trump’s presidency but has notched a -54.0% gain during the Biden term.

There are many factors that can help explain these and other surprising performance trends. First, markets tend to be forward-looking in nature, meaning current prices of financial assets usually reflect investor expectations of what is to come in the (sometimes distant) future. Additionally, exogenous shocks can roil securities markets and lead to dynamics that would have otherwise been unexpected based on prevailing conditions and the agendas of those in political office. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic upended supply chains and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine led to increases in the prices of certain commodities, and these developments were largely conducive to positive performance from traditional energy companies despite a renewables-focused U.S. president. Finally, there is the question of natural business and economic cycles, which have tended to ebb and flow regardless of which party controls the White House. All of this is to say that market timing around an election or any other major political event can be a most difficult exercise. Given the upcoming presidential election in the U.S., investors should remain diversified across the asset class spectrum in order to capture market gains and insulate their portfolios against losses, both of the expected and unexpected kind.

Airline Stocks: Just Plane Challenged

Although travelers have happily bid farewell to pandemic-related restrictions and returned to the skies en masse, airline stocks seem to have missed the memo on bouncing back to pre-COVID levels. To that point, the Dow Jones U.S. Airlines Index has returned roughly -35% since the start of the pandemic. This cumulative performance figure is despite a surge in the index in the wake of vaccine announcements in late 2020, as well as the fact that that this summer may be the busiest travel season the U.S. has ever seen. These dynamics can be observed in this week’s chart.

The dichotomy between booming travel numbers and lackluster airline stock performance can be attributed to several challenges facing the industry. Specifically, while increased passenger volumes boost revenues for major airlines, these businesses continue to grapple with profit margin pressures stemming from soaring operational costs. For instance, higher oil prices (now $80 per barrel compared to roughly $55 before the pandemic) have proved to be a significant headwind for airlines. Additionally, ongoing issues including pilot and crew shortages, escalating wages, operational inefficiencies, and higher maintenance expenses have further constrained airline profitability in recent time. Spending on corporate travel has also been somewhat tepid over the last few years as well, which has presented problems for airlines that offer premium upgrades such as business class seating.

In conclusion, the challenges faced by airlines will likely persist into the near future, though robust passenger volumes are certainly a cause for optimism. As it relates to investor exposure to these types of stocks in general, four major airlines (American, Delta, Southwest, and United) are constituents of the S&P 500 Index, and these carriers comprise roughly 0.2% of the benchmark. In other words, adequate diversification should mitigate the impacts of the headwinds described above at the portfolio level.

Credit Check

Interest in private credit has grown considerably in recent years and the asset class has moved from a relatively small or non-existent allocation in institutional portfolios to a multi-trillion dollar market accessed by a wide variety of investors. Demand for private credit remains high, but the rapid growth of this space has sparked debates about potential bubbles and whether underwriting standards have diminished given intense competition among lenders. However, recent survey results indicate that underwriting standards may actually be more conservative today than in prior years, highlighting increased caution with regard to both borrower leverage and required levels of equity within borrower capital structures.

Based on a survey conducted by Proskauer capturing responses from 178 senior-level private credit executives, lenders have reduced the maximum level of leverage they are willing to underwrite in private credit deals in recent years. In 2021, more than 68% of lenders to U.S. corporate borrowers were willing to underwrite deals with more than 6.0x leverage, as measured by borrower debt-to-EBITDA. That figure increased to over 82% of U.S. lenders in 2022 but has since fallen sharply, with now just 45% of lenders willing to underwrite highly leveraged deals. Today, more than 55% of private credit lenders cap deal-level leverage at 6.0x, indicating a shift towards more cautious standards in the current interest rate environment. At the same time, borrowers are now requiring more subordinated equity exposure in the deals they underwrite. Deal equity, often provided by private equity sponsors, represents the amount of equity subordination in a borrower’s capital structure and offers a degree of downside protection for the lender if stress arises for the borrower. In 2021 and 2022, those lenders requiring less than 35% equity in deals represented 18% and 22% of Proskauer survey respondents, respectively. However, the proportion of lenders willing to lend with less than 35% deal equity fell to 13% in 2023 and currently sits at approximately 12%. Conversely, lenders requiring at least 45% equity in deals increased from 25% to 55% over the last three years, again highlighting the trend towards more conservative deal structures.

In summary, given elevated interest rates, lenders are prudently reducing the amount of leverage they are willing to support for corporate borrowers and are also requiring more deal equity. These efforts are largely aimed at enhanced downside protection and reflect increased caution among lenders in response to broader economic conditions. At the asset class level, private credit remains an attractive opportunity set for investors, offering attractive yields, portfolio diversification, and downside protection.

The Capital Structure Shuffle

In the years following the Global Financial Crisis, issuing new debt was an easy decision for companies looking to raise capital given an environment of historically low interest rates. That said, decisions related to the composition of corporate capital structures are now less straightforward due to seismic shifts in monetary policy that have taken place in recent time. To that point, this week’s chart compares the yield-to-worst of the Bloomberg U.S. Corporate Bond Index, a proxy for the cost of debt, to the earnings yield of the S&P 500 Index. The earnings yield is calculated by dividing earnings-per-share by the price of the index and is used as a proxy to determine the costs companies face when it comes to new equity share issuance (i.e., the lower the earnings yield, the cheaper it is to sell shares and vice versa). As readers can observe in the chart above, this yield now sits below the yield-to-worst of the fixed income index.

Companies generally prefer issuing debt over equity due to the tax shield associated with this financing (i.e., interest expenses are typically tax-deductible), which still renders debt the more cost-efficient option for many companies in the current environment. Further, equity issuance is often viewed negatively by market participants due to the dilution of per-share earnings that arises as a result.  There are, of course, additional factors beyond the costs of debt and equity that CFOs must consider when making decisions related to capital structure dynamics. That said, in light of the trends outlined above, many companies may begin to view equity issuance as a more attractive option when it comes to raising capital.

Impact of SEC Rule Changes for Money Market Funds Regulatory Update

Over the past year, the SEC has been phasing in regulatory changes for money market funds resulting from adopted amendments to Rule 2a-7. These amendments were passed on July 12, 2023, in response to the stress that money market funds faced at the start of the pandemic in March 2020 when investors rapidly pulled more than $130 billion dollars from money market funds. As a result, the Treasury and Federal Reserve had to step in to provide emergency liquidity facilities to shore up the short-term funding market. The changes primarily focus on institutional prime and tax-exempt money market funds, which have historically been more susceptible to investor runs.

This regulatory update summarizes these changes as well as which fund types are impacted.