The House Ways and Means Committee released 881 pages of a proposed bill that would make changes to the tax code impacting income, estate, and gift taxes on September 14th, 2021. The bill will most likely see some changes to reach a majority vote in the Senate, but even with some revisions to the current proposal, major tax reform is expected in 2022. In this legislative update, we provide a summary of potential tax code changes based on the most recently available information.
Last week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell indicated the potential tapering of bond purchases at some point in the future aimed at weaning the U.S. economy off the large-scale monetary stimulus that has been necessary during the COVID-19 pandemic. As exhibited by the current forward rates displayed in this week’s chart, the forecasted Fed tapering may result in gradual increases in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield in the coming months. Since yields move opposite prices, the Fed’s expected Treasury-buying reduction is leading the Treasury forward market to anticipate prices to potentially decline with the lowered demand and yields to rise. Likewise, as the U.S. economy gradually recovers from the pandemic, the Treasury forward market might also be pricing in reduced Treasury purchases from the broader market as investors switch to riskier growth assets such as credit or equities. That said, these actions will likely cause fewer disruptions in the markets than those taken at the onset of the Taper Tantrum, which began roughly eight years ago. Investors were caught off guard when Fed policymakers announced the potential reduction of asset purchases in 2013, which led to a bond sell-off fueled by widespread fears of future price declines. These sales drove down the prices of fixed income securities significantly, causing the 10-year Treasury yield to skyrocket in a very short period of time. In addition to current forward rates, this week’s chart also illustrates this dramatic increase in the 10-year Treasury yield during the Taper Tantrum, including a surge from 1.70% to 2.61% within a three-month window. This movement is in stark contrast with current market expectations, which project the 10-year Treasury yield to increase from 1.50% to only 1.68% over the next nine months.
Although there are ongoing concerns surrounding COVID-19 and the possibility of contagion from a fallout in the Chinese real estate sector that may hamper markets in the near term, investors seem to be reacting to forecasted Fed tapering more favorably than they have in the past. This may be due to the belief that strong economic growth can support the Fed’s gradual pullback of monetary stimulus. It is also possible that the Fed has simply done a better job telegraphing future actions this time around and investors are comfortable with the gradual nature of the forecasted tapering program. It should additionally be noted that tapering will not start immediately, as policymakers are only looking to reduce support when they think the economy can sustain itself as conditions normalize.
Print PDF > What Does Fed Tapering Mean for U.S. Yields?
Amid concerns over the Delta variant and signs of a sharp slowdown in the global economic rebound, many central banks have signaled that they will keep monetary policy loose over the near-to-medium term. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, at the annual Jackson Hole summit on August 25th, maintained that rate hikes were not imminent. Though, on the spending front, Powell did indicate tapering bond purchases may be on the horizon, as long as economic progress continues. We expect to hear a similar narrative at this Thursday’s European Central Bank meeting, with a subtle caveat. Given how well the European economy has rebounded, the ECB is expected to slow the pace of their €1.85 trillion asset-buying program — the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP) — in the fourth quarter.
The chart above shows monthly net bond purchases made under the PEPP since its inception in March 2020. There was a substantial injection in the first four months of the pandemic, which then decreased as the first wave waned and lockdown measures relaxed. Bond purchases remained at or below €70 billion for the next seven months. However, in response to rising bond yields, the ECB increased PEPP purchases in March 2021 and has kept them at a higher pace since. At the coming meeting, ECB officials are likely to agree to trim PEPP bond purchases to roughly €60 billion per month for the remainder of 2021, a 25% drop from the current pace of €80 billion per month.
What impact will this modest tightening have on the European Union’s economic recovery? The pan-European market benchmark, the STOXX 600 Index, posted its seventh straight month of gains in August, the longest winning streak since 2013, on the back of strong corporate earnings, lower unemployment, an adult population that is 70% fully vaccinated, and continued accommodative fiscal measures. We expect ECB hawks to argue for the need to curtail the current inflation trajectory, citing its potential to outpace expectations given supply chain bottlenecks and resurgent household demand. Inflation, as measured by the Eurozone HCIP, was 3% at August month-end, above the ECB’s 2% target. On the contrary, more dovish members will likely be more concerned with ramping up the existing ongoing asset purchase program once PEPP ends. As COVID-19 variants test the need for further abatement measures and restrictions in Europe and around the world, central banks are under increased scrutiny. Monetary policy decisions, particularly the pace of tapering and rate increases, will have lasting effects on global markets for the remainder of 2021 and the next several years.
Print PDF > Taking the PEPP Out of the Eurozone’s Recovery?
Domestic stock indices have rebounded from pandemic-induced lows exhibited in the spring of 2020 with relative ease, and U.S. equity market volatility has remained largely muted since that time as a result. The CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”), a popular measure of expected volatility in the S&P 500, ended August at a level of 16.6, below the index’s 30-year average of 19.5. Based solely on recent performance and volatility levels of broad-based indices, the investor outlook for U.S. stocks going forward appears mostly positive. That said, other gauges of sentiment may indicate more discord among market participants. The CBOE SKEW Index (“SKEW”) is one such barometer. Unlike the VIX, which uses at-the-money S&P 500 Index options to assess expectations of near-term market fluctuations, the SKEW examines the implied volatility of out-of-the-money options to gauge perceived U.S. equity market tail-risk, or the chances of an extreme price change in the index. The SKEW Index ended August at a level of 155.9 after reaching an all-time high of 170.6 in late June of this year — both figures are well above the 30-year average for the index of 120.5. The recent upward movement in the SKEW indicates that investors have grown increasingly wary of an outsized move in domestic equity indices in the last several months.
It is important to note that an elevated SKEW Index is not necessarily a harbinger of a tail-risk event. Since 1990, the average 30-day return for the S&P 500 Index subsequent to the SKEW spiking into the 90th percentile of its history was roughly 0.9%. The inverse is also true — extreme S&P 500 returns are not always precipitated by an elevated SKEW Index. In the two years leading up to the Tech Bubble Crash and Global Financial Crisis, the SKEW averaged levels of 115.4 and 116.6, respectively, both of which are below the long-term mean for the index. All of that said, there are obvious risks currently facing markets that could lead to pullbacks and may be contributing to heightened SKEW measures. For instance, valuations of most U.S. equity indices remain elevated relative to historical norms and heightened inflation could ultimately prove less transient than currently expected by market participants. Additionally, the S&P 500 Index has experienced a maximum drawdown of just 4.1% so far this year, well below the median annual drawdown for the benchmark of 9.7% going back 30 years. While this data point alone does not portend a correction, a near-term drawdown is certainly possible given the myriad factors at play. In light of the current landscape, we believe it is imperative for investors to remain diversified across the asset class spectrum in order to gain exposure to a potential continuation of recent positive equity performance while also helping to protect portfolios in the event of a correction.
Print PDF > The Turn of the SKEW
Employers have faced a number of challenges throughout the COVID-19 pandemic — most recently, a labor shortage. As of the end of June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a record high of more than 10 million job openings (including either newly created or unoccupied positions where an employer is taking specific actions to fill those positions), and as of the end of July, 8.7 million people looking for employment (people who are without work, currently available for work and seeking work), creating a disconnect in the labor market.
While this is not the first time job openings have exceeded the number of people looking for work, the imbalance is more meaningful now as companies attempt to fulfill pent-up demand caused by the pandemic with sharply less labor availability. To help combat this shortage, states have started to cut unemployment benefits, though these actions so far seem to have had minimal effect. Employers must now find a way to incentivize workers to apply to openings and accept offers. This is likely to put upward pressure not only on wages but on consumer prices. In order to protect profitability, companies will have to pass on the additional costs to the consumer, adding to inflationary pressures. While many signs point to higher inflation being transitory, the labor shortage — which could continue even after extra unemployment benefits expire, given demographic trends and a shift toward the gig economy — could be a longer-term issue. We will continue to monitor inflation, its underlying drivers, and the potential impacts to our clients’ portfolios carefully.
Print PDF > What Does the Labor Shortage Mean for Inflation?
In 2020, China was a top performer in the global equity market, returning 29.5%. In 2021, however, Chinese equities have struggled thus far compared to many of their peers. While several of the world’s major equity markets have generated double-digit returns year-to-date, China has lost 12.3% with the majority of those losses occurring in the last several weeks.
In this newsletter, we review reasons why China has transitioned from leader to laggard — with a focus on recent regulatory actions by the Chinese government — and discuss future prospects from here.
Read > China: From Leader to Laggard
Despite a number of commodity prices, including lumber, corn, and pork, retreating from recent highs, inflation remains a key focus for investors, especially as the Delta variant rages on and vaccination rates slow. Our chart this week looks at what the data can tell us about where inflation is headed.
Actual inflation, as measured by year-over-year growth in the headline Consumer Price Index (CPI), is shown in green in the chart above. CPI ran hot in 2008 just before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), fell into negative territory in 2009, and then peaked twice before turning a corner, declining in 2011 and normalizing from 2012 to 2014.
The market’s expectations for average annual inflation are shown above in purple and teal, over the next two and five years, respectively. The breakeven inflation rate measures the difference in yield between U.S. Treasury bonds and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) of the same maturity. This difference is the return that the TIPS provide to protect from inflation, or the inflation rate where an investor would be indifferent between owning the two instruments.
What do these three lines tell us? First, actual CPI does loosely follow, on a lag, the two-year and five-year breakeven rates. Both breakeven rates fell and recovered ahead of CPI in 2008 and 2009. The difference between the two-year breakeven and five-year breakeven also provides critical information. In the post-2008 GFC recovery, the five-year breakeven remained higher than the two-year breakeven from 2009 to 2011, with the market expecting inflation to rise and be higher on average over the next five years than over the next two years as the global economy continued to recover. In 2011, the five-year breakeven fell below the two-year breakeven, showing that the market began to forecast that average inflation over the next five years would be lower than average inflation over the next two years. Actual CPI peaked not long after that, declining and normalizing from 2011 to 2014.
What could these indicators mean for inflation going forward? Actual CPI is again running hot at 5.4% in both June and July. However, the two-year breakeven, despite characteristically falling faster than the five-year breakeven at the height of the COVID panic in 1Q20, is already higher than the five-year breakeven, a leading indicator of CPI peaking and something that didn’t happen after the GFC until 2011. Additionally, both the two-year and five-year breakeven appear to be plateauing. Both breakeven rates have been fluctuating around 2.5%, meaning the market believes annual inflation will settle around an average 2.5% over both the next two and five years, supporting the idea that heightened near-term inflation is more transitory. While this market-based data does have its limitations, it is a helpful input as we look to help our clients prepare for the future.
Print PDF > Where is Inflation Headed?
In 2020, China was a top performer in the global equity market, returning 29.5%. In 2021, however, Chinese equities have struggled relative to peers. In July, the MSCI China Index lost 13.8%, dragging the broader MSCI Emerging Markets Index to a 6.7% loss for the month.
On July 23rd, the Chinese government, as part of its efforts aimed at boosting a declining birth rate, announced that private for-profit education companies were no longer allowed to make a profit. Among other restrictions, these companies are now required to transform into non-profit entities. As a result, two of the largest education companies — New Oriental Education and TAL Education — were down 73.5% and 75.9%, respectively, in July. This dramatic change is a recent event in a series of regulatory actions that have been taken by the Chinese government over the last nine months. Previous changes predominately impacted internet-based businesses.
Chinese equities have sold off as investors assess the risks of the new regulatory climate and the potential impact to future profitability of several key industries. From here, the market will likely remain jittery on Chinese stocks, especially within regulated industries. However, this is not a new phenomenon. We have seen the Chinese government increase regulations in the past after periods of unchecked growth. The online gaming industry, for example, came under pressure in 2018 when the Chinese government imposed a curfew for minors as a means of limiting gaming consumption. In those past instances, the market recalibrated to the new regulatory environment and the resulting winners and losers were identified. We anticipate a similar outcome in this case.
Print PDF > Chinese Equities Sold Off in July
S&P 500 earnings growth of nearly 30% year-to-date has completely eclipsed that of the last 10 years. This is in stark contrast to the previous two years, when 18% and 31% market gains were almost entirely driven by multiple expansion. The 2021 rebound in earnings follows last year’s sharp COVID-induced decline and has some investors wondering what an almost inevitable slowdown from here could mean.
As of the end of June, FactSet analysts had estimated second quarter earnings to be up 63.1% year-over-year. Of the 345 S&P 500 constituents that have reported so far, approximately 87% have surprised to the upside. Despite this strength at the bottom line, many of these companies have seen their stock prices fall post-reporting, implying true expectations, following the historic 41% run over the last year, were actually higher. Reopening optimism started to drive stocks, and multiples, higher in late 2020, ahead of earnings growth, and now investors are trying to determine how much future earnings growth is already priced in. We saw something similar after the Global Financial Crisis in 2009 and 2010. As the economy began its initial recovery, strong returns in 2009 preempted 40%+ earnings growth, and a sharp correction in multiples, in 2010. Importantly, in the years that followed, despite a slowdown in earnings growth, the market continued to post positive annual returns until the late-year drawdown in 2018.
This year, we may see earnings growth peak in the second quarter, but it isn’t necessarily cause for concern. Company earnings are expected to remain stable as regions continue to reopen and overcome supply and demand shocks. And, more importantly, active investment managers who have struggled to keep up with a sentiment-driven market could see an improved stock picking opportunity set. To the extent optimistic exuberance is in the rearview, stocks should be more driven by company-specific fundamentals than by macro-centric tailwinds, a positive for many of our recommended managers.
Print PDF > What Might an Earnings Peak Mean?
Despite strong fundraising numbers in recent years, private equity managers in the U.S. have stayed consistent with subsequent fund size step-ups. Through the first half of 2021, 72% of private equity managers launched funds with increased size targets, in line with the average over the last decade. The median fund size step-up in the first half of the year was 48%, modestly above the 40% average increase over the last decade, but in line with the industry average over the last five years.
Fund size is a critical factor for private equity investors to consider, as it can push a manager outside their strategy, require additional resources, require purchasing larger businesses that are more efficient, and/or take managers longer to deploy. That said, modest fund size growth is healthy for a private equity organization, allowing for internal growth, giving existing investors the ability to scale their allocations, and creating opportunities to bring new investors into the fund. Risks related to increased fund size can be mitigated by managers via scaled resources, targeting more portfolio companies, reducing the amount of co-investment offered, and/or reducing leverage — all things we look for in our due diligence process. We believe modest growth is healthy and to be encouraged if done responsibly, but we do carefully evaluate the magnitude of a fund size increase relative to our assessment of a manager’s capacity and strategy.
Print PDF > Private Equity Staying Rational with Fund Sizes
Research alerts keep you updated on our latest research publications. Simply enter your contact information, choose the research alerts you would like to receive and click Subscribe. Alerts will be sent as research is published.
We respect your privacy. We will never share or sell your information.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact us directly and we will respond to your inquiry within 24 hours.
Contact Us >
