Author: Marquette Test

What Does The Future Hold For Oil?

While the above curves are simple in appearance, they can hold great predictive power for investors. Futures curves are just as they sound: future price speculation on a given day. The red line represents the futures pricing of WTI Crude Oil as of November 28th, just a few days before OPEC members decided to cut output in the hopes of combating oversupply and ultimately raising oil prices. Purchasing futures on oil for delivery in July of 2017 would give the futures owner the right to sell oil at a price of about $50/barrel. This investment strategy is often employed by speculators, hedge funds, and producers. Producers are able to hedge their exposure to oil and buy futures as a pseudo insurance policy as it locks in the price at which they can sell oil at some point in the future.

While the above curves are simple in appearance, they can hold great predictive power for investors. Futures curves are just as they sound: future price speculation on a given day. The red line represents the futures pricing of WTI Crude Oil as of November 28th, just a few days before OPEC members decided to cut output in the hopes of combating oversupply and ultimately raising oil prices. Purchasing futures on oil for delivery in July of 2017 would give the futures owner the right to sell oil at a price of about $50/barrel. This investment strategy is often employed by speculators, hedge funds, and producers. Producers are able to hedge their exposure to oil and buy futures as a pseudo insurance policy as it locks in the price at which they can sell oil at some point in the future.

The blue curve is shifted dramatically upwards because it represents the futures pricing of oil on December 5th, just days after the OPEC meeting. After OPEC members agreed to rein in production, prices rose dramatically: 13% in just 2 days. While this near-term shift upwards makes sense, the inverted portion of the curve tells an additional story. The inversion referenced in the chart suggests a strong producer hedging presence in the market; oil producers wanting to buy futures on oil outnumbered speculators that would take the other end of this bet. To compensate for this disparity, producers will accept a slightly lower price for the security of locking in a sales price now. The enthusiasm with which producers were locking in their future sales price may imply that producers do not believe oil prices will increase a significant amount within the near future. In other words, perhaps they are not incredibly optimistic about the outcome of this OPEC deal.

The deal’s success does face some challenges. Recently, a few African OPEC member countries have actually increased their output as they are not held to the OPEC cut obligations due to extenuating domestic circumstances, meaning other member countries will need to compensate via further reductions. More generally, many did not believe the group could reach an agreement, so that a deal was even reached is an optimistic sign for oil. While the reliability of the member countries is questioned by some, ultimately we will see if the group has been successfully cutting production in the coming months as output data is released. If the cuts are made then we may continue to see the price of oil rise in 2017.

Will Cyclical Outperformance Continue for U.S. Equities?

This week’s chart highlights recent changes in sector leadership across U.S. equities.

The first half of the year was marked by global growth concerns coupled with reduced expectations for further interest rate hikes in 2016. As this sentiment became priced into the market, a flight to perceived safety ensued which helped to fuel the strong performance of defensive sectors. Telecom, Utilities, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples were the main beneficiaries of this trend. Additionally, these sectors tend to offer attractive dividend yields. Strong interest from yield seeking investors, given the current low interest rate environment, helped propel performance and valuations to elevated levels within these sectors.

This week’s chart highlights recent changes in sector leadership across U.S. equities.

The first half of the year was marked by global growth concerns coupled with reduced expectations for further interest rate hikes in 2016. As this sentiment became priced into the market, a flight to perceived safety ensued which helped to fuel the strong performance of defensive sectors. Telecom, Utilities, Real Estate, and Consumer Staples were the main beneficiaries of this trend. Additionally, these sectors tend to offer attractive dividend yields. Strong interest from yield seeking investors, given the current low interest rate environment, helped propel performance and valuations to elevated levels within these sectors.

The third quarter saw signs of improved economic growth in the U.S. along with positive earnings growth for the S&P 500. The third quarter earnings growth followed five consecutive quarters of negative year-over-year growth. Cyclical sectors were the main beneficiary of these growth improvements, and this trend has continued post-election given the pro-growth rhetoric of a Trump administration and the subsequent expectation of higher interest rates in the future.

This performance leadership from cyclical sectors may continue — at least in the near-term — given the headwinds facing defensive sectors (valuations trading at premiums to the broad market and expectations for higher interest rates) as well as the tailwinds for cyclical sectors (valuation levels relative to defensive sectors and higher expected GDP growth).

Why Small-Caps “Trumped” Large-Caps Last Week

The election of Donald Trump last week caught the market by surprise and created a significant amount of volatility and dispersion across the U.S. equity market. One area of note was the huge outperformance of small caps (up 7.7% from November 8 – 11) vs. large caps (up 1.2% November 8 – 11). The Republicans made it a clean sweep Tuesday night, winning the White House and maintaining control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. While there is a lot of policy uncertainty as a result of this election, the market now believes there is a high likelihood of corporate tax reform being passed sometime in 2017. Donald Trump’s plan calls for a reduction of the corporate rate from the current level of 35% (one of the highest rates in the world) to just 15%. Paul Ryan previously put forward a plan for corporate tax reform that would lower the rate to 20%.

The election of Donald Trump last week caught the market by surprise and created a significant amount of volatility and dispersion across the U.S. equity market. One area of note was the huge outperformance of small-caps (up 7.7% from November 8–11) vs. large-caps (up 1.2% November 8–11). The Republicans made it a clean sweep Tuesday night, winning the White House and maintaining control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. While there is a lot of policy uncertainty as a result of this election, the market now believes there is a high likelihood of corporate tax reform being passed some time in 2017. Donald Trump’s plan calls for a reduction of the corporate rate from the current level of 35% (one of the highest rates in the world) to just 15%. Paul Ryan previously put forward a plan for corporate tax reform that would lower the rate to 20%.

While a cut in corporate taxes is likely to benefit all companies, our chart of the week shows that small-cap companies pay a much higher effective rate (i.e., the rate they actually pay after deductions and credits) than their large-cap peers. This is primarily because large multi-national companies generate a significant portion of their earnings in lower tax countries, while small-cap companies tend to be domestically focused, and thus pay very close to the U.S. statutory rate.

If the corporate tax rate is cut to 20%, this will result in a much larger increase in earnings for small-cap companies compared to large-cap firms (shown by the green dots on the graph). Optimism that this increase in earnings from a tax cut will materialize at some point next year is one of the key factors that drove the outperformance of small-caps last week.

Mexican Peso Tumbles in Wake of Election Results

The chart of the week shows the performance of the Mexican Peso from November 8th through the 10th. The Peso served as a barometer of sorts throughout the U.S. Presidential campaign, as Donald Trump had pledged to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and stop illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border.

The chart of the week shows the performance of the Mexican Peso from November 8th through the 10th. The Peso served as a barometer of sorts throughout the U.S. presidential campaign, as Donald Trump had pledged to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and stop illegal immigration by building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border. On Election Day, the Peso hit a high of $0.055 (1 Peso can buy 0.055 USD) at 7PM ET and quickly sold off as it became increasingly clear that Hilary Clinton was struggling to win key swing states. The Peso hit a low of $0.048 at 11pm ET as more polling data came through showing Donald Trump was leading and a Clinton victory would be harder to pull off. The Peso bounced slightly higher following a gracious acceptance speech from President-elect Trump but still remains near its lows as details about his NAFTA and wall plans have still not been announced. Trump’s policies regarding NAFTA and immigration will be critical to watch, as the volatility we saw with the Peso this week underscores how Mexican stocks could be materially impacted by changes to current policy. Such movement also reinforces the importance of diversification across countries when investing in global equities.

Public vs. Private Real Estate Investments: Risk and Return

The S&P Dow Jones Indices and MSCI Inc. announced the creation of a new real estate sector, formerly included in the financial sector, within the GICS system which became effective August 31, 2016. The new real estate sector marks the 11th GICS sector and the first time a new sector has been added to the GICS classification since its inception in 1999. The creation of a separate real estate sector recognizes the growth in both size and complexity of the asset class. Real estate, which began as two sub-sectors, has grown over time to now contain a total of 13 sub-sectors.

The S&P Dow Jones Indices and MSCI Inc. announced the creation of a new real estate sector, formerly included in the financial sector, within the GICS system which became effective August 31, 2016. The new real estate sector marks the 11th GICS sector and the first time a new sector has been added to the GICS classification since its inception in 1999. The creation of a separate real estate sector recognizes the growth in both size and complexity of the asset class. Real estate, which began as two sub-sectors, has grown over time to now contain a total of 13 sub-sectors.

These sub-sectors are an area of differentiation when it comes to public REITs vs. private real estate investments.1 Private real estate investments typically fall into one of four main sub-sectors: industrial, retail, office, and multifamily. REITs, on the other hand, often carry significant exposures to “alternative” real estate which includes sub-sectors such as self-storage, hotel, and healthcare. Additionally, the risk and return profiles of the same sub-sectors between public (REITs) and private real estate can vary significantly — particularly from a risk perspective, as measured by standard deviation. The chart above not only shows the annual returns of each REIT sector — note the dispersion of returns between sectors each year as well as the annual volatility of each sub-sector — but the level of standard deviation over the nine years of sub-sector returns in the table. Critically, the private real estate risk (industrial: 6.3%; retail: 5.1%; office: 6.8%; multifamily: 6.6%) is materially lower than the equivalent sub-sectors from REITs (respectively: 44%, 31%, 28%, and 26% (residential)). So while both public and private real estate investments may appear to invest in similar assets, their respective risk profiles can vary significantly.

___________________

1Private real estate is measured by the NCREIF Property Index (“NPI”), a composite of real estate investment performance from a very large pool of individual commercial real estate properties acquired in the private market for investment purposes only.

EM Growth Leads to Outperformance

After a tough 2015, emerging market (EM) equities have rebounded nicely, returning 16% through the first three quarters of the year. The asset class has benefitted from a change in the macro environment, including the stabilization and strength in commodities and currencies. Not surprisingly, GDP growth – particularly against developed countries – has started to accelerate and is expected to continue on its upward arc (shown by the blue line in the graph above).

After a tough 2015, emerging market (EM) equities have rebounded nicely, returning 16% through the first three quarters of the year. The asset class has benefitted from a change in the macro environment, including the stabilization and strength in commodities and currencies. Not surprisingly, GDP growth — particularly against developed countries — has started to accelerate and is expected to continue on its upward arc (shown by the blue line in the graph above).

The investment case for EM has always centered on growth and diversification. Investors look to capitalize on favorable demographics, urbanization trends, and expansion of the middle class across EM countries. EM equity’s performance versus developed markets (DM) follows closely with the difference in GDP growth between EM and DM. From 2000 to 2009 the differential grew from 1.7% to 6.3%, and outperformance followed. Since 2009 this gap has narrowed significantly, falling to 1.9% in 2015. DM largely outperformed during this time period. Looking forward, however, the IMF estimates the growth differential to widen beginning this year. This has furthered strengthened investor sentiment on the asset class and could be the start of a strong run for emerging market equities.

Is the Recent Spike in LIBOR a Cause for Concern?

This week’s chart of the week looks at the recent spike in the London Inter Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR), which is the rate at which banks charge one another for short term loans. As the chart illustrates, over the past year the 3-month LIBOR rate has increased from 0.32% to 0.88% (an increase of 0.56%), which is the highest rate for 3-month LIBOR since the spring of 2009. While other measures of short term interest rates – such as the Fed Funds Rate (increasing from 0.25% to 0.50%) and 3-month T-Bills (increasing from 0.01% to 0.33%) – have also risen over the past year, the magnitude of the LIBOR increase is significantly larger and warrants further examination.

This week’s chart of the week looks at the recent spike in the London Inter Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR), which is the rate at which banks charge one another for short-term loans. As the chart illustrates, over the past year the 3-month LIBOR rate has increased from 0.32% to 0.88% (an increase of 0.56%), which is the highest rate for 3-month LIBOR since the spring of 2009. While other measures of short term interest rates — such as the Fed Funds Rate (increasing from 0.25% to 0.50%) and 3-month T-Bills (increasing from 0.01% to 0.33%) — have also risen over the past year, the magnitude of the LIBOR increase is significantly larger and warrants further examination.

Over the past few months, both the Fed Funds Rate and T-Bills have remained flat, while LIBOR has continued to increase steadily (increasing from 0.65% on June 30th to 0.88% on September 18th). During this time period, the spread between LIBOR and T-Bills (known as the TED spread) has increased from 0.39% to 0.55%. In fact, the current spread of 0.55% is higher than the 0.42% average TED spread since the year 2000. This is concerning because historically, an increase in the TED spread has indicated stress in the financial markets. The TED spread spiked in mid-2007 when signs of the financial crisis first started to appear, and spiked again in 2008 as the crisis unfolded. Now that the TED spread is increasing again, there is some concern that this may be an early sign of another financial crisis starting to unfold.

In order to put the recent rise in LIBOR (and the corresponding rise in the TED spread) in context, it is important to look at what has driven these rates higher. Unlike the 2007/2008 financial crisis, the recent increase in LIBOR is not a result of distress in the credit markets. In fact, between June 30th and September 18th, high yield credit spreads (a reliable measure of the health of the credit markets) decreased by 1.4%. And unlike the 2007/2008 financial crisis, the recent increase in the TED spread has been relatively small. While the current 0.55% TED spread is slightly greater than the long-term average, it is well below the 4.63% peak we saw during the fourth quarter of 2008. The recent increase in LIBOR appears to be driven primarily by the money market reforms that went into effect on October 14th that require most money market funds to invest exclusively in U.S. government securities. As a result of this new regulation, more than $1 trillion has moved out of “prime” money market funds, which were allowed to invest in short-term corporate bonds and certificates of deposit tied to LIBOR rates, and into “government only” money market funds. It is unclear whether the increase in LIBOR rates and TED spreads are a temporary phenomenon driven by a supply/demand imbalance or if this is a permanent structural change. Either way, this is something that should be monitored closely in the coming months.

The Difficulty of Timing the Stock Market

Since markets hit their 2016 troughs back in February, they have continued to rally and hit new all time highs over the course of this year. With the upcoming election, talks and discussions surrounding a market bubble and looming recession, investors have begun to ask themselves if now is the right time to start lowering their equity market allocations to better position and protect themselves.

Since markets hit their 2016 troughs back in February, they have continued to rally and hit new all-time highs over the course of this year. With the upcoming election, talks and discussions surrounding a market bubble and looming recession, investors have begun to ask themselves if now is the right time to start lowering their equity market allocations to better position and protect themselves.

Of course, reducing equity exposure in anticipation of a market downturn requires close to perfect timing on the front end — reducing equity exposure — and on the back end — renewing equity exposure. The cost of getting this timing wrong can be dramatic, especially if some of the days on the sidelines end up being some of the strongest days of market returns on record — which is especially true on the days coming out of a correction. Our chart above illustrates the dramatic shortfall which can emerge if investors are out of the market on notably high returning days in the market. Clearly, despite the inherent volatility of the stock market, it is better to be fully invested in the market than trying to time the market in anticipation of market corrections and subsequent recoveries.

Note: Returns calculated using daily price returns of the S&P 500 Index over the past 50 years, for the period ending September 30, 2016.

Core vs. Intermediate Government/Credit: Which to Choose?

Our Chart of the Week examines the relative performance of Core and Intermediate Government/Credit fixed income strategies in rising and falling rate environments. The chart shows Core’s annual total return since the 1970s as represented in the blue using the Barclays U.S. Aggregate index. Annual total return of the Barclays Intermediate Government/Credit index is shown in orange. We also include inflation in green, using the CPI’s annual change, and the 10-year Treasury yield in gray. As one can see, Core beat Intermediate Government/Credit and inflation when rates dropped during the 30-year bull run for bonds from the 1980s to today. This is because Core features higher yields and longer duration, the latter of which boosts bond prices when rates drop. But Core lags Intermediate Government/Credit and inflation if rates rise significantly, as we experienced during the 1970s oil crisis. This was again because of Core’s longer duration. In other words, Core’s longer-dated bonds took much longer to be recycled out as rates rose and newer, higher-yielding bonds came to market; as a result, returns lagged.

Our Chart of the Week examines the relative performance of Core and Intermediate Government/Credit fixed income strategies in rising and falling rate environments. The chart shows Core’s annual total return since the 1970s as represented in the blue using the Barclays U.S. Aggregate index. Annual total return of the Barclays Intermediate Government/Credit index is shown in orange. We also include inflation in green, using the CPI’s annual change, and the 10-year Treasury yield in gray. As one can see, Core beat Intermediate Government/Credit and inflation when rates dropped during the 30-year bull run for bonds from the 1980s to today. This is because Core features higher yields and longer duration, the latter of which boosts bond prices when rates drop. But Core lags Intermediate Government/Credit and inflation if rates rise significantly, as we experienced during the 1970s oil crisis. This was again because of Core’s longer duration. In other words, Core’s longer-dated bonds took much longer to be recycled out as rates rose and newer, higher-yielding bonds came to market; as a result, returns lagged.

Going forward, no one knows whether rates will go up or down. We performed projections based on the likely scenario that the Fed hikes 25bp per year for the next three years. We assume a flattening curve and the 10-year Treasury rises 10bp per year. In this scenario, we estimate that Core will beat Intermediate Government/Credit because of its higher yield despite its longer duration. If the economy gets worse, we assume there are no hikes and the 10-year Treasury yield goes to zero in three years. For this case, we estimate that Core will beat Intermediate Government/Credit handily because of both its duration and yield pickup. What it takes for Intermediate Government/Credit to beat Core is extremely strong economic growth or a dramatic inflationary environment where prices of goods skyrocket, during which we assume 0.5% or more of annual increases in the 10-year Treasury yield. Here, Core’s longer duration hurts it more than its higher yield. These estimates do not account for technical market selloffs or buying binges, but show what a perfectly rational market is expected to do.

As a practical takeaway, if investors are deciding between Core vs. Intermediate Government/Credit, this shows that Core is more resilient in the more likely scenarios. On the other hand, if an investor has chosen Intermediate Government/Credit for its lower duration, its performance will be relatively similar to that of Core in all scenarios. Ultimately, both strategies will provide liquidity, diversification, and safety in the event of market stress; relative performance across interest rate environments will not be significant, though core offers a bit higher upside under the most likely interest rate scenario over the next few years.

Manufacturing Industry Looking for Qualified Workers

While this year’s political election has featured much discussion about jobs going overseas, a larger impact on manufacturing employment has come from technology advances. Over the years, manufacturing companies have replaced jobs with computerized equipment to reduce production costs. However, the considerably more complex equipment demands workers with new skill sets to operate these machines. So while such technological advances helped the manufacturing industry reduce the number of required workers yet increase production, many factories are finding it difficult to find employees with the necessary skills to operate and maintain the advanced machinery. This week’s chart takes a look at the number of manufacturing jobs that are going unfilled even with improving employment rates and the steady addition of jobs.

While this year’s political election has featured much discussion about jobs going overseas, a larger impact on manufacturing employment has come from technology advances. Over the years, manufacturing companies have replaced jobs with computerized equipment to reduce production costs. However, the considerably more complex equipment demands workers with new skill sets to operate these machines. So while such technological advances helped the manufacturing industry reduce the number of required workers yet increase production, many factories are finding it difficult to find employees with the necessary skills to operate and maintain the advanced machinery. This week’s chart takes a look at the number of manufacturing jobs that are going unfilled even with improving employment rates and the steady addition of jobs.

The chart above compares the number of people hired for manufacturing jobs versus the number of job openings. Any ratio above 1 indicates that more people are hired in a month than the number of jobs available in the market; this is explained by elevated hiring levels as well as turnover in the industry. Critically, a ratio above 1 also suggests minimal mismatch between worker qualifications and desired skill sets for the open manufacturing jobs. This ratio peaked in late 2009, as companies were aggressively hiring as they emerged from the trough of the recession. Since then, the ratio has steadily decreased and now sits below 1, therefore suggesting a growth in the divide between qualified workers and the required skill sets to fill these new open manufacturing jobs. Broadly speaking, this mismatch poses problems for the economy as these unfilled positions slow production and weigh on growth. While there are no easy solutions, further training and education for potential workers will help fill these roles vital for production output and stronger economic growth.