Category: Chart of the Week

Profits and Employment: A Balancing Act

Following last week’s preliminary annual benchmark review from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that suggested U.S. job growth has been weaker than initially estimated, investors have been closely monitoring the labor market for signs of strain. Corporate profit margins may be particularly important to watch as they directly impact the labor market and have historically served as a leading indicator of layoffs and economic frailty.

Using the quarter-over-quarter percentage increase in average initial jobless claims as a proxy for changes in employment, this week’s chart highlights the relationship between the labor market and pre-tax corporate profit margins. Over the past three decades, corporate profit margins have generally trended higher and sit at approximately 12.2% today. While current margins are down slightly from recent cycle peaks, they remain elevated compared to historical levels. This signals that corporate profitability remains relatively robust. Despite challenges caused by higher rates and inflationary pressures, these higher margins have allowed companies to avoid significant layoffs by tapping into other cost-control measures as needed. Given that workforce reductions are often seen as a last resort for companies due to the high costs associated with obtaining, training, and retaining employees, significant layoffs typically do not occur until corporate profit margins have declined precipitously from cycle peaks. The orange line illustrates this point by showing sharp increases in initial jobless claims during economic downturns, including the Dot-Com Bubble, the Global Financial Crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, during which quarter-over-quarter jobless claims spiked by an astonishing 165%.

While there were certainly other dynamics at play during each of these recessionary periods, significant increases in layoffs generally coincided with slower growth and material declines in corporate profitability. These trends underscore the importance of monitoring these indicators in tandem.

The Magnificent Five of Private Equity

In investment management, asset allocators and their advisors frequently revisit the concept of portfolio diversification — whether by geography, market capitalization, security, or industry. While Marquette advocates for a diversified portfolio within private markets, it is important to recognize that not all diversification strategies are equally effective. Certain industry characteristics make specific sectors more attractive for private investments, particularly those that exhibit sustainable growth driven by favorable demographic or secular trends, fragmentation, capital constraints, and market inefficiencies. These features are often advantageous in private markets as they create opportunities for value enhancement and potential alpha generation.

Within the private equity asset class, five core sectors — what we refer to as the “magnificent five” — have consistently dominated merger and acquisition activity over the past six years. These sectors are healthcare, technology, industrials, business services, and financial services. According to Dealogic, over 60% of deals across 13 tracked industries have been concentrated within these five sectors, as measured by transaction count. Moreover, these industries have outperformed relative to top-quartile multiple on invested capital (MOIC). It is therefore logical that private equity managers would focus their capital in areas with higher probabilities of outsized returns, which in turn shapes the composition of investor portfolios. It is also important to note that this concentration also intensifies competition for deals within these sectors.

A critical point to consider is the dispersion of returns between top and bottom quartiles across industries — the wider the dispersion, the greater the risk. It is no surprise that the highest-performing industries, healthcare and technology, are often heavily represented in private equity portfolios. In this competitive and risk-laden environment, particularly within the private equity asset class, manager selection becomes increasingly crucial for investors seeking to achieve superior outcomes.

Keep Calm and Carry On

U.S. equity markets began last week on a volatile note, with the S&P 500 Index experiencing its biggest daily drop (-3%) since 2022. The factors behind this sharp decline were outlined in last week’s publication, “Volatility Pops as Equities Drop.” In recent days, however, investors appear to have been appeased by more favorable economic data and carry trade exposures that are now much less significant. To that point, the S&P 500 experienced its largest daily gain since 2022 just a few days after Monday’s drop, rising 2.3% last Thursday, August 8. This week’s chart illustrates the most significant daily changes in the S&P 500 since 2020 in an attempt to compare recent market swings to those of previous years. Based on the information above, it is clear that last Monday’s 3% decline was much less severe than the most extreme daily losses exhibited by the index in 2020 and 2022. Interestingly, the largest daily loss of 12% for the S&P 500 in 2020, which came in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, was followed later that same week by the benchmark’s largest daily gain for the year (+9%).

The significant price movements within equity markets exhibited last week and more broadly illustrate two important points. First, market action can sometimes be driven by “animal spirits,” a term popularized by economist John Maynard Keynes that describes the emotional factors that occasionally supersede logic in investment decision making. Animal spirits are important for investors to keep in mind, as they help explain that many market swings are not indicative of a permanent shift in the economic landscape, but rather stem from human emotions such as fear or hope, which can be fickle. The second point is that adverse reactions to market selloffs can result in even more pain for investors since significant daily losses are often followed closely by large gains. To that point, an investor who allocated to the S&P 500 Index in the 1990s and missed the five best days of index performance would have seen a roughly 37% reduction in their final investment value relative to one who missed zero days (through the end of last week). Put simply, keeping calm and carrying on is often the best prescription for bouts of market turmoil.

Volatility Pops as Equities Drop

Recent days have proved quite challenging for equity investors. On the international front, the Nikkei 225 — which tracks the performance of large, public companies in Japan — dropped by more than 12% in Monday’s trading session. This figure represents the most significant single-day drawdown for that index in more than 35 years. Other non-U.S. equity benchmarks have exhibited similar pullbacks: The MSCI EAFE and MSCI EM indices are both down roughly 6% on a month-to-date basis as of the time of this writing. Performance has been similarly challenged for domestic stocks, with the S&P 500 and Russell 2000 indices down around 6% and 10%, respectively, over that same period. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CBOE Volatility Index (“VIX”) reached a level not seen in more than four years during Monday’s trading session as investors grappled with broad market turbulence. Despite some moderation throughout the Monday session, the VIX remains well above its 10-year average after a prolonged period of muted volatility. These dynamics can be observed in the chart above.

As is often the case during market downturns, there is not a single force driving recent performance but rather a variety of factors at play. Some of the factors in this case include the following:

  • Friday’s lackluster jobs report, which detailed a higher U.S. unemployment rate (4.3% in July vs. 4.1% in June) and monthly nonfarm payroll gains for the last month that came in well below expectations (114,000 realized vs. 185,000 estimated). These and other souring economic data points may be leading investors to question the extent to which a soft economic landing can truly be achieved in the months ahead.
  • Waning enthusiasm surrounding the artificial intelligence trade, which has led to historically high concentration risk within many indices. Price drops of many large index constituents, many of which have benefitted from AI-related fervor, have exacerbated pressures on U.S. equity benchmarks in particular.
  • Technical factors, particularly related to a popular carry trade featuring the Japanese yen. A stronger yen and an unwinding of global yen carry trades, wherein investors borrowed in the low-yielding currency and reinvested the proceeds elsewhere, have created a negative feedback loop that has led to equity price pressures.

The dynamics described above have further clouded the future. As recently as last month, market participants expected roughly two rate cuts from the Federal Reserve for the remainder of 2024; now that figure sits at around five, with two 25 basis point cuts forecasted at the next FOMC meeting in September. To that point, the yield on the 2-Year Treasury, which closely tracks expectations surrounding Fed policy, briefly sank below 3.7% on Monday before pulling back to around 3.9% later in the trading session.

It is important to remember that the current market decline is not unprecedented. Investors should recall that equity indices are prone to corrections, with the S&P 500 Index exhibiting a drawdown of 10% or greater in 19 of the last 30 calendar years. As always, we encourage investors to maintain a long-term outlook related to their portfolios and not overreact to short-term volatility. A disciplined portfolio rebalancing policy coupled with a long-term strategic asset allocation is the most proven method to achieve risk and return objectives.

Semi-Charmed Country

Index concentration has been top of mind for investors in recent time, as fervor surrounding advances in artificial intelligence has led to outsized weights of a handful of constituents (e.g., Microsoft, NVIDIA, etc.) within domestic equity benchmarks like the S&P 500 Index. It is important to note, however, that index concentration is not simply a domestic phenomenon. For example, the Taiwanese equity market is notably exposed to technology-oriented companies, as roughly 80% of the MSCI Taiwan Index is comprised of Information Technology positions. Moreover, the index is heavily tilted toward one company in particular: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). TSMC comprises just over 50% of the benchmark and has generated a year-to-date return of roughly 55% through the end of June. As it relates to these dynamics, readers may call to mind two questions: First, how did technology (and semiconductor manufacturing, in particular) come to play such an integral role within the Taiwanese economy? And second, to what extent are global semiconductor supply chains reliant on Taiwan?

TSMC was founded in 1987, with capital provided by the Taiwanese government in hopes of starting a new national industry. At that time, the company decided to focus solely on semiconductor production, which meant creating fabrication plants to manufacture chips for other businesses. This innovative model, commonly known as the foundry model, allowed TSMC to work with semiconductor companies that designed their own chips as opposed to competing against them. It is evident now that this model was hugely successful, as the current revenue share of TSMC accounts for more than 60% of the global semiconductor foundry market. The total market share of Taiwan reaches 70% when one includes other Taiwanese foundry companies (e.g., UMC, PSCM, and VIS). Factors that have led to the country’s strong success in this market include the aforementioned creation of the foundry model, as well as the highly efficient nature of Taiwanese semiconductor companies and the fact that employees in Taiwan’s semiconductor workforce are compensated well relative to those employed in other industries.

Taiwan is clearly the dominant participant in the foundry market, but it is important to note that the production of semiconductors depends on multiple players, including “fabless” chip designers (e.g., NVIDIA), companies that test and package chips, and end manufacturers. This means that the semiconductor supply chain extends well beyond Taiwan, although the country’s role within that chain is clearly crucial, as evidenced by the global chip shortage during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the wake of that shortage, and with continued geopolitical concerns surrounding China and Taiwan, countries around the world have aimed to de-risk supply chains and, therefore, have made significant investments in their domestic semiconductor industries. To that point, many European countries, as well as China, Japan, and the United States, have all committed significant resources to this endeavor. With increasingly complex artificial intelligence requiring more sophisticated chips, the semiconductor space still appears to present compelling investment opportunities, both within Taiwan and throughout the rest of the world.

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.

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.