Opening keynote from Marquette’s 2017 Investment Symposium on the sharing economy with April Rinne, Global Authority on the New Economy: “Access Over Ownership” and the Sharing Economy
Topic Tags: International Economy
Central Bank Balancing Act
The Federal Reserve continues to signal its intention to reduce its $4.5 trillion balance sheet, with the markets anticipating the first move to occur in September. Much of the liquidity, and consequently, asset returns, in the global markets today could be attributed to the substantial bond and other securities purchases made by the major central banks, thereby ballooning their balance sheets.
Our chart this week shows the Federal Reserve (Fed), European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BOJ) balance sheets over time, totaling $14 trillion today. While the Fed has effectively stopped growing its balance sheet since 2014, the ECB and BOJ continue to expand their balance sheets. With the U.S. enjoying the strongest economy relative to Europe and Asia, the Fed will be the first to taper its balance sheet. This move would effectively slow down stimulus in the U.S., with the ECB and BOJ’s balance sheet tapering to follow at some point in the future when their economies have resuscitated. The Fed has been broadly communicating the mechanics of its tapering, and we expect the markets to respond relatively moderately to the first reduction event.
Encouraging Trends in Global PMI
Our chart of the week highlights the recent trend of expansionary PMI readings seen across major global economic areas. PMI, also known as the Purchasing Managers’ Index, is a monthly sentiment reading which provides information on current conditions within the manufacturing sector. A reading above 50 indicates that the manufacturing economy is expanding, while a reading below 50 points to contraction in manufacturing. PMI covers activity only within the manufacturing sector, but is considered a leading indicator since contractions in PMI have historically preceded recessions.
As seen in the chart above, an increase in the pace of manufacturing growth has taken place globally since the second half of 2016. Although readings in some regions show a slower short-term rate of change, PMI readings remain well within in the expansionary zone of above 50. Given that we are in one of the longest duration bull markets in history and equity valuations are at the upper end of their historical ranges, it is encouraging to see an improvement such as this in the global economic picture. The recent uptick in manufacturing growth may help to provide an added tailwind for the current economic expansion and bull market.
March Market Madness: No One Knows Who Will Win
Historically, two indices have moved hand-in-hand: the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index and the VIX Index. The former is a measurement of uncertainty surrounding economic and political policy on a global scale, while the latter is a gauge of the volatility level for the S&P 500 index. The relationship between the two should not be surprising: as uncertainty increases, equity volatility rises. What is surprising is the recent divergence of the two. While global economic policy uncertainty surged to recent highs, market volatility is close to 20-year lows. Since the late 1990s, the 3-month rolling correlation between these indices has hovered around 60%; a divergence of the two to this extreme has not been seen in recent history. So what has caused this disparity?
One answer could be the election of Trump, which could explain the directionality of both indices. The contradictory nature of White House statements versus direct quotes from Trump himself oftentimes leaves the public unsure of what to expect next, as it relates to policy direction. Meanwhile, markets have climbed from the “Trump Effect,” which reflects optimism about the successful implementation of new business-friendly policies. An alternative explanation could simply be that company earnings have been sufficiently strong to support current valuation levels. Though there is global policy uncertainty domestically and internationally — notably due to the populist movement in Europe — strong earnings have more than offset this policy uncertainty and thus driven markets higher and perceived risk lower.
Can both sentiments concurrently be correct? This trend certainly hasn’t been the case in recent years, however, the divergence has continued since Trump’s inauguration. Only time will tell if one of these indicators is truly victorious.
2017 Market Preview
January 2017
Similar to past market preview newsletters, we enter the year with a new set of questions. What shape will Trump’s policies take and how will they impact the market? Will the formal start of the Brexit have an impact on portfolios? To what degree and pace will the Fed increase interest rates? These topics among many others are covered in the following articles as we offer our annual market preview newsletter. Each year presents new challenges to our clients, and other headlines will emerge as the year goes on; it is critical to understand how asset classes will react to each new development and what such reactions will mean to investors. The following articles contain insightful analysis and key themes to monitor over the coming year, themes which will underlie the actual performance of the asset classes covered. Recognizing that many of our clients may not have time to cover the following 30 pages of material, we offer the primary conclusions for each asset class heading into 2017.
Download PDF
2016 Asset Allocation Winners and Losers
January is a time to reflect on the past year and assess what went right and what went wrong, and asset allocation is no different in this regard. Elevated valuations at the start of 2016 did not hold back U.S. equities as they climbed to record highs; small caps were the outright winner with a 21% return. These smaller cap companies received a post-election boost as they were expected to be less affected by the strengthening dollar and potential trade policies enacted by Trump, since they do not typically conduct much international business. The knock-on benefits of a potential lower corporate tax rate also helped propel small-cap equities higher after the election.
January is a time to reflect on the past year and assess what went right and what went wrong, and asset allocation is no different in this regard. Elevated valuations at the start of 2016 did not hold back U.S. equities as they climbed to record highs; small-caps were the outright winner with a 21% return. These smaller-cap companies received a post-election boost as they were expected to be less affected by the strengthening dollar and potential trade policies enacted by Trump, since they do not typically conduct much international business. The knock-on benefits of a potential lower corporate tax rate also helped propel small-cap equities higher after the election.
Internationally, slowing growth concerns were a determinant of performance. The “anti-establishment” sentiment seen in Europe was a major source of uncertainty. Emerging markets were the most appealing in terms of relative valuations, which helped them deliver double-digit returns after three consecutive negative years.
Lastly, fixed income was led by high yield bonds which rallied back from an end-of-year dip in 2015, with lower quality issues leading the way. Long duration bonds were also a top performer within fixed income, as were bank loans. After the Trump victory revived inflation expectations, TIPS became a topic of discussion. Realistically, as policies will take time to implement, inflation will manifest slowly and will be only one of a few indicators to monitor.
Of course, 2016 is behind us and investors are at this point more interested in what the markets will bring us in 2017. While predicting market winners and losers each year is a difficult exercise, it is safe to say that we will not see a repeat of 2016 asset class performance, and maintaining a diversified portfolio with disciplined rebalancing will help to mitigate risk no matter what happens across the global markets.
Brexit: Market Reaction and Potential Impact
Flash talk by David Hernandez, CFA at Marquette’s 2016 Investment Symposium
This session covers the initial market reaction to Brexit and the potential impact going forward.
China Commits to Financing a Green(er) Economy
Earlier this month China and the United States jointly pledged to ratify the Paris climate change agreement, a monumental step for the world’s two largest polluting economies. Executing a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will require creative financing, and China is looking towards green bonds to support their commitment.
Earlier this month China and the United States jointly pledged to ratify the Paris climate change agreement, a monumental step for the world’s two largest polluting economies. Executing a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will require creative financing, and China is looking towards green bonds to support their commitment.
Green bonds are financial instruments that raise capital for specific projects with targeted environmental benefits. Apple made headlines in February of this year by issuing the largest green bond from a U.S. corporation. The tech giant sold $1.5 billion in green bonds earmarked for clean energy projects, green buildings, and resource conservation efforts.
Despite the large issuance from Apple, China has surpassed the United States as the largest issuer of green bonds. The country seeks to attract global investors to help finance the Chinese economy’s transition away from polluting industries and towards advanced technology and services.
China approved more than $17.4 billion of sales of green bonds so far this year — over 40% of the market — after issuing its first green bond less than two years ago. However, some of the domestic green bonds being issued do not meet international standards and require additional scrutiny by prospective investors.
For example, some of the Chinese green bonds are tagged to fund clean coal projects. While clean coal might represent environmental progress in pollution-afflicted China, internationally these bonds conflict with the majority of environmentally-friendly investment mandates, as well as the Green Bond Principles, which serve as the gold standard in green bonds.
China is currently responsible for over 20% of GHG emissions, closely trailed by the United States at just under 18%. As both countries seek financial support for their climate change commitments, investors must be wary of products that aren’t as green as they seem.
Low Productivity and Its Impact on Global Growth
Productivity is the change in output per hour worked and serves as a key indicator of real economic growth. Not surprisingly, it is one of the critical macroeconomic variables analyzed by the Fed when deciding whether or not to raise interest rates. Lower levels of productivity can result from economic policy and shocks, changing demographics, and slower gains from technological innovations.
Productivity is the change in output per hour worked and serves as a key indicator of real economic growth. Not surprisingly, it is one of the critical macroeconomic variables analyzed by the Fed when deciding whether or not to raise interest rates. Lower levels of productivity can result from economic policy and shocks, changing demographics, and slower gains from technological innovations.
This week’s chart shows the productivity changes of the three largest developed market currency blocks: the United States, Japan, and the Eurozone. The graph illustrates that all three are currently struggling to produce meaningful productivity gains. In the U.S., output per hour worked has now contracted for three consecutive quarters. Most of the U.S. contraction can be accounted for by lower energy prices, but the more important theme is the lower levels of productivity across the developed world and their likely contribution to stagnating global growth. If this trend continues, it will be serve as yet another headwind for stronger growth across the globe.
Global Bonds and Negative Yields
This week’s chart examines the change in yield for global sovereign debt. While we have been in a low interest rate environment since 2008, over the last three years, we have seen negative yielding bonds move from 0% of the developed bond universe to 38%. A staggering number indeed, this has been the by-product of anemic global growth and aggressive monetary policies in Europe and Japan.
This week’s chart examines the change in yield for global sovereign debt. While we have been in a low interest rate environment since 2008, over the last three years, we have seen negative yielding bonds move from 0% of the developed bond universe to 38%. A staggering number indeed, this has been the by-product of anemic global growth and aggressive monetary policies in Europe and Japan.
One of the consequences of a negative rate environment is increased demand for higher yielding assets. Through the second quarter, U.S. high yield and emerging market debt have returned 9.1% and 10.3%, respectively. In addition to attractive yields, these asset classes have benefitted from stability in commodity prices and minimal exposure to the Brexit event. Should these conditions persist going forward, expect investor preference for credit and higher yielding bonds to continue, given this historically low interest rate environment.