Connect with us

Uncategorized

Fed Preview: 25bps Tomorrow And Then “The End Is Very Much In Sight”

Fed Preview: 25bps Tomorrow And Then "The End Is Very Much In Sight"

Cutting to the chase, ahead of tomorrow’s Fed decision (due at 2pm, Powell…

Published

on

Fed Preview: 25bps Tomorrow And Then "The End Is Very Much In Sight"

Cutting to the chase, ahead of tomorrow's Fed decision (due at 2pm, Powell press conference 2:30pm, no projections so no new dots so no way to push back more on market expectations for sub-5% terminal rate), the key question - as Goldman puts it - is "what the FOMC will signal about further hikes this year" since 25bps tomorrow is in the bag and what matters to stocks is i) will this be the final rate hike and ii) how long will the Fed keep rates here before starting to cut.

"The Fed is approaching a critical inflection point and whether they finish with 25bp tomorrow (at 4.75%) or 25bp on 3/22 (at 5%), the end is very much in sight (but what really matters is how long they hold this level which i am betting will be much longer than most currently expect)." - Goldman trader John Flood

As Goldman further discusses in its FOMC preview (excerpted below, full note available to pro subs), "we expect two additional 25bp hikes in March and May, but fewer might be needed if weak business confidence depresses hiring and investment, or more might be needed if the economy reaccelerates as the impact of past policy tightening fades. Fed officials appear to also expect about two more hikes and will likely tone down the reference to “ongoing” hikes being appropriate in the FOMC statement."

Some more big picture observations from Goldman's David Mericle:

The FOMC’s goal for the year is clear. It aims to continue in 2023 what it began so successfully in 2022 by staying on a below-potential growth path in order to rebalance the labor market so that inflation will return to 2% sustainably. We agree with Fed officials that there is still a long way to go—after all, our jobs-workers gap is still about 3 million above its pre-pandemic level.

How many hikes will be needed to stay on this path is less clear. We expect two additional 25bp hikes in March and May, but fewer might be needed if weak business confidence depresses hiring and investment, or more might be needed if the economy reaccelerates as the impact of past policy tightening fades. Fed officials appear to also expect about two more hikes and will likely tone down the reference to “ongoing” hikes being appropriate in the FOMC statement.

FWIW, the market gives just 2% odds of a 50bps hike tomorrow (i.e., 25bps tomorrow), and just 26% odds that there will be more than one more hike by May (i.e. another 25bps in March), at which point the Fed will be done and is then expected to start cutting as much as 50bps in the second half of 2023, and more in 2024. It is here that one should expect the most pushback from Powell tomorrow if indeed, as consensus overwhelmingly expects, the Fed Chair will be extra hawkish during his press conference.

But why just 25bps tomorrow? After all, if the Fed really wanted to punish stonks - as he clearly did at Jackson Hole with has hastily rewritten 8 minute speech, why not just do 50bps and crush risk?  Here Goldman has an explanation too:

Since the FOMC last met in December, two trends in the economic data have made the case for slowing the pace of rate hikes to 25bp next week surprisingly easy.

  • First, incoming data on wage growth and inflation have been encouraging, including a deceleration in average hourly earnings and the Atlanta Fed wage growth tracker, another round of soft inflation data, a continued collapse in alternative leading indicators of rent inflation, and a further decline in one-year Michigan consumer inflation expectations, which have now fallen 1.5pp since the Fed started hiking.
  • Second, signals on activity growth have become more mixed and at times concerning. A large gap has opened up between GDP and our current activity indicator (CAI), and between the “hard data” components of our CAI and the “soft data” components like surveys. We suspect that nominal bias and negative sentiment driven by recession fears are depressing the survey data, similar to the pattern seen during the 2019 trade war, and that activity growth actually remains modest but positive. But uncertainty about the near-term outlook has risen.

While tomorrow's 25bps may be a done deal, where the Fed will clash with the market is how many more hikes are on the way. As noted above, the market now expects at most 1 more 25bps rate increase before May. However, the Fed December dots indicated that the median FOMC participant expects two additional 25bp hikes after tomorrow's rate hike. As a result, Goldman - if not the market -  expects the FOMC will probably tone down the reference to “ongoing” hikes being appropriate in the FOMC statement, perhaps by replacing “ongoing” with “further.

There is more in the full Goldman note available to professional subs.

One more point from Goldman economist Zach Pandl, and this has to do with today's Employment Cost Index, which came in softer than expected, and which sparked today's frenzied rally as it hinted potential dovishness from Powell tomorrow, to wit:

Zach Pandl on ECI: “Clear deceleration in ECI; even larger downshift than in average hourly earnings growth during the quarter; very big drop in one of the underlying series that people focus on (wages ex-incentive paid occupations); more good news for soft landing camp/team transitory; on the margin I would think this raises odds of more dovish message from Powell tomorrow, although employment report on Friday will still have a lot to say about their overall read of labor market.”

Away from GS, here is what JPM thinks, starting with today's powerful rally following the weaker than expected ECI, and culminating with a warning that even a hint that Powell may not keep rates at 5% through year-end "could be enough to lead to a market rally. "

Stocks rallied as Employment Cost Index came in cooler than expected this morning, which provides more comfort on slowing wage inflation. While expectations on Fed’s terminal rates remains stable, equities and bonds are rallied on optimism around a Fed pause in May and potentially rate cuts in 2023. Despite recent Fedspeaks all supports holding terminal rate at 5% for the entire year, the OIS market currently expects the FFR to be around 4.5% by YE, implying a 50bp cut in 2H23. Will tomorrow’s meeting reshape this expectation? Feroli expects Powell’s speech to remain hawkish to push back against the easing financial conditions, but given this consensus view, any pivot from the view of holding FFR at 5% till YE could be enough to lead to a market rally.

As usual, much more from JPM - and other Wall Street firms - to pro subs in the usual place.

JPM is not the only one listening closely to what Powell will say: Jeff Gundlach just tweeted that he expects the Fed to "push back against the pivot narrative and thereby current bond market pricing." Which of course they will: the question is all about the nuances.

Finally, here is a quick and dirty FOMC preview snapshot from our friends at Newsquawk:

  • OVERVIEW: The analyst consensus sees the FOMC lifting its Federal Funds Rate target by 25bps to 4.50-4.75%, with a small minority noting the potential for a larger 50bps hike increment. Money markets are pricing the smaller move with almost certainty, but further through the year, are underpricing the December SEP-implied terminal rate of 5.1% and are even pricing risks of Fed easing at the back half of 2023. Chair Powell is likely to stay the course around the fight against inflation not being over and the "higher for longer" policy stance, guiding to more hikes in the future despite the latest encouraging disinflationary data, but it's seen as unlikely that any efforts to jawbone tighter financial conditions will be successful barring a change in the data, with markets themselves in data-dependency mode. Meanwhile, Powell may provide the Fed more optionality to cater for a 'soft landing' by leaning into recent Fed Speak regarding the potential for disinflation absent a meaningful rise in unemployment.
  • STATEMENT: The Fed is priced with almost certainty for a 25bps hike to take the FFR to 4.50-4.75%, with a less than 5% chance of a 50bps hike implied by money market pricing. The statement is expected to be updated to reflect the deceleration in the hiking pace and acknowledge the cumulative tightening already in place. With speculation building over whether the Fed will follow through with its guided rate hike path to 5.00-5.25%, it's worth keeping an eye out for any adjustments to its line that "ongoing increases in the target range will be appropriate", albeit it's probably a bit premature.
  • POWELL: The Fed Chair is likely to reaffirm the party line of more work needing to be done on inflation. He likely highlights the promising string of declines in the inflation data, but also warns that it is still far above the 2% target, whilst expressing concerns over the stubbornly high services inflation. Perhaps more interestingly will be if Powell warms further towards the possibility of falling inflation without the need to cool the labour market. Members of the Board, from dove Brainard to hawk Waller, have recently alluded to the possibility of such. So, if Powell looks to cement that line of thinking, that the Fed doesn't require rising unemployment to bring inflation back down, recession risks/pricing are likely to reduce greatly, something that could be a driving factor in the recent pick-up in stock appetite given the data lately has evolved in favour of a 'soft landing'.
  • DATA: Core PCE Y/Y has now declined for three consecutive months, sitting at 4.4% in December, and down from cycle peaks of 5.4% in February 2022, building belief that the peak may be in. A lot of that decline has been spurred by falling goods prices, asking the continued strength in the services sector, particularly core services ex-housing, which many Fed officials keep pointing to as an area that needs to be addressed. That decline has also come against the backdrop of initial jobless claims reaching 9-month lows and limited progress in JOLTS job openings falling to support a loosening in the labour market, but at the same time, wage growth data has shown some signs of cooling, with Tuesday's Employment Cost Index for Q4 a key focus after the promising wage data in the BLS employment report. Meanwhile, fears over an imminent recession have abated, with US GDP rising again in Q4 (+2.9%), and despite the dip in November and December real personal consumption, as well as December retail sales, real-time credit card data has picked up again into January and earnings commentary has been sanguine on the consumer.
Tyler Durden Tue, 01/31/2023 - 22:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

How much more financial pressure can Australian mortgagees take?

Talk to anyone on the street these days and the conversation will inevitably turn to how inflation is increasing their cost of living in some form or another….

Published

on

Talk to anyone on the street these days and the conversation will inevitably turn to how inflation is increasing their cost of living in some form or another. Inflation has risen steadily since the beginning of 2022 despite the determined efforts of Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to bring it back towards its target range of 2-3 per cent.

In less than 1 year and 11 interest rate rises later, official interest rates have risen from 0.10 per cent to 3.85 per cent but inflation remains stubbornly high at 7 per cent. Interest rates have never risen this fast before nor from such a historically low level either.

As previously outlined in an earlier blog entry on Commonwealth Bank (ASX:CBA), the big four banks of Australia have just under 80 per cent of the residential property mortgage loan market. In “normal” economic times of rising interest rates, banks should be natural beneficiaries of these conditions. However, these are not normal times.

The business model of banks has generally stayed the same for centuries, i.e. borrow money from one source at a low interest rate and lend it to a customer at a higher rate. Today, the Australian banks generally get their funding from wholesale and retail sources. However, the banks were offered a one-off funding source from the RBA called the Term Funding Facility (TFF) during the COVID-19 period to support the economy. This started in April 2020, priced at an unprecedented low fixed rate of 0.10 per cent for 3 years with the last drawdown accepted in June 2021 for a total of $188 billion. Fast forward to today and the first drawdowns from this temporary facility have already started to roll-off which means that these fund sources need to be replaced with one of considerably more expensive sources, namely wholesale funding or retail deposits. As a result of this change in funding, bank CEOs have unanimously declared that net interest margins, and hence its effect on bank earnings, have peaked for this cycle despite speculation that interest rates may still rise later in the year.

Prior to the start of the roll-off of TFF drawdowns, the entire Australian banking industry engaged in cutthroat competition for new and refinancing mortgage loans in a bid to maintain or grow market share. In the aftermath of the bank reporting season, two of the big four banks have stated they are no longer pursuing market share at any price, with CBA and National Australia Bank (ASX:NAB) announcing they will scrap their refinancing cashback offers after 1 June and 30 June respectively.

Turning our attention back to the average Australian, the big bank mortgage customers have been remarkably resilient. The Australian dream of owning the house you live in is still alive for now, with owners willing to endure significant lifestyle changes in a bid to keep up with mortgage payments. The big banks have reflected this phenomenon with a reduction in individual loan provisions and only a modest increase in collective loan provisions.

Time will tell how much more financial pressure Australian mortgagees can take, especially with the RBA still undecided on the future trajectory of interest rates. What has been agreed on by the big banks, is that things are not going to get easier. At least not in the short-term.

The Montgomery Funds own shares in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and National Australia Bank. This article was prepared 29 May 2023 with the information we have today, and our view may change. It does not constitute formal advice or professional investment advice. If you wish to trade these companies you should seek financial advice.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

U.S. Breakeven Inflation Comments

I just refreshed my favourite U.S. breakeven inflation chart (above), and I was surprised by how placid pricing has been. This article gives a few observations regarding the implications of TIPS pricing.Background note: the breakeven inflation rate is …

Published

on


I just refreshed my favourite U.S. breakeven inflation chart (above), and I was surprised by how placid pricing has been. This article gives a few observations regarding the implications of TIPS pricing.

Background note: the breakeven inflation rate is the inflation rate that results in an inflation-linked bond — TIPS in the U.S. market — having the same total return as a conventional bond. If we assume that there are no risk premia, then it can be interpreted as “what the market is pricing in for inflation.” I have a free online primer here, as well as a book on the subject.

(As an aside, I often run into people who argue that “breakeven inflation has nothing to do with inflation/inflation forecasts.” I discuss this topic in greater depth in my book, but the premise that inflation breakevens have nothing to do with inflation only makes sense from a very short term trading perspective — long-term valuation is based on the breakeven rate versus realised inflation.)

The top panel shows the 10-year breakeven inflation rate. Although it scooted upwards after the pandemic, it is below where is was pre-Financial Crisis, and roughly in line with the immediate post-crisis period. (Breakevens fell at the end of the 2010s due to persistent misses of the inflation target to the downside.) Despite all the barrels of virtual ink being dumped on the topic of inflation, there is pretty much no inflation risk premium in pricing.

The bottom panel shows forward breakeven inflation: the 5-year rate starting 5 years in the future. (The 10-year breakeven inflation rate is (roughly) the average of the 5-year spot rate — not shown — and that forward rate.) It is actually lower than its “usual” level pre-2014, and did not really budge after recovering from its post-recession dip. (My uninformed guess is that the forward rate was depressed because inflation bulls bid up the front breakevens — because they were the most affected by an inflation shock — while inflation bears would have focussed more on long-dated breakevens, with the forward being mechanically depressed as a result.)

Since I am not offering investment advice, all I can observe is the following.

  • Since it looks like one would need a magnifying glass to find an inflation risk premium, TIPS do seem like a “non-expensive” inflation hedge. (I use “non-expensive” since they do not look cheap.) Might be less painful than short duration positions (if one were inclined to do that).

  • Breakeven volatility is way more boring than I would have expected based on the recent movements in inflation. The undershoot during the recession was not too surprising given negative oil prices and expectations of another lost decade, but the response to the inflation spike was restrained.

  • The “message for the economy” is that market pricing suggests that either inflation reverts on its own, or the Fed is expected to break something bigger than a few hapless regional banks if inflation does not in fact revert.

Otherwise, I am preparing for a video panel on MMT at the Canadian Economics Association 2023 Conference on Tuesday. (One needs to pay the conference fee to see the panel.) I have also been puttering around with my inflation book. I have a couple draft sections that I might put up in the coming days/weeks.

Email subscription: Go to https://bondeconomics.substack.com/ 

(c) Brian Romanchuk 2023

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

“What’s More Tragic Is Capitalism”: BLM Faces Bankruptcy As Founder Cullors Is Cut By Warner Bros

"What’s More Tragic Is Capitalism": BLM Faces Bankruptcy As Founder Cullors Is Cut By Warner Bros

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Two years…

Published

on

"What's More Tragic Is Capitalism": BLM Faces Bankruptcy As Founder Cullors Is Cut By Warner Bros

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Two years ago, I wrote columns about companies pouring money into Black Lives Matter to establish their bona fides as “antiracist” corporations. The money continued to flow despite serious questions raised about BLM’s management and accounting. Democratic prosecutors like New York Attorney General Letitia James showed little interest in these allegations even as James sought to disband the National Rifle Association (NRA) over similar allegations. At the same time, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors cashed in with companies like Warner Bros. eager to give her massive contracts to signal their own reformed status. It now appears that BLM is facing bankruptcy after burning through tens of millions and Warner Bros. cut ties with Cullors after the contract produced no — zero — new programming.

Some states belatedly investigated BLM as founders like Cullors seemed to scatter to the winds.

Gone are tens of millions of dollars, including millions spent on luxury mansions and windfalls for close associates of BLM leaders.

The usual suspects gathered around the activists like former Clinton campaign general counsel Marc Elias, who later removed himself from his “key role” as the scandals grew.

When questions were raised about the lack of accounting and questionable spending, BLM attacked critics as “white supremacists.”

Warner Bros. was one of the companies eager to grab its own piece of Cullors to signal its own anti-racist virtues.  It gave Cullors a lucrative contract to guide the company in the creation of both scripted and non-scripted content, focusing on reparations and other forms of social justice. It launched a publicity campaign for everyone to know that it established a “wide-ranging content partnership” with Cullors who would now help guide the massive corporation’s new programming. Calling Cullors “one of the most influential thought leaders in American public life,” Warner Bros. announced that she was going to create a wide array of new programming, including “but not limited to live-action scripted drama and comedy series; longform/event series; unscripted docuseries; animated programming for co-viewing among kids, young adults and families; and original digital content.”

Some are now wondering if Warner Bros. ever intended for this contract to produce anything other than a public relations pitch or whether Cullors took the money and ran without producing even a trailer for an actual product. Indeed, both explanations may be true.

Paying money to Cullors was likely viewed as a type of insurance to protect the company from accusations of racial insensitive. After all, the company was giving creative powers to a person who had no prior experience or demonstrated talent in the area. Yet, Cullors would be developing programming for one of the largest media and entertainment companies in the world.

One can hardly blame Cullors despite criticizism by some on the left for going on a buying spree of luxury properties.

After all, Cullors was previously open about her lack of interest in working with “capitalist” elements. Nevertheless, BLM was run like a Trotskyite study group as the media and corporations poured in support and revenue.

It was glaringly ironic to see companies like Warner Bros. falling over each other to grab their own front person as the group continued boycotts of white-owned businesses. Indeed, if you did not want to be on the wrong end of one of those boycotts, you needed to get Cullors on your payroll.

Much has now changed as companies like Bud Light have been rocked by boycotts over what some view as heavy handed virtue signaling campaigns.

It was quite a change for Cullors and her BLM co-founder, who previously proclaimed “[we] are trained Marxists. We are super versed on, sort of, ideological theories.” She denounced capitalism as worse than COVID-19. Yet, companies like Lululemon rushed to find their own “social justice warrior” while selling leggings for $120 apiece.

When some began to raise questions about Cullors buying luxury homes, Facebook and Twitter censored them.

With increasing concerns over the loss of millions, Cullors eventually stepped down as executive director of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, as others resigned.  At the same time, the New York Post was revealing that BLM Global Network transferred $6.3 million to Cullors’ spouse, Janaya Khan, and other Canadian activists to purchase a mansion in Toronto in 2021.

According to The Washington Examiner, BLM PAC and a Los Angeles-based jail reform group paid Cullors $20,000 a month. It also spent nearly $26,000 on meetings at a luxury Malibu beach resort in 2019. Reform LA Jails, chaired by Cullors, received $1.4 million, of which $205,000 went to the consulting firm owned by Cullors and her spouse, according to New York magazine.

Once again, while figures like James have spent huge amounts of money and effort to disband the NRA over such accounting and spending controversies, there has been only limited efforts directed against BLM in New York and most states.

Cullors once declared that “while the COVID-19 illness is tragic, what’s more tragic is capitalism.” These companies seem to be trying to prove her point. Yet, at least for Cullors, Warner Bros. fulfilled its slogan that this is all “The stuff that dreams are made of.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/28/2023 - 16:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending