Since the last FOMC meeting (September 22nd) - when Chair Powell began to detail the taper and rate-hike traajectory to come - bonds are down (yields higher) but stocks, gold, and the dollar are all up around 1%...
And even more notably, the trajectory (and initial timing) or rate-hikes has soared...
But the long-end of the yield curve is signaling that The Fed will once again commit a faux-pass...
So the big question the market is trying to glean from today's Minutes is - just how 'consensus' is the imminent taper talk... and potentially a sooner than expected rate-hike? Especially after today showed that consumer price readings have come in at 5% or higher on a year-over-year basis for five straight months, undermining the "transitory" theme put forward by central bankers.
As a reminder, The Fed confirmed plans to begin reducing their bond-buying stimulus program in November and to possibly end the asset purchases entirely by the middle of next year - this was confirmed in the Minutes...
Participants also expressed their views on how slowing in the pace of purchases might proceed.
In particular, participants commented on an illustrative path, developed by the staff and reflecting participants' discussions at the Committee's July meeting, that gave the speed and composition associated with a tapering of asset purchases. The illustrative tapering path was designed to be simple to communicate and entailed a gradual reduction in the pace of net asset purchases that, if begun later this year, would lead the Federal Reserve to end purchases around the middle of next year.
The path featured monthly reductions in the pace of asset purchases, by $10 billion in the case of Treasury securities and $5 billion in the case of agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Participants generally commented that the illustrative path provided a straightforward and appropriate template that policymakers might follow, and a couple of participants observed that giving advance notice to the general public of a plan along these lines may reduce the risk of an adverse market reaction to a moderation in asset purchases. Participants noted that, in keeping with the outcome-based standard for initiating a tapering of asset purchases, the Committee could adjust the pace of the moderation of its purchases if economic developments were to differ substantially from what they expected. Several participants indicated that they preferred to proceed with a more rapid moderation of purchases than described in the illustrative examples.
No decision to proceed with a moderation of asset purchases was made at the meeting, but participants generally assessed that, provided that the economic recovery remained broadly on track, a gradual tapering process that concluded around the middle of next year would likely be appropriate.
Participants noted that if a decision to begin tapering purchases occurred at the next meeting, the process of tapering could commence with the monthly purchase calendars beginning in either mid-November or mid-December.
Several participants indicated that they preferred to proceed with a more rapid moderation of purchases than described in the illustrative examples.
This is what that looks like...
“Many” thought the progress test would be met “soon”
A number of participants assessed that the standard of substantial further progress toward the goal of maximum employment had not yet been attained but that, if the economy proceeded roughly as they anticipated, it may soon be reached.”
“Various participants stressed that economic conditions were likely to justify keeping the rate at or near its lower bound over the next couple of years.”
Some participants expressed concerns that elevated rates of inflation could feed through into longer-term inflation expectations of households and businesses or saw recent inflation data as suggestive of broader inflation pressures. Several other participants pointed out that the largest contributors to the recent elevated measures of inflation were a handful of COVID-related, pandemic-sensitive categories in which specific, identifiable bottlenecks were at play. This observation suggested that the upward pressure on prices would abate as the COVID-related demand and supply imbalances subsided. These participants noted that prices in some of those categories showed signs of stabilizing or even turned down of late. Many participants pointed out that the owners' equivalent rent component of price indexes should be monitored carefully, as rising home prices could lead to upward pressure on rents. A few participants noted that there was not yet evidence that robust wage growth was exerting upward pressure on prices to a significant degree, but also that the possibility merited close monitoring.
On "Transitory" Inflation:
Participants noted that their contacts generally did not expect bottlenecks to be fully resolved until sometime next year or even later.
On Evergrande contagion:
Concerns over the period about the effects of COVID-19 developments on economic performance and, late in the period, about a heavily indebted Chinese property developer appeared to have only marginal net effects on financial asset prices.
On September 20, stock market prices fell notably and speculative-grade yield spreads widened amid rising concerns about the creditworthiness of a Chinese property developer, but these moves were mostly reversed during the following day, particularly in the stock market.
On the economy:
In discussing the uncertainty and risks associated with the economic outlook, participants noted that uncertainty remained high.
A number of participants judged that the uncertain course of the virus, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages complicated the task of interpreting incoming economic data and assessing progress toward the Committee's goals. Participants generally saw the risks to the outlook for economic activity as broadly balanced. Uncertainty around the course of the virus, the resolution of supply constraints, and fiscal measures were cited as presenting both upside and downside risks. In addition, some participants mentioned the risks associated with high asset valuations in the United States and abroad, and a number of participants commented on the importance of resolving the issues involving the federal government budget and debt ceiling in a timely manner. Most participants saw inflation risks as weighted to the upside because of concerns that supply disruptions and labor shortages might last longer and might have larger or more persistent effects on prices and wages than they currently assumed.
A few participants commented that there were also some downside risks for inflation, as the factors that had held inflation down over the previous long expansion were likely still in place.
There was complete unanimity in the decision to taper:
All participants agreed that it would be appropriate for the current meeting's postmeeting statement to relay the Committee's judgment that, if progress continued broadly as expected, a moderation in the pace of asset purchases may soon be warranted
Finally, there were 18 mentions of COVID in Sept Minutes, up from 3 in August.
* * *
Read the full FOMC Minutes below:
Peter Schiff: Transitory Permanence
Peter Schiff: Transitory Permanence
The inflation that we were emphatically told would be transitory and unmoored continues to persist and entrench. As the troubles gather momentum Washington is doing its best to ignore..
The inflation that we were emphatically told would be transitory and unmoored continues to persist and entrench. As the troubles gather momentum Washington is doing its best to ignore the problem or actively make it worse.
The latest batch of data shows that the Consumer Price Index rose 5.4% in September, the 5th consecutive month that year over year inflation came in at more than 5%. The figure rises to 6.5% if we project the inflation levels of the first 9 months of 2021 to the entire calendar year. The last time we had to contend with numbers like these, Jimmy Carter was telling us all to put on our sweaters.
Recent developments should be sounding the alarms. Whereas earlier in the year inflation was largely driven by supercharged price increases in narrow sectors, such as used cars and hotel rooms, it’s now occurring in a much wider spectrum of goods and services.
In September, the cost of used autos fell month over month (but are still up 24% year over year), but that didn’t help the overall CPI, which saw increases just about everywhere else. Over the past 12 months: beef prices are up 17.6%, seafood prices up 10.6%, home appliances up 10.5%, furniture and bedding up 11.2%, and new cars up 8.7%.
Even more alarming is that oil is up over $80 per barrel for the first time in almost 10 years and many analysts see $100 in the near future. That has translated to more than a $1 increase in per gallon gasoline prices, a 50% increase in a year. Home heating oil prices are already up 42% year over year and are expected to spike up again when winter demand peaks. For many low-income residents of the North and Upper Midwest, these types of increases could be very hard to bear, particularly if we have a cold winter.
As I have said many times before, the biggest flaw in the way we measure inflation (and there are many of them) is how the government deals with housing. While the Case Shiller Home Price Index is up more than 20% year over year, and national rents are up more than 12% over the same time frame, the CPI has largely ignored these increases in housing costs. Instead, the government relies on the dubious and amorphous concept of “Owners Equivalent Rent” which asks homeowners to guess how much they would have to pay to rent a house of similar quality to the one they to the one they own. Conveniently, that meaningless figure, which constitutes almost 30% of the total CPI, is only up 3% year over year. If actual rent increases were used instead, the CPI would be almost three full percentage points higher.
In fact, relying on the government to tell us the truth about inflation is a bit like asking high school students to grade their own report cards. There are countless incentives that exist institutionally for the government to underreport inflation. It allows them to make stealth cuts to Social Security, to create higher nominal incomes and capital “gains” to tax, and to minimize the interest rates it pays on over $28 trillion in debt as inflation. But since GDP is adjusted for inflation, it also makes economic growth appear higher than it really is. The methodology for computing the CPI index was specifically designed to minimize the impact of rising prices. But I don’t believe that this is a conspiracy. Once you understand how institutional bias works, how careers are made by finding new plausible ways to underreport inflation, and how they are ruined by claiming the opposite, you can see how the numbers get farther away from reality with each passing year.
But the disconnect has become so obvious that top officials at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have begun warning the public to prepare for higher prices. In her latest exercise of goal post moving, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said, “I believe that price increases are transitory, but that doesn’t mean they’ll go away over the next several months.” We can expect that months will soon turn into years, as the definition of “transitory,” gets ever more elastic.
This week the government announced that the inflation-adjusted cost of living increases for Social Security payments in 2022 will be 5.9%, the highest such increase since 1982. In addition to throwing yet another log on the government deficit fire, the increase is a direct admission that inflation is not going away.
Despite the marginal increase in wages that the Biden Administration likes to talk about, or the cost of living increases for our seniors, the average American makes less money. After adjusting for inflation real hourly earnings in the United States have dropped 1.9% so far this year. This is the stagflation that I have been warning about. Welcome back to the Carter Administration. We can expect Joe Biden to break out our sweaters if home heating bills get too high this winter.
Team Biden has been working overtime to suggest that the price increases and supply shortages are resulting from temporary bottlenecks at port facilities. Imports are particularly sensitive as our trade deficit has widened to record levels in recent months, making Americans ever more reliant on overseas goods. To combat the problem the Administration has ordered that some ports begin to operate 24 hours a day. (Left unsaid was the very fact that American ports – due to the strength of the Longshoreman’s Union – operate at very spare schedules versus foreign counterparts).
But the effect of this order will be far milder than the Administration hopes. Firstly, it is unclear how many port facilities will comply. Some have noted for instance that the Port of Los Angeles agreed to go 24 hours at only one of its six docks. (Currently, the wait time to enter that port is approaching three weeks). And secondly, most industry analysts note that the problem is not the hours of the dock facilities themselves but the shortfalls of the domestic trucking industry to move the goods once they arrive. Not only are we struggling with a lack of drivers, who struggle with government regulations that sharply limit the number of hours they are allowed to drive, but a lack of shipping containers to put back on the ships. Since many ships refuse to leave unloaded, which greatly reduces their profitability, America needs to first solve a host of problems to get the ports in better order.
But what we are seeing in a larger sense are the fruits of 15 years of bad investments in things that we don’t need and very little investment in the things we do. The ultra-low interest rates that have become the bedrock of our bubble economy have channeled investment capital into the wrong places. These low rates have encouraged corporations to borrow recklessly to buy back shares and inflate stock prices. Such moves have enriched shareholders but have done little to expand productive capacity.
Low rates have also led to runaway speculation in untested and unneeded industries. We have seen massive investments in social media, e-commerce, entertainment, cryptocurrencies, financial technology, and most recently Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT’s). As a result, we have really built out our capacity to post videos, buy things online, and pay for them in new ways. But we have invested comparatively little in boring industries like manufacturing, energy, transportation, and agriculture. As a result, we have all sorts of ways to buy stuff, and gimmicks for how to pay for it later, but we lack the capacity to produce and distribute all the goods we want to buy in the first place.
What’s worse is that given the current policies of the Biden Administration, none of that is going to change anytime soon. His expanded social safety net programs, overly generous unemployment benefits, higher taxes and regulation, and unneeded vaccine mandates are discouraging workers from working and employers from hiring. The American workforce is more than five million workers smaller than it was before the pandemic. That is not an accident. If the Democrats get their caucus together long enough to pass even a slimmed-down version of Biden’s Build Back Better plan look for all these problems to get worse.
With fewer workers working, supplies of goods and services have diminished. Government will look to replace the lost production with even more monetary and fiscal stimulus, which just leads to more inflation, financial speculation, and rising asset prices, largely benefiting the wealthy, and falling the hardest on the poor who have no appreciating assets to compensate for the rising cost of living.
But rather than fixing the problem, our current leaders are mostly worried about equity and diversity. The five leading candidates to replace Jerome Powell, if he is not renominated, all are either female or African American. Now I have no problems with hiring women or minorities in key positions. But if all your candidates come exclusively from those groups, then it’s clear that identity is more important than competency at this moment in time. But if there was ever a time that we needed competence, it’s now.
UK Banks – Digital Dinosaurs
UK Banks – Digital Dinosaurs
Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com,
“Tuppence wisely invested in the bank…”
As UK bank reporting season kicks off, the dull, boring, predictable UK banks should look good. But the reality…
“Tuppence wisely invested in the bank…”
As UK bank reporting season kicks off, the dull, boring, predictable UK banks should look good. But the reality is they are dinosaurs – their failure to digitise and evolve leaves them vulnerable to tech-savy FinTechs and Challenger filling their niche. If the future of modern finance is a Tech hypersonic missile… British Banks are still building steam trains.
Today see’s the start of the UK bank reporting season. Yawn….
I wrote a piece for the Evening Standard y’day – Another set of numbers to disguise the rot. (I’ve reused some of it this morning – lazy, eh?) Exactly as I predicted in that note, Barclays came in strong this morning with a decent lift from its investment banking businesses. Lloyds and HSBC will also produce acceptable numbers and limited losses on post pandemic recovery. The sector outlook looks positive, the regulator will allow them to increase dividends, and there is higher income potential from rising interest rates.
But… would you buy the UK banks?
They face substantial market and ongoing pandemic risk. The cost of economic reality falls heavy across them all. This morning the headlines are about Medical groups screaming out for a renewal of lockdown measures to protect the NHS – a move that will 100% nail-on recession and cause multiple small businesses to give up. The threat of recession in the UK is pronounced – exacerbated by global supply chain crisis and risks of policy mistakes. The worst outcome for banks would be stagflation resulting in exploding loan impairments.
Lloyds is the most vulnerable to the UK economy – hence it’s underperformed the others. Even without renewed Covid measures, potential policy mistakes by the Bank of England in raising interest rates too early, or by government by raising taxes and austerity spending, will hit business and consumer sentiment hardest, causing the stock prices to crumble back towards its low back in Sept 2020 when it hit £24.72. It’s got the largest mortgage exposure – but no one really expects a significant housing sell-off. (When no-one expects it – is when to worry!)
If you believe the UK’s economic potential is under-stated, then Lloyds has the best upside stock potential among the big three. If the economy recovers strongly, Lloyds goes up. If it stumbles, then so will Lloyds!
Barclays is a more difficult call. It’s a broader, more diversified name. It retains an element of “whoosh” from its markets businesses – which have delivered excellent returns from its capital markets businesses fuelled by low rates, but it also runs a higher-than-average reputational risk for generating embarrassing headlines. But, when the global economy normalises, higher interest rates will impact the fee income of all the investment banks, thus impacting Barclays to a greater extent than Lloyds. Barclay’s international business gives it some hedge against a UK economic slide.
HSBC is the most complex call. The UK banking operation is a rounding error compared to the Bank’s Hong Kong business. The bank is pivoting towards Asia, orbiting China and other high-growth Far East economies where it seeks to attract rising middle-class wealth. It’s underperformed due to a distaste among global investors for its China business, but also the perception it’s just too big a bank to manage effectively.
If its China strategy was to pay off, it will be a long-term winner. But that’s no means certain – Premier Xi’s crackdown on Chinese Tech threatens to morph into a China first policy, and the space for a strong foreign bank in China’s banking system looks questionable, even as the developing crisis in real-estate could pull it lower.
Ok – so good for UK banks…
Whatever the respective bank numbers show this week, the banks will remain core holdings for many investors. Generally, big banks are perceived to be “relatively” safe. Regulation has reduced their market risk profiles, and strengthened capital bases since the post-Lehman unpleasantness in 2008 which saw RBS rescued by government.
Conventional investment wisdom says the more “dull, boring and predictable” a bank is, the more valuable it will be perceived in terms of stable predictable dividends, sound risk management, and for not surprising investors. Strong banks are perceived to be less vulnerable to competition with deep moats around their business.
Since 2008 that’s changed – in ways the incumbent banks have completely missed. The costs of entry have tumbled as banking has evolved into a completely different service. New, more nimble Fin-Techs like Revolut, digital challenger banks such as Starling, and cheaper foreign competitors, including the Yanks, are not only eating their lunch, but dinner as well.
The old established UK banks don’t seem to have a clue it’s happening. These incumbent banks look like dinosaurs wondering what that bright shiny light getting bigger in the sky might be. Despite proudly boasting of hundreds years of history, they are constrained by old tech ledger systems and never built centralised data-lakes from their information on individuals or the financial behaviours of crowds to improve and develop their services and income streams.
The future of banking is going to be about Tech and how effectively banks compete in a marketplace of online digital facilities and services. Banks that you use tech smartly will see their costs tumble, freeing up resources to do more, better! (When I ran a major bank’s FIG (Financial Institutions Group) about 100 years ago – the best banks were those with lowest cost-to-income ratio!)
There is an excellent article outlining FinTechs and Challengers from Chris Skinner this morning: Europe’s Challenger Banks are Challenging (and worth more than the old names). Let me pluck a bite from his piece: “Revolut is the most valuable UK tech start-up in history and the eighth biggest private company in the world, worth an estimated US$33 billion, according to CB Insights. Revolut has more than 16 million customers worldwide and sees over 150 million transactions per month.”
The new generation of nimbler Fin Techs and Challengers can innovate product offerings with sophisticated new systems and software. In contrast, UK bank IT departments are engaged in digital archaeology. I understand only 17% of Senior Tech positions are held by women. Within the banks, I’m told its still a boys club, where the best paid IT jobs are for ancient bearded D&D playing coders brought into to patch 50 year-old archaic systems. Legacy systems leave the big banks with impossible catch up costs.
It’s probably unfair to say the big UK banks don’t know what’s happening – their management can’t be that unaware? Surely not…. But…. Maybe..
Although the banks brag how well diversified they are with over 37% of UK board members female – how much have they really changed? Hiring on the basis of diversity is a fad. At the risk of lighting the blue-touch paper and this comment exploding in my face, I would hazard to suggest the appointment of senior ladies who’ve worked their way up the existing financial system simply risks confirmation-bias on how things are conventionally done in banking.
They might do better hiring outside movers and shakers – rather than listening to themselves.
The bottom line is its not just their failure to innovate tech that’s a crisis. Over the years the UK banks have become increasingly sclerotic – slow to shift and adapt. The middle to senior levels of banking are hamstrung by bureaucracy, a satisficing culture, stifled innovation, a compliance fearful mindset, and senior management fixated on impressing the regulators first and foremost.
If the future of modern finance is a Tech hypersonic missile… British Banks are still building steam trains.
Pound yawns after mixed UK data
The British pound continues to have an uneventful week and the lack of activity has continued in the Friday session. GBP/USD has been trading close to the 1.38 level for most of the week and is currently at 1.3804, up 0.09% on the day. UK Retail Sales…
The British pound continues to have an uneventful week and the lack of activity has continued in the Friday session. GBP/USD has been trading close to the 1.38 level for most of the week and is currently at 1.3804, up 0.09% on the day.
UK Retail Sales dip
UK Retail Sales declined by 0.2% in September. This is a cause for concern, given that retail sales have now declined for three straight months, pointing to ongoing weakness in consumer spending. Retail sales remain subdued despite the relaxation of Covid restrictions in July, which has not resulted in consumers increasing their spending. On a positive note, retail sales remain above the pre-pandemic levels (February 2020).
There was better news from the September PMIs. Both the manufacturing and services PMIs accelerated and beat expectations, with readings of 57.7 and 58.0, respectively. This points to strong expansion in both sectors.
The markets have priced in a November rate hike, likely by 15 basis points. Although this would be a relatively small increase, it would mark the first rate hike by a major central bank since the Covid pandemic began. BoE Governor Andrew Bailey is poised to raise rates in order to curb inflation, which is running above 3%, well above the bank’s target of 2%. A majority of MPC members are expected to follow suit, but a vocal minority of members are warning that the move is unwarranted and could dampen the recovery and hurt growth and jobs.
In the US, positive data on Thursday gave the dollar a boost, although the pound has recovered much of these losses on Friday. The dollar index continues to trade in a range between 93.50 and 94.00 and is at 93.67 in Europe. A drop below 93.50 could see the index fall to the 0.93 line.
GBP/USD Technical Analysis
- On the upside, there is a triple top at 1.3830. A close above this line would leave the pair room to climb until resistance at the round number of 1.3900
- There are support levels at 1.368 and 1.3492
pound pandemic governor recovery consumer spending europe uk
Copper Price Update: Q3 2021 in Review
Jim Chanos: China’s “Leveraged Prosperity” Model Is Doomed…And That’s Not The Worst Of It
How to Read Stock Charts: A Guide for Beginners
Walmart Rolls Out Bitcoin ATMs Across 200 Stores Nationwide
Navigating the debt legacy of the pandemic
Tesla share price forecast after Q3 results
Zinc Prices Hit 14 Year High as Power Costs Rise
What is COP26? Here’s how global climate negotiations work and what’s expected from the Glasgow summit
Mission-driven ventures are growing fast during the pandemic
Seeking Solace in an Equal-Weight Cybersecurity ETF
Crypto14 hours ago
Walmart Rolls Out Bitcoin ATMs Across 200 Stores Nationwide
Stocks19 hours ago
Tesla share price forecast after Q3 results
Stocks10 hours ago
Zinc Prices Hit 14 Year High as Power Costs Rise
Stocks7 hours ago
PayPal Stock Forecast: Everything You Need to Know Before Investing
Stocks17 hours ago
Stocks That Miss Expectations Are Being Hammered By The Most On Record
Crypto15 hours ago
Shanghai Man: Blockchain Week with Vitalik still happening, ‘Bitcoin’ searches on WeChat hit 26M in a day
Science24 hours ago
JPM: “We Could Be Just Weeks Away From Cushing Effectively Running Out Of Crude”
Economics10 hours ago
Guest Contribution: “How far to full employment? – An update”