GLOBAL ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

Leo Haviland provides clients with original, provocative, cutting-edge fundamental supply/demand and technical research on major financial marketplaces and trends. He also offers independent consulting and risk management advice.

Haviland’s expertise is macro. He focuses on the intertwining of equity, debt, currency, and commodity arenas, including the political players, regulatory approaches, social factors, and rhetoric that affect them. In a changing and dynamic global economy, Haviland’s mission remains constant – to give timely, value-added marketplace insights and foresights.

Leo Haviland has three decades of experience in the Wall Street trading environment. He has worked for Goldman Sachs, Sempra Energy Trading, and other institutions. In his research and sales career in stock, interest rate, foreign exchange, and commodity battlefields, he has dealt with numerous and diverse financial institutions and individuals. Haviland is a graduate of the University of Chicago (Phi Beta Kappa) and the Cornell Law School.

 

Subscribe to Leo Haviland’s BLOG to receive updates and new marketplace essays.

RSS View Leo Haviland's LinkedIn profile View Leo Haviland’s profile




US STOCKS OVER THE LONG RUN: BEAR MARKETPLACE HISTORY © Leo Haviland, August 4, 2023

“It’s déjà vu all over again!”, declared Yogi Berra, a famous baseball star.

****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

Given the great significance of the United States within the global economy, both Wall Street and Main Street spend much attention and energy focusing on the American economic scene. Benchmark American stock indices such as the S+P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average to some extent probably reflect the overall health of and potential for the American economy. 

United States stock marketplace trends and phenomena intertwine with those of other global stock arenas. Prices and trends for (and assorted other economic, political, and social variables influencing) US signpost stock indices such as the S+P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average interrelate with those of key American and global interest rate, currency, commodity, real estate, and other economic domains. History reveals that these cultural relationships can and do change, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly. Convergence and divergence (lead/lag) patterns between marketplaces can and do shift or transform. 

Price levels and trends for these key American equity marketplaces therefore attract and sustain widespread and domestic international attention. 

****

US interest rate, dollar, commodity, real estate, and other marketplace trends entangle with and influence American stock trends. 

“Long Run Historical Entanglement: US Interest Rate and Stock Trends” (7/6/23) concluded: “Many times over the past century, significantly increasing United States interest rates have preceded a major peak, or at least a noteworthy top, in key stock marketplace benchmarks such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S+P 500. The yield climb sometimes has occurred over a rather extended time span. The arithmetical (basis point) change has not always been large. Sometimes the yield advance has extended past the time of the stock pinnacle.”

“Given the historic pattern in which UST [US Treasury; focus on the UST 10 year note] yield increases “lead” to peaks in key American stock benchmarks such as the S+P 500, do signs of a noteworthy rising yield trend exist on the interest rate front? Yes.” And “the pattern of rising UST 10 year note yields likely is leading to another peak in the S+P 500. This stock marketplace peak probably will occur relatively soon, probably within the next few weeks or months. However, even if the S+P 500 continues to climb, it probably will not exceed its January 2022 peak by much if at all.” 

The UST 10 year note yield broke through 3/2/23’s 4.09 percent interim high with 8/3/23’s 4.20 percent high. It thus is approaching 10/21/22’s 4.34 percent top, attained around the time of the S+P 500’s crucial trough on 10/13/22 at 3492. 

****

Given the importance of price trends in widely watched US equity indices such as the S+P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average, stock and other marketplace players and observers should review and assess long run bear (and bull) marketplace history for those American benchmarks. 

****

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
US Stocks Over the Long Run- Bear Marketplace History (8-4-23)

EASING COMES, EASING GOES: US GOVERNMENT INTEREST RATES © Leo Haviland, March 13, 2017

In “Uncle John’s Band”, the Grateful Dead sing: “‘Cause when life looks like easy street, there is danger at your door”.

****

OVERVIEW

Many marketplace generals nowadays have faith that rising United States government interest rates reflects both sustained adequate American economic growth and the likely development of inflation sufficient to satisfy the Federal Reserve Board’s two percent yardstick. In addition to GDP growth and rising inflation and inflation expectations, observers also should focus on other issues and their consequence for assorted marketplace trends and relationships.

Viewpoints of natural (equilibrium, fair or true value, normal, average, appropriate) prices and price overshooting or undershooting (expensive, cheap; too high, too low) reflect subjective opinions, not science. In any case, relatively few observers ask whether the Federal Reserve guardian will permit inflation benchmarks to exceed for a relatively long time (and somewhat decisively) its adored two percent signpost. Such overshooting by notable inflation variables will tend to propel government yields higher than many expect. The US Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) jumped 2.5 percent year-on-year in January 2017. Will personal consumption expenditure (PCE) inflation also overshoot the Fed’s two percent target?

The Fed likely will tolerate inflation target overshooting for some time because it wants to be confident that the achievement of its inflation goal will be durable. Such an indulgent policy regarding overshooting still permits the Fed to engage in gradual increases in policy rates (Federal Funds), especially as asset prices (such as American stocks and real estate) have soared since their dismal global economic crisis lows and as the prospective US fiscal outlook appears rather expansionary (and even overly stimulative).

Also, trust in the ability of the Fed and its allies such as the European Central Bank to manage inflation is widespread. How many audiences worry whether the years of devoted yield repression have created a reservoir of pent-up inflation, which the Fed’s gradual rollback of accommodation (permitting higher Federal Funds and government rates) will unveil and reflect?

America has a substantial public debt. Not much attention focuses on the likelihood and implications of growing American federal budget deficits, even without any legislative changes, over the next decade and beyond. See the US Congressional Budget Office’s “The Budget and Economic Outlook; 2017 to 2027” (1/24/17), as well as “Federal Debt and the Statutory Limit” (3/7/17). According to the NY Times (3/10/17, pA21), on 3/13/17 the CBO is expected to release its judgment on the proposed House Republican legislation, the American Health Care Act, aiming to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Moreover, the media, politicians, and Wall Street have spent much attention on President’s Trump’s potential tax “reform” and express hope regarding his misty infrastructure plans. But not many pundits stress that Trump’s tax scheme (even without reference to Obamacare), if enacted, likely will cause massive rises in budget deficits. The Fed may elect to raise rates more quickly (aggressively) than some predict if Congress adopts much or all of the fiscal scheme of Trump and his comrades. In any case, most people do not ask how enthusiastic foreigners (who own a huge slice of Treasury debt) will be to keep financing growing budget shortfalls. The Fed sheriff, unlike the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan, is no longer wedded to quantitative easing (securities purchasing tied into money printing), so it will not rush to add many UST obligations to its balance sheet.

Also, all else equal, substantial questions regarding national leadership quality can undermine both political and economic confidence in that nation. This situation can encourage higher interest rates, a weaker currency, or both. Donald Trump lacks government insider experience. Domestic and international faith in his political leadership ability (and in the US Congress as a whole) is not high. In the film “Easy Rider” (director Dennis Hopper) a character underlines that “it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace.”

Fierce, widespread, and substantial ongoing partisan political (economic) divisions likewise risk weakening America’s currency and promoting increased government interest rates. Trump’s victory did not unite an already significantly divided America. In America, there are liberals (progressives) and conservatives (traditionalists). Populists (both left and right wing) confront the establishment (elites). Globalists contend with nationalists.

Trump’s “Make America Great Again!” and “America First” slogans and many of his policy pronouncements obviously appeal to large numbers of Americans. However, they do not attract or inspire many (and arguably a majority of) citizens. Though both the House and Senate are Republican-controlled, not all Republicans warmly support Trump and his policies. Although Trump triumphed in the Electoral College, he decisively lost the popular vote tally. The popular vote outcome obviously reflects America’s sharp political divisions. Also, the Russian President “directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation’s top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report” (NYTimes, 1/7/17, ppA1, 11). Trump’s popular vote defeat and the report on Russian political interference undermine Trump’s political “legitimacy” (faith in it) and thus his ability to lead effectively.

America has other substantial splits and fractures. It has rich versus poor, haves versus have-nots. Look at the nation’s substantial economic inequality. Consider divisions relating to race (ethnicity), gender, religion, age, geographic region, and urban/rural. Fiery quarrels rage over tax and spending policies and priorities, health care (Obamacare), trade policies, the appropriate degree of economic regulation, abortion rights, gun ownership, and environmental issues such as climate change.

With such ongoing, wide-ranging, and seemingly intractable American divisions and related passionate debates and accusations, worries increase regarding “how anything (good; productive; necessary) can get done”. Escalating doubts relating to leadership and concerns regarding the consequences of persistent divisiveness can encourage growing fears at home and abroad regarding the nation’s current and potential political and economic outlook. This horizon consequently may not necessarily encourage a “flight to quality” by buyers into the government debt securities of that country. Instead, particularly when inflation also is increasing and budget deficits likely will rise, low (deteriorating) confidence can spur interest rate rises.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Easing Comes, Easing Goes- US Government Interest Rates (3-13-17)

US NATURAL GAS: CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE © Leo Haviland February 1, 2016

“So much trouble in the world…
The way earthly thin’s are goin’
Anything can happen”. Bob Marley and the Wailers, “So Much Trouble in the World”

 ****

CONCLUSION AND OVERVIEW

In economics, politics, and other cultural fields, players create a variety of competing perspectives. They select between and arrange a variety of diverse variables to produce their arguments and conclusions. In commodity, currency, interest rate, and stock marketplaces, bulls and bears therefore tell a variety of contending stories. In natural gas as in other marketplace battlegrounds, an array of speakers creates assorted viewpoints fighting to attract attention and persuade eager audiences.

****

 

“Dangerous Times in US Natural Gas” (11/2/15) concluded: “The probable range for the United States natural gas marketplace (NYMEX nearest futures continuation basis) for the next several months is a relatively broad avenue between major support at 1.65/1.90 and significant resistance at 3.10/3.45.” The NYMEX natural gas major bear trend that followed 2/24/14’s major peak at 6.493 smashed through 4/27/15’s 2.443 minor low, 10/27/15’s 1.948 interim low, and the last prior major bottom (1.902 on 4/19/12), crashing to 1.684 on 12/18/15. Assuming normal weather for the balance of winter 2015-16 and spring/summer 2016, this range probably will persist for the next several months as well.

The high since December 2015’s low is 1/8/16’s 2.495. What would enable US natural gas prices (nearest futures) to sustain travels over 3.00? It probably will require significantly colder temperatures for the balance of winter, a blazing spring and summer, or (and especially) noteworthy cuts in natural gas production. Stronger than expected US (and global) economic growth would help rally natural gas prices. A major bull move in commodities “in general” (and especially in the petroleum complex) and a significant reversal of the major bull move in the broad real trade-weighted US dollar to some extent would assist a bull move in natural gas.

However, a somewhat significant containment risk (supplies too high relative to available storage capacity), nevertheless exists for US natural gas around the end of calendar 2016 build season. If containment fears grow stronger, and especially if actual problems develop, the 1.65 floor could be broken. In addition, US economic weakness (especially if accompanied by similar slumps around the globe), renewed feebleness in commodities (particularly in the petroleum world), and a continued strong trade-weighted US dollar would help to keep US natural gas prices under pressure.

****

Historical analysis indicates the major bear trend in US natural gas from February 2014 to December 2015 voyaged sufficiently far in price and duration terms to conclude that a trend shift from bearish to sideways occurred with December 2015’s low. However, the dramatic February 2014 to October 2015 price tumble is not the greatest or longest on record. So a further descent in NYMEX natural gas would not be unprecedented.

Anticipated end March 2016 gas inventories probably will be high in both arithmetic (bcf) and days coverage terms, a bearish consideration. However, based upon US Energy Information Administration (EIA) anticipated end October 2016’s 52.1 days coverage level slides 3.4 days beneath the 2006-15 end October average of 55.5 days and 1.5 days under 1990-2015’s 53.6 days.

Nevertheless, modest days coverage levels for October 2016 does not eliminate a containment danger; one should focus closely on arithmetic levels. The days coverage perspective of course does not provide a complete viewpoint on the natural gas inventory situation and related price risks. After all, arithmetic quantities (bcf) of gas must be put in arithmetic storage places. Especially if little new natural gas storage capacity has been (and is being) created, containment problems could emerge around the end of the 2016 inventory build season (roughly around end October 2016). And currently, the containment risks for the end of build season 2016 are not insubstantial; this bearish potentiality weighs on prices.

Yet sustained low natural gas prices could reduce production more than some soothsayers forecast. This would help reduce containment risks. Note the big drop in US natural gas rig counts. A sustained slump back under 2.00 might boost electric power switching from coal to gas.

Everyone knows that much can happen between now and 2017, whether in natural gas or elsewhere. Yet based upon the EIA’s bcf prediction, natural gas days coverage at end October 2017 probably will be less than average, a bullish factor. And the EIA’s bcf arithmetic inventory forecast for end October 2017 implies there probably will not be a containment problem around the end of build season 2017.

****

Natural gas prices often travel substantially independently of both petroleum (and commodities “in general”) and so-called “international” or “financial” marketplaces and variables. Trend changes in NYMEX natural gas need not roughly coincide with one in the petroleum complex or commodities in general, or currency, stock, or interest rate playgrounds.

However, especially since mid-to-late June 2014 (NYMEX natural gas nearest futures interim high 6/16/14 at 4.886) and into calendar 2015 (gas interim top 5/19/15 at 3.105), bearish natural gas price movements intertwined with those in the petroleum complex (and commodities in general) and the bull move in the broad real trade-weighted US dollar. Such natural gas retreats to some extent paralleled slumps in emerging marketplace stocks. Note also the timing coincidence between May 2015’s natural gas top and the S+P 500’s 5/20/15 peak at 2135. In regard to the timing of the S+P 500’s May 2015 high, note that the nominal broad trade-weighted dollar (Federal Reserve, H.10, which has daily data) made an interim low at 112.8 on 5/15/15 before appreciating further.

See “The Curtain Rises: 2016 Marketplace Theaters” (1/4/16), “Japanese Yen: Currency Adventures (2007-09 Revisited)” (1/14/16), “Commodities: Captivating Audiences” (10/12/15), and various related essays.

Natural gas prices indeed can trade “on their own”. But suppose a sustained bull move finally appeared in commodities “in general” (especially petroleum). Worldwide OECD industry and United States petroleum stocks are very elevated. OPEC next meets 6/2/16. It remains determined to capture market share and induce output cutbacks by high-cost oil producers around the world (including some American and Canadian ones). But is crude oil under 30 dollars a barrel “irrational”? The chairman of Saudi Arabia’s state oil company, Aramco said: “’The market has overshot on the low side and it is inevitable that it will start turning up’”, predicting higher prices by the end of the year.” (Financial Times, 1/22/16, p20). Will OPEC reach agreement with non-OPEC nations such as Russia to boost prices? Might OPEC hold an emergency meeting?

Key global central banks battle to ensure economic growth, create sufficient inflation (avoid deflation), and reduce unemployment. The European Central Bank recently suggested it might ease its already highly accommodative policies further (ECB Statement and Press Conference, 1/21/16). The Bank of Japan recently (1/29/16) eased its lax monetary policy even further, adopting negative interest rates. Will the Federal Reserve delay additional interest rate increases?

The Fed and its allies probably do not want the S+P 500 and related stock marketplaces to crash under their January 2016 lows. They also probably do not want the dollar’s bull move to extend much (if at all) beyond its January 2016 high. The US dollar’s major bull trend has been long and powerful. From its July 2011 major low around 80.5 to the recent January 2016 high at 101.2, the broad real trade-weighted dollar has climbed 25.8 percent (Federal Reserve, H.10; monthly average). What will happen to natural gas prices if the S+P 500 (and emerging marketplace stocks “in general”) rallied substantially? What if the US broad real trade-weighted dollar weakens notably (even if it remains relatively strong)?

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
US Natural Gas- Caught in the Middle (2-1-16)

DANGEROUS TIMES IN US NATURAL GAS © Leo Haviland November 2, 2015

The probable range for the United States natural gas marketplace (NYMEX nearest futures continuation basis) for the next several months is a relatively broad avenue between major support at 1.65/1.90 and significant resistance at 3.10/3.45. For prices to sustain voyages over 3.00, it probably will require a significantly colder than normal winter or noteworthy cuts in natural gas production. A containment risk (supplies too high relative to available storage), although currently not probable, nevertheless lurks for the end of calendar 2016 build season, especially if 2015-16’s winter is warmer than usual. If significant containment problems develop, and perhaps even if the potential for significant containment difficulties significantly increases, the 1.65 to 1.90 floor could be broken.

****

The NYMEX natural gas major bear trend that followed 2/24/14’s major peak at 6.493 smashed through 4/27/15’s 2.443 low, tumbling to 1.948 on 10/27/15 (near NYMEX contract expiration; many key troughs have occurred around contract expiration). The late October 2015 depth borders the last prior major bottom, 1.902 on 4/19/12. Historical analysis indicates the bear trend from February 2014 to October 2015 travelled sufficiently far in price and duration terms to look for a trend shift from bearish to neutral or bullish. In addition, the most recent Commitments of Traders reports for key natural gas contracts reveal a massive net noncommercial short position. Many significant marketplace trend changes in natural gas roughly coincide with very elevated net long or short noncommercial positions. Current and (assuming normal weather) anticipated upcoming natural gas days coverage through winter 2015-16 and the 2016 build season appear fairly close to historical averages, particularly in the context of NYMEX natural gas prices well under 3.00.

However, the dramatic February 2014 to October 2015 price tumble is not the greatest or longest on record. So a further descent in NYMEX natural gas would not be unprecedented. Moreover, the days coverage perspective of course does not provide a complete viewpoint on the natural gas inventory situation and related price risks. After all, arithmetic quantities (bcf) of gas must be put in arithmetic storage places. And currently, the containment risks for the end of build season 2016 are not insubstantial; this bearish potentiality weighs on prices.

****

Natural gas prices often travel substantially independently of both petroleum (and commodities “in general”) and so-called “international” or “financial” factors. Trend changes in NYMEX natural gas need not coincide with one in the petroleum complex or in commodities in general.

However, especially since mid-to-late June 2014 (NYMEX natural gas nearest futures interim high 6/16/14 at 4.886) and into calendar 2015 (gas interim top 5/19/15 at 3.105), bearish natural gas price movements have intertwined with those in the petroleum complex (and commodities in general) and the bull move in the broad real trade-weighted US dollar. Such natural gas retreats to some extent have paralleled slumps in emerging marketplace stocks. Note also the timing coincidence between May 2015’s natural gas top and the S+P 500’s 5/20/15 high at 2135. See “Commodities: Captivating Audiences” (10/12/15) and other recent essays.

Worldwide OECD industry and United States petroleum stocks are very elevated. OPEC next meets 12/4/15. It remains determined to capture market share and induce output cutbacks by high-cost oil producers around the world (including some American and Canadian ones). Thus even if petroleum manages to rally further from its recent lows, it likely will remain relatively weak. The broad real trade-weighted United States dollar edged slightly lower (about one percent) to 97.0 in October 2015 from its September 2015 bull move high at 98.0 (Federal Reserve, H.10; monthly average), but it probably will remain relatively strong for the near term. Weak oil and a strong dollar, all else equal, are bearish factors for American natural gas prices.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Dangerous Times in US Natural Gas (November 2, 2015)