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 TAX REFORM: PROPAGANDA AND PROSPECTS © Leo Haviland October 9, 2017

Genevieve Larkin exclaims in the film “Gold Diggers of 1937”: “It’s so hard to be good under the capitalist system!” (Lloyd Bacon, director)

****

CONCLUSION AND OVERVIEW

The most recent American corporate and individual tax “reform” proposal sketched by the President and Republican Congressional leadership is merely a “framework”. These ringleaders and their acolytes proclaim that genuine legislative planning and serious negotiations will create a robust document, a beneficial bill suitable for passage. However, the overall explicit and implicit policy substance (partisan aims) incorporated in the current outline probably will not become law. Even if a few elements of the “reform” scheme manage to pass the House and Senate and become law, at most this will represent modest tinkering with rather than major changes in the current tax code.

****

Why will the corporate and individual tax reform program advocated by the President and others generally fail to be enacted? First, partisan political divisions in America in general and Congress in particular are too severe. Although the Republicans control both Houses of Congress, their Senate majority is slim. Whereas Congressional Democrats for the most part have held ranks since the 2016 election, Republican unity, particularly within the Senate, has been fragile. Not all Republicans adopt the same (or Trump’s policies).

The corporate and individual tax code reflects a diversity of political (cultural) viewpoints. Consequently, perspectives regarding as well as campaigns to transform, modify, or preserve critical aspects of it reflect opinions. Thus competing cultural camps with assorted outlooks and aims engage in heated rhetorical battles to advance their interests. Moreover, these proposed so-called tax reforms represent significant ideological approaches, not merely cosmetic fixes and updates.

In recent years, compromise in Congress in various critical policy matters has appeared with less frequency and generally only grudgingly. If the Senate cannot repeal (or repeal and replace) Obamacare (Affordable Care Act), how will they manage to make substantial alterations in an extremely complex document such as the United States tax code? Donald Trump’s remarkable and shocking Presidential triumph in America’s 11/8/16 election has not been followed by Congressional passage of his legislative agenda (Inauguration Day was 1/20/17). Why will Democrats help President Trump and Republicans win a notable legislative victory on taxation with election 2018 coming into view?

In the United States, even though labels are not definitive and groups can overlap, look further at and beyond the “political” sphere. America of course has never been entirely homogeneous or unified. The widely-shared American Dream has been expressed and implemented in various ways. Yet America’s disagreements and debates currently are wide-ranging. The lines between and within camps are not always clear; moreover, individuals may be loyal (belong) to various (and often competing) categories.

In any case, the long list of America’s noteworthy splits and fractures makes it especially changing to enact wide-ranging changes in the core taxation (and spending, including entitlements) policy arena. There are liberals (progressives), conservatives (traditionalists), centrists (moderates), and independents. Populists (both left and right wing) confront the establishment (elites). Globalists contend with nationalists.

America, as a house divided, has rich versus poor, haves versus have-nots. Highlight the nation’s substantial economic inequality. Is America nowadays a Gilded Age era? Are economic and social mobility increasing?

Consider divisions relating to race (ethnicity), gender/sexuality, religion, age, geographic region, and urban/rural. Fierce quarrels rage not only over tax and spending policies, but also over health care. Heated fights occur on trade and tariff issues, economic regulation (how much is appropriate), abortion rights, immigration, gun ownership, and environmental fields such as climate change.

****

Moreover, President Trump probably will be unable to lead the contending camps inside and outside Congress toward a realization of his tax “reform” plan. Some circles fervently admire Trump. His “Make America Great Again!” and “America First” slogans and many of his policy pronouncements obviously appeal to large numbers of Americans. Yet he nowadays lacks sufficient influence over Congress as a whole, including parts of the Republican caucus. And among the nation in general, his popularity is quite low. Many observers see him as erratic in his outlook and imprudent and insensitive in his opinions and actions.

Moreover, Donald Trump lacks government insider experience. Rhetoric and behavior (and talents) suitable for running a successful family-owned business, a reality television show, or even a successful Presidential campaign are not necessarily appropriate (adequate; likely to succeed) in regard to leading a country well or inspiring Congress to adopt his policy agenda.

Although Trump won 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 reports on Russian political interference undermine Trump’s political “legitimacy” (faith in it) and thus his ability to lead effectively.

The President’s continued unwillingness to release his own tax returns makes it challenging for some to agree with his reform package. Might he or his family benefit from the proposed framework?

****

Over three decades have passed since the last notable US tax reform (Tax Reform Act of 1986). Even though many gurus complain about parts of the current personal and corporate tax system, there does not appear to be a widespread consensus as to how to dramatically overhaul it.

Keep in mind that the individual and corporate tax codes are not merely long and complicated. It is a rhetorical structure reflecting a large and complicated society. Its lengthy enshrined provisions and interpretations of them therefore frequently represent competing visions and values. America’s current tax laws took a long time to reach their current structure. The US from the vantage points of both individuals and corporations of course is a diverse and complex country; this parallels the complexity of the global economy, with which the nation is enmeshed. Some “special interests” will fight vigorously for the proposed “reform” (or parts of it), but other crews will lobby heatedly against all or many of its provisions. These considerations also make it very difficult, and particularly unlikely in the current domestic American political environment, for substantial tax changes (“reform” of whatever fashion) to occur.

****

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
US Tax Reform- Propaganda and Prospects (10-9-17)

MARKETPLACE TANTRUMS (AND OTHER SIGNS, SOUNDS, AND FURY) © Leo Haviland, July 11, 2017

“In the day we sweat it out in the streets of a runaway American dream”, sings Bruce Springsteen in “Born to Run”.

****

CONCLUSION

Wizards in Wall Street and coaches on Main Street offer a variety of competing descriptions of and reasons for the emergence, continuation, and ending of economic trends, including bull and bear patterns in stock, interest rate, currency, and commodity marketplaces. Apparently dramatic price fluctuations and trend changes frequently inspire heated language of volatility, spikes, crashes, mania, and panic. Colorful metaphors frequently punctuate the tales and explanations. The Federal Reserve Board Chairman’s May and June 2013 tapering talk about a potential reduction in quantitative easing (money printing) in conjunction with marketplace movements generated wordplay of a “taper tantrum”.

In recent weeks, international financial marketplaces and media have worried that central bank policy tightening (or threats of such action) will ignite a taper tantrum akin to what occurred around late spring 2013. That fearsome event saw stocks plummeting and interest rate yields rising rather rapidly in the United States and elsewhere around the globe.

Not only is the Federal Reserve in the process of slowly raising the Federal Funds rate and chirping about diminishing the size of its gargantuan balance sheet. The European Central Bank and others have hinted about reducing the extent of their highly accommodative monetary policies. The ECB is buying €60 billion in mostly government bonds each month via quantitative easing. Will the ECB taper its purchases in 2018?

The Financial Times headlined: “Confusion as Carney [Bank of England Governor] and Draghi [ECB President] struggle to clarify stimulus exit” and “‘Taper tantrum’ echoes” (6/29/17, p1). “End of cheap money leaves central bankers lost for words” and “Officials struggle to convey policy direction precisely to avoid further ‘taper tantrums’” (FT, 6/29/17, p3). “Central bank retreat from QE gathers pace”; “Sudden hawkish shift in policy across the globe has analysts talking of new ‘taper tantrum’” (FT, 7/5/17, p20).

Central bank language and behavior (whether by the Fed or one of its allies) expressing willingness to reduce (or cease) very easy money schemes indeed increase the chances of rising yields in key debt signposts such as the US Treasury 10 year note and boost the likelihood of a decline in important stock benchmarks such as the S+P 500.

Though central banks nowadays may (as in 2013 and at other historical points) spark or accelerate noteworthy trends in securities (and other) marketplaces, the central bank policy factor nevertheless intertwines with numerous other economic and political phenomena. And one or more of such other variables significantly may help to inspire a noisy marketplace “tantrum”. Not all marketplace tantrums are “taper tantrums”.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Marketplace Tantrums (and Other Signs, Sounds, and Fury) (7-11-17)

THE NEW WORLD?! US ELECTION AFTERMATH © Leo Haviland November 15, 2016

In “The New World”, the band X sings:
“Honest to goodness
The bars weren’t open this morning
They must have been voting for the president of something…
It was better before
Before they voted for what’s-his-name
This was supposed to be the new world”.

“Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow
Don’t stop, it’ll soon be here
It’ll be, better than before
Yesterday’s gone, yesterday’s gone”. Fleetwood Mac, “Don’t Stop”

****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

What marketplace consequences will ensue from Donald Trump’s surprising “populist” victory? Much obviously depends on how successfully the new President implements his campaign agenda. Some aspects of his plans in principle and practice require clarification. And he might elect to change his current political views and aims. However, at present one should assume this leader generally will seek to accomplish the broad outlines of his recent messages, particularly in the economic arena.

In trade and several other matters, the President retains substantial freedom relative to Congress. However, even though the Republicans control the Senate and House of Representatives, passage of the new President’s proposed legislation is not guaranteed. The Republican Party has significant divisions. Senate Democrats, as they control well over 40 seats, likely can block many executive branch proposals.

Moreover, in a globalized and multipolar world, America’s political and economic fields, even after dramatic change such as that represented by Trump’s triumph, of course do not move independently of other realms. In addition, numerous assorted and entangled variables and trends, not just those closely linked to the 2016 election and American political (economic) scene, influence financial marketplaces in the United States and elsewhere. Besides, benchmark interest rate, currency, stock, and commodity benchmarks themselves intertwine. The economic game, like the political one, moves as it plays.

****

With such complexities and caveats in mind, let’s concentrate on three key parts of the American and global financial marketplace pictures, the United States Treasury 10 year note, the broad real trade-weighted US dollar (“TWD”), and the S+P 500. The long run yield trend for the UST probably is up. In the near term, the dollar will challenge and perhaps break modestly above its January 2016 high. However, as time passes and the new President and his friends fight to implement his policies, the trade-weighted dollar probably will embark upon a notable bear trend. Though it is a very difficult call, the S+P 500 probably will not surpass 8/15/16’s record high at 2194 by more than five percent.

To some extent, and although not exclusively, the patterns of rising interest rates and the (eventually) weaker dollar probably will derive from a growing lack of domestic and international confidence in American political and economic leadership and policies. America’s ongoing severe political and other cultural divisions likely will interrelate with this eroding trust. The passing and outcome of America’s Election Day 11/8/16 did not bury the nation’s substantial conflicts. Widespread support for Trump and Sanders showed that American “populist” ideologies, whether within so-called right wing/conservative congregations or left wing/liberal fraternities, likely will not soon surrender their attractiveness or fervor. But the “establishment” (elites) have not fled the battleground or abandoned their doctrines.

UPCOMING MARKETPLACE ADVENTURES

“Fasten your seatbelts, it’s going to be a bumpy night!” advises Margo Channing in the movie “All About Eve” (Joseph Mankiewicz, director)

****

The aftermath of Trump’s victory saw the UST 10 year note yield jump sharply, breaking above 3/16/16’s 2.00 percent. Yet recall that UST yields had been climbing higher several months prior to his win; recall 7/6/16’s 1.32 percent bottom. US inflation expectations also have ascended since early summer. The St. Louis Fed’s measure of expected inflation (on average) for the five year period that begins five years from today has risen from 1.41 percent (7/5/16) to over two pc recently (11/10/16’s 2.06pc).

Why should US Treasury 10 year note yields keep rising from current levels around 2.25 percent?

First, America’s debt was rather lofty and likely to trend higher over the next decade (and probably thereafter) even before Trump’s win. See the Congressional Budget Office’s “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026” (8/23/16; this study did not include Trump’s plans). Second, and very importantly, most experts believe Trump’s (Republican) tax and spending (think of infrastructure projects to help make America great again) proposals, if enacted, will result in even more massive budgets deficits. Gaping budget holes, especially those lasting for several years, represent a demand for cash to fill them. Who will do so, and at what price? For many months (a long time before the November 2016 election), foreign official institutions have been notable and consistent net sellers of UST notes and bonds (next Treasury International System/TIC release is 11/16/16). See the essay “Running for Cover: Foreign Official Holdings of US Treasury Securities” (10/13/16).

Moreover, the Federal Reserve Board, which has for several years repressed the Federal Funds rate (and thus the government yield curve) at artificially low levels, again has hinted it will gradually normalize rates. The next Fed meeting is 12/13-14/16. Admittedly, inflation benchmarks such as the consumer price index and personal consumption expenditures have not marched above the Fed’s beloved two percent target. The Fed nevertheless nowadays likely will be more inclined to push rates higher. Not only is the election past, but also the likelihood of monumental US fiscal stimulus (huge budget deficits) encourages rate hikes. In addition, headline unemployment is around the Fed’s goal. Asset prices such as stocks (S+P 500) and real estate have soared from their international economic disaster depths.

In his political apprenticeship on the campaign trails, Trump criticized Fed rate suppression. Perhaps he should have been more careful regarding the higher policy rates for which he implicitly asked. Since Trump and others criticized the Fed for keeping rates on the ground floor, they hardly can complain (at least for a while) about upward Federal Funds rate moves.

In addition, keep in mind that the Fed for several years engaged in mammoth money printing (quantitative easing). Although the Fed ceased QE, it has not reversed its money printing actions. Thus though some inflation measures (such as the CPI) are low, even before the election 2016 outcome, there arguably was potential for eventual inflation ascents as a consequence of the Fed’s ardent QE monetary stimulus. Assuming the new US political regime enacts hefty individual (and corporate) tax cuts and embarks on its infrastructure schemes, Trump’s festive tax and spending party will intertwine with this earlier Fed money printing extravaganza. Also, the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan continue to print money.

Signs of US wage inflation have appeared. There remains some pressure to boost the minimum wage. Would a big infrastructure plan, if it occurs a time of low headline unemployment, lift labor prices? Also, suppose the US deports a significant number of illegal (undocumented foreign) workers; that will tend to push wages and thus interest rates higher, though gurus can quarrel as to how much.

Suppose inflation marches higher and sustains levels around the Fed’s two percent weathervane. To (finally) give savers (creditors) a decent return relative to inflation, UST rates obviously should be above that goal. Focus on the UST 10 year. A one pc premium (100 basis points) makes the UST 10 year yield 3.00pc, well above current levels. The 6/11/15 top was 2.50pc. Above that stands 1/2/14’s 3.05pc peak. A two pc premium makes the UST 4.00pc. Obviously, no guarantee exists that the inflation level, if it advances, will halt at two percent (or that the Fed immediately will fight vigorously to contain inflation once it touches two pc).

Suppose US government (and many other related) interest rates rise from low levels. Will current debt holders start to run for the exits? Supply from those sellers of “old” debt may supplement the US government’s effort to sell “new” securities to finance tax cuts and spending programs.

Finally, suppose America imposes tariffs to ensure “fair” trade. Viewed alone, this perhaps will tend to increase the price of goods and services sold in the US. Of course other nations may respond. Some may cut prices to retain access to the American marketplace. Or, a genuine trade war could help weaken world (and US) GDP and keep prices and rates low.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
The New World- US Election Aftermath (11-15-16)

RUNNING FOR COVER: FOREIGN OFFICIAL HOLDINGS OF US TREASURY SECURITIES © Leo Haviland October 13, 2016

“I know what gold does to men’s souls,” says a grizzled prospector in the movie, “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (John Huston, director)

****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

Foreigners hold a massive quantity and substantial share of United States Treasury securities. Such foreign ownership of and trading activity in UST therefore is an important variable for US government interest rate levels and trends, which in turn intertwine with yield elevations and movements in other American debt playgrounds. And of course to some extent, and in various (and sometimes changing) fashions and degrees, given the importance of America within the global economy, UST yields interrelate with and influence yields overseas, as well as assorted currency, stock, and commodity marketplace levels and trends.

Federal Reserve Board (and other key central bank) policy, inflation trends (in America and other major nations), equity adventures (for the S+P 500 and other important advanced nation and emerging marketplace benchmarks), and the strength of the US dollar will influence decisions by current and potential overseas owners of UST. So will numerous other economic as well as political factors such as the America’s November 8, 2016 election and its aftermath.

****

Many marketplace visionaries focus primarily on the grand total of foreign holdings of United States Treasury securities, ascents and descents in that sum, and that amount’s relative share of US debt outstanding. This indeed can provide observers with helpful information.

Yet in regard to UST ownership by overseas entities, the foreign official and private sectors do not necessarily behave the same way. Sometimes this distinction appears significant enough over time to monitor closely.

Thus concentrating on the grand total of foreign holdings and shifts in that statistic risk overlooking an important pattern which appeared in recent months within those holdings. What is that pattern? The net foreign official holdings have fallen not only as a percentage of overall foreign holdings, but also in absolute levels. This substantial official exodus is important.

Suppose not only that such noteworthy net UST liquidation by the foreign official sector persists, but also that the overseas private sector decides to reduce its net buying significantly, or to become a net seller. All else equal, that will help to push UST yields higher.

Selecting variables regarding as well as presenting explanations (“causes”) for marketplace and other cultural phenomena reflect the subjective viewpoint and rhetoric of the given storyteller. And marketplace history does not necessarily entirely or even partly repeat itself. Net foreign official selling (or net buying) of US Treasury securities of course is not always or the only factor relevant to American stock marketplace trends. Marketplace participants nevertheless should note that sometimes over roughly the past two decades (since 1997), substantial net foreign official selling of UST can be associated with a decline in the S+P 500.

US federal budget deficits indeed have plummeted from their pinnacles reached due to the global economic disaster. But they have not disappeared. And they probably will increase in subsequent years. So looking forward (and all else equal), if substantial net foreign selling of UST by both the foreign official and private groups exists, that will make it increasingly difficult for the American government to finance looming budget deficits. Will this eventually encourage UST yield rises? Perhaps the US public will help to fill the deficit financing gap, but it may take higher rates (better real returns) than currently exist to inspire them.

 

A DELUGE OF DEBT

“‘A Ti-tan iv Fi-nance,’ said Mr. Dooley, ‘is a man that’s got more money thin he can carry without bein’ disordherly. They’se no intoxicant in th’ wurruld, Hinnissy, like money.’” (Finley Peter Dunne’s “Mr. Dooley” commenting “On Wall Street”; spelling as in the original)

****

There are various measures of US federal (national) indebtedness. Also, reports regarding breakdowns in debt ownership at times vary in their presentation. But regardless of the analytical perspective embraced, foreign ownership of UST is substantial in absolute and percentage of debt terms.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Running for Cover- Foreign Official Holdings of US Treasury Securities (10-13-16)