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




JAPAN: FINANCIAL ARCHERY, SHOOTING ARROWS © Leo Haviland October 5, 2018

The famous military philosopher and analyst Carl von Clausewitz states in “On War” (Book Two, chapter 3; italics in original): “Rather than comparing it [war] to art we could more accurately compare it to commerce, which is also a conflict of human interests and activities; and it is still closer to politics, which in turn may be considered as a kind of commerce on a larger scale.”

 ****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

In late 2012, the Japanese political leadership dramatically unveiled its three “arrows” of easy money, flexible fiscal policy, and structural reform to improve the country’s economic performance. In practice, those Japanese political authorities generally represent major financial (corporate; commercial) interests (“Japan, Inc.”). The Bank of Japan’s policies since late 2012, though nominally independent of political and economic power centers, in practice reflects the goals of Japan’s substantial entrenched economic groups and the political representatives and bureaucrats aligned with them.

Monetary policy of course is not the only factor affecting GDP, inflation, and other intertwined variables. Yet Japan’s ongoing government fiscal deficit, though somewhat helpful for promoting growth and inflation, is not the most noteworthy element in the country’s policy array since end-2012. Moreover, the general government debt burden remains massive and likely will remain so for many years. According to the International Monetary Fund, Japan’s general government gross debt as a percent of GDP was 236.4 percent in 2017 (contrast the G-7 average of 118.6pc that year) and forecast at 236.0pc for 2018 and 234.2pc in 2019, dipping only slightly to 229.6pc by 2023 (“Fiscal Monitor”, April 2018, Table A7; the October 2018 update probably will not change Japan’s government debt as a percent of GDP statistics substantially). And structural reform in Japan, which usually crawls forward slowly, has been unremarkable.

The extremely easy monetary policy arrow embraced by the accommodative Japanese central bank for almost six years is the country’s critical weapon. The central bank chief faithfully and repeatedly proclaims that sustained inflation of two percent is a praiseworthy goal (as essentially do the sermons preached by other leading central banks such as the Federal Reserve Board and the European Central Bank). The Bank of Japan’s ongoing tools to achieve its aims include sustained yield repression and massive quantitative easing (money printing). So far, the Bank of Japan, despite its determination, has not come close to achieving two percent inflation. The consumer price trend in recent months manifests merely minor progress on that front. And although Japan’s quarterly GDP for April-June 2018 may signal enhanced year-on-year economic performance, International Monetary Fund forecasts are not as sunny.

Yet what else has the Bank of Japan (as a representative and reflection of the country’s political and economic generals) really battled to achieve via its remarkably lax monetary strategy? A notion of improved and acceptable economic growth and frequent reference to an iconic two percent “price stability target” do not offer a complete story. Moreover, the enthusiastic declaration of assorted monetary policy plans and tactics does not directly reveal important aspects about the economic (financial; commercial; marketplace) landscape within which the interrelated GDP and inflation goals are targeted and such extraordinary easy money programs are designed and applied.

In practice, what are the intermediate connections (means; methods) to the achievement of the allegedly ultimate ends of satisfactory growth and sufficient inflation? One key approach of the Bank of Japan’s magnificent scheme relates to currency depreciation, the other to stock marketplace appreciation. Japan’s central bank sentinel quietly has aimed to achieve the related objectives of Yen weakness and Japanese stock marketplace strength.

In recent times, Japan deliberately has kept a relatively low profile in foreign exchange, trade, and tariff conflicts. Compare the furious racket nowadays, especially since the advent of the Trump presidency, around the United States and China (and also in regard to the European Union, Mexico/Canada/NAFTA).

Nevertheless, for several years, Japan has waged a trade war (engaged in fierce currency competition) without capturing much international political attention or media coverage. The Bank of Japan (and its political and economic allies) in recent years has fought vigorously to depreciate the Yen (especially on an effective exchange rate basis) and thereby to bolster Japan’s current account surplus. Japan’s overall economic growth relies significantly on its net export situation. The Yen’s substantial retreat and its subsequent stay at a relatively low level and the significant expansion in the country’s current account surplus are glorious triumphs.

Since late 2012, the Bank of Japan also has struggled ferociously to rally the Japanese stock marketplace (boost corporate profits). As of early autumn 2018, this guardian has achieved significant victories in this campaign as well.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Japan- Financial Archery, Shooting Arrows (10-5-18)

STOCK MARKETPLACE MANEUVERS: CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE © Leo Haviland September 4, 2018

“Danger always strikes when everything seems fine.” From the movie “Seven Samurai” (Akira Kurosawa, director)

 ****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

American stock indices inspire an assortment of competing stories regarding them, including reasons for their past, present, and future levels and trends. Narratives and explanations regarding a broad “national” stock marketplace indicator such as the S+P 500 often involve those of equity weathervanes elsewhere. Discussions of interest rates, currencies, commodities, and other financial indicators may interrelate with stock marketplace analysis. These tales frequently indicate the extent to which given marketplace domains converge and diverge (lead or lag) with each other.

Many descriptions and analyses regarding broad benchmarks such as the S+P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average appear relatively unique to the United States. However, economic regions and marketplaces around the world increasingly have intertwined during the course of globalization in recent decades.

Therefore the directional travels (bull and bear adventures) of America’s “overall” stock marketplace increasingly have tended to parallel (converge with) stocks of other significant advanced countries and regions. In the increasingly intertwined global economy, trends of emerging marketplace stocks “in general” have interrelated with and often (but not always) resembled those of leading advanced nations.

Various advanced nation and emerging marketplace stock indices achieved very important highs “together” early in first quarter 2018. However, in recent months, probably beginning around the end of first quarter 2018, the generally bullish trend of the S+P 500 and other noteworthy US equity marketplace benchmarks have diverged substantially from the bearish trend of emerging marketplace stocks. Climbing US interest rates and a renewed rally in the broad real trade-weighted dollar, plus increasing trade war rhetoric, encouraged the relative and overall feebleness in emerging marketplace stocks.

In addition, the S+P 500 and other US stock indices have diverged somewhat from those of other key advanced nations, though less substantially than relative to emerging stock marketplace realms. Nevertheless, important European and Japanese stock arenas currently remain under their January 2018 highs (and mid-May 2018 ones). The failure of these overseas stock battlegrounds to achieve new highs alongside American ones, when interpreted alongside the decline in emerging marketplace stocks (and in relation to other economic variables), further hints that American stock benchmarks probably are establishing an important price peak around current levels.

In this context, bearish indicators for American equities include the longer run trend of rising US interest rates (note the yield lows of  July 2016 and September 2017), mammoth global debt totals, expanding American federal government budget deficits (aided by tax “reform”), and the rally in the broad real trade-weighted US dollar above a critical height. The Federal Reserve and other key central banks are not displaying signs of further easing; instead, the bias is toward tightening (even if only at a rather glacial pace). Also, United States stock marketplace valuations arguably are high by historical standards. A global trade war (tariff fights), or at least noteworthy skirmishes, is underway.

Populist pressures have not disappeared in America or elsewhere. Economic, political, and other cultural divisions in America are significant. What if the US mid-term elections this autumn return the Democrats to power in the House of Representatives (and perhaps the Senate as well)? Concerns about the quality of US Presidential leadership remain widespread.

****

The US tax “reform” legislation enacted in December 2017 has been a critical factor in creating the price divergence since around late first quarter 2018 between American stock price benchmarks and those elsewhere. The US corporate tax cut translated into higher reported earnings for American companies and thereby helped to rally American stocks. Other leading countries around the globe did not enact a similar generous gift for their corporations. Moreover, America’s tax reform likely further encouraged share buybacks by US corporations.

The second quarter 2018 blended earnings growth rate for the S+P 500 was 25.0 percent year-on-year (FactSet, “Earnings Insight”; 8/31/18). Thomson Reuters estimates S+P 500 2Q18 earnings soared 24.8pc (“S&P 500 Earnings Scorecard”; 8/28/18). Thomson Reuters data notes that 1Q18’s earnings likewise skyrocketed, up 26.6pc year-on-year (compare 4Q17’s boost of 14.8pc and 3Q17’s 8.5pc rise).

Both FactSet and Thomson Reuters forecast significant year-on-year earnings increases for the S+P 500 over the next two quarters of 2018. FactSet says analysts are projecting earnings will climb 20.0 percent in 3Q18 and 17.4pc in 4Q18. Thomson Reuters puts year-on-year earnings growth at roughly similar levels, with 3Q18 ballooning 22.3pc and 4Q18 up 20.3pc.

However, the rate of earnings increases slows in 2019. FactSet states earnings growth in 1Q19 will be 7.2pc year-on-year, with 2Q19 stretching up 7.5pc versus 2Q18. Thomson Reuters places 1Q19 growth at 8.2pc year-on-year, with that for 2Q19 up 9.3pc.

Perhaps the wonderful US corporate earnings of first half 2018 will be followed by the impressive earnings forecast for the balance of 2018. However, if notable shortfalls in actual earnings relative to such lofty current profit expectations occur, that probably will worry many stock bulls. Going forward, if forecasts for first half 2019 earnings for the S+P 500 are cut relative to current expectations, will that make S+P 500 bulls (“investors” and others) fearful. After all, the currently anticipated (conjectural) calendar 2019 earnings growth already dips significantly from those of calendar 2018’s quarters.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Stock Marketplace Maneuvers- Convergence and Divergence (9-4-18)

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)