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




DIVERGENCE AND CONVERGENCE: US STOCKS AND AMERICAN POLITICS © Leo Haviland July 11, 2020

William Butler Yeats said in his poem “The Second Coming”:
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

Numerous United States stock marketplace and economic wizards share a common faith that levels and trends in broad-based equity benchmarks such as the S+P 500 adequately represent the nation’s overall current economic “reality”, signal (forecast) the country’s future economic conditions, or both. Conversely, the present-day or prospective economic situation (or both) allegedly are built into or forecast S+P 500 and related stock signposts elevations and trends. Leading promoters of this creed frequently also are apostles of stock investment (buying), especially over the misty long run. Thus strong (bullish) US stocks supposedly equal, reflect, or confirm (at least to a substantial extent and at some point in time) a robust economy.

Assorted economic (commercial; business) variables around the globe of course influence patterns in American (and other international) stock marketplaces. So do political and other cultural factors. The perspectives on, analytical methods regarding, and arguments and conclusions relating to such cultural phenomena nevertheless are entirely subjective (matters of opinion; not scientific). Thus reasonable gurus can and do vary in their enlightened views regarding issues such as how to organize “the” past, present, and future, as well as in their causation and probability assessments regarding one or more marketplaces. This contrasts with the objective (Natural; true for all) sciences such as biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and mechanical engineering.

A given financial marketplace such as the S+P 500 and data (variables, facts, factors, evidence, statistics) related to it converge and diverge (lead/lag) in a variety of fashions. Existing relationships can change, sometimes dramatically. Marketplace history is not marketplace destiny.

****

The S+P 500 rapidly crashed about 35.4 percent in only one month from its 2/19/20 pinnacle at 3394 to its dismal 3/23/20 trough at 2192. However, it thereafter skyrocketed nearly 47.5 percent to 6/8/20’s 3233, only about five percent beneath 2/19/20’s height. The S+P 500’s current level around 3185 neighbors the early June 2020 high. Generous money printing (quantitative easing) and yield repression (and other assistance) from the beloved Federal Reserve and its central banking allies substantially contributed to the spike from March 2020’s depth. So did massive deficit spending. Substantial bull moves in various important “technology” stocks within the S+P 500, and the related climb in the technologically-composed Nasdaq Composite Index, greatly assisted the upward march and sustained strength in the S+P 500.

Although the Nasdaq Composite Index and many leading (popular; large-capitalization) technology stocks achieved new highs very recently, several actual or probable divergences (and some convergences) within or linked to the S+P 500 stock playground warn that it will be difficult for the S+P 500 to surpass its lofty February 2020 peak by much, if at all, over the next several months. These factors not only probably will undermine the S+P 500 and induce it to start declining, but also will inspire a related fall in the Nasdaq Composite Index.

DIVERGENCE: AMERICAN STOCKS

The poet Wallace Stevens declared: “Nothing is itself taken alone. Things are because of interrelations or interactions.”

****

Various forms of divergence (and convergence) relevant to stock marketplaces exist.

These include how a given marketplace recently has moved, or is travelling, relative to its past (or “overall”) history. It can include relationships between “the” stock marketplace (such as the S+P 500 benchmark) and other stock indices (both domestic and foreign), marketplace sectors (such as technology, energy, or finance; emerging marketplace stocks) or particular stocks. An apparent existing relationship between United States stocks and other financial territories such as interest rates (picture the US Treasury marketplace or high-yield corporate debt), the US dollar, and key commodities such as petroleum and base metals can change, sometimes dramatically. For the S+P 500, a stock sector, or an individual equity, its level, trend, and valuation can seem to converge or diverge with its earnings (or other variables).

To what extent has or will America’s coronavirus history, current trends, and future probabilities intersect with the S+P 500? Recall the vicious economic decline and sharp stock slumps during first quarter 2020 as the coronavirus spread worldwide and in America. Yet the significant increase in recent weeks in the America’s coronavirus infection rate contrasts with the persistent strength in the S+P 500, and with the Nasdaq Composite Index’s stellar ascent to all-time highs.

Significant divisions (divergence) and heated conflicts nowadays exist in America’s political and other cultural theaters. Political phenomena of course intertwine with economic ones, including financial marketplaces such as stocks. To some extent, the rally (“high” prices) in American stock benchmarks such as the S+P 500 diverges from the likely enactment (reality) of corporate and capital gain tax increases. In America’s upcoming November 2020 national election, Biden very likely will defeat Trump. The Democrats should retain control of the House of Representatives. The Democrats probably will gain Senate seats, and they have a very good chance of capturing the Senate. This unification of Democratic power on the national level not only will be a dramatic change in government. Tax policies embraced by Biden and the Democrats likely will be bearish factors for the S+P 500.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Divergence and Convergence- US Stocks and American Politics (7-11-20)

US ELECTION 2020: POLITICS, PANDEMIC, AND MARKETPLACES © Leo Haviland June 3, 2020

CULTURAL OVERVIEW: A HOUSE DIVIDED

Competing aphorisms and advice abound regarding the uncertainties, unpredictability, probabilities, risks, opportunities, and appropriate viewpoints and methods in marketplaces such as stocks, interest rates, currencies, commodities, and real estate. Political stages also fill with diverse adages, slogans, perspectives, approaches, insights, foresights, predictions, and explanations.

The American cultural scenes (economic, political, and social) and opinions regarding them interrelate, and these entangle relatively closely with numerous foreign ones in a globalized world. This reflects and encourages wide ranges in outlook and recommendations for behavior.

****

American history reflects and describes a generally-shared culture, which the American Dream concept significantly reflects. However, over the span of about four centuries (and even in recent decades) that culture and interpretations of it have not been unchanging. The degree of consensus has varied. Moreover, not all groups have been equally able to participate in the economic, political, and social benefits (promises; valued “good” aspects) of the American Dream.

****

Thus America, even when united, always has had some internal differences in viewpoint (including opinions on the proper applications of a generally shared cultural theory) and thus assorted episodes and varying degrees of conflict. Let’s concentrate on today’s political panorama, which reflects (is permeated by) economic phenomena and interests. Admittedly, we’re not dwelling in the Civil War era of the mid-19th century. And the present-day United States political landscape (its ideological and structural parameters) is not anarchic. Nevertheless, the nation’s current political situation displays extensive divisions across numerous fields. The number and sharpness of these splits arguably have been increasing over the past few decades, as well as increasing (or at least becoming more evident) since President Trump’s 2016 election campaign and triumph.

A rapid survey of the United States unveils a country significantly divided across belief (doctrinal) dimensions as well as group membership categories. Subjective views occur on a continuum. For example, not all so-called “conservative” opinions are identical. Or, a given “liberal” (or progressive or globalist) may support some “nationalist” policies. Of course not all members of a given racial (ethnic), sex, or age category embrace the same opinion on a given policy or set of them. Consequently, beliefs, groups, and individuals do not necessarily or inevitably all end up on the same side of a ledger. Moreover, definitions and applications of political and other cultural labels can and do change. How should we define and measure liberty, freedom, and equality?

Anyway, numerous divisions apparently exist. These reflect values, visions for what is “good”, “bad”, and “neutral”. Cultural values inescapably involve emotions, not just reasoning; and emotions permeate the reasoning.

Look not only at (and within) the leading political parties, the Democrats (blue) and Republicans (red). The political spectrum reveals a range of opinions from left-wing to right-wing. Populists (which include left and right sides in orientation) battle against the “establishment” and associated elites (“the Man”; an entrenched political/economic/social power structure). Nationalists (“Make America Great Again!” is one mantra) fight against globalists (and multiculturalists); conservatives (or alleged reactionaries) combat liberals (perhaps some of these are progressives) and socialists (radicals; anarchists). Assorted political and economic “haves” fight in assorted ways with “have-nots”. Ardent debates rage about economic inequality and opportunity as well as social mobility. Allegiance to “capitalism” and the “free market” (however defined) varies in scope and intensity. Other contentious issues include abortion, the environment (including climate change), health care, immigration, race relations, gun control, and international trade. Such viewpoints incorporate values and result in propaganda battles to advance aims and defeat foes.

Within American political life and its communities, note the language (metaphors) of war, battle, and violence. Also examine wordplay of love and friendship. For example, people may love (or hate) a political candidate or party and its policies.

Rather lofty US government deficit spending has become entrenched. And sometimes, like nowadays in the coronavirus era (which involves a war against the disease), most Americans appreciate a generous helping hand and support a large (expensive) economic rescue package. However, significant disagreement remains regarding the role and extent of the federal government in our lives. Fervent quarrels burst into the open as to the appropriateness of, relative importance of, and actual expenditure on specific programs.

What generic cultural classifications to which individuals belong nowadays reflect (and offer opportunities for and encourage) partisanship and rhetorical conflict? These are numerous. The body politic is fractured. Noteworthy divides exist on the basis of race/ethnic, sex/gender and sexuality, age/generation, geographical location (region of the country; urban/suburban/rural), religion/faith, and level of wealth/income.

****

In politics, economics, and elsewhere in culture, although a subjective consensus sometimes develops and persists, participants also can and do disagree on what information (facts, evidence, factors, data, statistics) is relevant and on the relative importance of such variables, as well as on the proper means of organizing and evaluating such phenomena. Where widespread cultural divisions exist, as in America nowadays, such diverse debates (dissonance) relating to “the facts” at times can severely challenge the abilities of even knowledgeable and experienced forecasters to predict a particular outcome, such as the 2020 American Presidential election battle between Trump and Biden, with a high degree of confidence.

Moreover, to the extent that citizens have diminished faith in political institutions and leaders, this increases (encourages) the potential for cultural splits and wars. Arguments from authority may become less compelling to the “average citizen”; many disagreements tend to become harder to resolve. It’s often difficult for enemies to make peace. This situation can boost the amount and loudness of divisive rhetoric and thus make it significantly harder to predict some outcomes.

History shows that a willingness to compromise, listen closely to and respect opposing views and values, and practice substantial civility ebbs and flows on political stages, even when differences between rivals are substantial. However, the American political scene during the Trump regime generally manifests a weakening inclination to do so by many participants. This increases the rhetorical racket.

The information revolution obviously is a complex topic. Nevertheless, the voices unleashed nowadays in cultural domains via mass communication media create and sustain Towers of Babel. And the internet in particular enables a “democratic” explosion of voices seeking to achieve some form of power, to become or remain relevant and influential. The massive amount of allegedly relevant information potentially important to “appropriate” cultural decision-making and the proliferation of supposedly satisfactory gurus and guides (opinion-makers) thereby at times can exacerbate the difficulty of predicting political and economic outcomes.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
US Election 2020- Politics, Pandemic, and Marketplaces (6-3-20)

GLOBAL ECONOMIC TROUBLES AND MARKETPLACE TURNS: BEING THERE © Leo Haviland March 2, 2020

A dialogue from a movie about 40 years ago, “Being There” (1979; Hal Ashby, director):
*US President “Bobby”: “Mr. Gardner…do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?”
*Chance the Gardener [a well-meaning yet rather simple-minded and uneducated fellow who nevertheless gains a respected position in elevated Washington circles]: “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden…In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.”
*Benjamin Rand: “I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we’re upset by the seasons of our economy.”

****

PRELUDE

Over a decade ago in late winter, the beloved former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke earnestly proclaimed, following various monetary easing measures and shortly after what turned out to be a major stock marketplace bottom (S+P 500 low on 3/6/09 at 667): “And I think as those green shoots begin to appear in different markets and as some confidence begins to come back that will begin the positive dynamic that brings our economy back….I do see green shoots.” (60 Minutes, CBS, 3/15/09).

Everyone knows that the American and international economy thereafter recovered from the eviscerating global financial disaster of 2007-09. Stock investors and their allies (including central banks) admired, applauded, and promoted the S+P 500’s heavenly ascent from its March 2009 depth to its February 2020 peak (2/19/20 at 3394), an era during which its price soared over five times its March 2009 elevation.

CONCLUSION

Economic domains, including Wall Street financial fields, are cultural phenomena, not Natural ones. However, the Fed Chairman’s inspiring springtime-related “green shoots” metaphor implies a seasonal opposite. It suggests that the United States and other nations can reveal signs of an oncoming autumn (and even an impending winter) in their economic (financial, commercial, business) territories. In any case, central bankers and politicians have not abolished slowdowns (or recessions) or bear moves in American stock marketplaces.

****

Not long before the S+P 500’s majestic 3394 high on 2/19/20, the essay “Critical Conditions and Economic Turning Points” (2/5/20) concluded: “In any event, the coronavirus is not the only phenomenon warning of (helping to create) eventual significant American stock marketplace price feebleness. Prior to the coronavirus’s dramatic move into the spotlight, several bearish signs for US stocks (in addition to the widespread complacency regarding the risk of a downtrend) existed.” “Critical Conditions and Economic Turning Points” summarized and analyzed an extensive list of these danger signals. Please refer to it for details.

****

“Critical Conditions” underlined: “With the passage of time following 2007-09’s global economic disaster, memories regarding the accompanying bloody bear trend in America’s stock marketplace benchmarks such as the S+P 500 gradually yet significantly faded. As the S+P 500 ascended, and especially as it advanced to and sustained record highs, widespread sermons declared that we should “buy the dip”. This aligned with the venerable proverb regarding the reasonableness of buying and holding United States stocks for the “long run”.”

“Of course since the S+P 500’s major bottom on 3/6/09 at 667, a few bloody stock price slides in that signpost (and “related” global equity yardsticks) terrified stock “investors” and their allies, including central banks such as the Federal Reserve, American politicians, and the financial media. Yet as the S+P 500 achieved a record height quite recently with 1/22/20’s 3338 (2/5/20’s level matched this), such advice definitely looked excellent to many stock owners and observers!”

“Besides, as they have numerous times over the past eleven years, won’t beloved central bank physicians such as the Federal Reserve Board (under the guise of fulfilling their mandate), European Central Bank, the Bank of England, China’s central bank, and the Bank of Japan rescue stocks and generate rallies in them? Not only soothing rhetoric, but also yield repression and quantitative easing (money printing) remain antidotes for stock price drops, right? And politicians might assist via new tax cuts, boosts in infrastructure spending, or similar schemes.”

“Thus the majority of US stock marketplace players have focused more on the rewards of owning than the dangers of doing so. Substantial complacency reigns regarding the potential for noteworthy American and other stock marketplace price declines.”

****

“Government actions to prevent the spread of the virus will tend to hamper economic growth. Fearful consumers and nervous corporations may slow their spending. The wider the reach and the longer the persistence of the ailment, the greater the economic damage. And economic (financial) weapons such as money printing and yield repression available to the Fed and its friends obviously do not halt epidemics or cure diseases (or fears of them).”

****

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Global Economic Troubles and Marketplace Turns- Being There (3-2-20)

RUNNING FOR COVER: MARKETPLACE EXITS (c) Leo Haviland August 9, 2019

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS

The frantic price rally in several key marketplace benchmarks commencing around end year 2018 probably reflected a fervent hunt for “yield” (“return”) by “investors” and other asset purchasers. In addition to buying the S+P 500, yield seekers searched for sufficient return in domains such as other advanced nation stocks, emerging marketplace stocks, lower-grade United States corporate debt, emerging marketplace sovereign debt securities denominated in US dollars, and the petroleum complex. Easy money policies and pronouncements by the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, and their comrades greatly encouraged these eager yield searches.

That ferocious yield hunt has diminished and the associated price rally for these signposts in general probably is finished. The terrifying slip in the S+P 500 from 7/26/19’s 3028 summit, in conjunction with the renewed tumble in emerging marketplace equities and the retreat in petroleum prices, signals a reversal of the avid enthusiasm of the hunt for yield in these arenas. The recent plummeting interest rate in the US 10 year government note underlines this. Although the US Treasury note’s yield decline commenced in autumn 2018 at around 3.25 percent, and although chroniclers can attribute further erosion during early 2019 to central bank easy money talk and schemes, its recent dive beneath two percent likely represents a “flight to quality” stage for UST yields.

Therefore, dutiful marketplace pilgrims who raced to identify and achieve “good” (acceptable, reasonable) returns (by purchasing asset classes such as stocks and commodities) at the end of calendar 2018 and for several months thereafter in these sectors probably have started running for cover (begun to liquidate their long positions). Many other investors/owners in these marketplaces probably are running for the exits too.

****

America and the rest of the world are in the waning period of the epic economic expansion that followed the dreadful economic disaster of 2007-09. Even if a recession does not occur in the United States (or in advanced nations in general), a noteworthy slowdown in global real GDP growth (including China and other emerging realms) likely is underway. Ongoing or further rounds of central bank easing probably will have limited effectiveness in maintaining adequate economic growth.

****

Marketplace history of course does not necessarily repeat itself, either entirely or even partly. Apparent marketplace convergence and divergence (lead/lag) relationships can and do change, sometimes dramatically. Nevertheless, especially since around autumn 2018, the relationship between the S+P 500, emerging stock marketplaces, the United States 10 year government note, petroleum, and the broad real-trade weighted US dollar in key respects increasingly has resembled that of the mid-2014 (and especially mid-2015) to first quarter 2016 time horizon. (One can trace the 2014/2015 trend relationship antecedents back to around spring 2011.)

In the prior era, noteworthy price divergence existed between the S+P 500 and emerging stock marketplaces. However, beginning sometime around late 2014, convergence (less divergence) began to develop between these realms. By spring 2015 (May 2015 high in the S+P 500; late April 2015 emerging stocks top), prices in these equity playgrounds had converged. Prices for both cratered thereafter until first quarter 2016.

Though yields for the United States Treasury 10 year note began to fall in early 2011, the accelerating drop from the yield highs of July 2014 and (especially) June 2015 was a critical factor in relation to stocks and other financial marketplaces. The initial key low yield for the UST occurred in first quarter 2016 (alongside stocks). The decline in commodities in general started in spring 2011, and raced downhill after June 2014’s interim top (and especially) after May 2015 (note the convergence with emerging marketplace stocks and eventually with the S+P 500). Commodities, like stocks, bottomed in first quarter 2016.

The gradually strengthening broad real trade-weighted US dollar intertwined with these various trends. After making a major bottom in July 2011, it gradually appreciated. The dollar’s climb after September 2014 was significant; its fourth quarter 2015 rally above March 2009’s financial crisis peak substantially influenced other financial battlegrounds (note the convergence between and sharp bear moves in the S+P 500 and emerging marketplace stocks), achieving a key high in first quarter 2016.

In both that past era as well as recently, UST 10 year yields dropped substantially. In those two periods, emerging marketplace stocks and commodities crumbled (and alongside each other).

Especially around late 2015, the bull move in the broad real trade-weighted dollar (“TWD”) became remarkably strong. Underline its violent charge above first quarter 2009’s financial crisis top. In the “current” marketplace (which includes many preceding months), the TWD likewise has been very robust. Though the TWD did not push through the economic disaster top recently, it has remained above it for many months. The key parallel between the two periods thus is a strong dollar, and one above the financial crisis high.

Underscore the significant divergence between the S+P 500 and emerging marketplace stocks in both epochs. After its spring 2011 interim top, the S+P 500 continued to attain new highs, peaking in spring 2015. In contrast, emerging marketplace stocks in general were in a sideways to down trend beginning in spring 2011 (though they eventually achieved price convergence with the S+P 500 by spring 2015).

What about the current stock landscape? The divergence between the S+P 500 and emerging marketplace equities probably began before autumn 2018. Emerging marketplace stocks started their bear descent in first quarter 2018. Although the S+P 500 made an important interim high in first quarter 2018, it attained new highs (though not much above the 1Q18 top in percentage terms) up through end July 2019. Therefore divergence between the S+P 500 began around late 1Q18 and continued into summer 2019.

Why the substantial divergence between the S+P 500 and emerging/developing nation equities beginning in early 2018? The passage of America’s tax “reform” legislation in late 2017 was a critical difference. American corporations have reaped major benefits (higher earnings/profits) from this, thus helping to propel the S+P 500 upward. Emerging stock marketplaces (and those of other advanced nations) did not receive such benevolent new legislation.

The S+P 500’s decline since its late July 2019 high probably is the start of price convergence between it and emerging marketplace stocks. Given the similarities of (parallels between) interrelated price movements involving emerging marketplace stocks, commodities (petroleum), the UST 10 year note yield, and the broad real trade-weighted dollar during both eras, convergence between the S+P 500 and emerging marketplace stocks is probable. Thus the S+P 500 probably is in, or soon will begin, a bear trend. Therefore the S+P 500 retreat will confirm the slowing down of the global economy. Keep in mind the spring 2015 association (linkage between) the S+P 500 and MXEF highs and the aftermath in those and other marketplaces.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Running for Cover- Marketplace Exits (8-9-19)