Alpha.Sources — Alpha Sources.CV

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

It’s been quite a year. I am inclined to say that next year can’t be worse, but that would probably jinx it. Also, for owners of financial assets, 2020 has been a great year, even if the economy, and event the fabrics of society, have been stretched to a breaking point. The main question for 2021 is whether this imbalance can continue? I’ll continue to investigate that question on the blog in the new year. I also hope to be able to do some more videos and podcasts.

Apart from that, all that is left for me is to wish all my readers a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I am very grateful for the attention you afford this little corner of the internet. I know time is a scarce resource, and the content I share is guided by that consideration. I also wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to my fellow narrative-warriors and collaborators on Twitter.

General infoclaus vistesenDecember 25, 2020Christmas

Sitting tight

Financial journalists have had to resort to clichés in the past few weeks to describe the reality that they’re being paid to report on. At the start of December, Financial Times’ Robin Wigglesworth invoked the “everything rally” to describe a market "too hot to handle”, while Bloomberg’s Marcus Ashworth and Mark Gilbert have gone for the idea that markets will “defy gravity”, again, in 2021. The industry’s most widely watched investor survey— the BofA's GMFS—chimes in with the observation that "asset allocators are underweight cash first time since May’13; triggering FMS Cash Rule “sell signal,” a sentiment supported by the opening line in ASR’s recent study; “this is the most bullish result we have seen in the six year running our asset allocation survey.” The bull market in equities is paved with the irrelevance of such skeptical analysis, but sometimes the truth is in fact staring you in the face. This market is flirting with danger, and will soon suffer a significant correction. The more pertinent question, however, is whether I, or anyone else, have the tools or wherewithal to pick a tradable top, and following from that, whether a correction will mark the beginning of a more sustained downturn in equities, and other financial asset prices? As far as the first question is concerned, luck is a thing, but trying to pick even relatively obvious intermediate tops in this market isn’t easy. As a friend on the buy-side likes to remind me; “my put options are melting like butter in the microwave.” In terms of a more dramatic shift in the trend and narrative, we won’t be able to perceive it when it happens, but I don’t think such a shift is imminent.

Woke economics

The chancellor of the Exchequer had sobering news for the UK public last month when he unveiled that the Treasury is on track to borrow almost 20% of GDP this year to plug the hole in the economy created by the virus, a move that will see the public debt-to-GDP ratio zoom past 100%. In a world governed by the rules of the now-defunct work by Rogoff and Reinhart—famously discredited by a spreadsheet error—these numbers would send chills down the spine of economists and public policymakers, but we’ve moved from on then, significantly. We now understand that the government does not operate under a budget constraint, and that it can, in fact, create as much (sovereign) money it wants to buy as much debt that it wishes to issue—via primary market purchases by the central bank—to finance whatever level of spending and investment—ostensibly to generate jobs for every able man and woman—that it wants. I treated these issues in a long-form essay on fiscal policy, but the elevator pitch is simple enough. Under the auspice of MMT, governments have the ability and duty to create jobs for everyone and to prevent financial and economic distress and harm. It must do so because the economic costs and constraints hitherto associated with such a policy strategy are figments of Neo-Classical economists’ imagination.

Will you get the shot?

This week, I’ll stitch together some thoughts on our ticket off the Covid-19 train, also known as the “vaccine”. I am prompted by Georges Pearkes’ challenge to come up with why it might be a bad idea to given people $1500, or another monetary amount, as an incentive to take the vaccine. First things first, it’s very possible that our main problem next year is that we won’t have enough of this thing. Paradoxically, the prospect of a vaccine dealing a killer blow to the virus in the middle of next year has created an incentive for authorities to maintain tighter restrictions in the short run—well into Q1, at least—while we wait for the shot. After all, if the virus is gone tomorrow, the cost of an infection today increases, a lot. A reasonable counterpoint is that governments aren’t masochists, and some form of reopening will happen in Q1, but the point I am getting is simple in the end. Assuming the vaccine is rolled out by early Spring, on the back of a miserably semi-locked down winter, it’s more likely than not that people will be scrambling for a jab, especially in an environment where the vaccine becomes a ticket to otherwise restricted activities via a form of passport. In such a situation, we won’t have to pay people to take the shot. We’ll have to make sure it isn’t hoarded. As for the counterpoint, I am not convinced that the rise of anti-vaxxers—known in the literature as "vaccine hesitancy”—can be applied to predict a threat to the effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccine efforts. That said, early survey evidence suggest that hesitancy might be an issue, especially at the margin where the line between failure and success is drawn.

02

Alpha Sources Blog