First things first, the bull market and, predominantly retail driven, frenzy in cryptocurrencies, SPACs, NFTs, and BANG stocks—BlackBerry, AMC, Nokia, and GameStop—are to me all derivatives of the fact that the policy mandarins of the world are showering the real economy and financial markets with unprecedented levels of liquidity. To be clear, I do not mean to disparage traders who are able to extract value from these markets; all power to them. What I am saying is that if global monetary policymakers were not doing QE by the trillions, on an annualised basis, the bull market in many of these things would evaporate like mist on a hot summer morning. Meanwhile, in old-school assets—themselves beneficiaries of QE—the overarching theme at the moment seems that the vol-sellers are back in charge. The VIX has hurtled lower, to just over 15, and at this rate it will soon be in the low teens. The same is the case for the MOVE index for fixed income volatility, which is also now clearly driving lower, hitting a 13-month low of 53.4 in May.
Read MoreIt’s been a while since I looked at markets, as I am busily trying to finish the second chapter of my new demographics project—see here—but peering across my portfolio, I haven’t missed much. Granted, the straight-line rise in green and clean energy stocks—a theme that I am invested in—has petered out, but otherwise, most of what I own keep going up, and the number at the bottom of the column keeps getting bigger. Investing in a pandemic-stricken world, it seems, isn’t too bad. When I haven’t looked at markets for a while, I tend to go back to the basics. The first chart below plots the six-month stock-to-bond return ratio in the US, which has been locked at +20% since the beginning of the fourth quarter. This is punchy, even unprecedented, but I am loath to second guess this trend at the moment. Sustained positive stock-to-bond returns tend to be associated with resilient bull markets, and let’s be honest; that’s what we have, for now. I worry, as I suspect does everyone else, that investors have bought too aggressively into the rumor of a post-virus recovery, implying that they will sell the fact. If that’s true, conditions will become more difficult over the summer, and in the second half of the year, though I am inclined to believe that any swoon will a familiar case of BTFD™.
Read MoreI am still not entirely sure whether Noah Smith, a U.S. Economist and prolific blogger, is a converted MMTer or not. But I do know that he is doing a great job in describing the discourse around this newfound holy grail of macroeconomic policymaking. In my attempt to label MMT as “Woke Economics”, I leaned on some of Noah’s earlier pieces on this, and now he is back with his invocation of the new Macro Wars. The stage, according to Noah, is the recent fiscal relief bill in the US, prompting even otherwise pro-stimulus economists to push back. Oliver Blanchard and Lawrence Summers both suggest that $1.9T might be too much of a good thing, while Krugman is sticking to his Keynesian ethos, arguing that Biden’s bill really is ‘disaster relief’, a position that Noah seems to agree with. Replying specifically to Noah’s recent post, he argues that Keynesianism won the theoretical battle a decade ago, leaving only “cranks, charlatans and WSJ Op-ed writers” on the other side. Tyler Cowen chimes in, pointing out that Biden’s post-election fiscal stimulus push has as much to do with populism as it has to do with careful application of Keynesian macroeconomics. As it turns out, this is a position I have a lot of sympathy for.
Read MoreI’ll keep it short this week, mainly because I don’t have much new to say. I continue to think that the tug-of-war between markets and monetary policymakers in fixed income markets remains the key spectacle to watch, even if I concede that we have been watching it for a while. There are economists and strategists who will tell you that policymakers are perfectly happy with steepening yield curves, and that they in fact welcome them. To believe this, however, requires that you forget the initial stages of the pandemic-policy response in which central bankers solemnly pledged to print as much money as needed—via QE—to keep rates pinned across all maturities in order to support the monumental fiscal efforts needed to prevent economic disaster. If you’re telling me that this tacit agreement is now broken on the eve of the new US administration is about to shovel €1.9T into an almost fully vaccinated economy—that’s just shy of 10% of GDP for those wondering—I have to concede that yields can, and likely will, move a lot higher. But is that really what you’re telling me? It seems to me that observers have quietly pivoted towards the idea that central banks obviously accept, even want, higher bond yields to reflect the recovery. I am sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. While a steepening yield curve sows the seeds of its own destruction via an ever more attractive roll and carry, especially with fwd guidance on the front end, there is always a risk that markets end up questing the commitment to low policy rates.
Read More