Macro and Credit - White Tiger

"Earnings don't move the overall market; it's the Federal Reserve Board... focus on the central banks, and focus on the movement of liquidity... most people in the market are looking for earnings and conventional measures. It's liquidity that moves markets." - Stanley Druckenmiller

Watching with interest the trade war between the United States and China ratcheting up with Beijing cancelling its plans to send two delegations to Washington, given the season of fall is upon us, when it came to selecting our title analogy, we decided to go for "White Tiger". The White Tiger is one of the four symbols of the Chines constellations. It is sometimes called the White Tiger of the West and represents the West in terms of direction as well as the autumn season.  It has been said that the white tiger only appeared when the emperor ruled with absolute virtue, or if there was peace throughout the world. Obviously for those who remember our June conversation "Prometheus Unbound", we argued the following:

"It seems more and more probable that the United States and China cannot escape the Thucydides Trap being the theory proposed by Graham Allison former director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans in 2015 who postulates that war between a rising power and an established power is inevitable:
- source Macronomics June 2016 

"It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable." Thucydides from "The History of the Peloponnesian War" -

In similar fashion, more recently maverick hedge fund manager Ray Dalio came to a similar prognosis in his recent musing entitled "A Path to War" on the 19th of September:

"The economic/geopolitical cycle of economic conflicts leading to military conflicts both within and between emerging powerful countries and established powerful countries is obvious to anyone who studies history.  It’s been well-described by historians, though those historians typically have more of a geopolitical perspective and less of an economic/market perspective than I do.  In either case, it is well-recognized as classic by historians.  The following sentence describes it as I see it in a nutshell:

When 1) within countries there are economic conflicts between the rich/capitalist/political right and the poor/proletariat/political left that lead to conflicts that result in populist, autocratic, nationalistic, and militaristic leaders coming to power, while at the same time, 2) between countries there are conflicts arising among comparably strong economic and military powers, the relationships between economics and politics become especially intertwined—and the probabilities of disruptive conflicts (e.g., wars) become much higher than normal.

In other words economic rivalries within and between countries often lead to fighting in order to establish which entities are most powerful.  In these periods, we have war economies, and after them, markets, economies, and geopolitics all experience the hang-over effects.  What happens during wars and as a result of wars have huge effects on which currencies, which debts, which equities, and which economies are worth what, and more profoundly, on the whole social-political fabric.  At the most big-picture level, the periods of war are followed by periods of peace in which the dominant power/powers get to set the rules because no one can fight them.  That continues until the cycle begins again (because of a rival power emerging).

Appreciating this big economic/geopolitical cycle that drives the ascendancies and declines of empires and their reserve currencies requires taking a much longer (250-year) time frame, which I will touch on briefly here and in more detail in a future report.
Typically, though not always, at times of economic rivalry, emotions run high, firebrand populist leaders who prefer antagonistic paths are elected or come to power, and wars occur.  However, that is not always the case.  History has shown that through time, there are two broad types of relationships, and that what occurs depends on which type of relationship exists.  The two types of relationships are:

a) Cooperative-competitive relationships in which the parties take into consideration what’s really important to the other and try to give it to them in exchange for what they most want.  In this type of win-win relationship, there are often tough negotiations that are done with respect and consideration, like two friendly merchants in a bazaar or two friendly teams on the field.

b) Mutually threatening relationships in which the parties think about how they can harm the other and exchange painful acts in the hope of forcing the other into a position of fear so that they will give in.  In this type of lose-lose relationship, they interact through “war” rather than through “negotiation.”

Either side can force the second path (threatening war, lose-lose) onto the other side, but it takes both sides to go down the cooperative, win-win path.  Both sides will inevitably follow the same approach.

In the back of the minds of all parties, regardless of which path they choose, should be their relative powers.  In the first case, each party should realize what the other could force on them and appreciate the quality of the exchange without getting too pushy, while in the second case, the parties should realize that power will be defined by the relative abilities of the parties to endure pain as much as their relative abilities to inflict it.  When it isn’t clear exactly how much power either side has to reward and punish the other side because there are many untested ways, the first path is the safer way.  On the other hand, the second way will certainly make clear—through the hell of war—which party is dominant and which one will have to be submissive.  That is why, after wars, there are typically extended periods of peace with the dominant country setting the rules and other countries following them for the time it takes for the cycle to happen all over again." - source Ray Dalio

Because the color white of the Wu Xing theory also represents the west, the white tiger became a mythological guardian of the West on the mythological compass. The White Tiger is as well considered in China as the ruler of the Autumn and the governor of the metallic elementals (hint for you gold bugs out there...) but we ramble again. Will the age of reason disappear with the White Tiger? We wonder.

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at the gradual path towards recession in the US and how does the credit cycle will end.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - Credit cycles die of "old age". 
• Final chart - Hey Fed, NAIRU this!

• Macro and Credit - Credit cycles die of "old age". 

While many pundits have been focusing on the continuation of the flattening of the yield curve, as we pointed out in our most recent conversation again, credit cycles die because too much debt has been raised. What the most recent Fed quarterly survey Senior Loan Officers Opinion Survey (SLOOs) tells us is that financial conditions remain very benign still. Yet, no one can ignore the hiking path followed by the Fed and that already some part of the economy such as housing are already feeling the heat and the gradual tightening noose of financial conditions. 

From a "White Tiger" perspective, a full-blown trade war between China and the United States would push US companies to pass on prices increases onto the US consumer. Any acceleration in inflation would lead to the Fed to be more aggressive with its hiking stance. The rhetoric of Fed members in recent week has become decisively more “hawkish”.

First question we are asking ourselves is when does the US consumer gets "maxed out"? We are already seeing credit card usage surging as well as the return of housing equity extraction thanks to the return of HELOC. On this subject we read with interest Wells Fargo Economics Group note from the 18th of September entitled "Consumer outlook in a rising rate environment":

"Executive Summary

Conventional wisdom has it that rising interest rates are bad for consumer spending because swelling financing costs put a squeeze on a household’s capacity for other outlays. What if conventional wisdom is wrong? Our analysis finds that a rising interest rate environment does not immediately snuff out consumer spending growth.

As the current expansion stretches further into its tenth year, the economy is on track to eclipse the expansion of the 1990s as the longest on record. In this report we consider the outlook for consumer spending against this backdrop of a record-setting expansion and consider how long the good times will last. Our base-case scenario, spelled out in this special report, anticipates a modest pick-up in consumer spending, at least in the near term. Eventually, like all good things, the longest economic expansion on record will come to an end and consumer spending will come back down with it. That will likely occur alongside financial conditions that warrant rate cuts by the Fed. The precise timing of these events is tough to get right, but by signaling this drop-off in activity in late 2020, we are essentially saying that while the end of the party is not imminent, no cycle lasts forever.

- Source Bloomberg LP, The Conference Board, University of Michigan and Wells Fargo Securities

As per the below Macrobond chart, the University of Michigan Consumer Confidence turning points tend to coincide with significant S&P 500 12 months return:

- source Macrobond (click to enlarge).

Before we go into more details of Wells Fargo's note, there are a couple of points we would like to make. Despite decreasing significantly from its peak prior to the Great Recession, household debt still remains quite elevated, stabilizing around 77%. Also back in March in our long conversation "Intermezzo", when it comes to consumer credit, as pointed out by famous French economist Frédéric Bastiat, there is always what you see and what you don't see. We pointed out the following from Deutsche Bank's State of the US Consumer report from the 26th of February entitled "Robust Consumer with Pro-cyclical and Seasonal Tailwinds on the Horizon":

"Items to watch

Lower income consumers are more levered than they appear: The aggregate deleveraging post-crisis has largely benefited from mortgage leverage sitting at its lowest level since 2001. However, other consumer leverage (card, student, auto, and personal) continues to grind higher into 2018 and is now at all time highs (~26%). Excluding disposable income for the Top 5% income bracket of US consumers, consumer debt levels are closer to 43% of adjusted disposable income—almost double the reported measure of ~26%. The latest triennial Fed Survey of Consumer Finances highlights this dynamic, with the bottom 40% income households running at ~50% non-mortgage DTI, which is ~10% more than LT averages.

The subprime/low income consumer is stretched: Sluggish wage growth and rising healthcare and rent expenses as a percentage of income (non-debt obligations near 25 year highs) among lower income households have stretched subprime consumers as they look to augment rising expenses with debt. 

Banks have met this increased demand by providing deeper credit access to subprime (increased participation, especially for cards), leading to higher leverage and an increased severity risk of loss as delinquencies start to diverge for lower quality consumers. Like DTI, adjusting debt payment burdens to exclude the top 10% income brackets almost doubles the reported Fed figure (9.6% PTI vs. 5.8% reported PTI by the Fed).

Socio-economic divide driving credit cycle: While aggregate consumer fundamentals remain robust, subprime consumers are seeing rising delinquencies and losses starting to normalize much faster than other credit tiers: +90-day DQs within subprime cards have rose+300bps Y/Y in 3Q17 vs. only~30bps on average for near prime/prime borrowers. ~45% of Americans would have difficulty paying a surprise medical bill of ~$500 (Kaiser Foundation), while ~50% of US consumers live paycheck to paycheck (FITB). Taken all together, a disconnect between the lower credit tier borrowers and the economic cycle is starting to emerge." - source Deutsche Bank

The issue of course for the stretched US consumer would be if Core PCE inflation continues to pick up slightly faster than core CPI if healthcare service price inflation accelerates while rent inflation gradually slows. This upside risk to healthcare prices and expected further labor market tightening, one could expect core PCE inflation to rise further, not to mention the issue with gas prices at the pump should oil prices continue as well to trend up. Remember that the acceleration of inflation is a dangerous match when it comes to lighting up/bursting asset bubbles.

But let's return to Wells Fargo's take:

"A Consumer Spending Framework in the Context of Rates

As we would at any time in the business cycle, we consider the macro drivers of consumer behavior. Consumer sentiment and confidence, by about any measure, are at or near high levels last seen around 2001; which, not coincidentally, was in the late stages of that prior long-lasting expansion (Figures 1 & 2). We also look at the purchasing power in consumers’ wallets, be it in the form of personal income, which is at last picking up (albeit in only a modest way) or in access to capital through borrowing, where measures of revolving consumer credit growth indicate a levelling off more recently. Finally, we tally the actual spending numbers reflected in the personal income and spending report and the monthly retail sales numbers, both of which have been on a roll in recent months.

In an effort to better inform a consumer outlook, it is essential to have a framework for thinking about these fundamentals and how households will manage finances at this late stage of the cycle. The trouble with considering this period in the context of what has happened in prior cycles is that for a long stretch in the current cycle, from December 2008 until December 2015, the Federal Reserve maintained a near zero interest rate policy (ZIRP), and at various points during those years was engaged in a broad expansion of the balance sheet through quantitative easing (QE), (Figures 3 & 4).

- source Federal Reserve System and Wells Fargo Securities

The Fed has historically purchased Treasury securities to expand the monetary base, although the monetary policy “medicine” applied during that era, including the purchases of mortgage-backed securities and other assets, had not been tried before, at least not in the United States.

Central bank actions, no doubt, are a factor in the remarkable duration of the current cycle, and on that basis any informed outlook for consumer spending ought to not only consider these macro drivers (like confidence, access to capital and willingness to spend) but to consider them in the context of Fed policy.

To that end, we went back to just before the 1990s expansion began in 1989 and divided the years since into four broad categories based on what the Federal Reserve was doing with monetary policy at the time: (1) lowering the fed funds rate, (2) a “stable” rate environment, (3) raising the fed funds rate and (4) ZIRP with QE.

The date ranges for each of these periods is spelled out in Table 1 below.

Most of the time periods are straightforward, although the one period that might invite critique is that we have characterized the time period from March of 1995 through January 2001 as “stable” (revisit Figure 3).

One could reasonably observe that the fed funds rate actually moved up and down during that nearly six-year stretch. Our argument for calling it “stable” is that this period was essentially from the “mid-cycle” slowdown until the end of that expansion. Admittedly, there were adjustments up and down throughout the period, but from the start of the period to the end, the funds rate finished just 50 basis points higher. Reasonable minds could disagree, but in our view, the idea of thinking of that period as four unique rate cycles would unnecessarily complicate our analysis.

With our various Fed cycle dates established, we looked at our macro drivers for consumer spending through the lens of the Fed policy that was in place at the time. For each interest rate backdrop, we calculated the average levels for various measures of consumer confidence, the average annualized growth rate of personal income, the average net monthly expansion in consumer credit and finally the average annual growth rates of both real personal consumption expenditures and of nominal retail sales.

A key takeaway from our exercise, depicted in Table 2 below, is that measures of consumer fundamentals tend to do best in periods of stable interest rates. Interestingly though, a rising rate environment is almost as good for these same consumer fundamentals.

Perhaps that is not altogether surprising, considering that the Fed is apt to raise rates when the economy is at full employment and inflation is heating up beyond the Fed’s comfort zone. Those factors tend to exist when the economy is doing particularly well or even overheating.

The inverse of that dynamic may explain why the worst rate theme for consumer spending is during periods when the Fed is lowering rates. Personal income and spending as well as nominal retail sales all performed worst during periods when the Fed was cutting rates. Interestingly, the lowering of interest rates does not compel consumers to increase their appetite for credit, at least not immediately. The average net monthly increase in consumer credit came in a distant last during periods when the Fed was actively lowering rates.

2020 Vision

So what sort of Fed policy theme should we consider looking forward? To judge from the Fed’s dot plot, a visual rendering of policymakers’ own forecasts for the fed funds rate, the FOMC is closing in on its neutral rate for fed funds. With most dots clustered around 3.00 to 3.25% and the current fed funds rate at 2.00%, there are only four or five quarter-point rate hikes left to go in the current cycle, barring some change in forward guidance from the Fed (Figure 5).

Our forecast anticipates two more hikes this year and another three next year. After that it stands to reason we would be in a stable rate environment slightly above the neutral rate until the Fed’s understanding of r* changes (favoring another hike) or until conditions warrant a cut. In a separate special report1, we explained our use of an analytical framework we recently developed to inform our view of Fed policy going forward and why we look for the FOMC to raise rates another 125 bps before it cuts rates at the end of 2020.

In forming our outlook for the consumer, we take the findings of our rate-environment study and overlay them with our expectations for Fed policy over the next couple of years. If things play out the way we anticipate, monetary policy is entering an era of transition unlike anything the economy has seen in more than a decade. For a number of factors including the longevity of the cycle, growing fiscal budget imbalances and a potential fallout from the global economy, we indicated in our initial 2020 forecast that by the end of our forecast horizon the Fed would likely begin cutting the fed funds rate.2 A rate-tightening environment is expected to prevail at least through the first part of 2019, which will be followed by a stable rate for another year or so before the Fed begins to signal eventual rate cuts.

For the consumer, this Fed forecast implies a pick-up in the pace of consumer spending in the near term before an eventual slowing the further out we go in the forecast period. Full year PCE growth was 2.5% in 2017. By the time we close the books on the current year, we expect the comparable number for 2018 to pick up to 2.6%, prior to quickening to 2.7% in 2019 and slowing to just 2.2% in 2020 (Figure 6).

- Source: Bloomberg LP, Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Department of Commerce and Wells Fargo Securities

Outlook

Consumers may be better prepared to endure a slowdown than in the past. The saving rate, currently at 6.7%, is rather elevated given the late stage of expansion, while real median household income surpassed its pre-recession peak in 2017. With the unemployment rate currently matching low levels last seen in the late 1960s, there remains little slack in the economy. The labor market is expected to grow increasingly tight, with the unemployment rate trending to as low as 3.3% by 2020. Similarly, inflationary pressures that continue to gradually build over our forecast horizon will put downward pressure on real income gains.

The length of the current expansion is expected to surpass that of the 1990s, taking the title as the longest expansion on record. While monetary policy changes act as signals to markets about the health of the economy and/or concerns about inflation expectations, we must be sensitive to policy movements and their implication for consumer spending. Our initial 2020 forecast expects the Fed to surpass its neutral rate, prior to beginning to cut policy by the end of 2020. With this signal of a slowdown in activity, we are essentially saying that this expansion will eventually draw to a close. The rate cutting environment will act as a last call announcement – and for the consumer sector it serves as a valuable indication for longevity of this expansion." - source Wells Fargo

Whereas we agree with the timing, we disagree with the perceived health of the US consumer, as per the above points illustrated in a previous Deutsche Bank research note. There is more leverage than what can be seen, not only when it comes to the US consumer but as well when it comes to the distorted balance sheets of many US corporates after years of a buy-back binge and a fall in the quality of the overall rating for the Investment Grade category much closer to "junk" than in the previous cycle.

Overall the timing for the end of the credit cycle could indeed be in the region of 2020. This is as well Ray Dalio's most recent view and also Christopher R. Cole, CFA from Artemis Capital Management as per his July  2018 letter entitled “What is water?”:

“When you are a fish swimming in a pond with less and less water, you had best pay attention to the currents. The last decade we’ve seen central banks supply liquidity, providing an artificial bid underneath markets. Now water is being drained from the pond as the Fed, ECB, and Bank of Japan shrink their balance sheets and raise interest rates.Despite this trend, U.S. equities will very likely escape 2018 without a crisis or volatility regime shift because of the one-time wave of corporate liquidity unleashed by tax reform. Expect a crisis to occur between 2019 and 2021 when a drought caused by dust storms of debt refinancing, quantitative tightening, and poor demographics causes liquidity to evaporate.” – Source Christopher R. Cole, CFA from Artemis Capital Management

The whole note written by Christopher R. Cole is worth a read particularly on the subject of passive management and liquidity. His quote from above resonates as well with our opening quote from maverick investor Stanley Druckenmiller.

 As well in his note, Christopher R. Cole indicates when he thinks we will most likely have another crisis on our hands:

“When does this all end? If or when the collective consciousness stops believing growth can be created by money and debt expansion the entire medium will fall apart, otherwise it is totally real… and will continue to be real.

A crisis-level drought in liquidity is coming between 2019 to 2022 marked by a perfect dust storm of unprecedented debt supply, quantitative tightening, and demographic outflows.

Quantitative easing has caused the natural relationship between corporate debt expansion and default rates to break down. U.S. debt is at an all-time high of $14 trillion (45% of GDP) and high yield default rates are near all-time lows at 3.3% (MarketWatch, 13d). This is not sustainable. Years of cheap money has led scores of investors to buy debt at levels that do not reflect credit risk. The poster child is the 2017 issuance of 100-year Argentina bonds (USD denominated) that were oversubscribed 3.6x with a 7.9% yield. It is hard to find a decade where Argentina has not defaulted, much less a century. That medium of bond market demand has already begun to show signs of cracking.” – Source Christopher R. Cole, CFA from Artemis Capital Management

Fiduciary duty anyone? Credit cycles tend to die of old age and too much debt. We have entered the season of the White Tiger we think. Only a few innings left. 

On the current evolution of the credit cycle we read with interest Bank of America Merrill Lynch's take in their High Yield Strategy note from the 21st of September entitled "The Evolution of the Credit Cycle:

"The Evolution of the Credit Cycle

As we continue to study the state of the current credit cycle, the accumulated evidence sides with the argument that it has more room to develop, as long as few more years. Previous cycles have lasted anywhere between 6-8 years, on average, and this observation would make it an unusual development to see the current cycle extend for much longer. However, we also note that more broadly, this economic cycle has been an unusual one in many respects, including how long it took the US GDP to return to trend growth rates, the unemployment to decline, and the inflation to recover. And if those major macroeconomic variables took an unusually long time to return to normal levels, then why should we expect the credit cycle to be an average one?

Away from this argument, we also continue to believe that the commodity episode in 2015-2016 represented a partial cycle in and of itself. Among the most conclusive pieces of evidence in support of this view, we present the charts in Figure 3 for debt growth and Figure 4 for capex.

In both cases, we highlight cyclical turns, as defined by catalyst events as the starting points and subsequent observed peaks in trailing 12mo HY issuer default rates as ending points.

Both graphs suggest that previous cyclical turns have occurred at similar points on each respective line, had similar impact on each measure, and had left them at similar levels after defaults receded. Both graphs also suggest that a cyclical turn at current levels and given their recent trends would be inconsistent with historical experiences going into previous default cycles.

And yet, inconsistent does not imply impossible, particularly in light of trade tariffs that are being threatened and imposed by the Trump Administration. It remains our view that at the end, these policies are unlikely to survive the test of time, however it is difficult to say how much time it would take to prove them wrong and how much damage they could do in the meantime.

The exact timing of cyclical turns is an inherently uncertain exercise and we do not claim to possess superior skills to do so. Instead, our approach relies on using all available data and analytical tools to help us make a judgment on a relatively short next-12mo time horizon, and continue doing so as time progresses and new data becomes available. As such, we made a call that this cycle was unlikely to turn at this point last year. With all the evidence we accumulated since then, we believe this view still holds today.

Our default model continues to suggest low likelihood of a meaningful spike in defaults over the next year, based on its latest inputs. It currently projects a 3.25% issuer weighted rate during this time period, marginally lower than the actual realized 3.41% rate as calculated by Moody’s (Figure 5). A 3.25% issuer default rate would be consistent with 2.0% par-weighted rate. 

How it ends?

In our last year’s outlook on the prospects of this credit cycle, we listed three key risks to its longevity: (1) inflation spike; (2) trade contraction; and (3) sector distress. We think all three remain valid and potent sources of known risks going forward as well. In our judgment, the spike in inflation remains a lower probability risk, followed by trade contraction, somewhat higher on our scale of likely developments, and still inside of a tail risk zone.

A contraction in one of the key industry sectors is a higher probability outcome, in our opinion, albeit not an imminent one. Previously, we published our thoughts on capital allocation trends across various sectors, and identified healthcare as the most overextended sector in terms of the amount of capital raised in recent years.

A higher capital formation could lead to higher capex, higher production capacity, higher supply, lower prices, and an eventual need to remove excess capacity. The latter stage often goes hand in hand with a need to eliminate excess debt that was used to finance excess capex.

Other sectors that we found to be overextended on this scale include autos, utilities, and food producers, although these three are relatively small compared to healthcare.

And at the end of this conversation on risks, we think it is also important to remind ourselves that previous cycles have ended with a surprise event, a “black swan” of sorts, which, by definition, was unexpected by the consensus and meaningful in its impact. We do not see any particular reasons as to why the next one would break out of this mold." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

From our "White Tiger" perspective, an inflation spike is something very much on our radar, hence our close attention to market gyrations in oil prices and geopolitical risk, the famous known unknowns which have been building up recently in world which has decisively moved from cooperation to noncooperation.

As we have stated above, many pundits are focusing on the flattening of the yield curve, from an employment and non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU), Monetary policy conducted typically involves allowing just enough unemployment in the economy to prevent inflation rising above a given target figure, we think the Fed will once again be behind the curve as per our final chart.

• Final chart - Hey Fed, NAIRU this!

In our previous conversation we discussed the great work of American economist Irving Fisher, in relation to NAIRU,  the concept arose in the wake of the popularity of the Phillips curve which summarized the observed negative correlation between the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation (measured as annual nominal wage growth of employees) for number of industrialised countries with more or less mixed economies. This correlation (previously seen for the U.S. by Irving Fisher) persuaded some analysts that it was impossible for governments simultaneously to target both arbitrarily low unemployment and price stability, and that, therefore, it was government's role to seek a point on the trade-off between unemployment and inflation which matched a domestic social consensus, the famous dual mandate of the Fed. We won't go into more details about our fondness of the Phillips curve, it's a subject we have discussed on this very blog on many occasions. Our final chart comes from Deutsche Bank's US Economic Perspectives note from the 20th of September entitled "How the Powell Fed can make history" and shows that the Fed has never succeeded in returning unemployment to NAIRU from below without a recession ensuing:

"With unemployment now noticeably below standard measures of its natural level of full employment and likely to tighten further and with wage and price inflation returning to desired levels and likely to continue upward, the Fed has a delicate task on its hands. It needs to begin to close the gap between growth of aggregate demand and aggregate supply in the economy — in other words, to slow and eventually reverse the tightening of the labor market before it risks pushing up inflation and inflation expectations excessively. The question is whether it can do so without pushing the economy into recession and causing unemployment to surge upward, overshooting its natural rate.

Many in the market already see the storm clouds of recession gathering in the distance, a narrative that has found an ally in the flattening yield curve. Talk of a downturn by 2020 is increasingly in vogue and for good reason: a soft landing in unemployment from below NAIRU has never been achieved before. In the modern history of US national economic statistics since the late 1940s, every time the unemployment rate has overshot to the downside, policy firming by the Fed has helped drive the economy into recession (Figure 1).

We think the Powell Fed can make history by achieving the unprecedented outcome of a soft landing from below sans recession." - source Deutsche Bank

Contrary to the elements put forward in this very interesting note, we think that once again this time isn't different. On a final note we thought we had run out of arguments against the cult of the Philipps curve as per our conversation "The Dead Parrot Sketch" back in August 2017, we did read additional arguments against the Phillips curve cult in Saad Filali's take on Seeking Alpha in his article "There Is No Inflation: Too Much Supply, Not Enough Unions", which we found of great interest.  It has been said that the white tiger only appeared when the emperor ruled with absolute virtue, it could be said that the white tiger only appeared when the BIS ruled with absolute virtue as per their very interesting most recent quarterly survey, but we digress...

"Liquidity is oxygen for a financial system." -  Ruth Porat

Stay tuned!

Macro and Credit - Harmonic tremor

"Stupidity is an elemental force for which no earthquake is a match." -  Karl Kraus, Austrian Writer

Watching with interest the tragedy unfold on the short gamma crowd through the demise of the short volatility ETN and ETF complex, sending markets into some tailspin and causing additional havocs in bond yields, when it came to choosing our title analogy for our post we reminded ourselves of the meaning of "Harmonic tremor". A "Harmonic tremor is a sustained release of seismic and infrasonic energy typically associated with the underground movement of magma (rising term premiums), the venting of volcanic gases from magma, or both. It's a long-duration release of seismic energy (volatility), with distinct spectral lines, that often precedes or accompanies a volcanic eruption (the demise of some short vol ETNs). More generally, a volcanic tremor is a sustained signal that may or may not possess these harmonic spectral features. Being a long-duration continuous signal from a temporally extended source, a volcanic tremor contrasts distinctly with transient sources of seismic radiation, such as tremors that are typically associated with earthquakes and explosions. Harmonic tremor is part of the four major types of seismograms, the three others being tectonic like earthquakes, shallow volcanic earthquakes and surface events. 

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at the recent sell-off which in effect was triggered by the harmonic tremor coming from the uninterrupted rise of term premiums. This regime change in volatility and the effect of "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" aka "inflation expectations" thanks to rising wage inflation expectations have already claimed the small fishes such as some players in the short volatility leveraged and crowded complex. Like a new grain of sand U.S. Average Hourly Earnings triggered an avalanche as seen in complex systems such as financial markets.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - Rising term premium have already claimed small fishes, when are the whales going to show up?
• Final chart - Increased inflation presents a potential threat to the purchasing power of consumers.

• Macro and Credit - Rising term premium have already claimed small fishes, when are the whales going to show up?

We had hardly pressed the "publish" button for our previous post, that the events taking place in the volatility complex led to the already well publicized demise of some short volatility ETNs. This was bound to happen given the non-linearity aspect one can find in financial markets. 

The events that took place were fascinating as it was indeed yet another confirmation of our musing from February 2016 conversation "The disappearance of MS München" when we were discussing the fascinating destructive effect of "Rogue waves" on man-made "structures". Those waves have a high amplitude and may appear from nowhere and disappear without a trace, or investors in some instances. Generally rogues waves require longer time to form (like "harmonic tremors" led explosions), as their growth rate has a power law rather than an exponential one. While a 12-meter wave in the usual "linear" model has a breaking force of 6 metric tons per square meter (MT/m2), modern ships are designed to tolerate a breaking wave of 15 MT/m2, a rogue wave can dwarf both of these figures with a breaking force of 100 MT/m2. Remember this. 

Once again we would like to come back to our February post of 2016 and quote the book "Credit Crisis" authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer (which we quoted on numerous occasions on this very blog for good reasons) and Philip Gisdakis and steer you towards chapter 5 entitled "The Anatomy of a Credit Crisis" page 215 entitled "LTCM: The arbitrage saga" and the issue we have discussing extensively which is our great discomfort with rising positive correlations and large standard deviations move. This amounts to us as increasing rising instability and the potential for "Rogue Waves" to show up in earnest like the one experienced last Monday:

"LTCM's trading strategies generally showed no or almost very little correlation. In normal times or even in crises that are limited to a specific segment, LTCM benefited from this high degree of diversification. Nevertheless, the general flight to liquidity in 1998 caused a jump in global risk premiums, hitting the same direction. All (in normal times less-correlated) positions moved in the same direction. Finally, it is all about correlation! Rising correlations reduces the benefit from diversification, in the end hitting the fund's equity directly. This is similar with CDO investments (ie, mezzanine pieces in CDOs), which also suffer from a high (default) correlation between the underlying assets. Consequently, a major lesson of the LTCM crisis was that the underlying Covariance matrix used in Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis is not static but changes over time." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

You might probably understand by now from our previous sailing analogy (The Vasa ship) and wave analogy (The Ninth Wave) where it will eventually end: Another financial crisis. 

Moving back to the LTCM VaR reference, the Variance-Covariance Method assumes that returns are normally distributed. In other words, it requires that we estimate only two factors - an expected (or average) return and a standard deviation. Value-at-Risk (VaR) calculates the maximum loss expected (or worst case scenario) on an investment, over a given time period and given a specified degree of confidence. This what we had to say about VaR in our May 2015 conversation "Cushing's syndrome" and ties up nicely to our world of rising positive correlations. Your VaR measure doesn't measure today your maximum loss, but could be only measuring your minimum loss on any given day.

Check the recent large standard deviation moves dear readers such as the one experienced on the VIX last Monday and ask yourself if we are anymore in a VaR assumed "normal market" conditions:

"On a side note while enjoying a lunch with a quant fund manager friend of ours, we mused around the ineptness of VaR as a risk model. When interviewing fellow quants for a position within his fund, he has always asked the same question: What does VaR measures? He always get the same answer, namely that VaR measures the maximum loss at any point during the period. VaR is like liquidity, it is a backward-looking yardstick. It does not measure your maximum loss at any point during the period but, in today "positively correlated markets" we think it measures your "minimum loss" at any point during the period as it assumes "normal" markets. We are not in "normal" markets anymore rest assured." - source Macronomics, May 2015

But, last Monday's move while surprising by its velocity, has not been as significant as the move seen in the VIX back in 1987. We are yet to see a spike to 173 seen on the VIX during the October 1987 crash and that was something, really something.

This is also what we argued in February 2016:

If you think diversification is a "solid defense" in a world of "positive correlations", think again, because here what the authors of "Credit Crisis" had to say about LTCM and tail events (Rogue Waves):
"Even if there are arbitrage opportunities in the sense that two positions that trade at different prices right now will definitely converge at a point in the future, there is a risk that the anomaly will become even bigger. However typically a high leverage is used for positions that have a skewed risk-return profile, or a high likelihood of a small profit but a very low risk of a large loss. This equals the risk-and-return profile of credit investments but also the risk that selling far-out-of-the-money puts on equities. In case of a tail event occurs, all risk parameters to manage the overall portfolio are probably worthless, as correlation patterns change dramatically during a crisis. That said, arbitrage trades are not under fire because the crisis has an impact on the long-term-risk-and-return profile of the position. However, a crisis might cause a short-term distortion of capital market leading to immense mark-to-market losses. If the capital adequacy is not strong enough to offset the mark-to-market losses, forced unwinding triggers significant losses in arbitrage portfolios. The same was true for many asset classes during the summer of 2007, when high-quality structures came under pressure, causing significant mark-to-market losses. Many of these structures did not bear default risk but a huge liquidity risk, and therefore many investors were forced to sell." - source Credit Crises, published in 2008, authored by Dr Jochen Felsenheimer and Philip Gisdakis

You probably understand by now why we have raised the "red flag" so many times on our fear in the rise of "positive correlations". They do scare us, because they entail, larger and larger standard deviation moves and potentially trigger "Rogue Waves" which can wipe out even the biggest and most reputable "Investment ships" à la MS München." - source Macronomics, February 2016

Obviously, for us rising term premiums have been like a "harmonic tremor" leading to the buildup that ended with the explosion that occurred in the short volatility space. The catalyst has been rising inflation expectations coming from the latest U.S. Average Hourly Earnings rising 2.9% Y/Y, the most since 2009. This was the little grain of sand that triggered, we think Monday's avalanche. 

If Short Vol ETNs could be compared to a piece of a CDO like structure for the financial markets complex, they could be seen as the "Equity tranche", or the first loss piece of this "capital structure" (The tranche that absorbs the first loss (and thus is the most risky tranche) is often called an equity tranche). Obviously the next question one would like to have answered when looking at his portfolio, is am I "senior" enough in the capital structure and is my attachment point high enough to avoid the pain? 

In relation to the issue of rising term premiums and additional potential pain and "de-risking" coming we read with interest Nomura's Global Markets Navigator note from the 7th of February entitled "Rising term premium claims its first victim":

"According to the NY Fed, the 10yr UST term premium troughed in early December at -0.62bps. As of 5 February, the NY Fed estimates that it has risen 33bps to -0.29bps.

Over the same period, the MOVE Index of implied treasury volatility rose in sympathy from an all-time index low of 48 to today’s 66. In previous reports we have linked low term premia to low implied interest volatility and in turn low implied volatilities in risk assets, e.g., equities.

Front-end VIX started to rise from the first day of 2018 trading, lagging behind the increase in the term premium. It was toward the end of January that both measures began to move faster. The recent few days of trading needs little rehashing.

And yet other risk assets and measures of risk aversion have not gone through similarly violent changes. Equity volatility in the euro area and Japan rose in tandem with the US but didn’t reach the same intraday highs. High yield spreads widened too, but not in a disorderly manner. Investment grade spreads didn't move much. Indeed a simple model of daily VIX changes vs daily S&P changes would have implied that US equities should have been down nearer 11% on 5 February rather than 4%. In other words, implied has move significantly higher than realised.

There are two interpretations of these facts. First, the VIX is sending us a serious message about the outlook for short-term US equity returns that the market needs to pay attention too. Second, US equity volatility products are an asset class in their own right. The existence of levered short-vol carry positions in those markets makes them more exposed to relatively small changes in other asset classes, e.g., rates vol.

To the extent interpretation one is correct, we should see a large increase in long rates hedges and selling pressure in credit and EM. To the extent the second interpretation is correct we should expect, when the affected positions are removed, a return to the status quo ex ante. Feedback from discussions with market participants suggests most people are putting faith in the second interpretation; this was an isolated incident in an important derivatives market.

The evidence supports that case. But there’s a problem. And it's the term premium.

As we wrote last time, the cyclical growth outlook points to higher policy rates and flatter curves, tight spreads and strong equity performance. The secular improvement scenario calls for higher rates too but is ambiguous about the shape of the nominal and real curve. The ambiguity stems from uncertainty about the natural rate and inflation. This makes it hard to anchor long-end rates (without even taking into account net net issuance) – ergo higher realised rates volatilities. This uncertainty is unlikely to go away for some time if we remain in an above-trend positive output gap world.

Thus normalisation – whether cyclical or structural – means a higher term premium and higher rates volatility. Even while the absolute level of yields remains low the past few days tells us two important things: investment strategies habituated to low term premia are likely to struggle in this environment; and higher beta assets can rally as government yields rise so long as their risk premia fall faster than rates increase. If rates rise too quickly, all bets are off.

The speed and breadth of the recent recovery has left central banks with a communication problem – it is tough to forward guide a nervous bond market if inflation is rising and growth is well above trend. If a rising term premia has claimed its first victim, will there be others?

Given the low absolute level of yields there’s little case for a growth driven risk sell off. But it is the speed of the adjustment to normal that will now be critical. Perversely, the best thing for markets now would be more modest growth and comforting downside inflation miss. - source Nomura

There lie the crux of the situation, too much good news could lead to more bad news for risky assets such as the dreaded CPI number coming out soon in the US. This is a very important number for bond yields in particular and asset prices in general. 

As we stated in our previous conversation prior to the VIX bloodbath that ensued, positive correlations matter and matter a lot. On this subject we read with interest Deutsche Bank' Special Report from the 7th of February entitled "The bond risk premium and the equity/yield correlation":

"A few months ago, we noted that the combination of low yields and high equities raised concerns that a sudden rise in bond yields could lead to a material repricing of equities. A week ago, we had a glimpse of a potential shift in the equity/yield correlation (higher yields/lower equities) that has been mainly positive since the late 90s. The risk-off environment of the last couple of days has reasserted the positive correlation between bond yields and equities. How can we explain such shift in correlation?

Our analysis suggests that the equity/yield correlation is related to the bond risk premium. A high bond risk premium coincides with a negative correlation between yields and equities. In the post Volker period, 10Y UST ~3% above r* corresponds to a yield/equity correlation close to zero (on a 12m backward looking basis). Current estimates of r* are between 0 and 50bp, but are expected to rise to 50-75bp in the quarters ahead.

On this basis, assuming that inflation expectations remain broadly anchored, a persistent shift in correlation is likely to occur when 10Y UST is somewhere between 3 and 3.5%. Clearly, the market will notice a shift in correlation on a much shorter time frame: a few days of negative correlation between yields and equities have been enough to generate significant attention. Thus, one would expect the shift in correlation to be felt at lower level of rates.

The relative perception of the risk of high vs low inflation regimes – i.e. 70s stagflation vs. Japanese deflation – is likely to be the underlying driver of the equity/yield correlation. When higher inflation is negative for growth (e.g. the 70s), one would expect bond yields and equities to be negatively correlated. A positive shock to inflation would coincide with a negative shock to growth, leading to higher bond yields and lower equities. Moreover, as higher inflation will coincide with lower growth, bonds will not be a good hedge for an equity portfolio. As a result, they should command a higher risk premium. We would therefore observe a higher risk premium in bond markets and a negative correlation between bond yields and equities.

Conversely, if low inflation is negative for growth (e.g. Japan), then one would expect bond yields and equities to be positively correlated. A negative shock to inflation would coincide with a negative shock to growth. It would lead to lower bond yields and lower equities. Moreover, as lower inflation will coincide with lower growth, bonds will be a good hedge for an equity portfolio, commanding a lower risk premium. We would therefore observe a lower risk premium in bond markets and a positive correlation between bond yields and equities.

From a historical perspective, higher productivity coupled with cheap supply of labour reduced the risk of high inflation since the late 1990s. Technological advances and globalization have therefore likely been instrumental in establishing the low bond risk premium regime in place since the late 1990s.

This enabled central banks to establish their inflation targeting credentials and to be more predictable, thereby reducing interest rate volatility and the bond risk premium. Moreover, the FX regime in place in key EM economies led to  a significant increase in excess savings, which in turn depressed the bond risk premium (the bond market conundrum).

Looking ahead, the focus on inequalities in DM economies coupled with the desire of China in particular to shift towards a more consumption based economy suggest the current political economy trend is conducive to some reversal of the regime in place since the 90s, pointing towards the potential for a higher bond risk premium.

Indeed, these trends should result in (a) greater risk of trade barriers, (b) greater fiscal deficits in DM and (c) reduced current account surpluses in EM. Taken together, this should reduce the savings/investment imbalance and the disinflationary pressures from globalization. The resulting rise in the bond risk premium would put downward pressure on the yield/equity correlation.

The bond risk premium and the equities/yields correlation: the evidence

The bond risk premium (defined as the 10Y yield minus long-term growth and inflation expectations) has proven to be a good indicator of the correlation between equities and yields (defined as the rolling 12m correlation of weekly changes in the S&P and weekly changes in the 10Y yield). In the early 1990s, the bond risk premium was high and the correlation between yields and equities was negative.

Since the late 1990s, the correlation has been mostly positive with temporary exceptions around the end of tightening cycles (early 2000s and 2006) and the taper tantrum (see graphs below, note that the correlation scale is inverted on the left graph).

The focus on the post 1990s period is driven by the data availability: there are no long term growth and inflation surveys prior to this date. This period has been one of relatively stable inflation (especially relative to the 1970s), and as a result a significant portion of the move in yields can be associated to changes in the bond risk premium or a decline in the neutral real rate rather than changes in inflation. Thus, over this period, using the gap between UST10Y and the neutral real rate (as estimated by Holston, Laubach and Williams) is also a good indicator of the correlation between bond yields and equities (see graphs).

By focusing on 10Y UST – r* we can extend the sample to the early 60s. The correlation observed since the 1990s, extends over the whole lower inflation era (1986-2017). During the post Bretton Woods/high inflation/Volker periods, the correlation is weaker which could be ascribe to the fact that the 10Y rates are more impacted by inflation. Also the yield/equity correlation is always negative, which is consistent with the intuition discussed above.

In the 60s, the correlation is somewhat stronger again (see graph below).

In short, the bond risk premium is a decent indicator of the correlation between equities and bond yields. When it is high, the correlation becomes negative, pointing to high bond risk premium weighing on equities.

Assuming that inflation does not vary significantly, the gap between 10Y UST and r* can be used as a reference. Looking at the most recent samples (charts below), a spread between 10Y UST and r* of 3% would be consistent with the bond equity correlation persistently changing sign.

As well as representing a gauge of bond risk premium, the equity/yields correlation can be also used to confirm the evolution of credit risk in the euro area. Indeed, the correlation between the various European bond yields and equity markets was the same pre-crisis. In 2009, Italy switched to a persistently negative correlation which increased back towards zero following the “whatever it takes” statement from Draghi. The correlation between the CAC40 and OAT briefly turned negative when French spreads where widening substantially in 2011/2012. The shift in correlation can be interpreted as the result of a tightening of credit conditions due to a widening of credit spreads." - source Deutsche Bank

If indeed the shift in correlation from positive to negative marks a regime change in the narrative, given how loose financial conditions have been, it also indicates as per Deutsche Bank a tightening of credit conditions. To illustrate further the impact changes in cross-asset volatility thanks to change in correlations we think the below chart from Bank of America Merrill Lynch Cross-Asset Hedging note from the 7th of February entitled "Few signs of X-asset contagion as equity vol bubble finally pops" illustrate even further the "harmonic tremor":

- source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

For us, the most important piece of the puzzle for additional pain would be from the "Big Bad Wolf" aka inflation. This would generate additional pressure on risk premiums and bond yields. What matters as Nomura puts it in their note, is the speed of the adjustment and also from the Fed should it fells it is behind the curve thanks to faster than expected rise in inflation expectations. The risk obviously is on the upside particularly when it comes to rising concerns with inflation expectations. Some see the current situation with the latest US fiscal profligacy as similar to what the US experienced in the 1960s. This is the case for Deutsche Bank which sees similarities as per their Global Fixed Income note from the 9th of February entitled "A structural repricing of bond markets":

"There are some striking similarities between the new policy mix discussed above and the conditions that led to a shift upward in inflation expectations in 1966. In the first half of the 1960s, unemployment was declining rapidly but core inflation remained low and the Phillips Curve was “dead” (right graph below).

In 1966, the US administration significantly increased its fiscal spending on the back of (a) the Vietnam war and (b) the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid. This denoted a turning point in core inflation, which began to rise markedly (graph above). There are competing interpretations as to what drove the pickup in inflation: (a) fiscal stimulus, (b) non-linearities in the Phillips curve as the unemployment rate dipped below 4%, (c) rising healthcare inflation and (d) a Fed that was (ex-post) behind the curve.

Irrespective of the precise drivers, there are some similarities with current conditions. As the US economy is approaching full employment, the US government is implementing a significant fiscal stimulus. The potential introduction of trade barriers creates upside risks to inflation. Finally, the Fed may not intend to be behind the curve today, but if r* rises, as the Fed and our economists expect, current market pricing of the Fed policy will be overly accommodative." - source Deutsche Bank

There are many upside risks we commented in recent conversation, one being the start of a trade war through the implementation of trade barriers (that 30s feeling) which would put indeed some pressure on prices no doubt. This set up of both US profligacy and trade war would obviously reinforce further the bullish case for gold that led, at the end of the Vietnam to the Nixon shock in August 1971 and  the direct international convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. Could the sudden rise in positive correlations be yet another sign of the buildup in "harmonic tremor" that would led to a regime shift in inflation? We wonder.

Given as we pointed out again recently in our conversation "Bracket creep" that bear markets for US equities generally coincide with a significant tick up in core inflation, this the biggest near term concern of markets right now we think. When it comes to the relation between inflation and stock markets we read with interest Nomura's take from their Inflation Insights note from the 6th of February:

"A lesson for the near future

We think the correction in stock prices is connected to the likelihood of a return of wage inflation. We look at the traditional Gordon growth model to find that a scenario of higher wage inflation, higher inflation, higher inflation valuations, higher nominal rates and higher equity prices are very unlikely unless expectations of trend real growth substantially increase from current levels. We note that the US corporate tax cut did not manage to lift these expectations. We also note that the correction in stock prices may be a signal that US monetary policy is maybe being tightened in real terms more rapidly than what profit growth can actually sustain.

A simple framework and a reminder

According to James Bullard, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Saint Louis, “inflation scare triggered some of the (equity) market sell-off”. There is indeed a very strong theoretical linkage between inflation and equity markets, which is best illustrated in the simple framework provided by the Gordon growth model, also referred to as the Dividend Discount Model. In this very simple model of stock prices, stock prices are discounted dividend expectations so that:

Where P is the stock price, D is future dividends and y is the nominal discount factor. Assuming a constant rate of growth for dividend g, this equation can be re-written so
that:

Yet beyond this simple formula there are various assumptions that connect stock prices to the inflation market. First, y is the discount factor for stock prices, so it is the nominal risk-free rate plus the equity premium (y=r+ep). G is the growth rate for dividends, so it is in fact the nominal growth rate of the economy multiplied by the share of economic growth that goes to profits rather than wages (g=k*gdp, with gdp the growth rate of nominal GDP). Economists call it the sharing of national income.

A key factor affecting the sharing of national income is wage inflation. Average hourly earnings increased to 2.9% year-on-year in the US nonfarm payrolls report for January – their highest growth rate since 2009. This high number was perceived as heralding the return of wage inflation in the US and therefore altering the sharing of national income towards a larger share for wages and a lower share for profits.

Clearly, this framework from 1962 does not capture some other key financial aspects of the determination of stock prices. For example, it is likely that there is some linkage between the sharing of national income and the level of the risk-free rate (k and r). If wage inflation returns, the path of nominal interest rates is likely to be higher: that was also the case recently, resulting in a higher discount factor for dividends negatively affecting stock prices. With the equity premium term already minimal (implied volatility is low), there were few reasons for investors to expect higher risk-free rates to be offset by a lower equity premium.

We view this framework as a good reminder that a scenario of higher wage inflation, higher inflation, higher inflation valuations, higher nominal rates and higher equity prices are very unlikely unless expectations of trend real growth substantially increase from current levels. It is also intriguing that the US corporate tax cut was so promptly followed by the stock price correction – which suggests at least some skepticism about its effectiveness.

A minor caveat

And there is of course a minor caveat to this framework: the risk of an inflation overshoot remains noticeably absent from inflation valuations despite the increase in wages in January. Figure 1 shows that despite an increase in the 5yr inflation swap rate, the price of a hedge against inflation much higher than 2% is not historically high. We are only cautiously long 5yr breakeven rates in the US, it is worth recalling.

Too high, too fast?

Maybe the correction in stock prices – despite the tax cut – is a sign that real rates are getting close to “neutral” levels, for example the level of the natural real rate estimated by Williams and all, is likely to exert a negative effect on growth that may go beyond what inflation conditions currently imply. In other words, absent the risk of an inflation overshoot, real rates may normalise too fast, too soon – which would have an adverse impact on the real risk-free rate, but also on real dividend growth.

- source Nomura

When it comes to inflation "expectations", the above reminds us it is all about "implied" and "realized". In similar fashion implied volatility is more simply what the market is expecting (VIX) whereas realized volatility is sometimes deemed more tangible because it reflects the actual daily movement of the S&P 500 Index. The true outlying year in history was 2008 (before 2018's sucker punch), when realized volatility was actually higher than implied volatility - the only such instance over recent years. Even in 2017 the relationship between implied volatility and realized volatility was pretty much "normal". The issue of course is that when central banks are meddling with interest rates and financial repression leads to volatility being subdued for too long, then like a coiled spring, profiting, primarily, from the "volatility premium" (the difference between implied volatility (investors’ forecast of market volatility reflected in options pricing) and realized (actual) market volatility) seems like a "sure bet" for the likes of LJM Fund Management that got beaten up big time with the VIX blowing out à la 2008 (that infamous rogue waves we talk about with a breaking force of 100 MT/m2) . Believing that the spread between implied and realized volatility would persist has indeed been a dangerous proposal with rising positive correlations. In similar fashion believing that "implied inflation" could persist remaining below "realized inflation" could become hazardous in the coming months, particularly with growing geopolitical exogenous risks around. Whereas QE was deflationary, QT could prove to be inflationary but we ramble again...

Make no mistake, inflation is the "Boogeyman" for financial markets.  A sharp pickup in inflation is likely to entail a significant re-pricing and as per our final chart below it represents a serious headwind for the US consumers (Bracket creep aside).

• Final chart - Increased inflation presents a potential threat to the purchasing power of consumers.

 The "Big Bad Wolf" aka inflation would force the hand of central banks and lead to a more rapid pace in rate hikes leading to some significant additional repricing on the way. Inflation is our concern numero uno. Our final chart comes from Wells Fargo Economics Group note from the 8th of February entitled "Is the US Consumer Running on Fumes?" and highlights the relationship between PCE Deflator and Disposable Income:

"The Threat of Higher Inflation and Higher Interest Rates

In general, higher inflation reduces the growth rate of real disposable personal income and vice versa, which is clearly demonstrated in Figure 8.

As income and wealth are affected by fluctuations in inflation, one of the biggest threats over the next several years has to do with the rate of inflation. Markets recently seem to have been spooked by the relatively, and surprisingly, strong report on average hourly earnings, which could be indicating some pressure on prices for the U.S. economy. Higher inflation means higher interest rates, and both factors are clearly negative for the U.S. consumer. Higher inflation reduces the purchasing power of income, while higher interest rates makes purchases of durable goods, which are typically financed, more expensive over time. While for those that have fixed-rate mortgages, it is music to their ears, it is bad news for those that have adjustable rate mortgages.

Although inflation has remained low in this cycle compared to its historical trend, if prices were to accelerate, Americans’ real DPI growth will, once again, slow down and could also lead to a slowing of growth in real PCE, all else equal. Therefore, if we were to see an uptick in inflation, real DPI growth will slow and consumers’ purchasing power, or the amount they could consume based on their current income, would be negatively affected. Although this effect is clearly demonstrated in Figure 8, it is also evident that DPI experiences fluctuations with rather lackluster inflation growth. That is, although higher inflation can directly decrease disposable income growth, it is not the only factor that causes reductions in the rate of growth of income.

Furthermore, increases in interest rates could contribute to a slowdown in real PCE, as consumer purchases might diminish based on increased expense, such as what we have previously mentioned associated with durable goods financing. Another sector of risk for the consumer as well as for the credit market is the tax reform’s change in second mortgages or equity lines of credit. Americans, in some circumstances, can no longer take a credit on their taxes for interest on equity lines of credit and this together with the still-high, relative to the past, delinquency rate for these lines of credit could be signaling problems ahead for the U.S. consumer, as well as for the overall credit market." - source Wells Fargo

One could argue that the only "easing" day was yesterday. Have we seen "peak consumer confidence" in the US? It certainly looks like it so beware of the Big Bad Wolf aka "inflation" because he has already blown apart the "short vol" pig's house made of straw...

"Worry is the interest paid by those who borrow trouble." -  George Washington

Stay tuned !