Thursday, June 15, 2017

13 key charts say things are OK

Yesterday the FOMC raised its target short-term interest rate by a quarter point to 1.25%. This was as expected, but markets today are a little on edge. Since the rate hike came against a backdrop of a still-weak economy, a softening in inflation, and a flattening of the yield curve, there were questions: Is the Fed now too tight? Is inflation, now running at 1.5% or so, too low? Will the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet (also announced yesterday) pose problems for the market in the future?

For now, I don't see any significant concerns.  The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will not likely start for several months, and it will be very gradual in the beginning, giving the Fed plenty of time for a mid-course correction should it prove problematic. Reading the bond market's entrails, I see no sign of distress, and no shortage of liquidity. Inflation has slipped modestly below 2%, but that's hardly something to lose sleep over, and it's likely due to the weakness in oil prices. Which is actually a boon for the economy, since cheaper energy makes it easier to generate growth. The world is "suffering" from a glut of oil that has been caused by a surfeit of supply, not a shortfall in demand.

If there's anything to worry about, it's that the market apparently is not very worried about anything. The implied volatility of stocks and bonds is quite low by historical standards, which means the market is reasonably certain about what it foresees. What it foresees is a continuation of what we have seen in recent years: modest economic growth of 2% or so, relatively low and reasonably stable inflation of 1.5% to 2% or so, modest growth in corporate profits, and a modest pickup in global growth.

The market is apparently unconcerned about the potential for geopolitical nightmares, such as might follow from further destabilization of the Middle East or a nuclear attack by North Korea. Few seem to worry about a failed Trump presidency, despite an unprecedented media onslaught—and it's hard to find evidence that the market is priced to a successful Trump presidency, in which tax rates are slashed and prosperity once again washes over the land.

Is the market too complacent and are valuations too high? We'll only know in the fullness of time. We've seen implied volatility remain low for extended periods without anything untoward happening. Then again, big shocks usually come at times of great complacency. About the only thing that one can say at times like this is that hiding out in the safety of cash is still relatively expensive. Cash only pays about 1% per year, at a time when the earnings yield on equities is 4.6% and 10-yr Treasuries yield less than 2.2%. Think back to the last time stocks were egregiously overvalued (late 1999/early 2000). Cash paid 5-6%, 10-yr Treasuries offered a 6.5% return, and the earnings yield on equities was only 3.5%. It was a lot easier to hide out in cash back then than it is now, but PE ratios back then were in the neighborhood of 30, whereas today they are 22. In short, it's not obvious that stocks today are overvalued, especially in the context of alternative investments.

What follows are 13 charts that illustrate key market and financial fundamentals, in no particular order, with some brief commentary on each. I want to get this out soon, because my oldest grandson is graduating from elementary school today and I don't want to miss the ceremony.


2-yr swap spreads are at very reasonable levels. This tells us that liquidity is abundant and systemic risk is low. If anything, the recent decline in swap spreads both here and abroad is a harbinger of better things to come. If the Fed were putting the squeeze on the banking system and/or the economy, these spreads would be a lot higher and rising.


As the chart above shows, there are two things that tend to happen in the bond market in advance of recessions: real yields become significantly positive, and the yield curve becomes flat or negatively-sloped. We may get there in a year or so, but for now neither of these indicators is threatening. The Fed hasn't so much tightened as it has become less loose.


Here's a closeup of the real Federal funds rate, using my estimate of the current level of inflation. Still quite low by historical standards. If you put your money in safe investments, you are probably going to lose some purchasing power. Not very exciting, nor very threatening.



The chart above shows two points on the real yield curve: overnight and 5 years. The red line is the market's expectation for where the blue line is likely to be in 5 year's time. The real yield curve has flattened, because the market doesn't expect the Fed to do much more tightening for quite awhile. The time to worry is when the bond market senses that the economy is so weak that in the future the Fed is going to have to cut rates.


Inflation expectations over the next 5 years have fallen to 1.6% or so, as evidenced by the price of 5-yr Treasuries and 5-yr TIPS.


As the chart above shows, the decline in oil prices probably explains the decline in inflation expectations. This is a good thing.


The prices of TIPS and gold have been falling on the margin, though they remain elevated. I take this to mean that the market is somewhat less willing to seek the safety of these two securities, which is another way of saying that the market is gradually losing its fear of the unknown. If the economy were really healthy, both of these prices would be a lot lower.


The decline in TIPS prices (and the rise in real yields) is the market's way of saying that it thinks real GDP growth could pick up a bit in coming years, as the chart above suggests.


Treasury yields generally track the ups and downs of inflation, but the level of yields is still relatively low compared to the current level of inflation. I take that to mean that the market is still willing to pay up for the safety of bonds. If the market were wildly optimistic and/or overvalued, Treasury yields would be much higher than the rate of inflation.


The implied volatility of both equity and bonds is historically quite low. It's not unprecedented for this to happen, and it doesn't necessarily argue for any negative surprises around the corner. Sometimes we get extended periods of relative calm like today's. If it means anything, it's that a negative shock would come as a shock to the market. If something bad happens, it's going to be bad, because the market is not expecting it. Shocking, I know.


All this chart says is that the market tends to sell off when fear and uncertainty raise their ugly heads. Nothing terrible is happening currently, according to the market, so equity prices are floating gradually higher. Shocking.


For over a decade the rate of consumer price inflation ex-energy has averaged about 2%. Currently that rate has slipped a bit from that trend, but by a very tiny amount. The decline in oil prices may be "leaking" into other prices. Terrible (not).


The TED spread (the difference between 3-mo. LIBOR and 3-mo. T-bills) today is quite normal, right around 25 bps. This means that the Fed has been successful in guiding short-term rates higher. T-bill yields are lagging the Federal funds rate by about 25 bps, while overnight bank lending rates are tracking the Fed's rate target; that's almost a textbook-perfect picture.  The Fed is not pushing on a string, and it has figured out how to push market interest rates higher without starving the banking system of liquidity (as it did in past tightening episodes, when the only way it could push rates higher was by draining bank reserves). This is good news, since it means the Fed is still in control despite never before having executed a tightening of policy in the presence of an abundance of bank reserves.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Commercial real estate alive and well

REITS (e.g., VNQ) have underperformed the broad market (S&P 500) by over 20% since early July of last year, thanks at least in part to concerns that e-commerce (e.g., Amazon) has rendered shopping malls obsolete. To illustrate this point, one REIT, SPG (Simon Property Group, the largest shopping mall and retail center owner in the country), has underperformed the broad market by over 40% since the end of last July. The graph below illustrates the divergences:


According to the latest data (April) from CoStar, prices for larger commercial real estate properties slumped beginning in mid-summer last year, but have rebounded of late. Meanwhile, their equal-weighted property price index (which captures the much larger volume of transactions for smaller properties) jumped an impressive 15% in the year ending last April, and has been posting double-digit gains for the past four years:


I point this out because the pessimism priced into REITs in general, and especially those that specialize in large commercial properties and shopping malls, may have reached extreme levels. Caveat emptor, of course.

UPDATE (6/21): The May release of the Architecture Billings Index rose to 53, marking the fourth consecutive month of growth. This is a good indicator of increased future spending on commercial real estate, and fully supports the thesis of this post. See Calculated Risk for more details.


Thursday, June 8, 2017

Richer than ever

This post is the latest in a series of updates on the fabulous wealth that has been created in the U.S. economy.

Today the Fed released its Q1/17 estimate of the balance sheets of U.S. households. Once again, our net worth reached a new high in nominal, real, and per capita terms. We have been struggling through the weakest recovery ever for the past 8 years, yet we are better off than ever before, and by a lot.


As of March 31, 2017, the net worth of U.S. households (including that of Non-Profit Organizations, which exist for the benefit of all) reached a staggering $94.84 trillion. That's up $7.3 trillion in just the past year, for an impressive gain of 8.3%, and up $27.2 trillion since the pre-2008 peak. Of note, household liabilities have increased by a mere $510 billion since their 2008 peak, for a gain of only 3.5%. The value of real estate holdings is up about $1.9 trillion (+7.6%) from that of the "bubble" high of 2006, and financial asset holdings have soared by almost $24 trillion (+45%) since pre-crash levels, thanks to significant gains in savings deposits, bonds, and equities. The gains in wealth are not just due to a raging stock market, since the market cap of all traded U.S. equities has risen by only $8.4 trillion since its pre-2008 high, according to Bloomberg. 


In real terms, household net worth has grown at a 3.5% annualized rate for the past 65 years, as seen in the chart above. That works out to almost a 10-fold gain in wealth roughly three generations, and that's impressive by any standard. Perhaps more importantly, there is no sign that this rising trend has been compromised or degraded in the past decade.


On a real per capita basis (i.e., after adjusting for inflation and population growth), the net worth of the average person living in the U.S. reached a new all-time high of $292K, up from $63K in 1950. This measure of wealth has been rising, on average, about 2.3% per year since records were first kept beginning in 1951. By this metric, life in the U.S. has been getting better and better for generations. Real per capita net worth has almost quintupled in three generations.


The ongoing accumulation of wealth is not a house of cards built on a bulging debt bubble either, regardless of what you might hear from the scaremongers. As the chart above shows, the typical household has cut its leverage by one third, from a high of 21% in early 2009 to 13.8% by the end of last quarter. Households have been prudently and impressively strengthening their balance sheets over the past eight years by saving and investing more and by reducing the use of debt financing.

Inevitably, skeptics will point out that although the amount of wealth created in the U.S. economy is spectacular, the distribution of that wealth is heavily skewed, being held mostly in the hands of relatively few. Zero Hedge has a good summary of the relevant facts. I (and many others) would argue, however, that the distribution of wealth is not nearly as important as the per capita amount of wealth. Consider: an employee of Apple, now the world's most valuable company (market cap of $808 billion as of today) may have zero personal net worth, but he or she enjoys a job that never existed before. Or consider users of Apple's iPhones who also may have zero personal net worth, but now enjoy more computing power and knowledge in their pocket than was even conceivable just 10 years ago. Increased wealth means more jobs, more opportunities, and more productivity for everyone. Society's accumulated net worth can be seen in buildings, factories, homes, gadgets, streets, and transportation networks, and all of this can be enjoyed and exploited by nearly everyone for their personal gain and/or happiness. It doesn't matter who owns the factory; what matters is how good the jobs are in that factory.

Free markets and capitalism have proven to be the greatest creators of wealth and prosperity in the history of the world. They maximize wealth creation and opportunity for all, but they can't possibly deliver equality of wealth distribution. To expect it would be to fail to understand how free markets and capitalism work. Some people's comparative advantage lies in building companies and accumulating wealth, while others' advantage lies in supplying the labor that allows capital to be put to work for the benefit of all. Everyone needs each other, and everyone enjoys the fruits of our prosperity. You can't have an Apple without a Steve Jobs becoming fabulously wealthy, and you can't have an Apple without millions of people working to produce and use its products.