AGAINST THE TIDE
The two massive current market questions are about liquidity and rates: maybe that’s just one question.
So, do we now question our long-held assumptions?
The storm in a teacup in a short trading week over UK Gilts is of little interest, we all know where it leads, I am sorry to say.
STILL ENOUGH LIQUIDITY?
Liquidity is the scary issue, and bond yields rising indicates a loss of liquidity, but is it serious?
I don’t think so; the usual sequence is a panic causes a loss of liquidity, so settlement starts to fail, causing technical defaults, and then the frightened regulators crash the system. None of that is visible.
There are real strains, no doubt, Russia is struggling to finance war, China is suffering a property bust, but notably rates there are falling. Saudi Arabia can’t fund expansion on less than 90$ oil, and both France and the wider EU are in very deep. But none of that is causing disastrous rate rises. Indeed, currencies, as intended, are taking some of the strain.
Gold and bitcoin are building vast, useless, liquid supplies of wealth. While a strong tech market is luring funds away from bonds, and of course the US Federal debt is vast.
Nor does anyone want to be in the market, when the inevitable happens, liquidity crises are a persistent feature of the system.
But for all that I see Central Banks still holding the line reasonably well. No one state has seen a dramatic failure, even the UK, always the weakest, is not yet really offering an enticing rate on ten-year money, given its failure to stop inflation.
So, the current liquidity action still looks, on balance, like bets for and against rate cuts, not distress.
And Trump has profoundly disrupted global markets, by offering a genuine, large-scale alternative to secular decline.
BACK TO RATE CUTS
What about rate cuts then? And inflation.
Inflation is clearly a problem, Biden has been running the US economy hot, to try to win the election, and now Trump optimism is doing the same.
US NON FARM PAYROLL - DECEMBER 2024
And the Fed rate cuts now look ahead of the curve. Indeed, the pre-election 50-basis point one always was.
We felt it was politically motivated, so a sharp kick through a reversal and a rate rise is indeed possible, but with real US rates still positive, it would also feel gratuitous.
The rest of the world has the opposite problem. True it will now import US dollar inflation, especially on energy, and its exports pre-tariffs will look more competitive, but I doubt if either matters, when austerity looms once more.
They just serve to disguise the underlying issues. Although it is possible Germany gets a Trumpian boost, post-election.
However, it will still be really hard for the European old guard to resist rate cuts, let alone allow rate rises. Taking down an already non-functioning banking system, would be reckless.
The UK is very vulnerable; that’s why avoiding the Euro made so little sense, if we were set on swallowing the other nonsense.
I have never seen other outcomes, given Labour election promises and the need for some attempt to steady the ship before implementing real reforms. But nor have I ever seen other exits bar Truss II. If Reeves and her team let up on real service cuts, they have signed their own resignations. Spending money and raising taxes is instant, so never the hard part. Cutting bloated budgets is also easy, but does need nerve, time and skill. The jury is still out on if Labour has those.
WINTER BLUES
All the market turbulence relates to the holiday period, which in the US now spills over into late January with Martin Luther King Day, and the added impact of various Presidential comings and goings, so I think it can still be ignored.
Thin trading encourages stunts. While Q1 data is usually terrible, the most adjusted season of the year.
The first “live” Fed meeting therefore looks to be on March 19th. Which is well after earnings season.
So yes, volatility and reasons to be fearful, but overall, I fail to see this derails the Trump boom. Also, at some point the UK mood will change, if only for shares with high dollar earnings.
Adequate liquidity and on-going rate cuts therefore remain supportive narratives, but both are currently on a winter break.
Assuming no disasters on their return, the year ahead looks fine.
OTHER PLACES
India
I have had a longer look at the Indian economy.
In aggregate  India remains impressive, with plenty of money being made and invested. However, it can in the end go no faster than the average voter, and for some of those, life remains tough.
Modernisation and urbanisation look great on the IMF charts, but always come with a cost, in particular for the urban poor. To be clear, there is no old-style deprivation, no lack of food or clean water, no loss of civil order, there is some basic healthcare, but for all that a lot of surplus marginal labour still. Navigating those strains, while building a modern state, is no small feat. So, India looks great, but only if it can hold a basic policy line through and beyond the retirement of Narendra Modi. Here is a summary of India’s 2025 issues, as taught to its civil servants.
Pakistan, Argentina, Poland, Hungary
Of the true frontier markets, which is the tier below emerging, the best Asian performer last year was Pakistan at +83%, but even they failed to match Argentina at + 91%. While closer to home the expected ending of the disaster that is the Ukraine War, let Poland achieve +46% and Hungary +36%.
None of these have much depth, all feel like recoveries from oversold positions.
Yet at some point Europe needs a single functioning capital market, not a string of small historic ones. Within that, the great advantages of New Europe, low state debt, plentiful land, skilled labour and big EU spend, could be attractive in the multi-year boom that will follow the end of hostilities.
Hung out to dry?
Or perhaps in a flap.
Odd how we keep getting our Budgets the wrong side of bigger global stories and greater uncertainty, thereby hitting a bond sell off.
Does anyone at the UK Treasury have a calendar?
Reeves, like Truss, is in the same old bind. Without structural reform, there is no growth, without money, no reform. Here are her voluminous supporting papers. So much effort for so little.
Both maybe thought Joe Biden did it on the never never, why can’t we?
And after so long, the outcome markets most desire in the US looks likely, in other words that no one wins. And on the bright side, one irritating candidate has to now leave the stage, for good.
CAREFULLY CRAFTED
So, the ho-hum budget first.
Reeves baked in higher inflation for longer by the post-election pay rises – creating less room for maneuver. The O.B.R now forecasts a very modest rise in inflation over the next year. However, real interest rates remain too high, although it will require cover from the US, to cut rates here. But that too will happen.
That embedded inflation also precluded raising consumption taxes, as they hit inflation - crazy, as excess consumption in many areas, is the core issue.
She also needs to be lucky. Tory chancellors weren’t, but one day that may happen to a UK chancellor. Luck is rather more likely than achieving the current rather puny growth forecasts, which still assume increased productivity, especially in the public sector.
She will seemingly stick with the usual populist nonsense on alcohol taxes and fuel duty (surely a major error). While the desire by HMRC to broaden the tax base and suck everyone into providing frightening amounts of data to them, continues.
This looks like a slightly demented and sinister desire, because it underpins a belief that with enough data, they will know everything. The way every budget has a whopping benefit from “closing the tax gap”, £6 billion of it this time, of tax due but not recovered, is extraordinary (link shows the 2023 position) and seldom challenged.
In reality this is about finding new ways to fine you, and the more people are drawn into tax, as well as the more complex it is, the more the resulting fines.
FUTURE HINTS
We also note the first step to closing tax advantages for charities, or at least those the current government happens to dislike. Once it can pick and choose charities, it will not stop at education, nor will a future government share their tastes.
Another theme is one rule for the private sector, another for the state. The attack on carers, allowing them to earn more (so kind) while at the same time introducing a marginal tax hike rate of some 17% on earnings between ÂŁ5,000 and ÂŁ9,100, is a very clever sting.
Against that at last acknowledging that pension surpluses on “bought out” schemes should not endlessly accrue to the buyers, never the workers, is good news. True, again, just so far, the miners, but if that’s the first step for one off pensioner payments, from massively over-funded buy outs, it is no bad thing.
Women get hit – the new £22 billion of employment tax, all to be raised from the private sector, will hit employment, in particular female part time employment. And in areas where the minimum wage has already driven large scale shifts from payroll to welfare, it will not make it any easier to reverse that slide.
Against that there is quite clear-eyed desire not to hurt the residential property market, in many ways the other big potential tax target. Nor, as yet most pensions.
And I am not that fussed over farmland, anything with a tax break gets overpriced and hoarded. We can get misty-eyed about farmers, but the guys hauling the hay are seldom the ones pocketing the cheques.
Lower asset prices and more liquidity are no bad thing.
An A-
So overall, given her hand, the limited number of big revenue targets left, and given prior restrictions on housing and consumption taxes, this was an elegant compromise. Aside from the childish swipe at private schools, it seemed balanced. A massive fiscal drag will also persist, of course.
The long list of departmental handouts sounded a lot, but really will not amount to much, even for the NHS - we still need to banish their ridiculous silos that absorb cash, but deliver no healthcare outcomes.
So, Wes Streeting at Health remains key in all this. Otherwise, Reeves will find, like Hunt, that just feeding the public sector beast, simply grows a bigger mouth.
Another, more consequential contest, for the next Prime Minister also closes, and Kemi is a genuine reformer, if she ever gets to No 10. We will see the end of the drift we have endured for much of this century; only early Blair was a comparable radical.
SIDEWAYS WOULD BE GOOD
Markets? Well, they don’t like much of any of it.
The cyclical fall in interest rates has driven a lot of them up this year, but the sense of too far too fast hangs heavy.
We will not stop inflation as long as governments are hooked on deficit spending, and as long as they keep passing inflationary laws on wages and job security.
Whoever wins in the US election on Tuesday night, like Reeves, has the same problems the day after. Too many wars, an uncompetitive economy, too much regulation, too much debt - those are not easy to solve.
Markets may rise on positions been unwound and new ones taken, but ultimately will respond to rate cuts and falling inflation.
So, whether they end up in a flap, or we end up hung out to dry, it all comes to much the same thing.
WE ARE NOT NOW THAT STRENGTH
Markets are confused, as are Central Banks, and while generally indifferent to small wars, we know that’s how large wars start. And we have another month till November 5th and the US election. In the UK the Chancellor says it is all terrible, but is splashing cash around with abandon, but then cancelling dozens of projects, and claiming she is pro-growth, while taxing investment ever harder and encouraging so much capital flight even the OBR has noticed.
The colossal COVID debt burden still hovers over everything, a burden that can only be shed by growth or inflation, one an investor’s friend, the other their mortal foe.
Market confusion is more about politics than economics, no US rate cut in July, then a double cut in September, now a November (post-election) cut looks uncertain. The stated reason for a double cut was weak employment, but the real reason was political. Powell even said in his press conference that the Governors voted for the jumbo cut “in the best interests of the American people” so not economics, and I suspect those archetypal insiders will believe keeping Trump out is exactly that.
So, we get a “value” rally, as collapsing labour markets would lead to multiple rate cuts, and market interest rates, surprised at the severity,  then overshoot on the downside.
Except there is little evidence of anything wrong in US labour markets, as Friday showed, they are fine, and wages, along with rigid labour markets are driving inflation. Weird. But then good labour markets, plus buoyant earnings, plus falling rates sounds pretty good for equities?
Plus, something most odd in China, which from nowhere became one of the top markets in the last year, outperforming the major UK averages. Yet no one is clear why, on fundamentals. Yes, there was a stimulus package, possibly one focused on equities, possibly bigger than expected, but no one thinks it solves anything.
So, it (and ripples into luxury and metals) seems an almighty short squeeze. China had become so unloved, even its proudest fans had bailed out. The rush back in left other emerging markets, like India, struggling.
[Culled from two pages on Yahoo finance – read more here and here]
MANNERS, CLIMATES, COUNCILS, GOVERNMENTS.
Meanwhile, the Tory Conference was oddly upbeat, with some real choices, and a fair bit of optimism. The Tory party is in theoretical retreat, but greatly energised by a real debate, with members involved, about the new leader and a new direction. The disastrous election result had focused minds nicely, and yet was still discounted. Starmer had won fewer votes than Corbyn, and his popularity was already below Sunak’s. The loss was about “three tens”; voters switching to Reform, to the Lib Dems and the Sofa, sitting it out.
None of that was the love of another party, all of it was hatred of those Tories, divided and incompetent and now gone. In so far as the rump of the party now had stars, they were all standing for leader, no big guns were left after the disaster.
It was generally agreed that it must be the fault of Central Office and candidate selection, not the Party. The conference was also largely devoid of the usual big brother manipulation, fake applause, dire autocue speeches approved by a SPAD and ministers just too busy to care.
Tugendhat was bouncy, had the youth vote and the best video, but not convincing. Cleverly had worked hard, was fun and avuncular, relaxing and the obvious unity candidate. Jenrick gave some very strong speeches, plenty of thought, but seemed off-form and weary at the closing main event. Badenoch is an enigma, slightly thrown by adding “2030” to her pitch, when everyone was suddenly thinking “2029” again. Yet she is the one who wants to reform, draw a line below the stale “what did we do last time” and start afresh.  She had the best merch too.
It is still a split party, for all that. A good chunk of the younger party is very keen on Net Zero, and they were extremely visible, indeed Net Zero before all else. However the MPs know that was a Cameron fantasy, so I am not sure how that plays out.
But also, a clear understanding that talking right, governing left is finally over, and that border security is high priority, and defence is too, but not with quite the gung-ho optimism of before.
In many ways Starmer’s inability to know what sleaze and greed looks like, even if it is all innocent (a big even) bodes ill for his time; “they are all the same” is a deep-seated rallying cry of pain.
THE SCEPTRE AND THE ISLE
I am enjoying “The Sale of the Late King’s Goods”, a slightly wonkish account of Charles I’s lost trophies, but an excellent canter through the lead up to the English Civil War. It is striking how state policy was all so plausible and desirable, except for a massive inconsistency on faith, finance and Europe.
The King was desperate to be trendy, to think common decency only applied to others, had no real conviction, in restlessly appeasing various European Courts, seeking favours that never came. While funding was all about just getting to the next OBR review with enough cash to pay off friends. (Well OK, not the OBR back then, but a truly sovereign Parliament).
After finding so many conflicting aims inevitably failed to work, he then tried to drag Scotland into a standard set of beliefs and rules, and hoped blindly that the Irish would do us a favour. The desire to be liked, to look good, to look to Europe for answers, to throw money at white elephants and foreign wars, and the absurd doctrinal battles, all felt far too familiar.
If we don’t know where we are going, just buying expensive tickets won’t complete our journey. To strive, to seek.
The title of this piece comes from Ulysses, a poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
https://poets.org/poem/ulysses
Andrew Hunt’s piece this month, which looks at the solidity of underlying data and China may be of interest to serious investors.
Too chilled
Markets seem far too relaxed about world elections; we suspect from ignorance. Logically if you move from certainty to uncertainty (with a range of possible outcomes) you should adjust your level of risk. India has already shown some of the volatility of the 'wait and see' approach.
Too hot?
So, we start there, where prior confidence in an enhanced majority for Modi, was well wide of the mark, he ended down 63 seats at 240; a majority is 272. Some of that chaos is the electoral system, and some of it the ban on opinion polls - although some accurate information inevitably crept out, despite restrictions, but international investors did not pay much attention to it.
So, when the exit polls announced all was well, the market rose, only to reverse hard when the real result emerged within a few hours. Although then buyers came back in, and we ended up flat.
From this website – date published : 8th June 2024.
On a call with local managers, (and the options for investment in India are wider than you might assume) clearly something had changed, one was almost pleading with the international audience not to take money out. Very little spooks other fund managers quite like being repeatedly asked to not redeem.
The Congress Party has almost doubled its seats, from 47 to 99, a strong result. The other beneficiary was the Samajwadi party, nominally socialist, with a strong presence in Uttar Pradesh, a vast Northern state. They went from 5 to 37 seats and are very much in Modi's BJP territory.
India has always had strong states, with the more populous ones often having a local ruling party, which has been around for ages. So, this is a reversion to the long term normal.
In house collage of a state by state analysis of Indian share ownership percentages
But that is what scares investors; coalitions nearly always break down. There was also damage to the Index from the Adani group of interlocking holdings (long hounded by Congress for alleged corruption).
A weaker Modi
That allied with the long-standing fears about political corruption, uncertainty of policy and no national enforcement, is an unwelcome reminder that Modi is now in his last term. Hopes that stability will follow him, rather than a swing back to the broken past, always felt optimistic.
The commonly voiced issue is that a weaker Modi will have less ability to drive structural reforms and will find it harder to resist welfare payments, and labour demands. Historically, some of these payments and concessions reach the poor, either in higher consumption or better services, but a great part gets stuck with middlemen. That should be less of a problem now, as a result of reforms already implemented, putting in a national bio identity scheme and almost universal individual banking services.
We will see.
While generally expecting strong growth to persist, we are now more cautious about signs of the lost consensus, into the medium term.
The UK - far too chilled
Which brings us to the farce that is a UK General Election, where such discourse as there is has been about whether families are or are not facing a ÂŁ2,000 tax hike (or roughly 20% more for those on average earnings). Not knowing where they live, or how they spend their money, or indeed how they will adjust to high taxes, you can never tell these things with much accuracy.
This comes with minute (and futile) attempts to list every one of the myriad ways that the assumed tax hike won't happen and extracting a "pledge" from all parties not to raise them. As if all Chancellors do not have multiple ways to raise revenue, carte blanche to create new charges, and a great ability to lie or concoct exceptional circumstances to hit us. Sunak of all people should know that.
Yet most voters are thinking, is that all? Is it enough? We know that existing service demands are not being met and that no party seeks to resist the endless demand for expanded services.
I doubt if growth will save us either: we are close to the point where those that can take investment elsewhere, have left, and no sane investor would now invest, without substantial state subsidy. So, we are simply building up to an inevitable budget crisis in the medium term.
There are a few who hope that change will be its own reward, maybe, but we can't really tell much until after the first Budget, (Labour have pledged to revert to just one a year), and a couple of Parliamentary sessions.
Just waiting and hoping is illogical. Markets do just that, though.
Frozen in the US
Which brings us finally to the USA, the Presidential election feels (to me) fairly easy to call, but how the US Congress and Senate go, does not; the resulting power (or otherwise) of the President is less easy to predict. It may be that we get a split between parties again, which markets like, and it feels unlikely (but possible) that we end up with constitutional change, which markets certainly won't like.
The current Federal Reserve Chairman will be in office for all of 2025, but almost certainly not beyond that, and who replaces him, will figure high on the consequential concerns, as unlike other Central Bankers, he sets the global tone. Powell is not popular with either of the spendthrift presidential candidates seeking office. Nor will he be trying to get reappointed. He has been an odd and erratic champion for the dollar and sound money, but he has been that.
I am not sure other elections are so consequential, the European Parliament has hopefully done its worst already, while investors in both Mexico and South Africa are starting from a low base of limited ambition.
So, to us, the question is how long to follow benign short-term themes, while such dramatic shifts may be hitting us within six months.
Inactivity from ignorance remains attractive, but is it wise? At some point in the interim, markets will probably decide not.
DREAMERS
What would Trump’s high tariff isolationist world look like? What would the mirror image be in Xi’s China? Not now, not next week, but rolling into the next decade.
And whatever portfolio theory says, and whatever the optimistic investor believes, 80% of my own portfolio is flotsam, drifting up and down on Pacific tides. Stocks I both like and which have compounded over decades are remarkably few. Oh, and a brief word on African housing.
GOING IT ALONE
But first, to give it the grand name, autarchy, or self-sufficiency. A bit of a joke - the Soviet Union tried it, Iran tries it, China famously only revived after ditching it.
But it is back in fashion, and not just in strange places. The EU industrial and agricultural policy is starting to look like a version; beyond their four walls they need carbon and chemicals, but within them they don’t, nor will they allow imports of them (or products including them). Quite fantastic.
Trump is on his 60% tariffs line. Xi clearly wants to cut off foreign capital, as it arrives infected with democracy and transparency, and the associated foreign reporting or verification.
So, could they? Yes, the US could - it is big enough, can do most things, and largely trades internally. While at least in Trump’s imagination the commercial borders are sealed, and so enforceable.
What goes wrong? Well at some, quite distant, point people stop expecting to trade with the US. So, at its most extreme, if China can’t sell to the US, it won’t buy from them either. But that is decades away, most Chinese production can probably take a 300% tariff, and still sell at a profit.
The flip side of the tariff is the huge salary for a barista, or a trucker. The latter is not so far away. Prices of domestic US production must rise, to allow the blue-collar Mid-West to rejuvenate. US consumers of course (including that barista) will pay vastly more for US goods, or will get hit with the import tariff; this of course is a tax on them.
What about Xi? Well again it is possible - that’s how China ran for much of his life, with a lot of new infrastructure, industrialization, since installed. He can do it all again. There, unlike in the US, the issue is capital. As a big net exporter, an area that will itself be under pressure, money will be harder to find; it already is.
THE NIGHTMARE
Countries that go through this closing cycle typically also do default (as the Soviets did, as US (and UK) railways did,). Folly, but it can be done.
The US has been going down this route since Obama, Trump talked a lot about it, but Biden too sees the resulting wage inflation as a good thing. So, it is the next US President’s policy either way.
Obama was keen on hitting capital markets (FATCA was and remains both a non-tariff barrier (I am being polite here) and a tariff on external capital) and I suspect a Biden administration must do the same, to balance the books.
While Xi never really left protectionism, WTO and GATT were mainly honoured in the breach.
And Europe? There is quite a strong strategic need to expand to the East, although as that goes through (and we are talking the mid 2030’s here) Ukrainian farmers, like Polish farmers today, will buckle under the rules; it barely matters about the Donbas, the EU will shut those heavy industries down too.
So, I think autarchy can work for all three, it will support a large uncompetitive labour force, and consumer choice will vanish. In many cases there will be lower quality and high prices. All three will attack (or in some cases keep attacking) capital flows.
And in the end, the entrepots will survive, those not in any such block, like the UAE or Singapore today, Amsterdam in the 17th Century, Yemen under the Romans and Victorian Britain.
The winners will be flexible, a tad amoral, assertive, in fluid alliances, but reliant on gold not steel to survive. And they will suck in entrepreneurial talent too. At a strategic level, that feels the place to be looking. Although buying uncompetitive heavy industries before their brief period of tariff induced profitability, has a short-term allure.
DOGS OR GREYHOUNDS ?
The ludicrous halving of CGT allowances, based on some fantasy “yield” number from the equally ludicrous HMRC, via the OBR, means once again the tiresome process of harvesting losses is upon us. No longer can they sit unloved at the back, snoozing; out they must come.
And what a tale of dross they reveal, and scattered amongst them so many once “good ideas” and busted yield stocks. Well, it sticks in the throat, but perhaps sticking it in a US wonder stock for six months is better?
Of course, if I knew when I acquired them that the FTSE was moribund for two decades, I would never have bothered. Seems it is time to simplify.
COLLATERAL
And lastly African housing. It was one of Gordon Brown’s (and the PRA’s) great achievements to get UK banks out of overseas assets, far too volatile, currency? foreigners?- Who needs them? Bring it all home and inflate the UK housing market with safe, cheap, mortgages.
So, Citizens went, Barclays were hounded out of South Africa, and so on – although their post-sale performance has really not been great either. Africa now just does not have proper mortgage financing for the vast bulk of the population. This is at a level I had failed to fully comprehend.
You think that despite everything, Africa must have got better. But no housing, so less health, less stability, no financial security. Safe recycling of profits in the continent is still hard. Aid can’t create institutional reform, but that’s the need.
If you look for the breakout into developed status, it starts there.