OFF BALANCE
Trump’s win with a clean sweep was a surprise, and one that recalibrates the investing world. Most UK media, right or left expects we want to hear ongoing condemnation of Trump and by extension Republican policies; not me, I think those policies pull the world back from the brink.
Why was I surprised? The market and polls (at least the serious ones), had him winning, but not the media. On election night CNN, which was otherwise brilliantly forensic, seemed upset at the New York Times calling it for the Republicans, quite late on in the process; facing reality had somehow become betrayal. Only ITV, to my mild surprise, was in the real world, giving us the facts, like old style journalism, first.
Just history? Not quite, because the investment media is still making the same mistake. Affluent Harris supporters are lining up, not to deny the result, but to concoct fantastic negatives. The resulting general doom is leaking into markets, blaming unenacted Trump policies (and indeed they are un-enactable for two more months) for rates hardening and a change of future Federal Reserve policies!
Nonsense, I would have said. Â The Federal Reserve will keep behaving as it has, all along - data dependent, rear view mirror stuff.
BRAVE NEW WORLD
So, what does change? Fundamentally it breaks the pack, the investable world was largely of one, foolish mind, that COVID, Ukraine, Climate Change and De-globalisation could all be funded, free, by simply raising debt and tax. There was an assumption of no impact on growth or competitiveness or consumption.
At last, we have the dominant global market saying otherwise. Now the ESG fanatics, armchair war mongers and de-globalisation crowd, must think again; they must pick their fights.
The world has long grown weary of American wars, fought on non-American soil. The idea given everything else, of the mighty EU military (yes, that one), stepping in, is risible.
Maybe we get no immediate peace, but the noise volume (and casualty toll) will drop sharply. A small mercy.
TRADING BLOWS
That Trump is full on for de-globalisation, is remarkably stupid. Â And so is China believing it can swamp the world in subsidised over-production for ever. Since it is unlikely that despite various efforts the WTO can be fixed anytime soon, this will continue to be a sporadic issue.
The long run trend to price American workers out of global markets will continue, which given America’s other advantages, is a relief for the rest of the world. But I also doubt if much of what China has produced becomes truly uncompetitive, even with a 60% tariff.
We can look forward to more spats, tariffs on rye whisky and smoked salmon - that kind of thing. Locally damaging, but I doubt if in the end it does much.
Meanwhile the big Biden era protectionist schemes, his beloved IRA and the cute but pricey CHIPS Act, both loathed in Europe, will be sensibly reined in, taking a fair bit of the heat out of trade matters.
MORNING IN AMERICA
Nor despite the panic over RFK Jr., do I have unusual fears for the pharma industry, about the most regulated sector on the planet, already facing long term persistent attacks on high margins for new drugs. This certainly needs fixing. But I am somewhat doubtful that the Senate will confirm RFK Jr.
From an investor point of view, less anti-trust activity looks a win, assuming Khan goes. While I can see anti-monopoly action against the Tech giants rumbling on, Trump is not a fan of them in general, I now don’t see break-ups as likely.
And some of the ridiculous barriers to the extractive industries will come down, that have encouraged Americans to source raw materials from far less regulated and more polluting places, which can only be positive.
LABOUR MARKETS
What of the labour market? Here too deregulation will release a lot of direct jobs, by allowing business to produce more efficiently, and can be expected to release excess regulators (is there another kind?) onto the market too.
I can’t see real migrant deportations, outside those with criminal convictions, rising much, and there will always be Democrat States undermining the effort, even if attempted. The place to control illegal migration, is always at the border, or close by. Biden let migration soar to four million over his term, against Trump’s one million.
If Trump can get back to that lower level, given the pressures, he will have done well.
Deregulation and AI will improve labour use, but labour shortfalls from lower migration will cut supply, so the outcome is not clear, either way. But the migrants are not generally taking skilled professional jobs on arrival, which is where current wage inflation is.
PAIN IN THE WALLET
What of taxation? Trump will be very keen to keep those tax cut promises. I think some cuts can be funded, and in the end, Congress will want those too, before the midterms.
But full on, deficit exploding? Not likely.
We still don’t have Trump’s main economic picks. The Fed Chair will retire, on schedule (not early), to great applause, despite the noise to the contrary. I doubt if his replacement comes from outside the current Federal Reserve Board. A left field choice could upset markets, which Trump has been reluctant to do.
In summary although there is still a bias against Trump’s America, in fashionable media and on the investment sales teams, I think it is like their views on the election itself, largely reflected noise.
The world they would like, not the world that is. There is a lot of discussion on why this happened of course.
And whatever pose they strike for the media, fund managers, at the core, know low tax, with economic growth, is balanced. The opposite, high tax and no growth is not. Long term returns flow from that.
That will be good for the global economy too.
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.
Cheer Up, They Said
After a pleasant summer, the dampness returns, exposing a quite enormous and unbalanced level of growth among the verdant thickets of both Middle England and the NASDAQ.
Markets must climb a wall of worry, and the next two months are not short of that. Forget interest rates and non-existent recessions, that’s just the stuttering voice of old economic models, fed fouled data from the last century.
IT IS ALL POLITICS
No, the risks now all look political; the prevailing orthodoxy is the West can keep borrowing levels high, to fund bloated and protected wages and welfare weirdness, impervious to international competition, or indeed to inflation. It has worked so far, and with excess and free flowing capital, there may always be a funder, mainly of state debt or residential mortgages, as well as a buyer of a few anointed equities.
And so far, that has remained the trend and indeed, somehow, the centre has held, once exceptional debt has now become permanent. This is aided in part by centre and centre left parties collaborating to silence the right, often behind the somewhat specious argument of protecting democracy from the wrong kind of votes.
But markets are jittery, they know the sums don’t add up, as do voters.
Debt as % of GDP, US in red, Japan in purple, UK light blue, France dark blue
 IMF data mapper – from this page.
The same defence of democracy continues to require the now usual never-ending wars, and divisive and punitive trade barriers and sanctions.
Both businesses and investors are quite happy to sit on the sidelines, until a few questions get answered. The UK budget is expected to finally nail the myth of growth, by heavy new taxation, although it has almost been oversold, the reality might be a relief. It is not just the severity (it won’t be that bad) that matters, but also the direction of travel. Will it hammer savers, investors wealth creators and employment or attack consumption and waste?
Labour denials of an extra £2,000 a year tax on average incomes remains to us implausible and indeed we suggested  many would be relieved at only that. Well before the election we said it will need about £20bn (economics is pretty simple really) and suggested the biggest chunk of that will come from fuel duties; we will see. Indeed, we’ve always known that various fudges would be used to skirt round the creaking OBR defences too.
The main UK stock market indices are once more in slow retreat, and while sterling is strong, we attribute that to short term interest rate differentials. High government borrowing is after all good for lenders. While in the US, it remains impossible to tell where the legislature ends up. Although like Starmer, many voters are so convinced the alternative is useless, they will overlook the socialist taint.
EMBRACING THE SIDELINES
Just now, the sidelines feel a good place: hedge funds, shortish term, high quality debt. There is scant evidence that the normal run upwards for emerging markets and smaller companies, from rate cuts, with attendant dollar weakness, has started, although many areas have moved in anticipation. But why buy in September when November is so much more certain?
That switch to smaller companies and emerging markets also may not happen this time, emerging markets have a lot of china dogs that look quite fragile, and smaller company liquidity is dire, so if yields stay high and defaults low, why add risk? While the inevitable fiscal squeeze will not help the hoped for returns and dynamism of a monetary easing cycle; you need both to work.
India meanwhile still stands out long term, but both the centre and more starkly the states are showing a notable loss of fiscal discipline, unrest in Bengal does not help and the IPO market is frothier than a Bollywood musical.
ROULETTE AT THE TORY PARTY
Given the apparent penchant for gambling, how many of the six (now five) chambers hold live rounds? We should glance at these ever-fascinating trials. The party faces strategic questions. Notably when does it expect to recover the 200 odd seats it needs, and how?
Well, I suspect the group saying next time (2029) will still dominate, although it looks rather unlikely. As to how, the assumption, I assume, is by halving the Lib Dems, but that’s only 36 seats, which leaves over 150 to get from Labour.
Interestingly every leadership candidate agrees that it was all Central Office’s fault, not for instance the wrong policies or a foolish rush to the polls. Most also at least pay lip service to rebuilding from the bottom up through local councils. Indeed, they even accept associations might matter.
Although there is also quite a bit, still, of finger crossing and waiting for Labour to implode. Not such an obvious solution this time.
As for Reform, if they also fail to implode, but settle in to be a real alternative, like their French and German counterparts, they will at least deny the Tory party their votes. Who knows, David Cameron might even emerge, in twenty years’ time, like Barnier as the compromise leader, from a party of no current electoral relevance.
It is hard to get involved in the contest, which will be down to four from the original six by next week. With so few MP’s, the choice is not brilliant.
It is a very narrow electorate, just 120 survivors of the wreck, so calling it and the shifting allegiances it reveals is hard. However once decided, it will be clear if the party is going long or short and which seats it is targeting, which in time will matter a great deal. Is it still unaware that a missed target could be fatal?
SAVERS TO BORROWERS
As for markets, I tend to ignore summer and short week trading, and the switch from bonds to equities, from savers to borrowers is a powerful economic force, as rates fall, but while the direction is clear, the angle of descent is not.
I assume it could be worse, that is even more uncertain but wondering how. Roll on Guy Fawkes Day.
OUR OWN EVOLUTION
This blog is evolving - when we started Monogram was a fund manager in widely accessible products, but that’s no longer the path - we are increasingly moving towards family offices and offshore clients.
With a less domestic focus, it seems time to move this to a stand-alone blog. Which brings with it a touch more freedom. It will continue to remain fascinated by the world of economics and politics, and indeed fund management. But may be happier to poke about in the mud for sustenance, or sound a startled alarm, as we become the Campden Snipe.
Whistling in the Dark
Too much uncertainty, too much introspection; while the world roars by.
Expecting either Blair Mark II or Trump Mark II still feels unwise. As does the Franco-German led ostrich ensemble, burying its head in debt, not sand. And CrowdStrike highlights forgotten fragility.
Which leaves me uneasy. Markets have done very nicely since last autumn, but now feel as if they’re too dependent on delayed gratification, too relaxed about political earthquakes. I could do with more visibility, not just on who is elected, but what they do after elections.
So far this year, performance has come from the US, especially NASDAQ, which our momentum model recently sold for the first time in a year. Admittedly simply to correct an overweight, a substantive sell appears a way off, but a reminder that the ability just to buy US tech is diminishing. And markets need buyers to move up.
The market assumption seems to be the rally will broaden and move into the smaller stocks and round the globe. Possibly, certainly liquidity is plentiful, bitcoin and gold look high, a good indicator that there is excess cash about.
But the other source of cash, shifting out of term deposits and money market funds, has to now be slower, if we have replaced six US rate cuts this year with two. There really is no obvious reason not to just stay liquid, for a while. The dollar is also weaker, it has slid in fits and starts, but that also mounts up. Owning a depreciating currency is never great. It remains quite sensitive to short term rate differentials.
The global position is still inflationary, with no major developed economy addressing it’s out of control spending plans, all hiding behind each other’s failures.
Trouble comes when rational investors no longer accept out of kilter valuations, including for all three favoured assets, gold, bitcoin, US tech.
The US outlook – conflicted?
I also, I confess irrationally, do not expect either Trump or Biden in the White House next year, nor do I expect that much change down the ticket now. So, to the degree that the US market is rallying on Trump’s current resurgence, I find that dangerous too.
Polite society, and especially the UK fund manager, is caught between the social need to say Trump is evil incarnate and the reality that investors quite like the prospect. So, they concoct lists of the harm he will do, like cutting taxes, cutting regulation, boosting energy supply, enhancing security and decide that it is all terribly inflationary and so quite bad. But after that, conscience cleared, Â they amble over to their trader and buy a bit more.
This is an approach which is quite vulnerable to Biden getting turfed off the ticket. Especially with the need to then explain why the new Democrat candidate will raise taxes, reduce security, add regulation, reduce energy supplies, all of which is suddenly good for investors. An interesting pitch.
UK - Unmoved by Starmer’s Start
While in the UK, the large market indices are remarkably unmoved by Starmer’s start. At one level his King’s Speech was unremarkable. No surprises: Labour followers and unions given what they were promised, manifesto pledges kept.
Indeed, it was as if Gordon Brown and the Tories were all a bad dream, and Tony was at his desk, in 2007, working on the Queen’s Speech, which he dropped in a folder, and nailed to the back of a wardrobe door, for Keir to pick up 17 years later, change the pronouns and off we go.
How will housing engender growth?
Take housing, although how it is suddenly the engine of growth escapes me. The chances are the private sector could be the instrument to build them. But the timescale for that effort to cut prices is very long. Although the focus on land costs is good. Faster, cheaper consenting is also needed, based on where houses people want, will sell.
While the suggested mandatory targets didn’t work under Blair, they won’t work now. They just let the blame be shifted from local planners, to Whitehall mandarins. Stuffing more and more subsidised housing into new build sites, just raises prices (someone has to pay for them).
The Tories (oddly) had a viable idea: rather than identify where you can build, first identify where you can’t. But there is no sign of that scale of thinking, or speeding up the interminable appeals process.
The Commanding Heights
I assume the long-term plan is to demonstrate this old approach doesn’t work, create a crisis, then privatise something. I doubt if that weird solution will be confined to the railways, and almost certainly now to water. Just like Railtrack and British Nuclear Fuels under Blair, you legislate impossible outcomes, the private sector invariably fails, you take ownership and allow far worse outcomes (and need bigger subsidies) instead.
It also needs capital, which is being scared away from the water companies, by new harsher laws, the exact opposite of the current need.
It is as if lots of laws and smiling nicely at deep seated structural problems helps to resolve them. Here we see the old failing of opposition parties getting into power, but then wasting it fighting the last election: at least Blair, in his own right, innovated.
Stock markets simply didn’t believe the Tories and don’t believe Labour either; words alone won’t improve matters.
Although as ever because the index is so hated, that leaves some very underpriced stocks for sale.
We have no clear view of what the autumn brings, either in the US, or UK (the first Reeves budget), or Germany (although a budget has been concocted there, but seems impossible to deliver) or France, which one hopes will have sorted out a government by then at least. Macron’s current re-appointed appointee, looks highly unstable.
A lot of patches have been applied, a lot of whistling in the dark, but the money is running out. It has been for a while, but you can’t fight a war on several fronts : so, one of defence, welfare, health, or renewable energy, is not getting the funding splurge it wants.
Growth is the answer, but that, as Keynes noted, needs animal spirits. The animals look pretty caged just now, and Starmer is adding new bars to that prison.
So yes, the rate cut story holds, innovation possibly, but their heavy lifting is not supported by reforms which will help.
For our part sitting out the summer looks better.
We will resume these musings in early September. Under a new logo :
One suggested name is :
The Campden Snipe.
Thoughts, as ever, remain welcome.
In the real world, everything changes.
Where will the cards fall ?
The half year approaches - what has happened? Two very different quarters so far. And Investment Trusts complain too much, having stuffed their boards with placeholders with minimal stakes in the shares and multiple appointments. In markets many things still depend on how the cards (and ballots) fall.
THE FIRST HALF
With current interest rates for hard currency, high yield bonds, around 6%, you would expect riskier equity markets to be giving you over 10% a year, made up of a mix of capital and dividends. That’s the bar; it is quite high just now.
Looking back a year, only Japan and America comfortably achieve that, the S&P up +24%, NASDAQ up +30%, Nikkei up +14%. Germany creeps in at +10%, neither France nor the UK do. Outside developed markets, it is largely dire, only India at +25%.
Then looking just at the first half, all of Japan and Germany’s gains came in the first quarter, so they are now sitting well off their twelve-month highs. While as we know the big three, S&P, NASDAQ and SENSEX, are now close to all-time highs, they powered through the second quarter.
So, the challenge is, do they go on up, do the markets that have fallen back, after a good first quarter, come back to life, or do some of the dogs perform?
Some major markets, Friday close and intra day
I have no great faith in the UK market, nor in a new government being much better at growth (it can hardly be worse) than the current mob. But there are cheap looking international stocks in the UK and the punishment meted out to real assets, by interest rates and shrinking bank balance sheets, might be finally ending.
While quite clearly the good middle tier stocks are easily cheap enough to lure in bidders from abroad or private equity, in some number. UK valuations are in short OK, not something you can necessarily say about the US.
The residual underperforming markets do often have a nice yield, but who cares? With bond yields high and staying high, in an appreciating currency, why take a cut in yield in order to buy equities? Plenty of time for that later.
Anyhow in most European and Emerging markets, equities seem not to be able to get out from under their own feet, endlessly tripping over their own fractured politics.
INVESTMENT TRUSTS
We are hearing a lot of moaning about Investment Trusts, which the FCA really do not like. EU law always struggled with the trust concept anyway. That the FCA has shown no interest in freeing us from those shackles is not a surprise, it seems they too would rather channel money to Nvidia than invest in the UK. Here is their Lordships’ briefing on what EU rules we might be repealing. Nothing for Investment Trusts.
I am on balance on the Trust’s side, I do think closed end structures (as they all are) allow long term decisions, while protecting daily dealing, one of Europe’s quirky hang ups. Daily dealing is fine in deep markets, but an illusion in many medium and small equity markets. With liquidity ever more narrowly focused, closed end funds seem more, not less, important, for balanced capital allocation, competition and growth.
Trusts directors should also protect investors from over mighty fund management houses, who treat closed end funds with disdain, as captive funds, with often high fees. Their greed lets in low-cost passive competitors. Instead, their permanent capital should come with an obligation to hunt down good, index beating performance.
Sadly, the FCA has perpetuated a system, where the fund management house appoints the Boards, not, in reality, the other way round. So, they are decorative, good for marketing, and highly unlikely to fire the manager. Too many are industry insiders, serving on multiple trust boards, often in sequence. Seldom do they have an investment of at least their annual pay cheque in their current Trust, and often, little investing expertise in the relevant area.
So, Investment Trust boards hardly ever sack fund managers for poor performance. David Einhorn explains the bigger issue very clearly, noting benchmark hugging over time is what investors now get. There is a clear link to poor performance and bigger discounts, and to big discounts and treating shareholders badly: One area where big certainly does not mean better.
Rather than sabotage the sector with old, irrelevant EU law, the FCA should be hunting down poor performance, and making the “independent” directors just that, including banning directors shuffling around a set of one-manager trusts.
INTEREST RATES
We have just had Powell hold US rates, saying it is all data dependent, and slightly oddly he conceded the expectation is for a pick up in inflation, on the technical grounds that the abrupt drop in inflation last year, creates base effects.
Although he rules out more hikes; you get the feeling if he had held his nerve last summer, and added a bit more, inflation could be beaten by now. Not that he wants to or can add such instability now, so he is stuck, and we with him, watching paint dry.
With no real distress there is no pressure to cut prices, service inflation remains too high, energy prices are still quite strong, so no longer giving a deflationary boost. Both the AI boom and the resulting stock price gains, encourage consumer spending and keep (in most sectors) a strong labour market.
Markets are evidently OK with that, falling rates, no recession, growing earnings, is almost ideal. Meanwhile we are all hoping that Congress will keep either of the two old men from doing anything unusually silly, and the electorate will keep Congress on a tight leash.
Quite a lot of hoping and several months still to go.