FOMC | The Ides of March

We have quite a bit of built up anticipation for the March FOMC. The Fedspeak analysis of "Fairly Soon" has been interpreted by most as leaning towards a March hike. Some are even claiming the rates markets are underestimating the probability of a March hike.

The chart above shows implied 3-month treasury forward curve term structure since the 2014 (after the highs from 2013 Taper Tantrum). In early 2014 the market estimates of long run equilibrium rates were just about 4 percent. Since then we have come a long way. As we see we have three major clustering of market estimates - one at around sub 2 percent (during Brexit rally), another just above 2 percent (early 2016) and the most common level at just about 3 percent. The sell-off after the US presidential election has just brought us back to this 3 percent level. Coincidentally, after disagreeing with the markets on this long run terminal rate for a long time (erring consistently on the upper side), the FOMC also now more or less agrees with this level. So after quite a while markets and the FOMC seem to have converged in outlook. 

Given this background, I think whether the FOMC hikes in March or not is now a far less important question than what it used to be a couple of years or even a year back. Before March FOMC, we have a round of PCE (Fed's favored measure of inflation) as well as employment and GDP data release scheduled. Unless we have a major upward surprise, March probably will be a no-hike meeting. And more importantly, given the improving economy, markets are in a much better position to absorb a hike anyways. The US and global inflation are improving, but it is much tamed than the "reflation trades" coverage makes it sound. Inflation was a worry (on the downside) before, now slowly it is ceasing to be so. There are few signs the FOMC is behind the curve as of now.

What can really take the market off-guard, is however, the question of Fed balance sheet. If and when FOMC plans to reduce its QE-bloated balance sheet, and how they communicate this point. Hiking is a way of tightening. But a controlled balance sheet reduction is also another way. While the former affect the short term rates more (a bear flattening), the later should be more prone to affect the long end rates (bear steepening). A reason why FOMC may actually opt this is to address the historically compressed risk premia - see the left chart below. Even with the recent sell-off, the risk premia remain at a depressed levels. The short end pressure felt on the back of FOMC moves more or less leaned towards a flattening of the curve than any significant correction of risk premia. While the European and Japanese bonds are trading at super-depressed levels, perhaps it is not entirely to the Fed to correct this. But adjusting balance sheet is definitely a direct way to address this.

The most important reason NOT to do this it the unpredictable potential impact. This has the strongest potential to send confusing signal to the market, perhaps resembling a taper tantrum version 2.0. The right-hand chart above shows a quick check to identify the pain points based on the current Fed holdings vis-a-vis supply. The vulnerability is concentrated in the long end, especially if this is adjusted for the duration risk (not shown here). The primary reason this may create unwanted responses is that it is not at all well understood. Balance sheet reduction after a massive QE is a completely new thing for both the Fed and the market. The last FOMC minutes (published last week) discussed this issue explicitly for the first time, if I remember correctly. So it is fair to expect this will definitely come up in the March discussion as well. At present FOMC expects re-investing to continue "until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way". The most important event for the markets from the March FOMC will be any potential change on this view. 

Realistically, this can be the trigger that can bring us back to the 4-handle level of long term equilibrium rates we had at the end of 2013. Trump fiscal push blow ups and run-away inflation seems pretty far-fetched at present. The asymmetric positioning here is bear steepening.

Similarly on the equity and risk assets side, this can have the most unexpected and damaging impact than a regular FOMC hike. Possibly more than even an adverse French elections. The National Front candidate Marine Le Pen, even if elected as the President against all odds, will find it hard to muster enough support in the parliament to call for a national referendum to leave the Euro area. And even if the referendum is held and a majority votes to leave, it is not clear that will actually be followed through - going by the outcome of the 2005 referendum.

---

all data from Federal Reserve and US Treasury.

Markets | The Trump Trade?

Keynesian beauty contest is an interesting concept that shows a group of perfectly rational agents trying to predict the outcome of an event may not converge on the most expected case, provided their risk and reward depends on what most others think. I think something similar happens in the markets around a big event. Rarely it is clear what are the implications of different possible outcomes of such events. In such a scenario, a trader's immediate pay-off depends on how good he is at predicting market reaction (as opposed to the actual implications). As a result collectively the market ends up reacting in some ways that very few people may actually believe.

Next week's presidential election is such an event. There are strong evidences that economy has significant impact on election outcomes. however the reverse result is very weak if any. Performance of a large globally connected economy depends on more things beyond the control of the Oval Office than we give credit for. However the markets seem to have already formed an opinion and trading according to the poll results in recent week. This is not only the US market but across the globe. The common denominator is an expectation of underperformance with a republican win.

The consensus is more or less a status quo with a democratic victory and large uncertain changes with the republic candidate in office. Honestly, I think it is too early to say what will be the policy changes as we hardly have any clue on specific policies apart from election promises. For example it is usually considered republican victory will be good for defense stocks. However if Mr Trump carries out his promise on cutting down on NATO, will that necessarily be the case? He promised to unwind trade agreements. But sure there will be something to replace it, will that be very different than the existing one, and will that have really any significant impact on trades, prices and job? Or may be you should buy Apple? - he is sure to threaten EU to withdraw the taxation case and make America great again! My personal take is Mr Trump promised things, but post election (if he wins) it will be hard to deliver on many of them except in a much run-down version. Hence in the base case, sooner than later, we focus back on things like earnings and economy and inflation once the initial reaction is over.

However, the market is close to pricing in a crash scenario for an outcome favoring the republican candidate. The VIX (and volatility of VIX) are tad shy of last August peaks. The implied skew and (near-month) implied correlation in S&P 500 are racing sky-wards (and interestingly with a quite flat vol convexity, i.e. high skew and very low smile). There is a high amount of uncertainty. 

And if you are planning to take decision (being flat is one of them), I have already written about how to generally think about positioning under uncertainties before. If you are a hedger, you know what you need to do - that's quite it. And if you are a speculator, after all the analyses and mumbo-jumbo, basically you have to choose a side (rally or sell-off) and stick to it. And the only things that matter are:

1. what is your expectation and how that looks from risk-reward already priced in the markets and 
2. How to optimize your responses in case you are wrong.

The first one is commonly understood. At present the markets are definitely pricing a large sell-off. This is in the background of decent economic news and improving global PMIs. Technically most markets across the globe has or on the verge of confirming a bearish signal (see chart above). The asymmetric pricing in the downside suggests there are large price move expected, but at the same time it makes the risk-reward unattractive compared to the upside. And based on the past history in S&P which has breached a technical support recently, the distribution of near term returns favors the upside statistically (albeit with a rather large uncertainty spread around that). The chart shows the historical price distribution after such technical breaches (categorized in to three types of technical formation - megaphone, triangle and channel, and whether the existing trend was ascending or descending, and also if the breach is of resistance (up) or support (down))¹. We are in a down breach within an ascending megaphone (see the figure above).

As far as the second point is concerned, if you are positioning for downside and it turns out wrong, your responses are limited if you assume it will be a relief rally, (not a sustained one). Alternatively, if you are positioning for the upside and if you are wrong, you will have plenty of opportunities to react. We will sure enter a period of high volatility and there will be plenty of trading opportunities.

So it appears purely based on the second criteria, a long risk positioning is preferred². Of course this assumes the outcomes are fairly priced from criteria one and you do not have any strong view on either outcome.

---

Note: 1) This is based on systematic technical analysis, for details see here, for code page go here. You can select or de-select series on this interactive chart
2) this is not an investment or trading advice, do your own due diligence, form your own opinion. See the disclaimer page.

Central Bank Watch: FOMC Minutes (and RBI)

It is highly interesting to see the views and counter-views on the impact of  low rates on the DCF industry. I think both miss the subtle point here . All these DCFs and PVs and pretty much everything else depends on an assumption of properly functioning lending and borrowing market. The question is: if negative rate does persist for long, will that assumption breakdown, or will adapt.

Speaking of rates, the FOMC minutes released this week was very informative. It was a much ambivalent FOMC than we have seen earlier. It appears the September hold decision was a close call. So it is safe to assume it will be so in November and December (if no hike in Nov) as well.

On the major points that drives the"data dependent" FOMC, it seems the consensus is on the labor markets. Since the last meetings, we had more or less similar or slightly improved wage data. However, this week's job opening (JOLT) was a bit disappointing. On economic growth expectation, retails sales data from Friday was more or less on the mark, matching street expectation, and capital goods from earlier has shown improvement as well. Even the much discussed negative influence of foreign GDP has subsided. Eurozone forecast edged up to 1.3% from 1.2%, and UK forecasts from 0.50% to 0.70% (since Sep FOMC). 

However, surprisingly, on both of these parameters, Fed's own measure is going the other way. The Labor Market Condition Index and the Atlanta Fed's GDP now-casting have both nose-dived in recent readings.

On the inflation front, the both the CPI and PCE edged up since. The CPI is still suffering from energy prices drag. Given the recent moves in oil prices, this should have a positive impact on data before the next meeting. 

Overall, I expect the data to be neutral for both employment and growth and marginally hawkish for inflation for the November meeting. The possibility of a November hike is still lower. Partly, that will be a surprise for the markets - which currently prices in a 17% chance of a hike at November FOMC and a 64% at the Dec meeting. As I discussed before, Fed has never hiked before without a substantial chance priced in by the markets.

That said, one particular line of arguments stands out from the released minutes:

 A few participants referred to historical episodes when the unemployment rate appeared to have fallen well below its estimated longer-run normal level. They observed that monetary tightening in those episodes typically had been followed by recession and a large increase in the unemployment rate. Several participants viewed this historical experience as relevant for the Committee's current decisionmaking and saw it as providing evidence that waiting too long to resume the process of policy firming could pose risks to the economic expansion, or noted that a significant increase in unemployment would have disproportionate effects on low-skilled workers and minority groups.

There were only two major hike cycles not followed by a rise in unemployment in recent history. One was following the early 80s recession, and the other following the early 90s recession. 

This points towards a strong commitment of FOMC towards a gradual rate hike, even if the initial hike has to be brought forward in time. It will be very surprising if we do not have another hike by the end of the year. But this, along with the now-lower long term equilibrium rates, also means it will NOT be particularly threatening to US equities or rates in general (both slopes and levels). Fade the move if any respond violently to FOMC one way or the other.. Both equities and rates should depend less on FOMC and more on intrinsic and unexpected events.

Talking of unexpected evens, the one is of course the US presidential election. The general expectation is a sell-off if Mr Trump wins. Although I fail to see a rally even if it is Mrs Clinton. And of course market expectation can be wrong. In 2012, it was widely expected that a Obama win will be bad for equities, and indeed there was minor sell-off leading up to the election day. However the results marked the start of a long stretch of bull run.

October was also a historic moment for Reserve bank of India. It was a new Governor (following the exit of Raghuram Rajan) and its first ever Monetary Policy Committee decision. And it was a decision quite difficult to understand - an (mostly) unexpected 25 bps cut. RBI revised GDP higher, and both real rate and inflation lower. A lower real rate expectation usually means a lower potential GDP. That means a higher GDP will lead to a potential overheating. A lower inflation rate is not consistent with this, unless RBI is expecting substantial imported disinflation.

India's decreasing credit growth is a worry, but it is not clear higher rates are the culprit here. The decline is driven mostly by the industrial sector - which presumably has more on its plate than to worry about higher rates. And in any case the pass through of RBI rate cuts by the banking sector has not been exemplary in recent time -which has been mired in its own significant bad loan problems. It was appeasing to the markets (and politics perhaps), but hard to imagine how much, if at all, it will help the economy forward.

Ubernomics: NYC Edition

I have no idea how good or bad economic forecasts based on general chit chat with taxi-drivers are.

But according to my sizable (and arguably non-random) sample of Uber drivers in NYC over last week, the economy this January is definitely doing worse than January 2015. One of them however, helpfully pointed out that the looming election is to be blamed!

Somehow that coincided with today's data releases - both the personal spending and PMIs. Food for thought.

European Debt Crisis Redux, (And Other Things)

Very recent news flows has not been very positive from the Greek Bailout negotiations.

 

In this context, it is interesting to re-run the kind of analysis every one had tattooed on their forehead back in 2010 and again in 2012. Sovereign debt ownership, focusing on the southern block.

 

Portuguese bonds market ownership is quite dominated by foreign players. According to Bloomberg, banks and insurance companies own around 16% of total outstanding, of which around 13% is foreign owned. Another approx 7.5% belongs to the asset managers, which is mostly foreign. So total approximately 20% owned by foreign players, who can become jittery in case of an unexpected outcome in Greece. For Italy, total banks and insurance own 25% of outstanding, but only 7% foreign owned. Another 6% spread among asset managers without much concentration. Similar figures for Spain is around 8% for banks and insurance, and another 2% from asset managers, so around 10%.

Portugal GDP is not in the momentum we see in Spain (not even Italy). On the other hand, unemployment is far better and both have elections coming up this year. Incidentally we have seen a lot of spread tightening in Portugal bonds compared to both Italy and Spain since middle of this month.

 

Definitely something to watch out for.

 

Separately, the data flows from UK on the other hand has been solid lately. An august hike? Not likely, but BoE cannot trail the Fed for long. We have a slight re-pricing of Fed hike towards Mar 16, and BoE is priced in around Jun 16. Fair, possible. But what is surprising is the spread of the real rates. Historically the US and UK inflation spread has been on an average 0bps since 90s till before the Crisis, and 120bps for last few years. Sure Euro area can be a drag, but while US real rate is now around zero, UK is still firmly negative, around -65bps in 10y (taking differences of the nominal swap rates and the breakeven inflation swap rates). Markets prices US inflation much higher than UK. Although both shows strong labor market (perhaps UK with a stronger momentum). Expect a correction. Especially if you believe in the Euro area turning corner.

The Scottish Referendum Trade: For AUld Lang Syne

Should one short the sterling pound betting on the Scottish Referendum? Even after the current sell-off?

Of the 4 million voting population, a 2% difference between the YES and NO means betting on 80,000 odd votes. The variation in expected turnouts may be more than that!

On the other hand the cable is naturally under pressure. With softer inflation and easing pace of recovery it is very hard to reason for a steady upward movement. The rates differential with the US has narrowed. The terms of trade does not point to any particular richness or cheapness. 

And as of latest data, the market positioning is favorable. The CME data shows the net speculative position even at the start of September was net long. So unlike yen and euro, not much pressure for a sudden short squeeze. 

If the vote is YES, there will be a large move for sure, at least in the short run. May be a sell-off worse than 5%. With a NO it can rally easily 3% to the 1.66 levels. So the odds offered will be a 37.5% chance of a YES vote.

The opinion polls put the odds at 50-50. But opinion polls are typically unreliable. Going by the wisdom of the crowd on public betting sites, the mood swung a bit recent time. The current going rate for the YES vote prices it at 32%. 

Either the wisdom of the crowd is skewed, or the market is wrong. Upside? quote a lot with the shock supported by the sell-off trends. Downside? Even if GBP goes back to the recent peak (which is, by the way, highest since 2008), it is 6%.

Pay off is asymmetric!

NIFTY: Election 2014 Positioning... Eliminate Tough Decision Making

The current move in NIFTY, expected to end in a crescendo after the elections, is probably one that will be the defining move this year. If you have already missed the rally so far, or fail to capture the large expected moves after the results are out, your portfolio performance is probably doomed for this year.

The question is do you really give a damn. You are in the game for the long term, right? it does not matter if you miss an election move or two.

So... a first strategy for election 2014 is, well, DO NOTHING. It is so often overlooked in the heat of things that doing nothing can turn out to be a pretty neat strategy. If it rallies after the results you will capture it anyways. If it sells off, you were buying value right? So unless we have a radical outcome, it should be an opportunity to buy.

Okay, now let's say you DON'T plan to do nothing. Here is a way to think about your move. 

Like poker, in markets too, apart from the goal of making money, another important objective is to avoid tough decision. Because tough decisions are always emotional, and that is exactly when you are most likely to make mistakes. And avoiding tough decisions in future is achieved simply by making choices now that makes your decision easy later on.

So let's apply this rule to see how you should be positioned. First thing first. I have no clue which way the market will move from here. Nor does anyone. Let's assume for argument's sake, the market has an equal chance of a large rally or a correction from here. If you go short now, and it does make a correction, congratulations! You made it. Now what if it does not? You make a loss on your shorts, AND you miss the rally. That's okay, no big deal. But what next? can you enter it now? You thought the market was already on the higher side and then it rallies quite a bit more. All you are going to do is to spend the next 6 months on the sideline waiting for a dip. A large one at that. You missed the entire 2014!

Now the other side of the bet. Suppose you went long. The market rallies. Well done. Now you take a re-look at the valuation and decide further action. And what if it corrects. No big deal. It just offers a more compelling valuation then. Way better outcomes no matter if you are right or wrong

And that's the kind of bets to make. Because with markets, the probability that your views are right is not much different than pure chance

NIFTY: Great Expectations?

Here is a fantastic background for India 2014, more so for the uninitiated! (Do click)

And now the questions is how much juice left in this rally and which sectors are really overheated. Below a snapshot of the relative performance of different sectors vis-a-vis the benchmark (NIFTY) index. As you can see the rally that started late last august once quite contained. But the pre-election rally (a possibility I noted before) has been, well, fantastic. With all the usual suspects racing away - only Energy, Pharma, FMCG and IT still lagging.

The question is what now. Obviously the pattern of the rally since March shows a lot have been on expectation of a radical shift in policy after the elections are done with. PSU banks, Real Estate, Financials, commodities and energy sectors especially seem to have performed on this expectation. How realistic these expectations are - a few wise words from JP Morgan (via FTAlphaville)

The belief in certain quarters is that as long as the next government were to go all out at de-bottlenecking projects, sentiment would surge and this would spark an investment revival in the economy. However, this appears to be an overly-simplistic read on the situation for at least three reasons.
First, the vast majority of projects are currently stuck because of issues that are under the purview of state governments, over which the central government has little jurisdiction...

They also warn of the circular link between the bank bad loans and stalled infra projects. Do go read the full text. 

One thing is sure, we do have rallied a lot on expectation. Or rather hope. That is not saying we can't rally further. But given the uncertainties of election outcome, the tail risk of hung parliament results may not be a tail risk. That can rattled the market which seem to have priced in too many rosy assumptions

Trivia: Dance of Democracy

The election time is here again in the largest democracy in the world. Here is a link from an old post back in 2009 (the last general election). A mathematical awakening for all those lost in debates over Mr Modi's ghosts from the past, Mr Gandhi's incompetence, Mr Kejriwal's lack of direction and irrelevance of others. 

Actually the only system that will work for you is a dictatorship in which YOU are the dictator!!

Jokes apart, democracy is built on institutions. I honestly don't mind lack of leadership, as long institutions  are strong. If you think a country is a super example of a complex system, it is far better for it to walk randomly and find direction through evolution and time, than hurtling at Mach 2 in a direction under a great leader only to realise later as a nation it was wrong direction to begin with. 

Have a great time voting. By the way the implied volatility levels where the options on Nifty are trading, my back of the envelop calculation shows if u want to cover the time decay from now till the election results are out, the volatility levels should be around 50%. That will be higher than the 2008 crash!