Posts

What Comey’s Firing Means for Markets, May 11, 2017

/in /by

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if the Sevens Report is right for you with a free 2-week trial.

Regardless of how the rest of the year turns out, I personally will always remember 2017 for the fact that I had to try and figure out the market implications of political events that I never thought I would have to worry about.

What Comey’s Firing Means for Markets.Case in point, Tuesday’s firing of FBI Director James Comey moved markets yesterday, and I wanted to cover what that means going forward (it’s a mild and potentially negative, but not a bearish game changer). Now, to be clear, the market is agnostic to the politics of this drama and as such so am I. Whether you or I think the firing was a coverup or justified, it matters not from a market standpoint, so as I always do with political coverage, I will strictly stick to market implications.

The reason Comey’s firing is a mild negative on markets is because it further undermines President Trump and the Republicans’ ability to pass their pro-growth agenda.

Case in point, just yesterday, we saw part of the fallout from the Comey firing as the Republicans were unable to pass a reversal of an Obama rule against methane gas capture on oil and natural gas wells (Republicans say the environmental regulation increases the cost to drill natural gas and oil wells).

Three Republicans; Graham, Collins and McCain, voted with the Democrats, and the repeal measure failed 49-51. Graham and Collins were always “no” votes on the rule, but McCain was expected to vote “yes”—so much so that Vice President Pence was in the Senate to cast the tie breaker. McCain didn’t say so explicitly, but his “no” vote is widely seen as a protest vote against Trump.

Bottom line, the controversy now surrounding Trump’s move to fire Comey is a political hot stove, and some Republicans are already distancing themselves from the President as they are already thinking about re-election. Point being, the path to passing meaningful tax reform or other pro-growth policies just got more difficult.

Now, the good news is that this isn’t a bearish game changer for markets in part because expectations for tax cuts in 2017 are already pretty low.

Still, there is risk here, because the market does still assume some corporate tax cuts/foreign profit repatriation in 2018. If Trump/Republicans lose enough political capital to put a corporate tax cut in 2018 in doubt, then that will be at least a modest negative on stocks.

More specifically, after June 2018 (at the latest), everything in Washington will stop as focus shifts to the mid-term elections. So, if the market begins to think there will be no corporate tax cuts and no foreign profit repatriation, then that will begin to weigh on stocks later in 2017/early in 2018.

Bottom line, unfortunately politics remains an important influence on markets in 2017. On balance, expectations have been tempered from a policy standpoint, but the “gap” between likely policy reality and policy expectations remains wide… and it got wider this week with the Comey controversy.

Cut through the noise and understand what’s truly driving markets, as this new political and economic reality evolves. 7sReport.com.

Earnings Season Post Mortem & Valuation Update, May 9, 2017

/in /by

The Sevens Report is everything you need to know about the market in your inbox by 7am, in 7 minutes or less. Claim your free 2-week trial.

The S&P 500 has been largely “stuck” in the 2300-2400 trading range for nearly 10 weeks, despite a big non-confirmation from 10-year yields, modestly slowing economic data and political disappointment. Given that less-than-ideal context, the market has been downright resilient as the S&P 500 only fell to around 2320ish. The main reason for that resilience is earnings and valuation.

While it’s true that stocks are at a valuation “ceiling” right now, and need a new macro catalyst to materially breakout, it’s also true that given the current macro environment the downside risk on a valuation basis for the market is somewhat limited. That’s why we’re seeing such aggressive buying on dips.

Here’s the reason I say that. The Q1 earnings season was better than expected, and it’s resulted in 2018 S&P 500 EPS bumping up $1 from $135-$137 to $136-$138. At the higher end of that range, the S&P 500 is trading at 17.4X next year’s earnings. That’s high historically to be sure, but it’s not crazy given Treasury yield levels and expected macro-economic fundamentals.

However, if the S&P 500 were to drop to 2300 on a macro surprise, then the market would be trading at 16.67X 2018 earnings. In this environment (low yields, stable macro environment), that could easily be considered fairly valued.

Additionally, most analysts pencil in any help from Washington (including even a small corporate tax cut and/or a foreign profit repatriation holiday) adding a minimum of $5 to 2018 S&P 500 EPS. So, if they pass the bare minimum of expectations, it’s likely worth about $5 in earnings, and that puts 2018 earnings at $143.

At 2400, and with $143 expected earnings, the S&P 500 is trading at 16.8X 2018 earnings. Again, that is high historically, but for this market anything sub 17X will elicit buying in equities (whether it should is an open question, but that is the reality).

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report can help you make more money in less time.

Weekly Market Cheat Sheet: May 8, 2017

/in /by

The Sevens Report is the daily markets cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, leading indicators, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets. Get a free two-week trial—no obligation, just tell us where to send it.

Weekly Market Cheat Sheet

Last Week in Review:

Economic data last week, highlighted by the strong jobs report, helped to somewhat narrow the gap between soft sentiment surveys and hard economic data… although it’s fair to say that gap remains open and is still a headwind on stocks, just a slightly less strong one. It was not all positive last week, though, as we got several signs of potential loss of momentum in China, which was an underreported but potentially important development last week. Finally, the Fed meeting proved to be a non-event, except in that it reaffirmed a June rate hike is likely (but that’s already mostly expected from the markets).

Starting with the jobs report, it met our “just right” scenario. The overall job adds were strong at 211k vs. (E) 185k, but revisions to the March report were negative 19k, so the net number was more in line. The unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%, but that was in part due to a decline in the participation rate. Meanwhile, year-over-year wage increases declined to 2.5% from 2.7%. Bottom line, this number was “fine,” but it wasn’t massively reflationary (in part due to the wage number) and that’s why we didn’t see the strong headline jobs report ignite an immediate reflation rally in stocks (again, the wage number undermined the strong job adds).

Looking at other economic data last week, there were more positives than negatives, highlighted by the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI, which hit 57.5 vs. (E) 55.8. That strong Non-Manufacturing PMI helped to offset the soft April Manufacturing PMI, which dipped to 54.8 vs. (E) 56.5 while the New Order component dropped below 60 for the first time in five months. While disappointing vs. expectations, it’s important to remember that the absolute level activity remains strong.

Turning to the Fed, the key takeaway from last week’s Fed meeting was that the Fed viewed the loss of economic momentum in Q1 as “transitory,” and still said risks to growth were “roughly balanced.” Both terms are Fed speak for, “We’re going to hike in June despite the soft Q1 GDP.” The market largely expects that (Fed Fund futures have a hike priced at 83% (which is close to a universal conclusion).

Finally, I want to take a moment and focus on Chinese economic data from last week, as the numbers were universally disappointing. Official April Manufacturing PMI dropped to 51.2 vs. (E) 51.7 while composite PMI declined to 51.2 vs. previous 52.1. Additionally, iron ore went into quasi freefall this week, as iron ore futures ended limit down on the Dalian Commodities Exchange on Wednesday night. The drop came after the Chinese steel industry PMI dropped below 50, signaling contraction. Oversupply has something to do with the price drop as well (exports are surging out of Australia) but the bottom line is that base metal prices are a coincident indicator of economic activity. The declines in iron ore, steel and copper last week, combined with the under-whelming Chinese data, definitely caught our attention. We now are officially watching this closely for everyone, and will keep you updated.

This Week’s Cheat Sheet:

This week, April CPI and April Retail Sales (both Friday) are the important reports to watch. The latter is more important for markets at this point than the former, as we need to see a rebound from Q1’s paltry consumer spending. If retail sales fail to show progress and beat expectations, it’ll widen the gap between soft data and hard economic numbers. With CPI, we should see some mild cooling of the recent uptick in inflation, but overall inflation pressures continue to slowly build.

Outside of those two numbers, focus will be on the Chinese CPI and PPI, as again data there suddenly turned lower last week. Bottom line, it should be a quiet week, but retail sales and CPI are important as the “gap” between soft sentiment surveys and hard economic data remains… and it needs to close further if we are going to see a breakout in stocks.

Get the simple talking points you need to strengthen your client relationships with the Sevens Report. Everything you need to know about the markets delivered to your inbox by 7am each morning, in 7 minutes or less. 

Jobs Report Preview, May 5, 2017

/in /by

For the first time in 2017, the risks to tomorrow’s jobs report are balanced, as a “Too Hot” number will increase the possibility of more than three rate hikes in 2017 while a “Too Cold” number will fan worries about the pace of economic growth, and the ability for better economic growth to push stocks materially higher.

Here’s The Sevens Report traditional “Goldilocks” breakdown:

“Too Hot” Scenario (Potential for More than Three Rate Hikes in 2017)

  • >250k Job Adds, < 4.6% Unemployment, > 2.9% YOY wage increase. A number this hot would likely reignite the debate over whether the Fed will hike more than three times this year.
  • Likely Market Reaction: Withheld for subscribers. Unlock with a free trial at 7sReport.com.

“Just Right” Scenario (A June Rate Hike Becomes More Expected, But the Total Number of Expected Hikes Stays at Three)

  • 125k–250k Job Adds, > 4.7% Unemployment Rate, 2.5%-2.8% YOY wage increase. This is the best-case scenario for stocks, as it would imply still-stable job growth, but not materially increase the chances for more than three rate hikes in 2017.
  • Likely Market Reaction: Withheld for subscribers. Unlock with a free trial at 7sReport.com.

“Too Cold” Scenario (A June Rate Hike Becomes in Doubt)

  • < 125k Job Adds. Given the recent unimpressive economic reports, a soft jobs number could cause a decent sell-off in equities. As the Washington policy outlook continues to dim, economic data needs to do more heavy lifting to support stocks. So, given the market’s focus on future growth, the bottom line is bad economic data still isn’t good for stocks.
  • Likely Market Reaction: Withheld for subscribers. Unlock with a free trial at 7sReport.com.

Help your clients outperform markets by signing up for your free 2-week trial of The Sevens Report.

Another Oil Plunge, Futures Down, May 3, 2017

/in /by

Oil rigThe Sevens Report is everything you need to know about the market, in your inbox by 7am, in seven minutes or less.

Oil futures sank 2.74% yesterday, with a large portion of the losses coming in the final hour. The catalyst for the decline was a collection of analysts’ estimates for this morning’s EIA report that started to come in showing more substantial builds in product inventories even though oil stocks are supposed to fall.

RBOB gasoline futures have been leading the way lower since they topped out on April 12. In fact, since that day, futures have only notched one single gain (that is three weeks with just one positive trading day). Gasoline futures now are within 3% of their 2017 lows, and if the downtrend continues that will be a headwind on the rest of the energy space.

Oil futures came within 1% of their 2017 lows yesterday and the momentum is clearly with the bears. Yesterday’s move was amplified by a “stop run” as futures broke through the March lows in the June contract. But in an encouraging sign of weakness, futures were unable to rebound.

On the charts, futures broke through a longstanding technical uptrend line that dated back to early August. That is another sign of technical weakness in the market.

In doing some cross-asset analysis yesterday, there was evidence that the inverse correlation between oil prices and long bond prices is resurfacing. As a reminder, for a period of time back in early 2016, long bond futures were trading almost exclusively off of the price of oil (specifically when WTI had a $20 handle). The reasons were twofold.

First, low oil prices are a drag on inflation readings, which would have dovish implications for Fed policy (long bond positive). Second, long bonds benefited from a safe-haven/fear bid as lower oil prices increased the risk of small producers defaulting on loans, many of which were issued by southern and central regional banks. Ultimately, contagion fears weighed on regional banks and the broader financial sector collectively. Now, it is not clear whether this is happening again as it was only one day of trading so far, but it is something to keep in mind going forward. If oil declines cause a sharp break lower in longer-term interest rates, that will weigh on stocks.

Bottom line, the fundamentals (rising US production and still-overflowing global stockpiles), technicals (new five-week lows), and market internals (bearish term structure) all continue to favor the oil bears right now, and the idea that we are in a “lower for longer” price environment still stands.

Oil and the rest of the energy complex is, however, near-term oversold, and we could see a volatile short covering rally given the right catalyst. Such a move would likely be short-lived, and if we were to see a continued move into the low $40s or even high $30s that would have serious implications for all asset classes (as in early 2016).

Skip the jargon, arcane details and drab statistics from in-house research, and get the simple analysis that will improve your performance. The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets. Start your free two-week trial today.

Political Update for Investors, April 27, 2017

/in /by

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report is right for you.

Political Update for Investors

Trading yesterday was driven by multiple political-related headlines. Politics reasserted itself on the market narrative on Wednesday, helping stocks initially rally following renewed hopes for an Obamacare repeal/replace bill, and after the Trump Administration unveiled a significant (though expected) tax cut plan.

Yet despite the media focus on those two events, any actual progress with healthcare or taxes remains unlikely (and didn’t get better yesterday). The third piece of political news, an investigation into aluminum imports by the Commerce Department, was the most important (yet underfollowed) political development for markets yesterday.

I cover each issue below, cut through the noise, and get to any likely market influence. The bottom line is that despite generally favorable headlines, all the political news yesterday was a mild net negative for stocks.

Trump Administration Tax Cut Plan.

What Happened: The Trump Administration unveiled a sweeping tax cut proposal that included a 15% corporate rate, just three individual tax brackets, doubling the standard deduction, and repatriating overseas profits.

Why It Matters: Corporate tax cuts remain the easiest catalyst for a stock breakout, but unfortunately the tax plan revealed yesterday is very unlikely to pass Congress, and the reason is simple: There is no offset to the reduced revenue from lower taxes. As such, this plan will increase the deficit, and that likely means Democrats can filibuster the bill. Going forward, unless a tax plan contains some material offsets to reduced taxes (like border adjustments) then passage of any big tax cuts remains unlikely in 2017, and that’s stock negative.

How Markets Reacted: Tax-related headlines can still cause a pop in markets, but only a credible plan that can pass Congress will be a bullish gamechanger. (For more market insights in your inbox by 7am each morning, sign up for a free 2-week trial at 7sReport.com.)

Healthcare Bill (Obamacare repeal/replace).

What Happened: The details were fast and furious on this yesterday, but as of this writing it appears the House will vote on the bill potentially this weekend, and odds of passing are decent.

Why It Matters: Passage of an Obamacare repeal/replace increases the chances of tax cuts also passing, as it will increase Trump’s political capital and provide more revenue to offset tax cuts. However, even if this bill passes the House, the chances of passage in the Senate in the current form remain slim. So, while a potential moral victory, it won’t significantly increase the chance of healthcare reform, and as such I don’t see it as a bearish gamechanger for healthcare ETFs (XLV, IHF, IBB).

How Markets Reacted: Stocks (including health care names) largely ignored this news, as again the likelihood of any Obamacare repeal/replace becoming law remains slim. (For more market insights in your inbox by 7am each morning, sign up for a free 2-week trial at 7sReport.com.)

Tariffs and Trade.

What Happened: Yesterday the Commerce Department announced an investigation into aluminum imports. No tariffs were announced, but it certainly looks to be moving in that direction. This announcement comes one day after Commerce levied taxes on Canadian soft lumber imports. Additionally, a Politico story hit midmorning that President Trump was close to signing a document notifying Mexico and Canada that the US intends to withdraw from NAFTA within six months. The document does not guarantee a US exit (they can change course), but it is a necessary legal step to begin the process. Since yesterday the White House has said it’s not preparing this document yet but didn’t squash the idea all together.

Why It Matters: These trade events yesterday (and this week) are actually the most important political events of the week, not because of their immediate impact (Canadian lumber and aluminum tariffs don’t mean a trade war, and the NAFTA announcement is likely for negotiating leverage), but it does remind markets of Trump’s potentially disruptive trade policies. That matters, because right now markets have not priced in any trade-related headwinds, so this does represent at least a modest risk to the bullish narrative.

How Markets Reacted: All the trade headlines weighed slightly on stocks during the late afternoon, but the current headlines simply aren’t bad enough to warrant an outright reversal in stocks. (For more market insights in your inbox by 7am each morning, sign up for a free 2-week trial at 7sReport.com.)

Bottom Line on the Political Update for Investors:

Material “gaps” remain that must be filled if the S&P 500 can sustain a meaningful breakout above 2400, including 1) The gap between political expectations and political reality, 2) The gap between too-low Treasury yields and very high stock prices (although that’s narrowed some-what this week, but not enough), and 3) The gap between soft economic surveys and hard economic data.

In the very short term, investor sentiment seems skeptical, and the market acts as though investors are more afraid of missing a breakout than they are a break down (similar to what we saw when the S&P 500 broke through 2300). So, the “pain trade” looks higher short term and that’s helping stocks.

But given valuations (the S&P 500 trading nearly 18X 2018 earnings), I don’t think sentiment alone is enough to push us decidedly through 2400 without positive resolution on some of these gaps. That means we need 1) Actual progress on tax cuts (which didn’t happen yesterday), 2) A rally in the 10 year above 2.40%, or 3) Better economic data starting today.

I am therefore sticking with my call that the 2300-2400 broad trading range in the S&P 500 should hold, and I would not be chasing stocks at these levels.

Cut through the noise and understand what’s truly driving markets, as this new political and economic reality evolves. The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets.

The Case for Investing in Europe (Updated), April 25, 2017

/in /by

The Case for Europe, Updated

The Sevens Report is everything you need to know about the markets in your inbox by 7am, in 7 minutes or less. Get a free no-risk, no-credit-card required 2-week trial today and see how the world clicks into place after your daily Sevens Report.

European indices and ETFs exploded to new 52-week highs yesterday following the expected French election results. The likely removal of that French political risk overhang reinforces our bullish thesis on Europe, especially given some wobbling in US economic data recently.

On March 21 we presented “The Case for Europe,” which was our bullish thesis on Europe as a tactical investment idea. Since we presented that piece, the three Europe ETFs we recommended have rallied an average of 4.2% vs. the S&P 500 just being flat over the same period. We think that outperformance from Europe can continue for the coming months, so we are presenting an updated “Case for Europe,” and reiterating our bullish stance on three Europe ETFs.

Bullish Factor #1: Compelling Relative Valuation. The reasoning here is simple. The S&P 500 is trading at the top end of historical valuations: 18.25X 2017 EPS, and 17.75X 2018 EPS. There’s not much room for those multiples to go higher, and if we get policy disappointment or the economic data loses momentum, markets could hit a nasty air pocket.

(Specific data and ETFs withheld for subscribers – unlock with free trial: 7sReport.com) 

So, while it’s true Europe should trade at a lower multiple vs. the US given the still-slow growth and political issues, those discounts are pretty compelling. In a world where most equity indices and sectors are fully valued, Europe offers value.

Update: The valuation gap still remains and European indices trade at a still steep discount to the S&P 500. We continue to think we can see multiple expansion in Europe that can help European stocks outperform their US counterparts.

Bullish Factor #2: Ongoing Central Bank Support. This one also is pretty simple… the ECB is still doing QE. The ECB is still planning to buy 60 billion euros worth of bonds through December of this year. That will support the economy, help earnings and push inflation higher, all of which are positive for stocks.

Update: The ECB reacted dovishly to perceptions that it might prematurely end QE or raise rates, and with inflation metrics still uncomfortably low, the chances of a hawkish surprise from the ECB anytime soon are low.

Bullish Factor #3: Overblown political risk. We’ve been talking about this for a while, but the fact is that political risks in Europe are overblown, and just like people underappreciated risks in 2016, I believe they are now overreacting to Brexit and Trump by extrapolating those results too far.

Going forward, there are really two important elections this year: France and Germany.

Update: Macron beat Le Pen in the first round of voting, and according to both the Harris and Ipsos polls taken right after voting on Sunday, Macron holds a large 64% to 36% ad-vantage ahead of the May 7 election.

Turning to Germany, they will have elections in September, and Social Democrat leader Martin Schulz will challenge Merkel for the Prime Minster position. Schultz is a former President of the European Parliament, and he’s not anti EU at all. So, if he wins, from an EU outlook standpoint, it isn’t a negative. Now, I’m not going to get into the details of his politics, because they aren’t yet important for this investment. The bigger point is that it’s not really a problem for the European economy if Schultz wins.

Bottom line, we’ve done well in international investments in the past (Japan during Abenomics, Europe when they started QE), and we believe this is another opportunity to outperform.

How to Play It: (Specific data and ETFs withheld for subscribers – unlock with free trial: 7sReport.com) 

Cut through the noise and understand what’s truly driving markets, as this new political and economic reality evolves. Start your free trial of the Sevens Report today.

Are British Elections a Bullish Gamechanger for the Pound? April 19, 2017

/in /by

The Sevens Report is the daily market cheat sheet our subscribers use to keep up on markets, seize opportunities, avoid risks and get more assets. 

The pound was the big mover on Tuesday as it surged 2.2% following PM May’s call for elections in June. (As a bit of background, May calling for snap elections means that in the next few days Parliament will be dissolved, and then there will be national elections for all Parliamentary seats over the next six weeks).

The news took markets by surprise, but it is a politically savvy move by Ms. May. Right now, in part because a swell in national pride following the official start of Brexit, PM May is very popular. Calling for elections now will capitalize on that popularity, and help her Tories (Conservatives) increase their majority in Parliament.

From an economic standpoint, however, this isn’t likely to have much of an actual effect. Like the Republicans in the US, the Tories are viewed as the “pro-business” par-ty, so there was a knee-jerk positive reaction. However, Brexit will be the major influence on the value of the pound and the British economy over the next few years, not internal politics. Besides, as we’ve seen with Republicans here in the US, just because a party has power doesn’t mean it can actually get anything done!

Bottom line, the pound has surged to multi-month highs and clearly broken resistance at 1.25, and there’s more short covering to come. But, I do not view Tuesday’s events as a bullish gamechanger for the pound or British stocks, and if anything I’d be inclined to sell the pound if it approached 1.30 vs. the dollar.

For now, though, standing on the sidelines is warranted.

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report is right for you.

Did Trump Just Kill The Reflation Trade? April 13, 2017

/in /by

Did Trump Just Kill The Reflation Trade? An excerpt from today’s Sevens Report.

Trump - YellenPresident Trump, in an interview with the WSJ yesterday, appeared to change his policy on the Fed and interest rates. Specifically, Trump said he thought the dollar was getting too strong, that he favored a low interest rate policy, and he was open to keeping Yellen as Fed Chair. It was the second two comments that caught markets attention and caused a “dovish” response in the dollar and bond yields (both of which fell).

The reason these comments were a surprise was because it was generally expected Trump wouldn’t keep Yellen and was in favor of a more hawkish Fed Chair and appointing more hawkish Fed governors (there are currently three vacancies on the Fed President Trump can fill).

So, the market was expecting Trump to be a hawkish influence over the coming years, but yesterday’s comments contradict that expectation.

Going forward, from a currency and bond standpoint (the short term reaction aside) I do not see Trump’s comments as a dovish gamechanger for the dollar or rates. Yes, near term it appears the trend for the dollar is sideways between 99.50ish and 102 while the 10-year yield has broken below support at 2.30%.

But, I don’t see Trump’s comments sending the dollar back into the mid 90’s, nor do I see them sending the 10 year yield below 2%.

I also don’t expect this dovish reaction to be a material boost for stocks, because dovish isn’t positive for stocks any more (in fact the comments are causing the stock sell off this morning—more on that in minute).

Bigger picture, the longer-term path of the dollar and bond yields will be driven by growth, inflation and still ultra-accommodative foreign central banks.

Better economic growth (either by itself or with policy help) is the key to the longer-term direction of the dollar and rates (and we think that longer-term trend remains higher).

However, in the near term, his comments sent the 10 year yield decidedly through support at 2.30%, and that is causing stocks to drop as Treasury yields continue to signal that slower growth and lower inflation are on the horizon. And, since the market has rallied since the election on the hopes of better growth and higher inflation (i.e. the reflation trade) this drop in yields is hitting stocks.

The violation of support in the 10 year yield at 2.30% is important and a potentially near term bearish catalyst for stocks. If the ten year yield doesn’t stabilize and make some effort to rally over the next few days, a test of 2300 or 2275 in the S&P 500 would not shock me.

Cut through the noise and understand what’s truly driving markets, as this new political and economic reality evolves. Get your free 2-week trial at the Sevens Report.

Fed Balance Sheet Primer, April 11, 2016

/in /by

Fed Balance Sheet Primer

An excerpt below from today’s subscriber edition of Sevens Report.

Fed Balance Sheet Primer

Markets remain consumed by politics and geopolitics, but really the biggest macro surprise so far for 2017 came from the Fed last week, with the realization that they could begin to shrink their balance sheet in 2017. That event has potentially hawkish implications for bonds (bonds lower, yields higher), the dollar (higher) and stocks (increased headwind).

We initially warned about this possibility back in mid-March in our FOMC Preview. And, as we said back then, you’re going to be reading a lot more about this in the coming weeks, so I want to cover this topic more fully so that everyone has proper context.

Why Is The Fed Balance Sheet Important? The Fed balance sheet has ballooned over the past eight years given all the bonds it has purchased through the various QE programs. Unwinding that balance sheet without up-setting asset markets is quickly becoming the Fed’s highest priority.

To get specific, right now the Fed reinvests all the proceeds from a matured bond on its balance sheet—but that’s going to change. If the Fed gets $100 million in short-term Treasuries redeemed, right now it simply buys $100 million worth of new Treasuries. But when the Fed stops that reinvestment, that $100 million wouldn’t go back into the bond market, removing a source of demand.

The point is that when the Fed stops reinvesting principal, that will be potentially bond negative/yield positive, and that process needs to be managed very carefully considering the size of the balance sheet ($2.4 trillion in Treasuries, $1.7 trillion in mortgage backed securities).

When Will the Fed Stop Reinvesting All Bond Proceeds? Until last Wednesday, the unanimous answer would have been “2018.” But, following the Minutes, it’s looking more likely that the Fed could begin to end reinvestment of proceeds in December 2017.

Very Hawkish If:… Hawkish If:… Neutral If:… Dovish If:…

The above section is withheld for subscribers—sign up for a free trial to unlock.

What Will the Fed Stop Buying? Right now, the Fed rein-vests proceeds from both Treasuries and Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS), so the question facing markets is whether the Fed will stop reinvestments in just one of these two securities, or whether it will stop reinvestments in both. Until the Minutes, it was assumed the Fed would only begin halting reinvestments in MBS (that way they could further support Treasuries, the more critically important market).

Hawkish If: … Neutral If: …

The above section is withheld for subscribers—sign up for a free trial to unlock.

How Will the Fed Stop Reinvesting Proceeds? The major question here is whether the Fed will slowly reduce the amount of reinvestment gradually, or whether it will just halt reinvestments all together. To illustrate the point, if one week the Fed has $100 million in bonds paying off, will they reinvest $50 of the $100 and reduce that number gradually over time, or will they just not reinvest any of the $100?

Given Fed history, a gradual reduction is what everyone expects; however, in the Minutes they talked about zero reinvestment, and it seems like the Fed is getting a bit antsy to get policy closer to normal.

Hawkish If:… Neutral If:…

The above section is withheld for subscribers—sign up for a free trial to unlock.

Bottom Line

This topic isn’t exactly exciting, and it won’t grab the headlines, but it is shaping up to be one of the bigger market influences in 2017. The reason why is simple: No one knows what’s going to happen to the bond market once the Fed begins to remove itself. On a percentage basis, it’s not like the Fed dominates the daily trading in Treasury markets. Yet sentiment is a funny thing, and the Fed needs to manage the unwind of a $4.1 trillion balance sheet successfully, because the potential for some sort of a market dislocation (especially in the age of algorithms and HFTs) isn’t insignificant. So, please keep this primer as a reference point, because I would be shocked if the Fed balance sheet doesn’t cause some sort of volatility in 2017 (beyond just the Wednesday reversal the news caused last week).

Join hundreds of advisors from huge brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo Advisors, Raymond James and more… see if The Sevens Report is right for you.