$50bn hole appears in New York financial markets – Fed is “looking into it”

Most people would quickly notice if $50 went missing from their purse or wallet. They would certainly notice if $50k suddenly disappeared from their bank account. But a fortnight ago, it took the New York Federal Reserve more than a day to notice that $50bn was missing from the money markets it was supposed to regulate.

Worse was to come. By the end of last week, the NY Fed was being forced to offer up to $100bn/day of overnight money.  And it was also clear that the authorities still have no idea of what is going wrong.

This is perhaps not surprising when one remembers, as I charted here between 2007-8, that the Fed failed to notice the subprime crisis until Lehman went bankrupt in September 2008.

For the past 2 weeks, extraordinary things have been happening in a critical part of the world’s financial markets. And unfortunately, the NY Fed didn’t notice until after it had begun, as the Financial Times later reported:

  • First, on Monday 16th, the repo market suddenly began to trade higher – reaching a high of 7%
  • Then as the market opened at 7am on Tuesday, “Rates rocketed upward again, to 6% within a few minutes and then to a high of 10%. That was four times the rate the repo market was trading the week before. Typically, repo prices move around by a few basis points each day — a few hundredths of a percentage point.

Finally, someone at the Fed woke up – or perhaps, somebody woke them up – and they announced $75bn of support to try and stop rates moving even higher. Even that had its problems, as “technical difficulties” meant the lending was delayed.

As Reuters then reported next day, this cash wasn’t enough. The shortage “forced the Fed to make an emergency injection of more than $125bn …. its first major market intervention since the financial crisis more than a decade ago.”

Of course, as with the early signs of the subprime crisis, the Fed then went into “don’t frighten the children mode“.  We were told it was all due to corporations needing cash to pay their quarterly tax bills, and banks needing to pay for the Treasury bonds they had bought recently.

Really! Don’t companies pay their tax bills every quarter? And don’t banks normally pay for their bonds?  Was this why some large banks found themselves forced to pay 10% for overnight money, when they would normally have paid around 2%?  And in any case, isn’t repo a $2.2tn market – and so should be easily able to cope with both events?

Equally, if it was just a one-off problem, why did the NY Fed President next have to announce daily support of “at least $75bn through 10 October” as well as other measures? And why did the Fed have to scale this up to $100bn/day last Wednesday, after banks needed $92bn of overnight money?

Was it that corporations were suddenly paying much more tax than expected, or banks buying up the entire Treasury market? The explanation is laughable, and shows the degree of panic in regulatory circles, that their explanation isn’t even remotely plausible.

We can expect many such stories to be put around over the next few days and weeks. As readers will remember, we were told in March 2008 that Bear Stearns’ collapse was only a minor issue. As I noted here at the time, S&P even told us that it meant “the end of the subprime write downs was now in sight“.

I didn’t believe these supposedly calming voices then, and I don’t believe them now. Common sense tells us that something is seriously wrong with the financial system, if large borrowers have to pay 10% for overnight money in a $2.2tn market.

And what is even more worrying is that, just as with subprime, the regulators clearly don’t have a clue about the nature of the problem(s).

My own view, as I warned in the Financial Times last month, is that “China’s (August 5) devaluation could prove to be the trigger for an international debt crisis”.  Current developments in the repo market may be a sign that this is more likely than many people realise.  I hope I am wrong.

 

Auto markets set for major disruption as Electric Vehicle sales reach tipping point

Major disruption is starting to occur in the world’s largest manufacturing industry.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs will likely be lost in the next few years in auto manufacturing and its supply chains, as consumers move over to Electric Vehicles (EVs).

As the chart from Idaho National Laboratory confirms, EVs have relatively few parts – less than 20 in the drive-train, for example – versus 2000 for internal combustion engines (ICEs).  There is much less to go wrong, so many servicing jobs will also disappear.

The auto industry itself was the product of such a paradigm shift in the early 19th century, when the horse-drawn industry mostly went out of business.  Now it is seeing its own shift, as battery costs start to reach the critical $100/kWh levels at which EVs become cheaper to own and operate than ICEs.

Unfortunately, this paradigm shift is coming at a time when global sales and profits are already falling. As the chart shows, sales were down 5.4% in January-August in the Top 7 markets versus 2018. And in the Top 6 markets, outside China, they were only 4% higher than in 2007, highlighting the industry’s current over-dependence on China:

  • India is suffering the most, with sales down 15% this year
  • But China’s woes matter most as it is the largest global market; its sales were down 13%
  • Europe was down 3% YTD, but on a weakening trend with August down 8%
    • All the major countries were negative in August, with Spain down 31%
  • Russia was down 2%, despite the economic boost provided by today’s relatively high oil prices
  • The USA and Japan were marginally positive, up 0.4% and 0.6% respectively
  • Only Brazil was showing strong growth at 9%, but was still down 28% versus its 2011 peak

EV sales, like those of used cars, are heading in the opposite direction. China currently accounts for 2/3rds of global EV sales and sold nearly 1.3m EVs in 2018 (up 62% versus 2017). They may well take 50% of the Chinese market by 2025, as the government is now focused on accelerating the transition via the rollout of a national charging network.

Interestingly, it seems that Europe is likely to emerge as the main challenger to China in the global EV market. The US has Tesla, which continues to attract vast investment from Wall Street, but it is only expected to produce a maximum of 400k cars this year. Europe, however, is ramping up EV output very fast as the Financial Times chart confirms:

  • The left-hand scale shows EV prices v range (km) for EVs being released in Europe
  • The right-hand scale shows the dramatic acceleration in EV launches in 2019-21

One key incentive is the manufacturers’ ability to use EV sales to gain “super-credits” in respect of the new mandatory CO2 emission levels. These are now very valuable given the loss of emission credits due to the collapse of diesel sales.

2020 is the key year for these “super-credits” as they are the equivalent of 2 cars, before scaling down to 1.67 cars in 2021 and 1.33 cars in 2022.  Every gram of CO2 emissions above 95g/km will incur a fine of €95/car sold. And as Ford’s CEO has noted:

“There’s only going to be a few winners who create the platforms for the future.”

VW NOW HAVE BATTERY COSTS AT BELOW $100/kWh
VW is likely to be one of the Winners in the new market.  It is planning an €80bn spend to produce 70 EV models based on standardised motors, batteries and other components.  This will enable it to reduce costs and accelerate the roll-out:

  • Its new new flagship ID.3 model will go on sale next year at a typical mid-market price of €30k ($34k)
  • Having disrupted that market segment, it will then expand into cheaper models
  • And it expects a quarter of its European sales to run on battery power by 2025.

The key issue, of course, is battery cost. $100/kWh is the tipping point at which it becomes cheaper to run an EV than an ICE. And now VW are claiming to have achieved this for the ID.3 model.

Once this becomes clearly established, EV sales will enter a virtuous circle, as buyers realise that the resale value of ICE models is likely to fall quite sharply.  Diesel cars have already seen this process in action as a result of the “dieselgate” scandal – they were just 31% of European sales in Q2, versus 52% in 2015 .

One other factor is likely to prove critical. The media hype around Tesla has led to an assumption that individuals will lead the transition to battery power.  But in reality, fleet owners are far more likely to transition first:

  • They have a laser-like focus on costs and often operate on relatively regular routes in city centres
  • They don’t have the “range anxiety” of private motorists and can easily recharge overnight in depots

The problem for auto companies, their investors and their supply chain, is that the disruption caused by the paradigm shift will create a few Winners – and many Losers – as Ford warned. 

Those who delay making the investments required are almost certain to become Losers.  The reason is simple – if today’s decline in auto sales accelerates, as seems likely,  the investment needed for EVs will simply become unaffordable for many companies.

 

 

Oil market weakness suggests recession now more likely than Middle East war

Oil markets remain poised between fear of recession and fear of a US attack on Iran. But gradually it seems that fears about a war are reducing, whilst President Trump’s decision to ramp up the trade war with China makes recession far more likely.

The chart of Brent prices captures the current uncertainties:

  • It shows monthly prices for Brent since 1983 and highlights the conflicting risks
  • The bulls have been battling to push prices higher, but their confidence is weakening
  • The bears were hurt by the stimulus from US tax cuts and OPEC output cuts
  • But June’s abandonment of the Iran attack lifted their confidence

As a member of the President’s national security advisory team has noted:

“This is a president who was elected to get us out of war. He doesn’t want war with Iran.”

With fears about a potential war reducing, at least for the moment, attention has instead turned to issues of supply and demand.  And here, again, the balance of different factors has turned negative:

  • As the second chart shows, supply from the 3 major countries remains at a high level
  • The US is the largest producer, and August’s output is now recovering after the slowdown in the Gulf of Mexico due to Hurricane Barry, and the EIA is forecasting new record highs this year and 2020
  • 3 new pipelines are also coming online during H2, which will boost US oil export potential
  • Meanwhile Russia, as usual, has failed to follow through on its commitment to the OPEC cuts. Its output rose by 2% in January-July versus 2018, despite May/June’s contamination problems
  • As always with OPEC output cuts, Saudi Arabia has been forced to fill the gap. Its volume dipped to 9.8mbd in July, well below the 11mbd peak last November

Overall, global supply has remained strong with EIA estimating Q2 output at 100.6mbd versus 99.8mbd in Q2 last year. Contrary to last year’s optimism over global economic recovery, EIA suggests Q2 consumption only rose to 100.3mbd, versus 99.6mbd in Q2 last year.

And the normally bullish International Energy Agency last week cut its demand forecast for this year and 2020 warning:

“The outlook is fragile with a greater likelihood of a downward revision than an upward one…Under our current assumptions, in 2020, the oil market will be well supplied.”

The third chart, from Orbital Insight, highlights the changes that have been taking place in inventory levels in the major regions.

Generated from satellite images of floating roof tank farms, it is based on estimates of the volume of oil in each tank, which are then aggregated to regional or country level.

Oil markets are by nature opaque. But Orbital’s data does show a very high correlation with EIA’s estimates for  Cushing – where the official data is very reliable.

As discussed here many times before, the chemical industry is the best leading indicator for the global economy, due to its wide range of applications and geographic coverage.  The fourth chart shows the steady downward trend since December 2017 in the data on Capacity Utilisation from the American Chemistry Council.

Q2 has shown the usual seasonal ‘bounce’,  but key end-user markets such as electronics, autos and housing are also clearly weakening, as discussed last week for smartphones.  And Bloomberg has reported that US inventory levels at major warehouses are close to being full.

I suggested back in May that prudent companies would develop a scenario approach that planned for both war and recession, given that the outcome was then essentially unknowable.

Today, both scenarios are clearly still possible. But it would seem sensible to now step up planning for recession, given the downbeat signals from oil and chemical markets.

 

 

 

US-China trade war confirms political risk is now a key factor for companies and the economy

There are few real surprises in life, and President Trump’s decision to launch a full-scale trade war with China wasn’t one of them.  He had virtually promised to do this in his election campaign, as I noted here back in September 2015:

“The economic success of the BabyBoomer-led SuperCycle meant that politics as such took a back seat.  People no longer needed to argue over “who got what” as there seemed to be plenty for everyone.  But today, those happy days are receding into history – hence the growing arguments over inequality and relative income levels.

“Companies and investors have had little experience of how such debates can impact them in recent decades.  They now need to move quickly up the learning curve.  Political risk is becoming a major issue, as it was before the 1990s.”

Of course, I received major push-back for this view at the time, just as I did in 2007-8 when warning of a likely US subprime crisis.  Most people found it very hard to believe that politics could trump economic logic, as one American commentator wrote in response to my analysis:

“I have a very, very, very difficult time imagining that populist movements could have significant traction in the U.S. Congress in passing legislation that would seriously affect companies and investors”.

But, sadly or not, depending on your political persuasion, my conclusion after the election result was known seems to have stood the test of time:

“You may, or may not, approve of President-elect Trump’s policies. You may, or may not, think that these policies are destined to fail. But they do confirm that the world is moving into a New Normal, which will inevitably create Winners and Losers.

“The Winners are likely to come from those who accept that President Trump will at least try to introduce the policies proposed by Candidate Trump. And the Losers will almost inevitably include those who continue to believe he represents “business as usual”.

Now, of course, we will start to see these Winners and Losers appear, as there is little the Western central banks can do to counteract the economic cost for the global economy of a US-China trade war.

One sign of this was Uber’s miserable performance on its stock market debut – despite having been priced at the low end of the planned range, it still fell further on its opening, in line with my suggestion last month that Uber’s $91bn IPO marks the top for today’s debt-fuelled stock markets.

But there will be many more serious casualties over the next few months and years:

  • NE Asian countries such as Japan and S Korea are part of global supply chains which send a wide range of components to China, where they are incorporated into finished goods for sale to the USA
  • Germany and the major European countries have relied on sales to China to boost economic growth, as domestic demand has stagnated, and clearly this support is now going to weaken
  • The mining industry and other suppliers of commodities will also be hit – Rio Tinto, for example, depends on China for 45% of its revenue, and on the USA for 15%
  • The petrochemicals industry has been dependent on China for its growth since the 2008 financial crisis, as I noted last summer, US-China tariffs could lead to global Polyethylene price war

Back in 2011-12, John Richardson and I wrote ‘Boom, Gloom and the New Normal: How the Western BabyBoomers are Changing Demand Patterns, Again’ to give our view of the likely consequences of the major demographic changes underway in the global economy.

Unfortunately, the politicians of the time took the seemingly easy route out of the crisis. They decided that printing money was so much easier than having a dialogue with the electorate about the implications of ageing populations, or the fact that Western fertility rates have been below replacement levels for the past 45 years.  Our warning is now coming true:

“The transition to the New Normal will be a difficult time. The world will be less comfortable and less assured for many millions of Westerners. The wider population will find itself following the model of the ageing boomers, consuming less and saving more. Rather than expecting their assets to grow magically in value every year, they may find themselves struggling to pay-down debt left over from the credit binge.

“Companies will need to refocus their creativity and resources on real needs. This will require a renewed focus on basic research. Industry and public service, rather than finance, will need to become the destination of choice for talented people, if the challenges posed by the megatrends are to be solved. Politicians with real vision will need to explain to voters that they can no longer expect all their wants to be met via endless ‘fixes’ of increased debt.

“We could instead decide to ignore all of this potential unpleasantness.

“But doing nothing is not a solution. It will mean we miss the opportunity to create a new wave of global growth from the megatrends. And we will instead end up with even more uncomfortable outcomes.

Don’t get carried away by Beijing’s stimulus

Residential construction work in Qingdao, China. Government stimulus is unlikely to deliver the economic boost of previous years © Bloomberg

China’s falling producer price index suggests it could soon be exporting deflation, as I describe in my latest post for the Financial Times, published on the BeyondBrics blog
On the surface, this year’s jump in China’s total social financing (TSF) seems to support the bullish argument. TSF was Rmb5.3tn ($800bn) in January-February, a 26 per cent rise on 2018’s level.By comparison, it rose 61 per cent in 2009 as the government panicked over the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, and 23 per cent in 2016, when the government wanted to consolidate public support ahead of 2017’s five-yearly Party Congress session, which reappointed the top leadership for their second five-year term.

The markets were certainly right to view both these increases positively, as we discussed here two years ago. But we also added a cautionary note, suggesting that 2017’s Congress might well be followed by a “new clampdown”, as Xi’s leadership style was likely to “move away from consensus-building towards autocracy”. This analysis seems to have proved prescient, and it makes us cautious about assuming that Xi has decided to reverse course in 2019.

Consumer markets are also indicating a cautious response. Passenger car sales, for example, were down 18 per cent in January-February compared with the same period last year, after having fallen in 2018 for the first time since 1990. Smartphone sales were also down 14 per cent over the same period. In the important housing market, state-owned China Daily reported that sales by industry leader Evergrande fell by 43 per cent.

There is little evidence on the ground to suggest that Xi has decided to return to stimulus to revive economic growth. Last month’s government Work Report to the National People’s Congress said it would “refrain from using a deluge of stimulus policies”.

Instead, it seems likely that this year’s record level of lending was used to bail out local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) and other casualties of China’s post-2008 debt bubble. The second chart illustrates the potential problem, with TSF suddenly taking off into the stratosphere after 2008, when stimulus began, while GDP growth hardly changed its trajectory.

The stimulus programme thus dramatically inflated the amount of debt needed to create a unit of GDP. And given the doubts over the reliability of China’s GDP data, it may well be that the real debt-to-GDP ratio is even higher. These data therefore support the argument that debt servicing is now becoming a major issue for China after a decade of stimulus policies.


One example comes from the FT’s analyses of the debt problems affecting China Rail and China’s vast network of city subways. The FT reported that China has 25,000km of high-speed rail tracks, two-thirds of the world’s total, and that China Rail’s debt burden had reached Rmb5tn — of which around 80 per cent related to high-speed rail construction. Its interest payments have also exceeded its operating profits since at least 2015.

Unsurprisingly, given China’s relative poverty (average disposable income was just $4,266 in 2018), income from ticket sales has been too low even to cover interest payments since 2015. And yet the company is planning to expand capacity to 30,000km of track by 2030, with budgets increased by 10 per cent in 2018 as a result of the decision to boost infrastructure.

The same problem can be seen in city subway construction, where China accounted for 30 per cent of global city rail at the end of last year by track length, but only 25 per cent of ridership, which suggests that some lines may be massively underused and economically unviable.

The issue is not whether this level of investment is justifiable over the longer term in creating the infrastructure required to support growth. Nor is it whether the debt incurred can be repaid over time. Instead, the real question is whether the need to support economic expansion has led to a financially-risky acceleration of the infrastructure programme and whether, in turn, Beijing is now being forced to cover potential losses in order to avoid a series of credit-damaging defaults.


So where does this alternative narrative lead us? It suggests that far from supporting consumer spending, the TSF increase is flagging a growing risk in Asian debt markets — where western investors have rushed to invest in recent years, attracted by the relatively high interest rates compared with those enforced by central banks in their home markets. In 2017, for example, Chinese borrowers raised $211bn in dollar-denominated issuance, at a time when corporate debt levels had already reached 190 per cent of GDP.

This risk is emphasised if we revisit our suggestion here at the end of last year, that data for chemicals output — the best leading indicator for the global economy — was suggesting “that we may now be headed into recession”. More recent data give us no reason to change this conclusion, and therefore highlight the risk that some Chinese debts may prove more equal than others in terms of the degree of state support that they can command. Missed interest and capital repayments are now becoming common among the weaker borrowers.

The performance of China’s producer price index provides additional support for our analysis. As the third chart shows, this is now flirting with a negative reading, suggesting that a decade of over-investment means that China now has a major problem of surplus capacity. This problem will, of course, be exacerbated if demand continues to slow in key areas. In turn, this suggests that the implications of our analysis go beyond Asian markets.

China still remains, after all, the manufacturing capital of the world, and its falling PPI implies that 2019 could see it exporting deflation. This would be exactly the opposite conclusion to that assumed by today’s rallying equity markets, although it would chime with the increasingly downbeat messages coming from global bond markets. Investors may therefore want to revisit their recent euphoria over the level of lending in China, and their new confidence that the so-called “Powell put” can really protect them from today’s global market risks.

Paul Hodges and Daniël de Blocq van Scheltinga publish The pH Report.

Stock markets risk Wile E. Coyote fall despite Powell’s rush to support the S&P 500

How can companies and investors avoid losing money as the global economy goes into a China-led recession?  That’s the key question as we enter 2019.  We have reached a fork in the road:

The central banks’ aim was set out in November 2010 by US Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke:

“Higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion.”

And the current Chairman, Jay Powell, rushed to calm investors on Friday by confirming this policy:

“We will be prepared to adjust policy quickly and flexibly and use all of our tools to support the economy should that be appropriate.”

His words confirm he equates “the economy” with the stock market, as the chart shows:

  • The Fed no longer sees its core mandate on jobs and prices as defining its role
  • Instead it has become focused on making sure the S&P 500 moves steadily upwards
  • Every time the S&P 500t flirts with breaking the lower “tramline”, the Fed rushes to its rescue

Like Wile E Coyote in the Road Runner cartoons, the Fed has used more and more absurdly complex strategies to try and keep the market going upwards.  But now it is very close to finding itself over the cliff edge.

CORPORATE DEBT IS THE KEY RISK FOR 2019

The Fed should have realised long ago that markets cannot keep climbing forever.  Instead, by printing $4tn of free cash, it has temporarily destroyed their key role of price discovery.  As a result:

  • Investors now have no idea if are paying too much for their purchases
  • Companies don’t know if their new investments will actually make money

We are heading almost inevitably to another  ‘Minsky Moment’ as I described in September 2008,:

“Earnings from the new investments prove too low to pay the interest due on the debt. Confidence in the ‘new paradigm’ disappears and, with it, market liquidity. Investors find themselves unable to sell the under-performing asset, and suddenly realise they have over-paid. In turn, this prompts a rush for the exits. Prices then begin to drop quite sharply, as ‘distress sales’ take place.

This time, however, the risk is in corporate debt, not US subprime lending.  As the charts above show:

  • The ratio of US corporate debt to GDP has reached an eye-watering 46%, higher than ever before
  • Lending standards have collapsed with most investment debt in the lowest “Triple B” grade

Investors’ obviously loved Powell’s confirmation on Friday that he is determined to cover their backs. But they may start to remember over the weekend that the cause of Thursday’s collapse was Apple’s problems in China – about which, the Fed can actually do very little.

And whilst Apple won’t go bankrupt any time soon, weaker companies in its supply chain certainly face this risk – as do other companies dependent on sales in China.  And as their sales volumes and profits start to fall, investors similarly risk finding that large numbers of companies with “Triple B” ratings have suddenly been re-rated as “Junk”:

  • Bianco Research suggest that 14% of companies in the S&P 1500 are zombies, with their earnings unable to cover interest expenses
  • The Bank of International Settlements has already warned that Western central banks stimulus lending means that  >10% of US/EU firms currently “rely on rolling over loans as their interest bill exceeds their EBIT. They are most likely to fail as liquidity starts to dry up”.

CHINA’S CORPORATE DEBT IS THE EPICENTRE OF THE RISK

As the chart shows, China’s corporate debt is now the highest in the world.  Yet it hardly existed before 2008, when China’s leadership panicked and began the largest stimulus programme in history.

The “good news” is that China’s new leadership recognise the problem, as I discussed in November 2017,  China’s central bank governor warns of ‘Minsky Moment’ risk.  The “bad news” – for the Fed’s desire to support the stock market, and for companies dependent on Chinese demand – is that they are determined to tackle the risk, having warned:

“China’s financial sector is and will be in a period with high risks that are easily triggered. Under pressure from multiple factors at home and abroad, the risks are multiple, broad, hidden, complex, sudden, contagious, and hazardous. The structural unbalance is salient; law-breaking and disorders are rampant; latent risks are accumulating; [and the financial system’s] vulnerability is obviously increasing.”

Companies and investors need to take great care in 2019.  China’s downturn means that markets are starting to rediscover their role of price discovery, despite the Fed’s efforts to keep waving its magic wand:

  • Companies with too much debt will go bankrupt, leading to the Minsky Moment
  • The domino effect of price wars and lower volumes will quickly hit other supply chains
  • Time spent today in understanding this risk will prove time very well spent later this year

Once the tramline is broken, the Fed and the S&P 500 will find themselves in Wile E Coyote’s position in the famous Road Runner cartoons – with nowhere to go, but down.