With the recent rally this past week in the dollar, it is important for investors to understand why such a move matters. For those who love charts, this article is for you.
The most obvious and well-known correlation between the dollar and equities is the association of a weak dollar with the outperformance of most commodities and real assets. It is no coincidence the significant gains in commodities over the past 12 months have come during a period of a declining dollar. We can clearly see this inverse relationship in play by comparing the performance of copper and oil against the dollar.
Dollar & oilAn extension of this relationship is how periods of dollar weakness coincide with the relative outperformance of equity markets sectors reliant on economic growth. As we have witnessed over the past year, the falling dollar has resulted in the outperformance of consumer cyclical versus consumer defensive stocks, as well as materials, industrials, small caps and energy stocks outperformance relative to the broad market. Likewise, this period of dollar weakness has seen the underperformance of defensive sectors such as utilities and bonds.
Basic materials vs S&P 500
Industrials vs S&P 500
Utilities vs S&P500
Small Caps vs Large Caps
Dollar & bondsFrom a fundamental perspective, these relationships make sense. A stronger dollar is generally a function of a contractionary or disinflationary outlook. During deflationary shocks à la March 2020, dollars are in high demand and act as a safe haven or risk-off asset. Conversely, a weaker dollar is generally a function of economic growth and rising inflation expectations.
What this means is the dollar tends to appreciate when bond yields fall. This comes about due to the safe have characteristics of the dollar. If the economic outlook looks sluggish and appears to be slowing down, we tend to see money flow into dollars, and by extension, we see money flow out of the growth and inflationary dependent sectors and asset classes of commodities, small caps, cyclicals, industrials and materials and into those of a defensive nature.
Perhaps the most well-known implication of dollar strength or weakness is the performance of foreign and emerging markets relative to the US. Emerging markets in particular are inherently cyclical and dependent on the dollar. This is particularly the case for those countries with high levels of US dollar denominated debt or the commodity producing countries.
A rising US dollar causes the domestic currency of emerging economies to fall and inflation to rise amid weaker economic growth. Contrary to a developed economy whose economic growth is generally associated with inflation, being beholden to foreign-denominated debt reverses this dynamic. Higher inflation results in the central bank needing to raise interest rates and sell their foreign exchange reserves to defend their currency from hyperinflating, which acts as a further headwind to economic growth and exacerbates this dynamic in a self-reflexive manner.
These countries are unable to simply print money to monetize the debt, as is commonplace in developed countries whose debt is denominated in their own currency. The governments will then look to use fiscal policy as a means to stimulate, resulting in increasing budget deficits at the same time foreign and domestic capital flees the country for a safer alternative to preserve wealth, resulting in a negative current account balance along with a budget deficit.
Of course, these dynamics work in reverse too when the dollar is falling and create an economic tailwind that results in strong economic growth and asset price appreciation generally superior to developed markets. As the domestic currency strengthens, inflationary pressures fall, allowing the central banks to lower interest rates whilst the economy is booming, spurring lending and reinforcing growth.
At the same time, the governments are not required to run budget deficits, nor are the central banks required sacrifice their foreign currency reserves and run current account deficits to defend their currencies. You could almost think of a rising dollar as a form of quantitative tightening for most emerging markets, whilst a falling dollar could be considered a form of quantitative easing.
Therefore, for one to be willing to bet on the outperformance of EM relative to US equities, one must have a bearish outlook for the dollar.
Is this dollar rally sustainable?
In my view, the dollar has appeared to be in need of a rebound for a few months now. To be clear, we are far from seeing the start of a new trend higher in the dollar, but, as the consensus towards the dollar has been and remains almost exclusively bearish, it is not often we see price action conform to consensus.
Speculators are still betting heavily against a rally in the dollar.
Conversely, speculators are betting heavily on the relative outperformance of the euro. Meanwhile, commercial hedgers (i.e. the smart money) remain long dollars and short euros.
Technically, the coming weeks will be telling for both the dollar and the euro. With a potential head and shoulders bottom forming on the dollar index, and conversely a head and shoulders top for the euro, should these patterns follow through and the dollar move further to the upside, many of the “consensus” inflationary and growth orientated trades in which investors are all in on, may experience a period of underperformance.
A continued rally in the dollar over the coming months may well be a signal the inflation trade has gotten too ahead of itself. I have written previously how this may be the case. What’s more, the bond market also appears to be signaling a pause in this narrative for the time being, as I too mused upon recently. If the dollar does move higher, expect to see reflation trades dip and thus the outperformance of defensives, utilities, bonds and tech.
Regardless of whether we do see a meaningful move higher over the coming months, it is important for investors to understand the implications of such a move, as is the purpose of this article. Whilst a move higher would not bode well for risk assets, it would likely be unsustainable and thus brief.
With US debt to GDP at an all-time high of 130%, US net international investment position (NIIP) of -65% of GDP, lack of foreign investment in treasuries and an economy heavily reliant on the appreciation of equity prices, for mine, policy makers will understand the damage a dollar rally could cause. In the long-term, I do remain in the dollar bear camp. However, we need to see a rally and wash-out of the negative sentiment before the downtrend is able to continue.
Finally, I will leave you with this excellent chart by Julien Bittel, summarizing the relative return of the major equity sectors and asset classes to moves in the dollar.
The financials and banking stocks have been some of the best performing of the reflation trade since the second half of 2020. Banks in particular have benefitted handsomely from the rise in yields and steepening of the yield curve. Since last October, the KBE banks ETF is up roughly 100%, rewarding investors who saw fit to take advantage of the immense value on offer at the time. However, there are a number of signs suggesting now may be a prudent opportunity for investors to begin to take profits and redeploy capital elsewhere.
Firstly, from a valuation perspective, the group can no longer be considered cheap on a relative or absolute basis. Of the “big four” banks, JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America are trading at their highest valuations in a decade, as measured by price to book value.
On the whole, we know banks like to make their profits by lending long-term and borrowing short-term. With long-term yields looking to have stalled for the time being, or perhaps even rolling over, the yield curve did not confirm the recent highs in the sector. It looks as though banks may have some catching up to do on the downside.
As banks and financials have largely proven to be a de-facto short-bonds trade of late, the bond market is sending a similar message as the yield-curve.
For the banking sector to continue its outperformance, it needs the tailwind that rising yields provide. With the US 30-year yield recently breaking its uptrend to the downside, it is looking as though this tailwind may be turning into a headwind for the time being. A move down to the 200-day moving average would put the 30-year yield at around 1.9%.
Additionally, there is strong overhead resistance for yields around their current levels. This breakdown coincides with the 30-years recent rejection of said resistance.
Couple this with the fact that small speculators (i.e. the “dumb money”) in the 30-year treasury futures market remain nearly as short as they have ever been, all the while commercial hedgers (i.e. the “smart money”) remain heavily net-long. Such positioning in the past has usually preceded favourable performance for bonds, and thus seen yields fall.
What’s more, we are now entering a seasonally favourable period for bonds and conversely an unfavorable period for yields. This adds to the bearish headwinds for financials.
Turning to the technicals of the financials sector itself, a number of indicators are signaling exhaustion. We are seeing DeMark setup and countdown 9 and 13’s trigger on the daily, weekly and monthly charts. When such exhaustion signals begin to appear on multiple timeframes simultaneously, it is generally a fairly reliable indication a pullback, or at the very least a period of consolidation, is imminent. The 9-13-9 is considered one of the most reliable of the DeMark sequential indicators.
Focusing on the daily chart of the financials sector ETF, we have just seen a breakdown of its ascending wedge pattern. This coincides with bearish divergences in momentum (RSI) and money flow, in conjunction with the aforementioned daily DeMark 9-13-19 sequential sell signals.
A rally to test the underside of the broken trendline could be an attractive point for those looking to take profits, or for those who are so inclined to trade from the short-side. Additionally, seasonality of the financials sector is also signaling that it may be time to take a bearish, or less bullish, stance towards financial stocks.
In summary, the risk-reward setup for banks and financials in the short-term does not appear to be overly favourable, nor do these companies offer the kind value they provided last year. Depending on your intermediate to long-term outlook for the direction of interest rates and whether your are in the inflationary or deflationary camps, a potential pullback may provide an attractive buying opportunity for the inflationist. For the deflationists or for those who believe rates may be peaking, this may be a good time to take profits and redeploy capital in alternative opportunities set to benefit from falling rates.
The great bond bull market of the past 40 years has made millionaires out of many, so has the rise of blockchain, cryptocurrencies and the digitalization of the financial system. Another such paradigm shift upon us is the worlds unified move to decarbonize and green the economy.
What we are witnessing is a worldwide push for industries to move away from excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Such unification around a common goal is perhaps unlike anything we have witnessed in the entire history of humanity. With governments and companies worldwide fully committing to the green transition and most aiming for net-zero emissions by the middle of this century, many are taking several significant steps to achieve this goal.
People are now far more open-minded, educated, and aware of the potential damage to both our environment and our economy that global warming can unleash. Our world leaders and notably the Biden Administration are agreeing there is much to be done to green the economy. This is a huge task and is occurring from a global, country, sovereign and individual level. Whilst the evidence above suggests most of the action thus far has centered around the use of electric vehicles and renewable energies, the process of electrifying everything is enormous in scope. Upstream, midstream, and downstream; the way we generate, transport, store and use energy must be revolutionized.
The green energy transition is a once-in-a-lifetime paradigm shift that we can trade and profit from. Much will change during this generational transformation.
Copper and other metals used in the electrification process are undoubtedly a popular way to trade the green energy transition. Regardless of the rapid price appreciation in such metals over the past 12 months, there are abundant reasons why so many investors are bullish over the long-term. The role these metals will play in the green energy transition is so very important.
Front and center of the electrification metals sits copper; perhaps the biggest winner of the green transition. Its role is critical in all aspects of the push to electrify the economy. With the world’s motor vehicles set to become almost completely electrified over the coming decades and coppers use therein being three to fourfold relative to traditional vehicles, we are going to need a lot of copper.
According to the International Copper Association (ICA), a battery-powered electric vehicle (BEV) uses 83 kg of copper, a hybrid electric vehicle 40kg and an internal combustion engine only 23kg of copper. From just the transition to electric vehicles alone, the demand for copper is set to increase three to four times from its current levels. Indeed, the ICA predicts the number of electric vehicles will rise to 27 million by 2027, a nine-fold increase from the roughly 3 million as of 2017. Such an increase is set to increase copper demand for the production of EVs from 185,000 tons to 1.74 million tons.
Based solely on the adoption of electric vehicles, we can clearly see the demand for copper is set to increase dramatically over coming decades. What’s more, such projections as those of the ICA are modelled only on coppers use within EVs, the green energy transition will require an immense amount of copper for much more than just its use within electric vehicles.
The graphic below illustrates coppers use in the generation of electricity from conventional methods compared to wind and solar. Copper will be required to a significant degree in all forms of renewable energy generation.
A hugely underappreciated and at this stage seemingly underfunded part of the green transition for many developed countries, notably the US, is the need to rebuild, or at the very least significantly improve their electrical grid. For the most part, the electrical grid does not have the ability to store electrical energy. One of the major issues with wind and solar-generated power is their intermittency, that is, their inability to constantly generate power. The sun is not always shining nor is the wind always blowing. Thus, the ability to be able to store the electrical energy created from such sources for future use becomes paramount.
What’s more, the United State’s electric grid as is currently constructed is not able to provide and transmit the necessary electricity to power an entirely electrified economy. If the majority of the population came home from work in the evening and were to plug their EVs in to charge, the grid would simply be unable to support such demand and would shut down. In some parts of the US, the electrical grid is nearly a century old. It was designed and built from a completely different era. Those living in Texas can no doubt attest to the limitations of the grid.
Rebuilding the electric grid will require astronomical amounts to copper and other important metals. The importance of this enormous task will only become more prevalent in the minds of policymakers as we continue down the road to electrification.
What makes copper so useful is its ability to conduct electricity and transmit heat. It is roughly twice as conductive as aluminum, making it far more efficient in its use. Copper is the primary source of conductors in wires and cabling, electrical equipment and renewable energy infrastructure. Whilst silver is another such metal that can serve a similar purpose, it is simply too expensive and not as abundant.
Precious metals aside, pound-for-pound copper is the best conductor of electricity and heat. It is also one of the few commodities that cannot be feasibly replaced by any alternatives in the electrification process in the way that battery technology is susceptible to innovation. Additionally, copper itself is also renewable and is one of only a few materials that is fully recyclable.
Also favoring copper is its long-term supply dynamics. In spite of this huge forthcoming growth in copper demand, copper itself is notoriously difficult to source. As detailed by energy and commodity experts Leigh Goehring and Adam Rozencwajg in their Q4 2020 market commentary; “a structural deficit has crept into global copper markets that will become increasingly obvious to investors as the decade progresses. Confronting this strong demand is copper mine supply that will show little in the way of growth over the next five years.
Few large copper mining projects are slated to come online over the next five years”. They also note that “the lack of massive new copper mining projects, coupled with an ever-accelerating copper mine depletion problem, means growth in mine supply should remain minimal over the next five years. Global copper consumption exceeds copper mine supply and recovered copper scrap by about 500,000 tons per year presently and will get worse”.
Whilst an increase in the price will of course lead to further capital injected into the sector to source further supply, the process of getting this new supply online to meet demand is not as simple as it may appear. Clearly, there is a structural supply shortage of copper. This presents an incredibly favorable demand and supply dynamic for copper over the comin years, one in which the copper price and the miners themselves will benefit enormously.
Finally, turning to the technicals, lovers of a long-term chart will find it hard not to appreciate the recent bullish breakout from copper’s near two-decade wedge pattern.
Whilst much of the rapid price appreciation we have seen over the past 12 months can somewhat be attributed to the COVID-19 lockdown induced supply shortages and rampant speculation, it is important to remember this is a long-term trade. Though the immediate risk-reward may not be as attractive, any significant dips in the price of copper and the copper miners should be bought with earnest for those who believe in the long-term viability of this trade, as I do.
Copper and copper miners are the simplest long-term play on the green energy transition.
With so much focus and capital being directed towards renewable sources of energy in wind and solar, there is relatively little thought given to the limitations of these as sources of clear energy. Due to such limitations I will endeavor to detail below, herein lies the inevitability of nuclear power’s role in electricity generation as we progress through this green revolution.
The limitations of renewables
Whilst renewable energies will play a significant and important role in the green energy transition, they are not the panacea for carbon reduction as one might initially believe. There are significant limitations to the sole use of renewables as a means to reach net-zero emissions.
Both solar and wind are inefficient generators of electricity. This is primarily a result of their intermittency and energy density, as I have only briefly touched on. According to Goehring and Rozencwajg, who have also released some excellent research on the limitations of renewables, note that a standard solar panel is likely to only generate between 12-20% of its capacity due to intermittent sunshine, whilst a wind turbine is only marginally better at around 25% due to the intermittency of wind.
Goehring and Rozencwajg have developed a metric to track the efficiency of energy generation from its various sources, measured as Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI), estimating that between 25-60% of the energy generated by renewable sources is consumed internally by the process of actually generating that electricity, meaning the EROEI for renewables is roughly 3 to 1. Compare this to a traditional gas plant, whose EROEI is around 30 to 1, meaning that it internally consumes only 3% of its generated energy. Traditional and less carbon friendly sources of energy are roughly 30 times more efficient in their energy generation compared to renewables.
What’s more, due to the inefficiency of renewables and their need of servicing and maintenance, which in itself is quite impactful on carbon emissions, in addition to the need to overbuild solar and wind farms as well as the ability to store the energy to counter their intermittency, has largely resulted in those countries who have adopted renewables to a significant degree not seeing the reduction in carbon emissions they would have hoped for.
As we can see above, much of the gains toward a green economy made by the adoption of renewables will be offset by their inefficiencies and the additional energy requirements to maintain the infrastructure and store their sourced energy. Few people understand how energy intensive the green transition will be.
Whilst they will play an important role in the green energy transition, renewables will not solve problem of global warming to the degree that is desired. This leads to nuclear power, one of the few solutions able to provide the carbon-free, base load power required.
Uranium is the fuel that powers nuclear reactors which then generates power. Nuclear power is generally misunderstood. On the whole, it is a clean, safe and reliable source of of base-load energy.
If we return to Goehring and Rozencwajg’s Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI), “a modern nuclear reactor generates electricity with an EROEI of nearly 100 compared with 30 for gas and 1-4 for renewables. As a result, only 1% of the generated electricity is consumed internally compared with 3% for gas and 25-60% for renewable energy”.
Compared with renewables, nuclear energy is anywhere from 40-100 times more efficient. What’s more, nuclear energy is far more scalable than renewables and completely avoids their intermittency shortcomings. The green energy transition simply must have an increased reliance on nuclear energy, it is one of the few sources of clear energy that has the ability to drive the green energy transition in an efficient way.
Not only is nuclear energy the most efficient source of electricity generation, but it is also less carbon intensive than renewables.
Perhaps the biggest reason behind the lack of reliance on nuclear as a source of energy is the negative sentiment towards it. Nuclear energy certainly gets a bad wrap. There have been three significant nuclear incidents responsible for this; Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Despite the actual loss of life being surprisingly less than one might have thought, these incidents have largely left the industry bereft of capital and acceptance as a source of energy over the past 40 or so years. However, what will likely surprise many is that nuclear energy is actually the safest form of electricity.
The use of uranium within nuclear energy does have somewhat of a dark history. The uranium cycle of nuclear energy creation, as opposed to using the thorium cycle, was chosen as the by-product of creating electrical energy using uranium is plutonium, which was used to make nuclear weapons.
The reasoning behind this choice was because the heyday of nuclear energy occurred during the Cold War, and it was the agenda’s of the worlds governments to create nuclear weapons. However, the Cold War has long since past. It is now time for policy makers to revisit the use of nuclear energy within their climate goals. Indeed, this negative view towards nuclear energy has created a huge mispricing for the sector. The math no longer is equal to the narrative.
Convincing environmentalists that the positive impacts of nuclear energy do indeed significantly outweigh the negative impacts will likely be a game-changer for how the world produces energy. Likewise, an education of the general public is needed in regards to nuclear energy. We cannot meet our climate objectives without nuclear energy in the mix.
Indeed, we now are seeing sentiment towards nuclear slowly begin to change. The pressure of governments to meet their green energy objectives will ultimately lead to nuclear power having an ever increasing role as a source of carbon free base-load energy. On the whole, nuclear energy is actually very clean, safe and reliable. Nuclear energy simply must be a part of policy makers plans should they wish to achieve their green objectives.
The industry fundamentals for nuclear energy and uranium is quite different to most other commodity and energy markets. As the sector has been in a bear market since the Great Financial Crisis, it has largely been bereft of capital. This seemingly paints a positive picture for the price going forward. Due to the lack of capital and investment, there is very little in the way of new production set to come online in the next few years in order to meet the increasing demand for uranium. This lack of new capital has been beneficial for the sector, as only the strongest, most profitable and best-run producers have survived.
Likewise, the production of uranium is a highly concentrated industry, with the two largest miners, Kazatomprom in Kazakhstan and Cameco in Canada, accounting for roughly 60% the the worlds uranium production. With both producers significantly reducing their production over the past 12 months due to COVID-19, a structural supply shortfall could well be with us for years to come so long as nuclear energy becomes a significant part of the green energy transition. Furthermore, what could result from such supply shortfalls is the producers themselves entering the spot market in order to fulfill their supply obligations to the various reactors; a bullish outcome to be sure.
From a technical perspective, the spot uranium price appears to be finally bottoming after its prolonged bear market.
Due to how the industry contracts uranium supply between producers and users, the spot price is perhaps not the most relevant and is a very thinly traded market. For me, I am happy to invest via the URNM ETF, which is superior to the older URA ETF. URA is more of a nuclear energy ETF than a play on uranium, and as a result there are many constituents of the fund which makes little sense as they are not related to the production of uranium. URNM is a better vehicle for those looking for a purer exposure to the uranium miners.
However, similar to copper, it is important to keep in mind the uranium trade is for those with a long-term time horizon. Given the near doubling of the price of both URA and URNM since the reflation trade took off in November of last year, the risk-reward for the immediate-term is perhaps skewed to the downside. Of course any significant pullbacks should be bought in earnest for all those who buy into the long-term bull case for uranium, as I do. The 38.2% Fibonacci retracement of the Novembers lows looms as one such attractive entry point.
The case for uranium is simple; nuclear energy will ultimately be required in order for governments to meet their carbon goals.
European Carbon Credits
What are European Carbon Credits?
European carbon credits, or perhaps what are more accurately defined as carbon allowances, are part of the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, or EU ETS. The EU ETS is at its core, a market-based approach to controlling carbon emissions introduced by the EU as the cornerstone of their efforts to control emissions and meet their carbon goals. The Emissions Trading Scheme is what’s referred to as a ‘cap and trade’ system, which attempts to set a maximum limit of emissions certain companies and industries involved in the scheme are allowed to emit during a certain period of time. The EU ETS is the worlds first and largest ‘cap and trade’ system aiming to reduce GHG emissions.
The system works by setting an emissions cap and issuing a certain number allowances, which are referred to as EU Emissions Allowances (EUAs). The cap is set by the EU, and all the companies within the scheme are required to accumulate a certain amount of allowances (EUAs) for every ton of CO2 they emit each year. These allowances are issued via auction each year (or issued for free to various industries where there is considered to be a potential risk if they were required to pay the full cost of the allowances they need to cover their emissions), and are tradable between companies. At the end of each year, the participants are required to return an allowance for every ton of CO2 they emitted during that year.
Those companies who were unable to accumulate a sufficient number of allowances to cover their emissions (i.e. the more carbon intensive industries), are required to reduce their emissions or buy surplus allowances from companies whose allowances exceed their carbon emissions during the period. These surplus companies are also allowed to accumulate their unused allowances for use in later years.
The following graphic provides a helpful illustration of how the system works.
For those companies who fail to accumulate sufficient allowances or reduce their emissions accordingly, they face a fine of approximately 100 euros per excess ton of carbon emitted, as well as being required to accumulate allowances in future years to cover those not covered in past years. The system is structured such that there are significant penalties for the participants who do not meet the emissions goals.
The benefits of using a ‘cap and trade’ system as a means to meet carbon emissions goals is it allows the market to determine how the emissions can be reduced at the lowest cost to consumers and to the economy. What this means is the price of carbon is effectively set through the market via the supply and demand for allowances. Relative to more traditional methods of simply taxing carbon emitters, a ‘cap and ‘trade’ system offers far more flexibility and efficiency, resulting in carbon emissions being cut by companies and industries who will incur the smallest cost for doing so.
First launched in 2005 as a pilot program, the Emissions Trading Scheme is now in its fourth stage, and has undergone several changes throughout its history. Phase 1 (2005-2007), was the testing phase where too many allowances were issued, resulting in the price effectively falling to zero. This oversupply was partly driven by the companies themselves overestimating their carbon emissions on purpose, allowing them access to a greater number of allowances.
Phase 2 (2008-2012), was similarly driven by an oversupply of allowances from Phase 1, and coincided with the Great Financial Crisis, both working to keep prices down. Phase 3 (2012-2020) on the other hand worked to reduce the supply and increase the amount or participants. Phase 3 has been very successful and has established the EU ETS as one of the worlds most effective measures to combat carbon emissions. The system is set to further reduce supply and increase participants throughout Phase 4 (2021 and beyond).
What is important to note in regards to Phases 3 and 4 is the number of allowances available has been declining, along with the number of participants who were previously entitled to free credits is declining, and finally, the number of industries and countries included as part of the scheme is increasing. As it stands, 27 countries within the European Union are part of the scheme, along with non-EU countries Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. As I will touch on the in following section, the supply and demand dynamics for the scheme indicates the prices of these allowances is heavily skewed to the upside.
Demand and supply dynamics
The current supply of allowances is what’s referred to as the Total Number of Allowances in Circulation, or TNAC. This is currently set at around 1.4 billion tons of carbon emissions annually. The emissions targets of the scheme is a reduction of emissions by 43% relative to the 2005 levels when the system was initiated. This implies a linear reduction in emissions of 2.2% annually from 2020 to 2030. The TNAC will reduce accordingly in line with the targeted reduction in emissions. Simply put, the supply of allowances will reduce each year.
This creates a simple dynamic within the scheme; a reduction of supply coupled with an increase in demand. The system is skewed towards higher prices. The brilliance of the scheme is it creates incentives for higher prices of the allowances for almost everyone involved. The higher the price (i.e. the higher cost of emitting carbon), the greater the incentive for companies to own credits and thus fewer greenhouses gases are emitted. What’s more, the governments not only have an environmental incentive for higher prices, but as a result of the sovereign governments of the many nations involved in the scheme being the ones who actually distribute the allowances to the participating companies, they directly receive revenue via the auctions for doing so. Again, higher prices equals higher revenue.
To a certain extent, the allowances themselves are being viewed by the participants as a store of value. They are aware the prices are going to rise, they are aware the supply of allowances is going to continue to fall, and they are required to all hold enough allowances to conduct their business as it stands. There is little incentive to sell. Analyzing this supply and demand dynamic from a stock-to-flow perspective as one would gold, bitcoin or other scarce assets again presents a favourable outlook for the price. What’s more, unlike gold or bitcoin, it is in the governments best interests to see the prices rise. The system is being championed by government policy as opposed to an alternative to government policy.
To give some idea of how the supply and demand dynamics of the scheme are set to work within the coming years, Lawson Steele of Berenberg Bank, one of the worlds leading experts on the EU ETS, projects a cumulative supply shortfall of around 99% by 2024! If such projections were to modestly prove true, there is huge upside of the price of allowances in the coming years.
However, it must be noted the EU is somewhat cautious of a too-rapid increase in price, and do have measures in place to combat such a rapid price rise if it were to be too damaging for the companies involved in the ETS. Should it be deemed necessary, the policy makers will (attempt) to intervene via what is known as the Market Stability Reserve (MSR), as well as there ability to alter the supply of allowances as defined by Article 29a of the ETS.
The MSR is basically a feature of the system that helps to control over an oversupply or undersupply of allowances. Introduced in 2019, the MSR works to reduce the supply (i.e. the TNAC) when there is an abundance of allowances, and increase the TNAC when there is a potentially harmful allowances deficit. The idea behind the MSR is to allow prices to rise in a smooth fashion with minimal volatility.
Likewise, Article 29a of the scheme’s directive obliges the policy makers to monitor the supply and demand dynamics and intervene by reducing or increasing supply should this be deemed necessary. Whilst the purpose of Article 29a is again to try to ensure prices rise in an orderly manner, the actual rules therein are cloudy in nature and very much open to interpretation. What’s more, the many different sovereign’s involved will want different prices depending on their industries included in the ETS, thus creating somewhat of a potential conflict of interest between participants and thereby increasing the difficulty of intervention via Article 29a.
Whilst the biggest risk is an excessive rise in prices to the point whereby policy makers deem it appropriate to intervene, such a risk could be considered immaterial given that prices must rise in the first place to warrant such intervention. To be clear, the policy makers most certainly want higher prices. These measures are more so designed to achieve those higher prices in an orderly manner. At the end of the day, the priority of the scheme is to reduce GHG emissions, and if the price must rise to achieve this then so be it.
Technicals and ways to trade
Capping off the bull case for the EU carbon allowances are the technicals. The allowances themselves can be traded in the futures market. This futures market of EUA’s has a near $300 billion market cap with a significant level of liquidity.
From a long-term technical perspective, the recent breakout of the decade plus basing pattern remains immensely bullish.
The allowances can also be traded via the KRBN and GRN exchanges traded funds. The KRBN ETF is made up of roughly 70-80% of EU allowances, with the remaining constituents being that of other, smaller Emission Trading Schemes over the world. The GRN ETF, which is smaller than KRBN, trades nearly exclusively off the EUA futures. I have positions in both ETF’s and intend on adding more as attractive opportunities present themselves. Though the price action over the past 12 months has been near parabolic and I would be more inclined to wait for a pullback of some sort before buying more, the supply and demand dynamics suggest further upside is ahead.
The EU ETS is Europe’s flagship way to meet its carbon goals over the coming years. There remains a vast amount of institutional money yet to make its way into this trade as the ESG incentives for pension funds and institutions to buys allowances will only grow. Remember, a higher price equal fewer emissions.
While we were teased with a false breakout at the turn of the year, the landscape has changed for the precious metals since which leads me to believe we are set to see the sector continue its march higher.
Encouragingly, the miners have lead the metal itself on this breakout, a bullish sign for the sector.
Zooming out, a longer-term perspective is always helpful in seeing how healthy these sort of consolidation periods are during an uptrend. There appears to be plenty of upside potential ahead for precious metals.
From a sentiment perspective, gold is still being viewed relatively negatively on the whole. Whilst not at the attractive levels that provided the excellent buying opportunity back in February, the managed-money positioning in the futures market (i.e. hedge funds and CTA’s, who love to be long and the tops and not-so-long at the bottoms) is still at a level that has proved to be attractive buying opportunities in the past.
The same can be said of the miners bullish percent index ($BPGDM).
Similarly, fund flows out of the GLD ETF look to have completely washed out the weak hands.
Seasonality also looks to be painting a rosy picture for the next six months.
Should this breakout hold, the miners are the place to be and look set to recommence their upside outperformance relative to gold.
Compared to the broader equity markets, the price action again appears favourable for the miners.
Fundamentally, the miners are very attractive also.
As I mused upon recently, we have had several very favourable opportunities for those bullish precious metals to add to their core long-term holdings, should these breakouts hold, it now appears to be an excellent opportunity to get tactically long the sector. One would expect the smaller gold and silver miners to outperform in such times. Best to take advantage.
Inflation is a tricky topic to discuss given its broad definition and applicability among different people. Whilst we have largely lived in a disinflationary world for the past 40 years in terms of consumer prices, monetary inflation in terms of asset prices has skyrocketed. This has resultingly driven wealth inequality and political divide to breaking point.
Traditional consumer price inflation itself is not applicable to all individuals, but rather has been a tale of two indices. The baby boomers, who as a group hold the majority of financial assets and real estate have been the biggest beneficiaries of this consumer price disinflation and asset price inflation. On the other hand, though the younger generations too have benefitted from consumer price disinflation in many areas such as technology, they are yet to accumulate financial assets or real estate to the same degree to have benefitted from monetary inflation.
Additionally, they have arguably experienced consumer price inflation in many areas. Unaffordable housing, rising daycare costs and school fees are some such examples. Demographics is a powerful force of which I have written about previously.
Regardless of this divide, what can be agreed upon is the presence of several structurally inflationary tailwinds going forward, and, if they are to take hold of the economy, then what we will experience over the coming decades will be very different what was experienced in recent times. Investors must prepare for such a scenario. However likely or unlikely it may be, consumer price inflation in its oldest form could be making a comeback.
The Case For Inflation
The reasoning behind the ever-increasing view toward an inflationary future is plentiful and justifiable. I will attempt to detail these inflationary tailwinds that could lead to a structural shift toward an inflationary future, beginning of course the most prevalent: the broad money supply.
The Money Supply
When it comes to the money supply and inflation, what matters is the broad money supply, or M2. We all know by now the unprecedented growth in the broad money supply since the onset of COVID-19. This extraordinary growth has become the means of explaining the swift rebound in asset prices. Whether the growth in the broad money supply is the sole perpetrator is up for debate, what is not though is its impact on the economy and equity markets over the past 12 months.
Money can be created in two ways; the traditional means via commercial bank lending or via direct monetization of newly issued federal debt. Up until recently, it has been the commercial banks that have been able to claim sole responsibility for the growth in the broad money supply. The notion that quantitative easing (QE) conducted by itself is money creation is false. The Federal Reserve and other central banks have the ability to influence the base money supply (M0), but not the broad money supply.
They can lend, but they cannot spend. What must be understood is commercial banks create money via fractional reserve banking when lending occurs between said banks and consumers and businesses. QE is a means of capitalizing the banks, allowing them further scope to be able to lend against these freshly printed reserves with the central banks. QE is effectively just a swap of government bonds for central bank reserves; unless lent against the two are negligible. Getting banks to lend is what increases the broad money supply.
Unlike the Fed, the Federal government does have the power to spend. If the central banks and governments work together, they are able to rapidly increase the base money supply and the broad money supply. This is what many believe will be the impetus for a return of secular inflation; central bank financed fiscal spending. Many believe this is in fact already the case.
The great Russell Napier, who himself has been a deflationist over recent decades is now championing the inflationary paradigm shift. His belief is due to governments now stepping into the realm of guaranteeing bank credit and their direct monetization of the government debt, both tools we have seen various governments employ over the past 12 months, is a means of governments and central banks finally entering the realm of true money creation.
If the central banks are directly funding government spending and outright guaranteeing loans made by banks, then this is money creation and has no doubt played a role in the expansion of the broad money supply. If such a fundamental shift is the norm going forward then in my mind, I do side with Russell in that this would be structurally inflationary. When a central bank is mandated to guarantee bank loans or does so on its own accord, or directly monetizes the federal deficit using freshly printed currency, then it is in the business of creating money. Consumers will spend free money.
We can see how this relationship has played out in the past. The chart below from Lyn Alden is the perfect illustration of how growth in the broad money supply over the past 15 or so years has not been a function of QE or government spending in isolation, but rather is a result of a combination of the two.
With the dynamic of central bank funded money creation, the Fed and government are able to rapidly increase both base and broad money without crowding out the private sector (which would generally occur when governments run large fiscal deficits funded by the private sector) or being restrained by the lending practices of commercial banks.
Going forward the question then becomes, how does the increase in broad money supply filter through to traditional consumer price inflation, or will it simply continue reinforcing asset price inflation. The issues with QE were (and still are) that the money printed by central banks was never able to leave the banking system as commercial banks did not make additional loans proportionate to their increased central bank reserves.
As a result, QE has not historically increased the broad money supply or found its way into the hands of consumers. What is potentially different this time is that by definition, an increase in the broad money supply largely means this money is beginning to find its way into the hands of consumers. It now rests more generally in households and businesses, notably smaller businesses who are more inclined to spend for productive reasons.
The gauge for how the broad money supply will impact consumer prices is of course the velocity of money. Put simply, the velocity of money is the rate at which money is exchanged in an economy through transactions between lenders and borrowers, buyers and sellers. Whilst the relationship between money velocity and CPI is clear, unfortunately, M2 money velocity still remains near its lowest point in over 60 years:
Many believe the velocity of money will pick up once the COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions subside, allowing consumers and businesses to finally spend and releasing a wave of pent up demand that ought to provide a reflationary tailwind to CPI. To a certain extent, I do not doubt this will be the case.
Fiscal Dominance & Political Instability
History suggests that paradigm shifts are quite often reinforced by political shifts. As I touched on above, we are entering an era of central bank financed fiscal spending. In all likelihood, Congress will no longer be constrained in their spending efforts to what they can do, but rather what they are politically obliged to do. The populist movement is real. Driven in large due to the error of quantitative easing, easy monetary policy and the continuous central bank bailouts of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, it appears as though such measures as regular payments to individuals, universal basic income and straight up MMT are indeed slowly becoming the norm. The seeds of fiscal dominance have been planted.
We witnessed the power of fiscal spending during the height of the pandemic, when despite of the temporary shutting-down of the economy, personal income in fact went, a result of the reliance on government transfer payments and stimulus:
One huge appeal of fiscal spending is its potential ability to bridge the wealth gap via inflation. If fiscal dominance does eventually lead to inflation, such inflationary periods over the past century have seen large declines in the wealth divide among the rich and poor.
Fiscal dominance and MMT are easily justified by politicians. Central bankers have tried endlessly to get inflation; it is a palatable solution to the wealth divide. Direct payments to individuals are the easiest and most assured way to get the money into the hands of individuals who actually have a higher marginal propensity to consume. QE alone does not and has not done this. If fiscal dominance is not able to increase the velocity of money in today’s economy then nothing will.
Other Inflation Catalysts
Whilst my belief is that the single largest determinant of a shift to a period of structural inflation will be fiscally driven spending and payments to individuals, there are several other notable inflationary catalysts worthy of discussion.
One of the most deflationary forces of the past 40 years, globalization has seen the US forfeit its entire manufacturing sector, favoring capital at the expense of labor. De-globalization, protectionism, tariffs and trade barriers would go a long way to reverse this trend.
World trade as a percentage of GDP peaked back in 2008 and has been stagnant since, as the chart below illustrates.
Should we start to see this trend reverse course, it would go a long way to once again turn favor to labor at the expense of capital. The past twelve months have perhaps been the catalyst that an over-reliance on foreign supply chains does have consequences. Indeed, we are already beginning to see the Biden administration implement these very measures.
Protectionism would transfer power back to the younger workers and spenders, forcing companies to raise wages and thus provide a strong tailwind for a rise in consumer price inflation. This is perhaps one of the most important factors likely to lead to an inflationary regime; in order for a sustainable rise in inflation to occur, then wages must be a primary driver, and protectionism and de-globalization could indeed help to push up wages.
Likewise, regionalization of supply chains would resultingly need them to be shortened, bringing about further increases in the price of input costs, which in turn would be a cost borne by the consumer through higher prices and thus higher inflation.
US dollar bear market
A weakening dollar would too be somewhat contributory to an inflationary paradigm shift. Firstly, it is my expectation that the falling dollar environment we have entered post-March 2020 will continue over the long-term.
Considering the US runs one of the world’s largest trade deficits relative to its economy, a falling dollar for a net importer would result in rising import prices for both businesses and consumers. This in turn contributes to rising input costs and thus higher prices. A falling dollar is also generally bullish for commodity prices.
However, it is worth noting that for the dollar to have a significant impact on inflation via rising import prices, it would need to be a substantial move downward, and any inflation would largely be contained within goods, as goods are imported whilst services are not. Goods prices only make up around one-third of CPI.
Commodities bull market
The past decade has not been favourable to commodities. Since 2008 the Bloomberg Commodities Index has more than halved, driven by a period of persisting commodity oversupply providing a deflationary force for consumer prices. Commodities relative to financial assets are near their all-time lows. Were we to enter a period of continued commodity scarcity and thus a commodity bull market, this would no doubt provide an inflationary tailwind going forward.
The lockdown driven supply restrictions have contributed to the rapid rise in things such as copper, lumber and oil over the past few months. For this commodity bull market to be sustainable going forward, we would need to see a pick-up in the demand side of the equation along with continued supply shortages. In regards to the latter, we have seen commodity producers massively cut capital expenditures to cope with the COVID driven fall in demand. Continued underinvestment would certainly support this dynamic.
Another factor at play is how investors will likely seek out hard assets such as commodities to provide a source to protect their purchasing power in the event of inflation. There is also a political tailwind for commodities, with the Biden Administration’s proposed infrastructure package set to contribute to the increased demand for more industrial commodities, as well as the shift to a green economy I will discuss below.
Green Energy & ESG
Whilst not an immediate inflationary catalyst, the focus on green energy and ESG is a trend that is only gaining in popularity, acceptance and political support. The move towards green energy policy will undoubtedly put upward pressure on commodities such as copper, lithium, nickel and cobalt, all used in large as part of the production of electronic vehicles. Indeed, as noted recently by Knowledge Leaders Capital, “electric vehicles contain 183lbs of copper compared to 43lbs for combustion vehicles, while wind turbines contain 800lbs of copper”.
What’s more, “green energy policy will seek to raise fossil fuel prices in general (either through taxes, a reduction in subsidies, or other hindrances to new production).” The shift toward green energy will indeed help provide the demand for a sustainable commodity bull market.
Not only does a green energy and ESG movement provide an inflationary tailwind via this increased demand for commodities, but it also plays a role in restricting the investment of capital in less environmentally friendly resources like oil. As we still remain a long way off completely removing our reliance on oil and energy, supply shortages via insufficient capital expenditure will only add fire to the supply driven rise in oil and energy.
The post lockdown release of pent-up demand is what many are pointing to as being the catalyst for a coming inflation. Due in large to the fall in demand for many goods and services consumers have not needed nor been able to consume during lockdowns over the past 12 months, the supply shortages for many goods will of course only exacerbate the effects of a release in consumer demand once spenders are allowed to spend. Cinemas, airlines, hotels and restaurants are some such examples of areas where this pent-up demand will funnel.
We have seen the savings rate as a percentage of gross domestic product spike to historic levels, as such, if we were to simply see savings return to its average over the past couple of decades, this spending would no doubt trickle down into consumer prices. Whilst it may only have somewhat of a temporary effect, some form of demand-pull inflation ought to ensue as a result of a release of this pent-up demand.
Central bank digital currencies
The introduction of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) is perhaps the most important factor at play in regards to completely changing how the elected officials are able to generate inflation. Whilst the act of governments guaranteeing bank credit and central bank financed fiscal spending are the first steps into the realm of MMT style direct payments to individuals, the introduction of central bank digital currencies will take this entire dynamic a step further to the point where the entire financial system we know today would be upended.
CBDC’s would completely destroy whatever remains of the proverbial wall between fiscal policy and monetary policy. This is without a doubt an inflation game changer. If we are to see the introduction of a digital currency that can be directly provided to individuals via the Federal Reserve, this would allow the central banker’s stimulus tools beyond anything seen today.
They would have the ability to directly give money to certain people they deem more likely to spend, charge different types of people different interest rates depending on their spending habits, punishing savers with lower or negative interest rates in order to influence consumption. The entire commercial banking system and traditional means of money creation would be bypassed. This would put the Fed into the true money printing business and no longer be tied to the bank’s inability to lend and increase the broad money supply despite their massive QE programs.
Such measures undoubtedly would be abused and be an intrusion on private freedom, but are nonetheless likely and seemingly represent the culmination of the wrong headed policies of central bankers we have seen now for decades. None of the currently available tools at their disposal would allow them to micro-manage in the way a central bank digital currency could. The likely outcome will be inflation beyond what the central bankers bargained for. Bill Campbell opined the introduction of central bank digital currencies would be akin to opening Pandora’s Box of unintended consequences.
Average inflation targeting
The Fed has failed to meet its prescribed 2% inflation target every year since originally mandated in 2012. A recent shift in how they will attempt to reach this target is a signal of their increased willingness (or desperateness) to create inflation. As opposed to aiming for their traditional target of 2% annual inflation, they will instead now attempt to create average inflation of 2% annually. This subtle change is significant.
Average inflation targeting affords the Fed the ability to overstimulate the economy (as if they weren’t doing this already…). Nonetheless, this policy shift allows even more scope for their new forms of stimulus by way of directly monetizing the MMT style fiscal stimulus described above.
Incrementum AG detailed why this new inflation targeting policy is important in a recent report; “previously, if the economy had an inflation rate of 1.5% in year 1, then in year 2 the Federal Reserve would start from scratch in its attempts to reach 2%, and it would still aim for a 2% inflation rate in year 2 regardless of what occurred in year 1. However, under inflation targeting, the Fed can use the difference of 0.5% from year 1 to exceed the inflation target in year 2 by just that amount. Even with an inflation rate of 2.5% in year two, the Fed would still have met its inflation target. Where it would otherwise have had to tighten its monetary policy, it can continue its loose monetary under AIT.”
You can thus see from their example how this provides ample for over stimulation, particularly so if their inflation targeting time frame is a greater number of years. This creates the very real possibility of a policy mistake, particularly if we do experience an increasingly inflationary future ahead of us.
Implications Of An Inflationary Regime
Inflationary or not, what is almost assured is that we are entering a period of fiscally dominated, MMT style, direct to consumer stimulus. The biggest consequence of this will be the ever rising debt burden of the government. Whether directly monetized by the Federal Reserve or not, how yields react to such measures will perhaps be most telling as to how the coming decades will unfold under an inflationary regime.
Inflation & yields
It is no secret that many bonds offer the least risk-reward in the long-term of perhaps any other major asset class in history. “Reward free risk” is how Jim Grant describes investing in the bond market. A period of sustained inflation would be the nail in the coffin for bonds. Such a regime raises several questions. How far can yields rise? How long can such stimulus be sustained before something breaks? Would the government and central bankers want to stop rates rising?
So long as the government intends to continue down its current path of fiscal dominance, which from a political perspective they almost have no alternative, then negative real rates will be their preference. To get an understanding of how significantly costly it is for the government to finance its deficits, in a recent interview, macro expert Louis-Vincent Gave noted how a 15 basis point increase in funding costs is equivalent to the annual cost of the entire US Navy, whilst a 30 basis point increase is equivalent to the annual cost of the US Marine Corps. As long as the budget deficit continues to expand and is primarily funded on the long end of the curve then rising rates are unsustainable for the government.
Rising rates as a result of inflation would mean the government would either need to issue more debt to finance its existing discretionary spending in the form of social security, defense, Medicare as well as to cover its increased interest costs, or correspondingly reduce spending in these areas. As there is simply no political impetus to be able to cease its discretionary spending, but rather expand this spending, anything other than negative real rates is unlikely to be sustainable.
Rising rates are equally as impactful on the private sector too. Corporate debt as a percentage of GDP remains at all-time highs.
Perhaps more importantly however is how much of this corporate debt is set to mature in the next few years.
With long-term yields continuing to rise and likely to rise much further if an inflationary backdrop occurs, corporations will have no choice but to refinance this debt at higher yields. Corporate profit margins would not bode well in such a scenario.
The country simply cannot sustainably afford a meaningful rise in rates.
If we do get inflation and central bankers do not allow bond markets to function property and price this inflation, then they will at some point need to step in with some form of yield curve control (whether explicit or implicit); we would then have entered an era of financial repression. Financial repression will be indicative of a completely different financial market than what we have experienced over the past 40 to 50 years.
A structurally inflationary environment that is not able to be priced in by the markets due to central bank intervention is not a scenario many alive today have experienced in the developed world. If inflation is allowed to run hot, whilst the government is allowed to continually finance its deficits at capped negative real yields, then this allows the government to essentially inflate away its debt. This is an indirect default on the national debt and is at the heart of financial repression and yield curve control. The bonds will get paid back, but are paid back in a currency with less purchasing power.
Yield curve control works to remove the market’s ability to price long-term yields. The consequences of this must be understood. If inflation is rising without a subsequent rise in interest rates, then the purchasing power of debt will be inflated away without an increase in the purchasing power of consumers. Savings are unable to match inflation and growing prices. Savers are taxed whilst borrowers are bailed out. This would be a complete shift from a free market economy to a planning economy. We would be almost exclusively relying on the growth of the public sector in the place of the private sector.
Furthermore, fiscal dominance and MMT put the onus on the government to then attempt to control inflation. As central bankers are effectively tied to the actions of the government, it will be up to the government officials to act to increase taxes or reduce spending to control inflation. We would see an economic recovery in which central bankers will respond to rising inflation by increasing liquidity by purchasing treasuries to stifle yields, as opposed to withdrawing liquidity.
Given how politically incentivized government officials are, for them to be able to reduce spending or increase taxes in any meaningful way would be difficult. Indeed, given the wealth disparity of today, inflationary environments typically favor borrowers at the expense of lenders and have historically resulted in decreased wealth inequality during such times, as I mentioned earlier. Whether financial repression will allow this wealth divide to subside as it has done previously will be telling.
What Does This All Mean For Investors?
At the end of the day, for us investors what really matters is how a structural bout of inflation or stagflation will impact our investing decisions.
Many back-tests will show you what you would largely expect from asset returns during times of inflation; real assets, commodities, energy, value would do very well relative to things like tech, utilities and bonds. Nothing you didn’t know already.
Source: IncrementumWhilst this does represents a huge shift from the market darlings over the past 10 years, there are some challenges with these sort of analyses that ought to be addressed. The problem is, much of the investing that is conducted today based on inflation is done so with a significant data availability problem. Though it is likely the best performers during the previous structurally inflationary periods should once again outperform, because we haven’t had true CPI inflation since the early 1980s, we have a limited sample size to compare to. Likewise, back during the highly inflationary 1970s the economy, demographics, global financial system and its interconnectedness were very different to today.
Additionally, given how many of the investing strategies, quantitative algorithms and portfolio construction of today is based on data that only really dates back 30 or 40 years, there is a huge risk in how these strategies will react to a completely different structural market an inflationary regime would bring about.
What is of course a certainty is the death of the bond market. Structural inflation and rising interest rates are undeniably a bond’s worst enemies. In regards to equities as a whole, Russell Napier, an avid student on market history believes that equities would indeed perform well up until inflation rates start to reach around 4%, as it is his belief this is the point whereby monetary authorities will start an aggressive attack on inflation by way of raising interest rates.
Countries with relatively low debt levels such as emerging markets would also likely do well, given their lower debts allow freedom from the sort of financial repression developed markets are likely to see in such an environment. Likewise, gold and precious metals are undoubtedly a standout asset class in an environment of financial repression and expanding fiscal deficits, as well as inflation.
It is also worth noting how the likely financial repression of an inflationary environment could impact the historically favourable inflationary trades. Value and financials for example do not respond well to yield curve control, given that it is the rising rates that generally are a function of inflation that allow the fundamentals of banks and such to improve.
So, Where Are We Now?
The reflation trade has been hot over the past several months. I wrote about this recently here. Commodities have perhaps been the biggest beneficiary of the inflationary narrative to date.
Prices too are rebounding strongly. The ISM manufacturing prices paid index recently reached near 10-year highs.
Indeed, we are seeing inflationary (or reflationary more accurately) pressures pop up all over the place. Food prices have reached their highest levels since 2014, with such things as meat soaring. It appears only a matter of time before such inflationary pressures start to impact CPI, or perhaps more importantly start to impact the PCE index, which is the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation. The US Empire State Manufacturing Index suggests this is imminent.
The same can be said for the Michigan Inflation Expectations survey.
It cannot be denied there are immediate reflation pressures present, and as such the recent move up in nominal yields makes sense. However, my concern over these inflationary pressures we are seeing is they more representative of a reflationary economy as opposed to a shift to structurally inflationary environment. Much of what we have seen thus far is arguably a result of supply side inflation, which is very short-term in nature.
If we look at the longer-term inflationary expectations, inflation is not yet much of a concern. The following chart from Hedgopia shows the spread between the University of Michigan’s inflation expectations for the next year and the next five years. A positive spread indicates inflation expectations for the next 12 months are greater than that of the next five years.
Likewise, the five-year, five-year forward inflation expectations rate remains well below its average for the past couple of decades, despite a strong pick up since last March. It is not yet signalling any long-term inflationary concerns.
So, all the inflationary pressures we have seen over recent months should perhaps be more accurately described as reflation. If we are to see a shift to a structurally inflationary environment play out, we would need those longer-term inflationary catalysts I have detailed throughout this article to accelerate in force. Sustained central bank funded fiscal spending (i.e. MMT) and de-globalization to name a few would encourage sustainable demand pull inflation that can increase wages and money velocity, as opposed to the shorter-term supply driven inflation we are witnessing.
There a distinct possibility of a paradigm shift to a structurally inflationary future and only time will tell if that is the path ahead of us. But, for now, we are more likely to see cyclical bouts of inflation/reflation. This type of environment would still create uncertainty. If it is one thing investors don’t like, it’s uncertainty.