Notes on the Week Ahead

Reading Between the Lines (On the Direction of Monetary Policy)

When testifying to the Senate Banking Committee back in 1987, the newly-appointed Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, provided some insight into his views on communication: “Since becoming a central banker”, he said, “I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.”

His successors have generally tried to be more open with regard to both their opinions and their intentions. However, there are times, when the Fed will want to communicate to financial markets without piquing the interest of either the general public or the administration.

Initial Conditions

Many years ago, I worked for the Office of Revenue and Tax Analysis at the State of Michigan and, from time to time, Saul Hymans and his colleagues from the University of Michigan would visit the state government in Lansing to discuss the latest output from their macro economic models of the U.S. and Michigan economies.

As they started into their presentation, I was always eager to hear about their forecast. However, I was rather puzzled about how much time they devoted to the current quarter. I mean they had a big macroeconomic forecasting model – couldn’t we just skip the present and move on to the future?

Irish Lessons

This week will be full of market-moving economic data. We expect purchasing manager surveys and light-vehicle sales to indicate steady demand in November, as investors await Friday’s jobs report. Recent data on unemployment claims point to continued momentum and payroll growth should rebound from October’s meagre reading which was suppressed by both weather and strike activity. Markets will also be focused on wage growth, with futures still only assigning a 64% probability of a December Fed rate cut.

That being said, any decision on a December rate cut will also depend on next week’s CPI report and, whether they admit it or not, the Fed’s own quiet assessment of the potential for the new Administration’s agenda to reignite inflation. It will likely be some months, therefore, before investors can more accurately assess the potential path for economic growth, corporate profits, inflation and interest rates. As we note in our year-ahead outlook, while we have emerged from a cyclical storm, we have entered a policy fog.

Policy Changes and the Macro Outlook

I’ve been running my own econometric model of the U.S. economy for almost 30 years now. The basic structure is simple. You start by forecasting the components of demand, that is to say, consumption, investment, trade and government spending. This gives you an initial projection of real GDP growth. You then feed this into labor market equations, along with some demographic assumptions, to forecast the growth in jobs, the unemployment rate and wage growth. All of this, along with assumptions about energy prices and the dollar, then drive forecasts of inflation. Given this outlook for growth and inflation, you make an assumption about the path for the federal funds rate and then run forecasts of other interest rates. With all of this in hand, you can forecast productivity, corporate profits, the federal budget deficit and household net worth. And then you go back to the start to see how all these changes impact your original demand forecast. You repeat the process until you arrive at a reasonably consistent solution.

The Investment Implications of the Republican Sweep

The most urgent task facing investors in the wake of the 2024 elections is figuring out how much of the Trump agenda, as broadly outlined on the campaign trail, will be put into effect.

A full and literal implementation across taxes, trade and immigration could have unwelcome consequences for the economy in both the short and long run. A more partial implementation, (which seemed to be anticipated by financial markets last week), could net out to be positive for stocks and negative for Treasuries in the short run. However, even this more restrained policy path would likely result in sharply-rising government debt and the potential, in some areas, for building economic and market risks. For this reason and because of the further run up in the U.S. equity valuations in the wake of the election, investors would be well advised to continue to rebalance portfolios both across asset classes and around the world.

Finding Balance in a Broadening Expansion

The last few weeks have seen spectacular weather in New England, with warm temperatures and blue skies almost every day. By now, we would normally have stored the back-yard furniture inside to prevent it getting ruined over the winter. But instead, on weekend afternoons, Sari and I drowsily read our books in the sunshine with the still-loud chirping of the crickets letting us pretend that summer isn’t really over. Nor is there any harsh weather in the near-term forecast – it should be in the 70s on Thursday when the trick-or-treaters set off on their rounds. But the gentle rustle of falling leaves is providing its usual warning of colder days ahead and the need to be prepared.

The Deficit, the Election and Interest Rates

Growing up in Dublin, I had a well-earned reputation as a child of very healthy appetite. At birthday parties, I’d always make sure, at the outset, to get my share of any cocktail sausages, cucumber sandwiches or Rice Krispie treats going around. When it came time for cake and ice cream, I made sure my plate was amply stocked. And I know my mother was filled with pride, (and the other young mothers equally filled with envy), as her little man waddled back up to the table in search of seconds.

But even I had my limits. I vaguely recall a rather distressing incident on the car ride home from one of these parties. I won’t go into the sordid details – suffice to say that the upholstery in the back of the car neither looked nor smelt quite the same thereafter.

Four Banks and the Dollar

On Tuesday, the Commerce Department will publish international trade data for August. The numbers will, undoubtedly, show a deficit – the U.S. has run a trade deficit every year since 1975. This, in turn, implies that the U.S. dollar exchange rate is too high – we buy everyone else’s stuff because it’s cheap; they don’t want to buy ours because it’s expensive. That being said, even as Americans have sent dollars overseas to buy goods and services, these dollars have returned to buy U.S. stocks and bonds, fueling a booming stock market and allowing the federal government to borrow relatively cheaply.

The Investment Implications of the Wealth Surge

I have a habit, or so my wife tells me, of staring intently, for minutes at a time, into an open refrigerator, in search of one particular item. When she can no longer stand it, or when the binging of the refrigerator alarm informs the world that its contents are now thawing, she gently asks me what I am looking for and points it out, sitting, as it always is, right in front of my nose.

I had a similar feeling of sheepish embarrassment last week, when I reflected on the impact of the extraordinary surge in wealth on the economic and financial environment. I spend a significant chunk of my life looking at stock indices and home prices. And yet, throughout this year, while agonizing about tenths of a percent in the unemployment rate or the inflation rate and how the Fed might interpret them, I have neglected to consider fully how burgeoning stock market and housing wealth has changed both the economic environment and the position of investors.

The Investment Implications of a $769,900,000,000 Mistake

On Thursday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, commonly known as the BEA, will release revised data on the national income and product accounts going back to the start of 2019. This is an annual process, usually only mildly interesting to economists and ignored by everyone else. However, this year it’s more important since it could help clarify the trajectory of the economy at a critical time for both political and monetary policy choices. It’s also important because it could help resolve at least some of a yawning discrepancy between the estimates of output produced and income received in the American economy.