The Fed has finally signalled it’s ready to pause rate hikes. Meanwhile we’re all watching for the next signs of stress after almost 5% in a year, says Pendal’s head of government bond strategies TIM HEXT
IT’S now been a year since the US Federal Reserve started hiking rates.
Since then the pace has been relentless, with a total of 4.75% of hikes in nine meetings.
At every opportunity, the Fed’s message has been “more are coming” and “rates need to be higher to contain inflation”.
Finally, the Fed today gave some hope the end of hikes is getting close, leaving the door open to a pause shortly.
As expected, the Fed today hiked 25 basis points to a target range of 4.75% to 5%.
The accompanying statement also featured a softening of language.
Future hikes no longer “will” be needed but now “may be appropriate”. Finally, the door is ajar for a pause.
The rest of the statement contained the usual language around a strong commitment to returning inflation to the 2% objective.
The “dot plot” – which shows where the 11 members of the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee think rates are going – suggests one more hike this year, peaking at 5.125%.
The consensus is 4.4% for the end of next year and 3.25% at the end of 2025. Neutral is viewed as 2.4%.
Find out about
Pendal’s Income and Fixed Interest funds
Economic projection revisions were small. GDP was lowered slightly to 0.4% for this year despite a strong Q1.
No wonder recession risks and concerns remain high.
Response to banking wobbles
Chair Jay Powell’s press conference contained some interesting insights.
Despite maintaining a brave face, it seems this month’s banking wobbles did rattle the Fed.
We learned a pause was on the table for this meeting amid potentially tighter credit conditions.
The European Central Bank’s logic in hiking 50 basis points last week – that to resist would suggest lack of confidence in the banking system – was not at play here.
Market response
Bond markets rallied modestly on the FOMC statement but were given a decent boost by Powell’s comments.
US 10-year yields are back below 3.5% and near the lows from last week’s turmoil, despite the banking crisis having passed (for now).
Markets are now well ahead of the Fed, pricing in almost 1% of cuts by year end.
US two-years are sub 4%, indicating rates nearer 3% than 5% next year.
What’s next?
We are now all on “break watch”.
Where will we see the next signs of stress after almost 5% of hikes in a year?
The field is wide open. Commercial property, private equity and the non-bank financial sector are a few of the areas that thrived in the zero-rate environment.
A largely fixed-rate loan market in the US has dampened the impact of the hikes so far – but that will end.
Equities have largely taken it all in their stride. Stresses may be offset by lower rates, meaning it may be a case of picking the sector winners and losers more than the overall market direction.
About Tim Hext and Pendal’s Income & Fixed Interest boutique
Tim Hext is a Pendal portfolio manager and head of government bond strategies in our Income and Fixed Interest team.
Tim has extensive experience in banking, financial markets and funding including senior positions with NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp), Westpac Treasury, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Deutsche Bank, Bain & Co and Swiss Bank Corporation.
Pendal’s Income and Fixed Interest boutique is one of the most experienced and well-regarded fixed income teams in Australia.
Find out more about Pendal’s fixed interest strategies here
About Pendal
Pendal is a global investment management business focused on delivering superior investment returns for our clients through active management.
In 2023, Pendal became part of Perpetual Limited (ASX:PPT), bringing together two of Australia’s most respected active asset management brands to create a global leader in multi-boutique asset management with autonomous, world-class investment capabilities and a growing leadership position in ESG.
The Pendal MicroCap Opportunities Fund’s (Fund) average performance fee for the last five financial years ending on 30 June 2022, disclosed in the Fund’s Product Disclosure Statement issued on 11 January 2023 was incorrectly stated as 1.48% p.a. of the assets of the Fund.
The correct average annual performance fee over that period is 1.58% p.a., a difference of 0.10%.
Based on the estimate of 1.58% p.a. for an investment of $50,000 in the Fund, the performance fee would be $790 ($50,000 * 1.58% p.a. = $790), and not $740 as stated in the PDS. Please note that this is an estimate based on historical performance for illustration purposes only and does not reflect actual fees which may be charged in the Fund.
There has been no change to the way performance fees are calculated and the correct fees have been charged to the Fund at all times.
We apologise for any inconvenience. Please contact 1300 346 821 if you have any questions.
The Pendal Focus Australian Share Fund’s (Fund) average performance fee for the last five financial years ending on 30 June 2022, disclosed in the Fund’s Product Disclosure Statement issued on 11 January 2023 was incorrectly stated as 0.09% p.a. of the assets of the Fund.
The correct average annual performance fee over that period is 0.14% p.a., a difference of 0.05%.
Based on the estimate of 0.14% p.a. for an investment of $50,000 in the Fund, the performance fee would be $70 ($50,000 * 0.14% p.a. = $70), and not $45 as stated in the PDS. Please note that this is an estimate based on historical performance for illustration purposes only and does not reflect actual fees which may be charged in the Fund.
There has been no change to the way performance fees are calculated and the correct fees have been charged to the Fund at all times.
We apologise for any inconvenience. Please contact 1300 346 821 if you have any questions.
The Pendal Australian Long/Short Fund’s (Fund) average performance fee for the last five financial years ending on 30 June 2022, disclosed in the Fund’s Product Disclosure Statements issued on 3 October 2022 and 11 January 2023 was incorrectly stated as 0.14% p.a. of the assets of the Fund.
The correct average annual performance fee over that period is 0.26% p.a., a difference of 0.12%.
Based on the estimate of 0.26% p.a. for an investment of $50,000 in the Fund, the performance fee would be $130 ($50,000 * 0.26% p.a. = $130), and not $70 as stated in the PDS. Please note that this is an estimate based on historical performance for illustration purposes only and does not reflect actual fees which may be charged in the Fund.
There has been no change to the way performance fees are calculated and the correct fees have been charged to the Fund at all times.
We apologise for any inconvenience. Please contact 1300 346 821 if you have any questions.
Here are the main factors driving the ASX this week according to our head of equities Crispin Murray. Reported by portfolio specialist Chris Adams.
NEWS headlines are full of bank runs and bailouts, emergency weekend policy-maker meetings and record declines in short-end yields.
These are signs of the system stress that often accompanies periods of financial tightening.
Last week this was reflected in dramatically lower bond yields as US two-year government bond yields fell 75bps. Brent crude oil was off 11.9% and gold gained 5.8%.
The S&P 500 gained 1.4%, while Australia (S&P/ASX 300 -2.8%) and European equities (EuroSTOXX 50 -3.8%) lost ground.
The common thread was a market view that financial shocks would trigger a recession, requiring central banks to reverse course quickly.
Concerns over economic growth and an expectation of lower rates saw a rotation away from resources and cyclicals to growth and bond sensitives.
The consequences for financial markets are too early to call.
Policy makers face a complex challenge of balancing the apparently conflicting objectives of preserving financial stability and fighting inflation.
The impact on equities will be determined by the ability of policy makers to contain risk and the flow-on effects on rates and economic growth.
Potential scenarios
Potential outcomes range between two poles:
- Moderate additional financial tightening, which helps reverse the economy’s stronger momentum this year. This scenario could see economic growth fall by 25bps to 50bps and take out a rate hike without derailing the soft-landing story. Equities therefore hold up in current trading range.
- A substantial credit crunch as capital flees smaller banks, removing liquidity for small businesses and commercial real estate. This could trigger a significant recession, affecting earnings and forcing central banks to dramatically cut rates. Under this scenario equities make new lows, though we would likely see a rotation to growth.
It is natural to compare this situation with the Global Financial Crisis, but there are significant points of difference, which suggest far less risk for markets.
Bank capital ratios and liquidity buffers are far greater than they were in the GFC.
Banks generally are profitable and have scaled back their more volatile business streams.
Policy makers have the available tools and playbooks to respond and there is far better transparency over the interconnected exposures of financial institutions.
There will be companies with weak or more vulnerable franchises. We are likely to see more of these flushed out in coming weeks.
But that does not equate to a systemic crisis.
The key for markets is whether the policy response can restore confidence beyond just patching up funding in the short term, as has so far been the case.
Two key issues
There are two separate financial issues, occurring simultaneously: 1) Credit Suisse and Europe and 2) US banking issues
1. Credit Suisse and Europe
In Europe, pressure on Credit Suisse culminated in a takeover by rival UBS in a government—brokered deal at the weekend.
Credit Suisse had pre—existing issues. It was undergoing a turnaround plan established late last year alongside a capital raising.
There were continuing outflows from the private bank and asset management business. Clients were losing confidence and shifting assets to other groups or into government bonds.
This reduced profitability, crimping Credit Suisse’s ability to wear losses likely to come from running down the troubled investment bank (which was the source of its issues).
The question is now whether the takeover deal restores confidence or whether we begin to see concerns over UBS.
It’s worth noting that UBS is far more profitable and has a much smaller investment bank.
It is important to note that this is not currently being viewed as a broader European banking crisis.
Capital and liquidity requirements are far stronger than they were in the GFC.
After years of restructuring, banks are less exposed to financial market volatility and are more profitable.
There is an estimated EUR400 billion equity buffer in the system compared to requirements.
As a result, credit default swap (CDS) spreads for big global banks have not surged in tandem with Credit Suisse’s.
At this point we don’t expect the Credit Suisse issue to trigger a systemic problem in Europe, leading to a recession.
This could change, but it would require a significant policy failing.
2. US banking issues
The second issue is in the US and has potentially more structural implications.
The issue is a fundamental weakness in the US banking system relating to a high reliance on uninsured deposits for funding and a lower level of regulation on sub-$250 billion balance sheet banks.
The US banking system is highly fragmented.
The biggest banks — those with more than $100 billion in assets — account for about half the asset base.
Then there are about 100 regional banks with $10 billion to $100 billion in assets and some 3500 community banks with less than $10 billion.
The issue is that smaller banks are not heavily regulated. Just over half of all US deposits are insured under a Federal Deposits Insurance Corporation (FDIC) scheme that promises to cover up to $250,000 of a depositor’s funds.
The fundamental problem is that corporate treasurers and high net worth individuals who are “uninsured” are now being far more careful with who they leave their money.
As a result, we have seen substantial deposit runs, with withdrawals continuing even after the FDIC announced that all deposits would be protected.
This is evident in money market funds which saw US$116 billion in inflows this week. It was the fifth-biggest week on record (dating back to 1992).
It can also be seen in use of the Fed discount window, which is the way the Fed provides a liquidity backstop to the financial system.
Last week banks borrowed $153 billion — an all—time record. The week before it was $4.6 billion.
This reflects depositors withdrawing funds and banks needing to seek alternative funding.
The Fed has announced emergency funding to backstop depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank and the creation of a Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP).
This shouldn’t be seen as quantitative easing. It isn’t creating new money and technically it’s lending — not buying.
It should help stabilise markets, but illustrates that the Fed balance sheet is proving hard to shrink.
Treasury secretary Janet Yellen has tried to calm concerns by drawing on provisions that enable the Fed to act in the face of a systemic financial crisis and by insuring SVB and Signature depositors.
This requires a super majority of the FDIC, Federal Reserve, the Treasury Secretary and the President to agree.
This is clearly meant to represent an implicit guarantee on all depositors in banks with more than $120 billion on their balance sheet.
The challenge is they do not have the authority to make that an explicit guarantee. This can only come from Congress.
Adviser Sam is invested
in making our world
A better place.
Watch as Sam meets a
mum rebuilding her life
thanks to responsible
investing
That is unlikely to happen any time soon. It would probably come with new rules on regulation and be a complex process to legislate.
The problem is no one knows how far potential support from policy makers would extend.
Yellen got tied up in knots in congressional testimony while explaining why depositors in community banks should not move their money to big banks.
The pressure on these smaller banks is likely to prevail, which leads them to draw on the discount window and the new Fed facility which uses par value (not market value) in assessing collateral.
This is not a sustainable solution.
The next bank in the firing line is First Republic which received a $30 billion deposit influx from the largest US banks, which were effectively recycling the deposits they were receiving as First Republic’s customers were leaving.
This is an effort to demonstrate that they believe the deposit guarantee is there.
At this point we are waiting to see which form the solution takes.
What does this mean for the US?
The key issue here is not so much contagion risk, as the other banks are receiving extra liquidity and there are not large direct credit exposures to these banks.
Instead, it is the transmission mechanism to the broader economy, since smaller banks are major providers of credit.
Banks with less than $250 billion in assets provide around half of total commercial and industrial loans and 80% of commercial real estate lending. Smaller banks also dominate residential lending.
The concern is these funding pressures could trigger a credit crunch on top of existing tighter financial conditions — driving the economy into recession.
A more benign outlook may be that this credit tightening equates to 25-50bps of a slowdown in GDP growth, helping deal with an economy that has been running too hot. In this scenario the flow-on effects might be limited given tight labour markets.
This could mean that one of the expected 25bp rate hikes from the Fed is removed.
A more bearish view seems to be dominating at the moment given the sharp drop in two-year US government bond yields.
This move was greater than that seen in the GFC and around 9/11. It’s seen by many as a warning bell for recession.
The consensus for US rates now implies no more rate hikes and 100bps of cuts by year’s end.
A number of other signals support a more bearish view:
- As measured by the “Move” index, bond market volatility is back to levels not seen since the GFC.
- Historically, the first cut in a rising rate cycle has been a poor near-term indicator for the economy or for equity markets, though the latter generally recovers relatively quickly.
- Once it starts steepening from a point of maximum inversion, the yield curve is often a signal for upcoming recession.
The exception to a number of recessionary signals is the most recent one — where there would not have been a recession if it were not for Covid.
A lot of people are wary of betting against history.
It is worth stepping back and thinking about why these historical relationships apply.
Essentially, it is a function of the Fed raising rates too hard for too long, effectively over-tightening and creating a recession and large earnings drop.
Initial rate cuts are therefore a reflection of the weakness rather than a positive for the market.
This cycle is somewhat unusual as we have an overlay of the pandemic, excess savings, extremely tight labour market and a recovering China.
While a recession is probably more likely than not, it is still a more complex issue than some traditional indicators would suggest.
The other — more bearish — complexity in this cycle is that the Fed still has not dealt with inflation.
Historically, Fed pivots have usually come when inflation was running between 1 and 2% — not above 4% as it is today.
US inflation and the Fed
The latest US CPI data — lost in the noise last week — did not provide relief.
Headline CPI is better at 6% year-on-year as energy declines and three-month annualised is 4%.
But monthly core CPI was firm at +0.45%, underpinned by +0.6% monthly growth — the highest since September 2022.
If you overlay lead indicators on rents, it’s possible to see inflation falling to 4% — but remaining sticky there. That is just not low enough for the Fed to declare victory.
So, this week’s meeting is lineball on a 25bp move. There is a view that deferring a potential hike to May costs very little on the inflation side but could make a big difference on the financial stability side.
For the equity market, the banking issues are bad for financials, but the prospect of fewer rate hikes is good for growth stocks, helping prop up the market last week.
Central banks
The ECB’s expected 50bp rate hike also got lost in the noise.
It was notable that the forward guidance moved from saying rates need to rise significantly higher for an extended period, to now being data dependent.
In China, the PBOC sneaked in an unexpected cut to the bank reserve ratio requirement on Friday as well. This is seen as an important signal towards supporting growth
Finally, in Australia rate expectations have stepped down materially from 4.15% to 3.40% at the end of 2023, implying no more hikes.
Markets
Credit spreads have been widening out, but not yet signalling something more concerning.
There are pockets of stress emerging in some areas, notably commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS).
In terms of equities the US, the S&P 500 has held the 3800 support, but still does not look too healthy.
Commodity Trading Advisers — which are used as an indicator of marginal players in equities — have moved quite underweight in US equities, with potentially more to go into quarter end.
The other feature of the market worth noting is the rotation back to growth as expectations have shifted on the risk of recession and the path of rate hikes.
The S&P/ASX 300 underperformed the US due to the fall in resource and energy stocks on global growth concerns.
About Crispin Murray and Pendal Focus Australian Share Fund
Crispin Murray is Pendal’s Head of Equities. He has more than 27 years of investment experience and leads one of the largest equities teams in Australia. Crispin’s Pendal Focus Australian Share Fund has beaten the benchmark in 12 years of its 16-year history (after fees), across a range of market conditions.
Pendal is a global investment management business focused on delivering superior investment returns for our clients through active management.
Recession still likely | What’s driving Aussie equities | What to expect in second-half earnings | Lessons from the SVB collapse
Should we be concerned about the knock-on effects of the Silicon Valley Bank collapse? Pendal’s AMY XIE PATRICK explains
COCKROACH theory refers to the belief that problems affecting one company may indicate similar problems with other similar companies.
After the collapse of California’s Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), the market and the media are on the lookout for more cockroaches.
The good news is that SVB was an unusual cockroach. The bad news is that other creepy crawlies lie in wait.
Two main issues led to SVB’s fall.
The first was an unusual decision not to hedge interest rate exposure or mismatch between its assets (long-dated fixed income instruments) and liabilities (deposits).
Most banks face this mismatch. Few would leave it unhedged.
Bloomberg’s US Treasury index returned -12.3% in 2022. This gives an indication of the mark-to-market damage that would have hit SVB’s long-dated fixed income assets.
The second factor was the concentration risk in its customer base.
The Silicon Valley tech sector formed almost the entirety of the bank’s borrower and depositor base.
Ultra-low interest rates going into and coming out of the pandemic were a huge boon to this sector.
At the time, money was virtually free and poured into high-growth sectors hungry for returns. But by the end of 2022 – after 425 basis points of interest rate hikes – that was no longer the case.
Higher discount rates needed to be applied to potentially speculative future earnings in the sector.
All at once, SVB found its customers calling on their deposits.
The need to satisfy these liquidity demands caused SVB to start realising some of those steep mark-to-market losses in their assets.
SVB is the 16th largest lender in America, but its $200 billion of assets still sat below the $250 billion threshold at which banks need to report unrealised losses.
This helped hide the stress before a classic run on deposits in early March.
Are there more cockroaches?
There could be other lending institutions with similar red flags, but the bank’s problems were largely self-made.
Many regional US banks go under every year.
Most often, it is due to the poor quality of their loan books. Not because of poor risk management.
That is perhaps the most heartening takeaway from the SVB crisis.
Unfortunately, other risks have been uncovered by the bank’s collapse.
Here are the main lessons:
1. Easy money a thing of the past
The first is that easy money is a thing of the past.
The SVB crisis reminds us that the promise-heavy tech sector needs much more diligence now that money-good T-bills pay between 4.5% and 5%.
Similarly, in Australia cash and near-cash investments yield 4% or more.
This naturally pushes up the bar for going further out along the risk curve and down the liquidity ladder.
When money was virtually free, illiquid and opaque investments such as private debt and equity seemed attractive.
Just as had been the case with SVB until now, unrealised losses within these investments have yet to come to light. That flood of money is reversing.
2. Hurdles for mortgage-backed securities
A second risk is highlighted by the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) losses on SVB’s asset portfolio.
Find out about
Pendal’s Income and Fixed Interest funds
Mortgage-backed securities allow investors to own part of a bundle of home loans that have been packaged together.
Interest rates were not the only blame factor here. So was the quality of the underlying assets.
Like clockwork, a global synchronised housing downturn is following the synchronised global rate hiking cycle.
Australian credit portfolios heavily invested in illiquid residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) face significant hurdles this year.
The value of RMBS portfolios will be affected by the house price correction we’re already experiencing, as well as payment delays from stressed borrowers.
In addition, the RMBS issued by non-major banks are of poorer quality, leading to more accidents waiting to happen.
As Pendal’s senior credit analyst, Terry Yuan, says: “Set-and-forget credit portfolios often rely on the AAA rating of RMBS to raise the average portfolio rating of their holdings, giving them more room to veer into the low-BBB space.
“Both ends of the ratings spectrum will experience a lack of liquidity should something go wrong”.
That is not what true fixed income is supposed to feel like for the end investor.
3. The information factor
The third risk unveiled by the SVB crisis is that of information. Unlike the GFC, and thanks to technology, rumours can become truths in the space of a few tweets.
Adviser Sam is invested
in making our world
A better place.
Watch as Sam meets a
mum rebuilding her life
thanks to responsible
investing
The reality is that SVB depositors are likely to be made whole. The shame is they could have got there without going through this mess first.
Faced with panic, with fear spreading like wildfire, it was individually rational to “sell first and ask questions later”.
This will happen to other institutions as well, leaving the biggest and safest of lending institutions to benefit from the fall-out.
What we can learn from SVB
SVB’s failure reinforces our investment views for 2023.
We thought this year’s set-up for bonds looked good even before this most recent crisis surfaced.
The trend of cooling inflation will continue to play through.
The SVB collapse highlights the need to hold a true-to-label fixed income allocation in your portfolios – if only for insurance.
Over the past week, 10-year Commonwealth government bonds rose in value by more than 2.25%.
Portfolios exposed to that move would have felt cushioned against a 2.5% hit to Australian equities over the same period.
Our patience on credit should be rewarded.
Since the third quarter of 2021, we have held a defensive stance in our credit and income portfolios, favouring quality and liquidity over stretching for that extra bit of yield or spread.
We have also been long-time abstainers from RMBS.
Their valuations did not reward us when money was near-free, and the illiquidity they face does not make them attractive now that cash rates are approaching 4% in Australia.
Floating rate senior unsecured paper from our major banks, on the other hand, are a safe place to bias our credit allocations towards.
About Amy Xie Patrick and Pendal’s Income and Fixed Interest team
Amy is Pendal’s Head of Income Strategies. She has extensive expertise and experience in emerging markets, global high yield and investment grade credit and holds an honours degree in economics from Cambridge University.
Pendal’s Income and Fixed Interest boutique is one of the most experienced and well-regarded fixed income teams in Australia. The team oversees some $20 billion invested across income, composite, pure alpha, global and Australian government strategies.
Find out more about Pendal’s fixed interest strategies here
About Pendal Group
Pendal is a global investment management business focused on delivering superior investment returns for our clients through active management.
Rates, US recession risk, Chinese growth and government intervention will set the underlying economic picture for Aussie stocks this year, says Pendal’s CRISPIN MURRAY
- Aussie equities remarkably defensive
- Four issues will drive the underlying economic picture
- Find out about Pendal Focus Australian Share fund
AUSSIE equities have proven remarkably defensive over the past 12 months compared to global shares and other asset classes — delivering a 6.5 per cent return in the year to February, says Pendal’s head of equities Crispin Murray.
The recent ASX reporting season delivered an earnings revisions distribution — the ratio of upgrades to downgrades — in line with long-term averages as a post-Covid sales boost dissipated.
Earnings are on track for 2 per cent growth in 2023 and 1 per cent in 2024, Murray says in his new biannual Beyond The Numbers webinar.
That means a material decline in shares is unlikely over the course of 2023, he says.
“However, if we do get the RBA forced to hike rates far higher than the economy can absorb — and we do get a downturn — then we’re going to see much more material downgrades.
“That is the risk scenario for the market. But that is not the scenario we expect.”
Remarkably defensive
Why have Australian companies proven relatively defensive over the past year?
Partly it’s structural, he says.
The Australian share market skews to financials and resources. Banks have benefited from higher interest rates and commodity prices have buoyed the mining companies.
But a more important underlying explanation is the rise in company earnings that has meant that even as stock valuations fall in the face of higher interest rates, stock prices have been largely unaffected.
“What we’ve actually been able to achieve in Australia is a derating of the market without the actual market having to drop because earnings revisions were positive and these were positive across all parts of the market,” says Murray.
“Even the industrials really haven’t been exposed to an economic slowdown and they were bouncing back from impacts of the pandemic.
“Where we are sitting today, we’re quite comfortable with the overall rating of the market.”
Four key issues
Four key issues will drive the underlying economic picture for Australian companies, Murray says:
1. The risk of a US recession
The US economy is proving more resilient than many people thought, Murray says.
“There has been a material change in US interest rates and for a lot of people that was inevitably going to lead to a recession — but it so far has not.
“There is clearly now a school of thought saying that the US economy is more resilient.”
He says some measures of monetary tightening suggest the worst has past, setting the US up for soft landing.
On the flipside, a “very negative” yield curve and the biggest ever one year decline money supply growth since the 1930s indicates tough times ahead.
“As we stand today, we would expect perhaps a mild recession — we’d still be somewhat cautious.
And that’s why we believe that you still need to be very careful about what you’re paying for certain companies in this market environment.”
2. The outlook for Chinese growth
The growth of China is a significant factor in the success of Australian corporations.
Murray says the key question for investors is how much Chinese growth can accelerate out of the zero COVID period.
“China dealt with COVID very differently to the rest of the world.
“They did not throw anywhere near as much stimulus at their consumers so they saw consumer spend falling well below trend for an extended period.
“So the first thing that will underpin Chinese is growth is a return to that trend level of consumption and that in itself can add 2 per cent to 3 per cent to growth over the next couple of years.”
Growth could be even stronger if Chinese consumers dip into the money they have saved like their counterparts in the US and Australia.
“There is a big debate about whether this will happen,” says Murray, noting Chinese people are typically quite cautious in terms of their saving to protect themselves and their families’ health care and education.
”But clearly, China is in a far better position today than it was six or 12 months ago.”
3. Interest rates and their impact on the Australian economy
Closer to home, the trajectory of the Australian economy is a critical driver of corporate earnings and an important factor in determining which parts of the market to invest in.
The key to the economy is interest rates.
Mortgage repayments in Australian households as a percentage of disposable income have risen in line with rates, but there has been a change in mix — as people pay more interest they are cut back on principal payments.
This is a reversal of the recent past, when low interest rates allowed higher principal repayments.
“This probably explains why we haven’t necessarily seen any real effect on consumption — as those interest payments are going up, we’re just compressing the principal repayments.”
Murray says that, as a proportion of household income, interest repayments are unlikely to reach the heights of the GFC and should remain below the levels of the early 1990s.
“This doesn’t mean we won’t still see a material consumer slowdown, because the rate of change is material. But it’s not as bad as perhaps it is perceived. In my view, we will not get a recession here.”
4. The growing influence of Australian government policy
A growing trend towards government policy intervention is becoming an issue, says Murray.
Partly, this is evident in the recent regulation of the gas industry and the stepping up of Australia’s carbon reduction pathway.
Murray says he is also hearing from banks that they are concerned about the potential for more regulation on deposit rates.
Companies with a high share of labour costs could also be impacted by the government’s push for real wage increases.
Overall outlook
Overall, 2023 will be a good year for investors with deep insight into individual companies, Murray believes.
“Today reminds me of 2012 going into 2013, where the markets were very thematic — and that’s creating a lot of stock opportunities.
“We are seeing this as a great time to identify opportunities and really differentiate and get some insights into the stock.
“We’re very confident on the outlook.”
About Crispin Murray and Pendal Focus Australian Share Fund
Crispin Murray is Pendal’s Head of Equities. He has more than 27 years of investment experience and leads one of the largest equities teams in Australia. Crispin’s Pendal Focus Australian Share Fund has beaten the benchmark in 12 years of its 16-year history (after fees), across a range of market conditions.
Pendal is a global investment management business focused on delivering superior investment returns for our clients through active management.
Here are the main factors driving the ASX this week according to Pendal portfolio manager JULIA FORREST. Reported by portfolio specialist Chris Adams.
THE odds of a 50bp US rate hike next week increased markedly after hawkish comments by Fed chair Jay Powell – but that didn’t last long.
Powell last week told US Congress that if the data indicated faster tightening was warranted, “we would be prepared to increase the pace of rate hikes”.
Stronger-than-expected data suggested “the ultimate level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously anticipated”, he said.
The comments drove two-year US Treasury yields above 5% for the first time since 2007.
The spread between two-year and 10-year bond yields inverted to -107bp – the biggest inversion since 1980 when then Fed chair Paul Volcker was trying to kill inflation.
However, all this was reversed after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) late in the week, which saw yields fall.
Market expectations for next Wednesday’s decision quickly dropped back to a 25bp hike.
Equities continued to sell off. The S&P 500 fell 4.5% and the S&P/ASX 300 shed 1.2%.
US labour markets and SVB
On Friday we saw a strong US payrolls number with 311,000 additional jobs versus 225,000 expected.
This followed a very strong January number.
February average hourly earnings were up 0.2% M/M and +4.6% Y/Y, slightly below consensus (+4.7%).
In normal circumstances the labour numbers would have realised the Fed’s worst fears about labour market resilience – and we would have seen bond yields spike.
But rates collapsed across the curve in response to the failure of SVB, the 16th biggest bank in the US.
The sudden failure does not appear to be a systemic issue.
The failure was tied to the specific and concentrated nature of SVB’s depositors in the venture capital and cryptocurrency sectors. Deposits attributable to digital currency customers account for 82% of the deposit base.
It appears cash drain from the cryptocurrency fallout and cash burn on venture capital starts-ups led to cash withdrawals.
This forced SVB to sell $11.4 billion of its “available for sale” securities, including Treasuries, mortgage-backed securities and municipal bonds.
After the recent sell-off in fixed income markets, this crystalised a $1.8 billion loss.
Bank stocks were sold off on Thursday and Friday with investors concerned about the quality of bank balance sheets and outlook for net interest margins.
It’s difficult to know if this will be an ongoing issue, since most bank investment portfolios are held to maturity and not forced to mark to market.
There appears to be no issue with deposits in the US banking system.
This episode demonstrates that banks need to offer competitive rates to retail and business depositors, since they are now competing with Treasury bills that offer over 5% and money market funds that offer 4.5% to 5%.
This will squeeze net interest margins or possibly impact the amount of credit in the system.
We have seen signs of credit tightening in response to the cycle.
But we don’t know if financial conditions are tight enough to dampen inflation enough to get back towards “normal”.
Rate-tightening cycles normally work their way through the economy via housing, manufacturing orders, corporate profits and then employment – in that order.
The housing market reflects higher rates, as do new orders, which look bleak.
At this point sales have started to retreat but operating margins in the US remain elevated and profits resilient.
Employment remains strong, though history shows that when employment starts to deteriorate, it does so quickly.
Labour markets tend to be tight until they are not – then central banks realise they have over-tightened.
Australia
As expected, the RBA hiked rates 25bps to 3.6% last week.
The tone was less hawkish and markets are pricing a terminal rate of 4.14% in November 2023.
We are yet to see a meaningful slowdown in consumer data, though sentiment remains soft.
This is puzzling given some 17% of households borrowed at trough rates and 35% face higher rents.
Hiking rates is the only policy tool available to the RBA, though this only affects about half of households.
The other half remain cashed-up, while negative “real rates” on savings encourage continued consumption.
It’s no surprise that luxury goods and international travel spending remain strong.
Adviser Sam is invested
in making our world
A better place.
Watch as Sam meets a
mum rebuilding her life
thanks to responsible
investing
About Julia Forrest and Pendal Property Securities Fund
Julia Forrest is a portfolio manager with Pendal’s Australian Equities team. Julia has managed Pendal’s property trust portfolios for more than a decade and has 25 years of experience in equities research and advisory, initial public offerings and capital raisings.
Pendal Property Securities Fund invests mainly in Australian listed property securities including listed property trusts, developers and infrastructure investments.
About Pendal Group
Pendal is an Australian investment management business focused on delivering superior investment returns for our clients through active management.
Why fiscal policy matters for investors | The ‘no landing’ scenario | Aussie recession unlikely | US set for growth