Hello, my friends. Today is October 14th. My name is Joseph and this is Markets Weekly.
大家好,朋友们。今天是10月14日。我叫约瑟夫,欢迎来到《市场周报》。
So this week, there was a lot going on, so we have a lot to talk about. First off, let's start with the Fed, where we had many Fed speakers and some of them have been suggesting that maybe the rate hike cycle is over.
Secondly, we have to talk about the elephant in the room. This past week, there were big developments in geopolitics. Let's talk about what that means for markets and what my favorite hedge is in this context.
And lastly, let's talk about this interesting study from the BIS that suggests that the China-US decoupling that many have been reading about doesn't seem to actually be happening.
Okay, starting with the Fed. Now, before we start, let's level set where we are. So as we all know, every quarter, the Fed releases a dot plot where they guide the market towards what they're thinking. In June, the Fed guided towards two more rate hikes this year. And since June, they did hike one more time, and then we had another September dot plot.
At their most recent September dot plot, they again affirmed their guidance suggesting that they would be one more rate hike in the fourth quarter of this year. The rationale for that, of course, is that the US economy has been stronger than the Fed expected. The Fed was thinking that they would hike rates, slow the economy down, and then get inflation under control. But in practice, what happened is that they hike rates and the economy accelerated.
So the economy over the first half of the year grew at 2%, which is above potential growth. And this third quarter looks like it's going to be growing even faster. So that was not what the Fed expected, and seeing that inflation remains above their target, they thought that they probably should keep hiking.
However, there have been big developments in the markets since their last meeting, specifically, longer dated treasure yields have gone up a lot. So as we've been talking about over the past few weeks, US treasure yields have shot up higher. The tenure looks like it was almost approaching 5% before pulling back this week on account of geopolitical fears. But the tenure yield, it's still comfortably above 4.5%, and much higher than it was when the Fed last had their meeting.
So when you look at interest rates, I think it's important to note that when the Fed is cutting or raising interest rates, they're toggling the overnight interest rate, which in practice is not that impactful when it comes to the real economy. When companies borrow, let's say someone goes out and takes out a mortgage, they're really a borrowing at longer tenors. So raising and lowering the overnight interest rate in itself doesn't have that big of an impact on the real economy.
Looking back over the past year, longer dated interest rates have basically stayed range about until very recently, all the while the Fed has been hiking rates. So in effect, financial conditions over the past year haven't really meaningfully tightened until this recent surge higher in yields.
Now, based on that, on my Monday blog post, I wrote that the Fed has probably done tightening since the market has basically tightened for them. The rise in longer dated yields and the strengthening dollar is going to have a pretty meaningful impact on the real economy. So if the market's already tightened for the Fed, the Fed obviously doesn't need to tighten anymore. My view is that the rate hike cycle is over.
And just as I published that we had a Fed speaker basically come out and say the same thing. President Logan of the Dallas Fed, who is also a voting member, points to the rise in longer dated yields and suggests that, well, if yields continue to rise, longer than yields continue to rise, that to me means that we probably don't need to hike as much as we expected, which of course, they only expected to hike one more time. We also had President Collins of the Boston Fed come out and say something similar and earlier, President Daly of the San Francisco Fed also said the same thing.
Now, to be clear, not everyone at the Fed is on the same page. We had Governor Bowman give a speech this past week, let's suggest that she's still in the rate hike camp. But I suspect that that is becoming more of a minority view. Obviously, financial conditions have tightened.
So, and at the same time, I think there's a lot more uncertainty due to geopolitics in what's happening in the world. So it would make a lot more sense for the Fed to kind of pause at the very least pause to see what how things unfold.
Now, when you look into market pricing, though, what I see is that the market still prices a reasonable probability that the Fed is going to hike one more time. And the market doesn't really think the Fed is going to be cutting rates until the second half of next year. My sense is that the market is making a mistake again.
So, over the past two years, the market has been totally, totally wrong on what the Fed would do. Now, if you were following me over the past two years, you would have noted that I have always been consistent in saying that, guys, the Fed is serious about this. They're going to hike rates, they're going to hike a lot, and they're going to hold it. It's going to be higher for longer.
Now, these past two years, the market has fought the Fed every step of the way and has been totally wrong. I'm getting the sense that the Fed, then the market, okay, so to be clear, market today is on the same page as the Fed as projected in the dot plots. So, finally, finally, an agreement with the Fed, they're finally, you know, accepting that the Fed is serious, rates are going to go higher and stay higher. But I'm getting the sense that the market is not sensing this turning point in Fed communication, and actually is probably pricing in too aggressive a rate path going forward. And my own personal view is that the rate hike cycle was done and rate cuts are going to happen sooner than the market currently expects, and we'll see how that plays out in the coming months.
Okay, now let's talk about the big elephant in the room, the geopolitical events that we had developed over the past week. Now, as we know, there was an attack on Israel, and as we were recording today, Israel looks like it's about to retaliate. So, there's a lot of things going on in the Middle East. And you can see concerns seep into the markets depending on the asset class that you focus on. If you look at equities, honestly, it's hard to see too much concern in equities, major indices are still, you know, didn't really move that much over the next year. But we've moved that much over the past week. Of course, it's got to be careful. There could be a lot of things going on under the hood. As we've learned from, you know, people who specialize in this field, there seems to be a lot of options hedging activity there.
But looking across assets, let's look at the VIX, for example, VIX spiked on Friday, suggesting that there are people reaching for perhaps put options, increasing the options premiums, which of course, fees into VIX, implied volatility. Now, you can also look at traditional safe havens, like the US Treasuries, again, 10-year Treasury yield, declined a lot on Friday, and the US Dollar is getting a steady bid. Traditional safe assets flows. If you look at gold, gold popped 3% on Friday, and traditionally gold has been an asset that benefited from geopolitical instability.
And of course, we have to look at oil. The conflict is in the Middle East, and although Israel is not a major producer of oil, there is also always a possibility that this conflict continues to grow and involves, let's say, Iran or Saudi Arabia or Qatar, who are major oil producers. So there is some tail risk there, and oil prices rose markedly on Friday. Now, I have no idea how this conflict will evolve. It could just blow away, or it could become increasingly serious.
So, how do you manage a portfolio in this context? Well, I guess, traditionally, what you could do, of course, is to buy Treasuries, buy Dollars, buy Gold, and buy put options like the market pricing is suggesting. Those are all fine, but from my perspective, I really like short dated interest rates as a hedge in this scenario. On the one hand, as I talked about earlier, I suspect that the market is a bit too aggressive in their pricing, and on the other hand, in the event that we do have a very serious geopolitical conflict, I suspect that the impulse for the Fed would be to try to soften the blow on the global economy by cutting rates a little bit.
Now, recall, during 9-11, that's basically what the Fed did as well. They cut rates more than they otherwise would in an effort to soften the shock to the global economy. If this turns out to be a very big conflict, again, this is going to have very big economic implications, and I think that the first impact for the Fed and other central banks would be to try to soften the blow a little bit. And, of course, you could be expressed in a number of ways. You have bills, you have two years, you have so for futures, and so forth. But that's how I look at this. And, again, there's tremendous amounts of uncertainty going forward, so it's hard to know how things evolve. But if you are in short dated rates, depending on the instrument, you could also be collecting a pretty good yield right now. So, sure dated. Two years, treasury bills are close to 5%. And that's how I think about this.
Okay, now the last thing that we want to talk about is this really interesting study from the BIS on US, China, Decoupling, or actually it's more broadly about global value chains.
So, a team of researchers at the BIS tried to map out just how interdependent companies are in the world.
因此,银行国际清算银行的一个研究团队试图绘制出世界上公司之间的相互依存程度。
For example, let's say a US company has a supplier in Vietnam. Okay, well, we can have this value chain where a US company is buying from Vietnam. So, there's that one step linkage there.
Okay, but let's go a step beyond that. Obviously, the Vietnamese company that sells to the US company, they have their suppliers as well. Right? So, let's say the Vietnamese company gets their supplies from a German company.
Okay, then from the US company's perspective, that German company is a two step supplier. After all, the German company supplies to the Vietnamese company and the Vietnamese company in turn supplies to the US company.
And you can continue to map out this web of relationships, and you'll get a really big entangled mess. After all, we've had decades of globalization, global supply chains are very global. So, we are strongly interconnected.
But as we also know, there has been a push since the Trump administration for there to be more decoupling between US and let's say, countries that are not as friendly with the US. This decoupling has accelerated under the Biden administration because we also realized that there's some national security concerns as well.
During COVID, it did not seem to have to be a good idea for the US to be completely dependent upon, say, China for a lot of medical supplies. So, again, there's been a big push to onshore or French or as Treasury Secretary of the Yellen has said before.
But how is that actually going? Well, the BIS map out the supply chains for a lot of companies, and they show what peers on the surface to be encouraging results.
If you look at their mapping, what you'll see is that, well, it looks like that American companies have really reduced their supply chain exposure to China. You see here suppliers to US companies. Well, China has their fewer one step and two set suppliers from China to the US. And in place of that, we see a rise of the rest of Asia Pacific. So it seems like on the surface, US companies have been moving away from China as a supplier and diversifying to places, say Vietnam or Taiwan or Korea and so forth. Right.
But then let's look at the other part of that chart. Now, customers of Chinese suppliers. Well, in accordance with decoupling, there are fewer American customers of Chinese suppliers, but there's a huge surge in the rest of Asia Pacific customers to Chinese suppliers.
Now, you put the two pieces up together and you get a really interesting picture. What seems to be happening is that so the American companies are not buying from Chinese companies instead they're buying from other Asian companies.
Now, who are the other other Asian companies buying from? Well, it looks like the other Asian companies. Well, they're just turning around and they're buying from Chinese companies.
现在,其他亚洲公司在从谁那里购买呢?嗯,看起来是其他亚洲公司。嗯,他们只是转身又从中国公司购买。
So in a sense, there hasn't really been decoupling. Simply, we added another layer of middlemen. Instead of buying directly from China, US companies are buying from other Asian countries who in turn, then buy from China.
So it seems like there hasn't been really decoupling just an extra middleman, which of course raises costs to Americans consumers without actually addressing the underlying geopolitical concern.
And I think this is to be expected. So companies have had built up an ecosystem in China for over decades. It's probably really difficult to move. And any move is going to take time.
So at the moment, at least what you're reading in in the news doesn't seem to be valid. There really hasn't been meaningfully decoupling, not yet, but we'll watch to see how this goes.
Okay. And that's all I prepared for today. Again, if you like what you're watching, remember to like and subscribe. And if you're interested in getting my latest commentary on what's happening in the markets, be sure to check out my blog, FedGuy.com.