We’re back with a second edition of Above the Noise. The reception to the first issue surpassed my expectations. (We’ll have to let Andrew Card, Chief of Staff for George W. Bush, know that one can introduce new products in August.) Business News Network Bloomberg in Canada even asked me to appear on “The Close” and sing the new lyrics that I penned to Billy Joel’s We Didn’t Start the Fire. Let’s just say I won’t be compared to the Piano Man, but I can now scratch singing on live television off my bucket list.
One thing we can’t scratch off of our lists just yet? Inflation. Since we’re constantly being reminded by the media that the inflation data is the worst in 40 years, this month’s column will have a 1970s/early 1980s theme. Admittedly, I was only 4 years old in 1980, but I have read extensively about that period in textbooks. Also, I was once in an elevator with Paul Volcker. So, in the words of Carl Spackler from the 1980 film Caddyshack, “I have that going for me, which is nice.”
A ‘keep it simple’ strategy
We start with the three critical questions that can help us gauge the potential impact on markets. How would I answer these questions this month? With 1970s song lyrics, of course.
1) Where are we in the cycle?
Bob Seger (1978): I know it’s late. I know you’re weary.
Inflation is still elevated,1 and the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) is committed to tightening conditions until it falls. The risks to the cycle are elevated.
2) What’s the direction of the economy?
Foghat (1975): Slow ride …
… into a contraction. Our proprietary leading indicators suggest that the economy is in contraction with growth expected to be below trend and falling.2
3) What will be the policy response?
Steely Dan (1972): You go back, Jack, do it again.
Just swap out “Jack” for “Jay” as Fed Chair Jay Powell does it again with interest rate hikes. Inflation appears to be peaking3 but remains too high for the Fed’s comfort. Policy uncertainty persists until inflationary pressures ease.
The upshot is the same as last month: From a tactical perspective, we would still favour a more modest risk profile and a more defensive posture in the near term. This includes quality bonds and businesses that can potentially generate cash flow and growth in a slowing environment.
The national conversation
I think we have a hyperbole problem. Does every economic and/or financial challenge need to be the next crash? It’s like everyone on social media has become Redd Foxx in Sanford & Son, clutching their chest and proclaiming that “This is the big one!”
Select high-profile strategists, many of them perennial doomsayers, are now calling for the bursting of a massive bubble. One notable strategist is warning of an “epic finale market crash.” For what it’s worth, the same strategist warned of “7 lean years” around the time of the 2009 market bottom. I admit, the pessimists do always sound smart. Although historically it’s been the optimists who have made money.4
The hyperbole works both ways. I have an email in my inbox now from a noted strategist predicting a large market rally ahead as inflation plunges. I respect the optimism. I too am an intermediate-term optimist, with intermediate-term being defined as the next 6 to 24 months. However, inflation “plunging” sounds too hopeful. In my view, inflation should come down eventually, but a quick fix is unlikely.
The answer, as is often the case, is probably somewhere in the middle. Although, my near-term realism and intermediate-term optimism isn’t nearly as attention-grabbing as Fred Sanford’s classic catchphrase.
Song of the month
Sticking with the motif, I’ll choose the 1982 hit “One Thing Leads to Another” by The Fixx. In two years, the world has transitioned from a pandemic and unprecedented economic shutdown to an inflationary environment and policy tightening — and a recession is likely next.
It’s clear that the Fed will “do what they say and say what they mean” as they try to get inflation under control. The question now is whether we will ultimately have to be “Saved by Zero”— that is, return to significantly easier monetary policy. The market is already expecting the Fed to be easing policy again by the middle of next year. One thing leads to another.
It was said
“…at some point in the tightening cycle, the risks become more two-sided.” – Lael Brainard, Vice Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve
I promise to not have the quote of the month always come from a member of the Fed Open Mouth, err, Federal Open Market Committee. For right now though, the Fed is the only game in town. Brainard’s comments provide hope. The Fed wants to slow growth, but not crush it. If the Fed truly believes that the risks are soon to become more two-sided, then the downside risk to the market is limited and the tail risk is less fat. Unfortunately, what the Fed wants to do may be different than what they are forced to do.
Since you asked
What year does 2022 remind you of? Investors seem to have settled on two options: 1973 and 1980. Good choices as investors in those years (and the ones in between them) had to grapple with inflation.
My final answer is B: 1980. In 1973, the Fed had lost control of long-term inflation expectations, setting the stage for a prolonged difficult period for risk taking. In 1980, the Fed began restoring credibility and driving inflation expectations lower. That sounds more relevant to our situation today.5 Yes, there was a recession in 1981,6 but investors who allocated capital to the equity market when inflation peaked in 1980 were rewarded over the short-, intermediate-, and long-term time periods.7
It may be confirmation bias, but …
… wages appear to have peaked, which may help the Fed in its efforts to control inflation.