GLOBAL ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

Leo Haviland provides clients with original, provocative, cutting-edge fundamental supply/demand and technical research on major financial marketplaces and trends. He also offers independent consulting and risk management advice.

Haviland’s expertise is macro. He focuses on the intertwining of equity, debt, currency, and commodity arenas, including the political players, regulatory approaches, social factors, and rhetoric that affect them. In a changing and dynamic global economy, Haviland’s mission remains constant – to give timely, value-added marketplace insights and foresights.

Leo Haviland has three decades of experience in the Wall Street trading environment. He has worked for Goldman Sachs, Sempra Energy Trading, and other institutions. In his research and sales career in stock, interest rate, foreign exchange, and commodity battlefields, he has dealt with numerous and diverse financial institutions and individuals. Haviland is a graduate of the University of Chicago (Phi Beta Kappa) and the Cornell Law School.

 

Subscribe to Leo Haviland’s BLOG to receive updates and new marketplace essays.

RSS View Leo Haviland's LinkedIn profile View Leo Haviland’s profile




COMMODITY CURRENCIES IN CONTEXT: A FINANCIAL WARNING SIGN © Leo Haviland May 1, 2018

“All poker is a form of social Darwinism: the fit survive, the weak go broke.” A. Alvarez, “The Biggest Game in Town”

****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

The Bank for International Settlements provides broad real effective exchange rates (“EER”) for numerous currencies around the globe. Within the BIS statistics are several nations who are important exporters of widely-traded commodities such as petroleum, base and precious metals, and agricultural products such as soybeans. Concentrating on and comparing the broad real effective exchange rates of eight freely-traded currencies widely labeled as “commodity currencies” offers insight into assorted interrelated financial marketplace relationships. The overall patterns of this array of assorted export-related commodity currencies often has intertwined in various ways with very significant trends in broad commodity indices such as the S&P Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (“GSCI”) and the Bloomberg Commodity Index (“BCI”), the broad real trade-weighted United States dollar (“TWD”), emerging marketplace stocks in general (as well as the S+P 500), and key interest rate benchmarks such as the 10 year US Treasury note.

In assessing and interpreting the role of and implications indicated by the commodity currency platoon in financial battlefields, marketplace guides should highlight several preliminary considerations. The various commodity currencies (“CC”) do not all move at precisely the same time or travel the same percentage distance in a given direction. Although they generally move roughly together within an overall major trend for the group, an individual member may venture in a different direction for quite some time. Although the path in recent months of the various CCs “together” generally has been sideways, their individual movements have not been identical.

Of course the various commodity currency countries are not all alike. So a given guru can tell somewhat different stories about each of them and their currency. Not all CC nations are equally important within the international trade arena. The various domains do not rely to the same extent on commodities within their export packages. And not all are reliant on a given commodity sector (such as petroleum) as part of their commodity output. Some CC nations produce notable amounts of manufactured goods. In addition, some countries probably are more vulnerable to currency and trade wars than others.

Moreover, the intertwined relationships between currencies (whether the CC EERs or others such as the broad real trade-weighted United States dollar), commodities “in general”, stock marketplaces (advanced nation signposts such as the S+P 500; the emerging marketplace field in general), and interest rates can and do change. Relationships between CC EERs and the broad real trade-weighted dollar (“TWD”) can shift. The TWD’s intertwining and relationship to interest rate, equity, and commodities in general is complex. In addition, although subjective perspectives identify apparent convergence and divergence (lead/lag) relationships between financial territories, these connections (links, associations) can alter, sometimes substantially. Marketplace history is not marketplace destiny, whether entirely or even partly.

****

Commodities “in general” surpassed their first quarter 2017 peaks in first quarter 2018 (and April 2018), rapidly climbing from a notable mid-year 2017 trough. The majority of commodity currencies established an EER top in (or around) 1Q17. In contrast to commodities in general, the effective exchange rates of the various commodity currency club members either have not exceeded that top established in (around) 1Q17, or have not done so by much. In addition, the CC group’s EERs generally did not climb much, if at all, from around mid-year 2017. This CC EER pattern (some divergence from commodities in general) warns that a significant top in commodities  probably is near. In the past, highs for the commodity currency EERs linked to highs for commodities in general.

Relevant to this marketplace viewpoint regarding the commodity currency EERs and commodities “in general” is the upward trend in US Treasury note yields. Recall not only the major bottom in the UST 10 year note around 1.32 percent on 7/6/16, but especially underline for the CC (and global stock marketplaces) the yield climb from its 9/8/17 interim trough at just over two percent. The Federal Reserve Board has been raising the Federal Funds rate and gradually reducing the size of its bloated balance sheet. The UST 10 year note broke out in first quarter 2018 above critical resistance at 2.65pc; the UST 10 year  recently bordered 1/2/14’s 3.05pc barrier (3.03pc on 4/25/18; the two year UST note also has climbed, reaching 2.50pc on 4/25/18). Also supporting this outlook for commodities is the 1Q18 peak in the S+P 500 (1/26/18 at 2873) and the MSCI Emerging Stock Markets Index (from Morgan Stanley; “MXEF”; 1/29/18 at 1279).

Yield repression (very low and even negative interest rates) promotes eager hunts for yields (return) elsewhere. These include buying commodities as an “asset class”. What happens to commodities when key central banks begin to end their beloved yield repression schemes, or hint that they will do so?

Marketplace history indeed shows that sometimes there has been divergence between commodities “in general” and stock benchmarks such as the S+P 500 for a while. Recall the 2007-09 global economic disaster era. The S+P 500 peaked 10/11/07 at 1576 (MXEF summit 11/1/07 at 1345), prior to the broad GSCI’s pinnacle in July 2008 (7/3/08 at 894). Yet recall that the July 2008 GSCI peak occurred close in time to the noteworthy S+P 500 interim high on 5/19/08 at 1440, as well as the lower S+P 500 tops of 8/11/08 (1313) and 9/19/08 (1265). And note the timing linkage between the broad GSCI and S+P 500 in the past couple of years. Not only did they make major lows around the same time in first quarter 2016 (broad GSCI at 268 on 1/20/16; S+P 500 on 1/20/16 at 1812 and 2/11/16 at 1810). They both accelerated upward in their bull moves around the same time in mid-year 2017; the GSCI low was 351 on 6/21/17, with that in the S+P 500 6/29/17’s 2406 (8/21/17 at 2417). The broad GSCI slumped from its initial high at 466 on 1/25/18, which linked to the S+P 500’s high on 1/26/18; although the GSCI since has hopped over its 1Q18 interim top, it thus far has not done so by much (480 on 4/19/18).

Thus the failure of the EERs for the CC group as a whole to advance much over the past year and especially since mid-year 2017 (with no decisive overall new highs for the group in general in 1Q18) probably has implications for both commodity and equity trends.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Commodity Currencies in Context- a Financial Warning Sign (5-1-18)

RUNNING FOR COVER: FOREIGN OFFICIAL HOLDINGS OF US TREASURY SECURITIES © Leo Haviland October 13, 2016

“I know what gold does to men’s souls,” says a grizzled prospector in the movie, “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” (John Huston, director)

****

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

Foreigners hold a massive quantity and substantial share of United States Treasury securities. Such foreign ownership of and trading activity in UST therefore is an important variable for US government interest rate levels and trends, which in turn intertwine with yield elevations and movements in other American debt playgrounds. And of course to some extent, and in various (and sometimes changing) fashions and degrees, given the importance of America within the global economy, UST yields interrelate with and influence yields overseas, as well as assorted currency, stock, and commodity marketplace levels and trends.

Federal Reserve Board (and other key central bank) policy, inflation trends (in America and other major nations), equity adventures (for the S+P 500 and other important advanced nation and emerging marketplace benchmarks), and the strength of the US dollar will influence decisions by current and potential overseas owners of UST. So will numerous other economic as well as political factors such as the America’s November 8, 2016 election and its aftermath.

****

Many marketplace visionaries focus primarily on the grand total of foreign holdings of United States Treasury securities, ascents and descents in that sum, and that amount’s relative share of US debt outstanding. This indeed can provide observers with helpful information.

Yet in regard to UST ownership by overseas entities, the foreign official and private sectors do not necessarily behave the same way. Sometimes this distinction appears significant enough over time to monitor closely.

Thus concentrating on the grand total of foreign holdings and shifts in that statistic risk overlooking an important pattern which appeared in recent months within those holdings. What is that pattern? The net foreign official holdings have fallen not only as a percentage of overall foreign holdings, but also in absolute levels. This substantial official exodus is important.

Suppose not only that such noteworthy net UST liquidation by the foreign official sector persists, but also that the overseas private sector decides to reduce its net buying significantly, or to become a net seller. All else equal, that will help to push UST yields higher.

Selecting variables regarding as well as presenting explanations (“causes”) for marketplace and other cultural phenomena reflect the subjective viewpoint and rhetoric of the given storyteller. And marketplace history does not necessarily entirely or even partly repeat itself. Net foreign official selling (or net buying) of US Treasury securities of course is not always or the only factor relevant to American stock marketplace trends. Marketplace participants nevertheless should note that sometimes over roughly the past two decades (since 1997), substantial net foreign official selling of UST can be associated with a decline in the S+P 500.

US federal budget deficits indeed have plummeted from their pinnacles reached due to the global economic disaster. But they have not disappeared. And they probably will increase in subsequent years. So looking forward (and all else equal), if substantial net foreign selling of UST by both the foreign official and private groups exists, that will make it increasingly difficult for the American government to finance looming budget deficits. Will this eventually encourage UST yield rises? Perhaps the US public will help to fill the deficit financing gap, but it may take higher rates (better real returns) than currently exist to inspire them.

 

A DELUGE OF DEBT

“‘A Ti-tan iv Fi-nance,’ said Mr. Dooley, ‘is a man that’s got more money thin he can carry without bein’ disordherly. They’se no intoxicant in th’ wurruld, Hinnissy, like money.’” (Finley Peter Dunne’s “Mr. Dooley” commenting “On Wall Street”; spelling as in the original)

****

There are various measures of US federal (national) indebtedness. Also, reports regarding breakdowns in debt ownership at times vary in their presentation. But regardless of the analytical perspective embraced, foreign ownership of UST is substantial in absolute and percentage of debt terms.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Running for Cover- Foreign Official Holdings of US Treasury Securities (10-13-16)

COMMODITIES: CAPTIVATING AUDIENCES © Leo Haviland October 12, 2015

OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION

The Federal Reserve Board is a widely-watched star economic performer. Elvis Presley sings in “Jailhouse Rock” that “Everybody in the whole cell block Was dancin’ to the Jailhouse Rock”. The Fed’s actual and anticipated soulful lyrics and mesmerizing policy moves likewise attract, enthrall, and inspire Wall Street, Main Street, and political audiences. The Federal Reserve Board congregates 10/27-28/15 and 12/15-16/15.

****

Though major stock, interest rate, and currency marketplaces typically grab the lion’s share of marketplace and media attention, recently commodities “in general” have marched to center stage alongside them. Central bankers, finance ministers, and other leading economic players pay close attention to the analysis and forecasts of the International Monetary Fund. October 2015’s featured cover page titles of the IMF’s “World Economic Outlook” (“Adjusting to Lower Commodity Prices”) and “Fiscal Monitor” (“The Commodities Roller Coaster”) evidences this increased fascination with commodities.

Individual commodities such as crude oil, copper, and corn, as well as commodity sectors such as the petroleum complex, of course have their own supply/demand and inventory pictures. Perspectives on these can and do differ between observers. Yet commodity price trends in general are hostage not only to their own supply/demand situation and general economic growth trends, but also to movements in equities, interest rates, and foreign exchange. Particularly over the past several months, stock and other financial playgrounds more closely have intertwined with noteworthy travels in crucial commodity theaters such as petroleum and base metals. Such increasingly strong ties developed in the past during similar sustained dramatic commodity price adventures.

The current significant link between commodities in general (use the broad Goldman Sachs Commodity Index as a benchmark; the “GSCI” is heavily petroleum-weighted) and other key arenas such as the S+P 500, emerging stock marketplaces in general (“MXEF”; MSCI emerging stock markets index, from Morgan Stanley), and the broad real trade-weighted United States dollar (“TWD”) probably will persist at least for the next several months. Stocks, the dollar, and the GSCI probably will all move in a sideways path for the near term. The Fed and its allies do not want the S+P 500 to collapse twenty percent or more (and maybe not even much more than ten percent) from its May 2015 summit. They also do not want the TWD to break out above its September 2015 high (that barrier slightly exceeds the crucial March 2009 major top).

However, the bear move in the S+P 500 that emerged in May 2015 eventually will resume. The US dollar, though its rally from its July 2011 major low has paused, will remain relatively strong. OECD petroleum industry inventories in days coverage terms are very high from the historical perspective. Despite some crude oil production cuts in the United States and elsewhere, overall oil industry inventories likely will remain quite elevated through calendar 2016. So even if in the near term the broad GSCI rallies further from its current level (which likely would occur alongside a further modest S+P 500 ascent and dollar slide from their current altitudes), it probably ultimately will challenge its late August 2015 low.

****

As the enrapturing Goldilocks Era ended, stocks peaked before commodities. The S+P 500’s major high was 10/11/07’s 1576, with that in emerging marketplaces (MXEF) alongside it on 11/1/07 at 1345. The broad GSCI made its major peak on 7/3/08 at 894 (the Bloomberg Commodity Index (“BCI”) top also was on 7/3/08, at 238.5). However, this was close in time to the S+P 500’s final peak at 1440 on 5/19/08 (and the MXEF’s final top at 1253 on 5/19/08), and not long after the TWD’s important April 2008 low near 84.2 (Fed H.10; monthly average). The GSCI’s 2/19/09 major low at 306 (BCI bottom 2/26/99 at 74.2) occurred near the S+P 500’s major bottom, 3/6/09 at 667, which occurred alongside the TWD’s March 2009 major top at 96.9. The MXEF’s major trough occurred 10/28/08 at 446, its final low 3/3/09 at 471.

During the worldwide economic recovery that set sail around 2009, neither commodities in general nor the MXEF surpassed their 2008 plateau.

The major high in commodities in general and the MXEF (spring 2011) and their important 2014 interim tops occurred before the S+P 500’s May 2015 height. This pattern differs from the 2007-08 one. In late spring 2015, the S+P 500 (as did China’s Shanghai Composite stock index) nevertheless joined (encouraged) the slump in the MXEF and commodities alongside an acceleration of US dollar strength. Thereafter, as in the speeding up of the global economic crisis after around mid-2008, the S+P 500, MXEF, and broad GSCI retreated together in conjunction with TWD appreciation. Also note the similar late August 2015 troughs in commodities and stocks. Though more recent data from the Fed on the TWD eventually will emerge, key US dollar cross rates in the past couple of weeks hint the broad TWD perhaps has slipped a bit since its September 2015 high.

****

Is OPEC’s new policy of reducing high-cost (non-OPEC) production succeeding? Some, but not a great deal so far. Despite the dive in drilling rig counts, OECD days coverage levels and the worldwide supply/demand balance for 2015 and 2016 reveal plentiful petroleum.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Commodities- Captivating Audiences (10-12-15)

STORYTELLING IS SELLING © Leo Haviland August 1, 2014

“Information is everywhere”, we’re told. We often demand: “Just give me the facts.” Haven’t you thought or even said: “Before I show you the money (or believe or behave as you want me to), show me the data”?

If you have all the data, then surely you can make the correct or best decision, right? Wrong.

The way I see the world, behind everything there’s always a crafted story, not merely a basket loaded with diligently harvested facts. In culture, there is no objective category of “the facts” or “all the facts”. Cultural players, in their quests to persuade others, always select and present what in their opinion is relevant information. Trained, practiced (and often paid) storytellers choose and manipulate “the data” to tell their story, not “the” story.

You ask me:“What storyteller?” Am I talking about best-selling novelists and screenwriters? Yes. But numerous enterprising and talented storytellers roam throughout all cultural territories. Picture Wall Street, Main Street, the Washington DC political battlefield, religious faiths, social media networks, and the legal profession. Consider corporations offering us gasoline, pharmaceuticals, homes, consumer goods and services, and entertainment. Think of economists and other social “scientists”. Imagine college humanities teachers.

Why study cultural storytellers and their stories? Focus on three Es: entertainment, education, and empowerment. Analyzing them can entertain us and satisfy our curiosity. Much more importantly, there’s inherent value in increasing our knowledge and sharpening our reasoning and judgment. Isn’t it profitable to acquire insight regarding how and why alluring propaganda is trying to get you to think and act in a given fashion? We should ask if the charming narratives designed to persuade us nevertheless could injure us. Words want action, yet action (or inaction) sometimes can cost us plenty.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Storytelling Is Selling (August 2014)