Month: January 2018

Assuming President Trump’s State of the Union address goes as well as last year’s speech to a joint session of Congress, Trump’s approval rating, which lingered below 40% for much of last year, will likely see a bump tomorrow, along with stocks, which today are seeing their worst daily drop since the Brexit vote.

But Trump’s low national approval rating masks something that’s important when evaluating Trump’s popularity: His approval varies dramatically from state to state. Indeed, in many of the states that he carried on election night, his approval rating is in excess of 60%.

According to a recent Gallup poll, Trump averaged 50% or higher approval in 12 states in total, primarily in the states where he received the most votes in the 2016 election.

In addition to West Virginia, the states where at least half the respondents approved of Trump included several western states (Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Alaska), several southern states (Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas) and two Midwestern states (North and South Dakota).

Trump earned between 40% and 49% approval – above his national average – in 20 states. These were predominantly in the Midwest and South, and included several of the key rustbelt states that were critical to his 2016 victory: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

Fewer than 40% of respondents approved of Trump in the remaining 18 states, 14 of which are located in the East and West – his worst performing regions in the election. In addition to Vermont, his ratings were particularly low – below 30% – in Massachusetts (27%), California (29%) and Hawaii (29%). Maryland, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island round out the states where fewer than one-third of the respondents approved.

These results are based on 171,469 Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted nationally throughout 2017. Gallup interviewed more than 1,000 respondents in 39 states in 2017, and no fewer than 471 in any other state. Each state’s sample is weighted to match U.S. Census Bureau demographic parameters for that state’s adult population. The full results by state appear at the end of this article.

Big State-Small State Divide:

As Gallup explained, the seeming discrepancy between Trump’s national approval rating and his state-by-state ratings is actually a reflection of the fact that the group with ratings below the national average includes some of the most populous states in the nation, particularly California, New York and Illinois. By contrast, most of the states with 50% or higher approval of Trump are among the least populous – the exceptions being Tennessee and Kentucky.

Altogether, Trump received approval ratings above his 38% national average in 33 states and below it in 17.

Implications:

While conservatives applauded Trump’s performance, the president averaged the lowest first-year approval rating of any president in Gallup history, and lagged Barack Obama’s 57% first-year rating by nearly 20 points. Naturally, this is reflected in Trump’s state-level ratings, with only 12 states giving him 50% or higher approval, compared with 41 for Obama in 2009.

The 50% mark is an important threshold in presidential election years for presidents seeking a second term, as it correlates strongly with reelection. Popular presidents also tend to weather midterm election years with fewer party losses in Congress.

Trump’s latest weekly approval rating is 38%, matching his 2017 average. According to Gallup, the latest polling suggests the president could be a liability for candidates in the fall. Already, more than 30 veteran Republican lawmakers in tossup districts have opted to retire instead of running again.

Still, Trump’s relatively high ratings in West Virginia, Montana and North Dakota, all states with Democrats defending Senate seats in 2017, could impact the party’s political calculus in those races.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nnol5x Tyler Durden

Authored by Christoph Gisiger via Finanz Und Wirtschaft,

Scott Mather, CIO U.S. Core Strategies and a managing director at Pimco, thinks that monetary policy normalization will be a game changer for financial and expects the return of volatility.

The bond market is on the move. The economy is gaining steam and interest rates are rising. This week, the yield on ten year Treasuries climbed to the highest level since the summer of 2014. Despite that, Wall Street doesn’t’ seem to care much. The Dow Jones chases record after record and investors take on more and more risk.

“So far, they have been rewarded. But it’s dangerous,” says Scott Mather. The veteran Chief Investment Officer of U.S. core strategies and managing director at the Californian bond giant Pimco expects that inflation will become a key topic this year. He cautions that the global normalization of monetary policy is going to be a game changer and volatility will finally stage a comeback.

Mr. Mather, bond yields are rising. It this a sign that the economy is getting better?

I think this year is going to be the best year in terms of growth that we have seen in a while. For the first time in a long time, there’s not one major region in the world that is underperforming. The outlook for Europe looks pretty good. In the US, we are going to get fiscal spending which is going to bump up growth to probably 2,5% with risk to the upside. That’s versus 2% for many years in the past. Japan’s growth looks pretty good, too. Also, in the emerging markets almost all the problem cases have recovered. Putting it all together that means you have to bump up your growth forecast for the world by a quarter to half of a percentage point versus what people were thinking a year ago.

That’s sounds encouraging. How sustainably it this pick up in US?
We have some concerns that the US is going to slow back down again because much of the growth this year is fiscal stimulus. There’s the corporate tax cut which is structured to pull the activity forward: The incentive for corporations is to do all the spending and investment this year and then push the profits out to the future when they’re taxed a lower rate. So investment spending could bump up this year because of that. You also have another $100 billion of fiscal spending from the hurricane relief and raise in defense spending. But that’s just kind of a onetime shot because it won’t be repeated the following year. Also, we’re pretty close to full employment. At some point, if you can’t put more and more people into the labor force you are going to slow down unless they become more productive and there is no reason to think that we are going to see some productivity miracle. So after the boost this year there will be some sort of a gravitation that will us pull back down.

How does filter into your outlook on inflation?
Inflation is a factor that will come into play this year. It’s sort of unique that we haven’t had wages rebound and inflation come back sooner. But we don’t think the laws of supply and demand have been repealed. If we start to see wage inflation, that’s sort of an omen for future generalized inflation and we know that the Fed pays a lot of attention to wages. So inflation will probably head closer to the Fed’s 2%-target which means the Fed will have reason to move. It’s not as if they want to slow the economy down. But they have reason to move to try to at least get back to a neutral Federal Funds Rate. And if we get a little bit of acceleration in terms of inflation as we head through the year they will probably even think about what they should be doing with respect to overshooting. Having inflation overshoot a little bit might be ok. But they could start to get nervous.

What does this mean with respect to monetary policy?
We are getting into an environment where monetary policy around the world starts to reverse course. I think that’s one of the big themes this year which is a global movement towards normalization. In US, we will get two or three more rate hikes this year. That takes the Fed Funds Rate back in the 2% to 2,5% range and that’s the level that starts to slow the economy down. At the same time, the ECB tapers and will be done with QE by the end of the year. Elsewhere, it looks like that the Bank of England will hike once this year. The Bank of Japan is likely to tweak its balance sheet expansion and yield curve control. The Bank of Canada has moved, and the Reserve Bank of Australia will probably be moving this year as well. So everybody starts moving.

Right now, everybody is focusing on the ECB. Will the European Central Bank be able to follow through with its plans to normalize monetary policy?
Growth in Europe has been good which has surprised them. I think we have seen the lows in inflation. So there is reason for the ECB to think the same way the Fed has which is to take advantage when you have the opportunity to start normalizing. The big priority would be getting away from negative rates. If that goes well, then they will make a judgment if they want to shrink the balance sheet first or hike rates. Probably they want to hike rates a bit further. So it’s the same playbook as the Fed and we think that economic growth will allow for this.

It’s been almost four years since the ECB became the first major central bank to push rates to negative territory. Are they at risk of falling behind the curve?
If the ECB could do it over, they probably would be tapering faster because growth has surprised them. If you’re a Martian and you landed on earth you would be like: “What in the world are these central banks doing?”

Why?
This expansion has been going on for a long time and I don’t see any risk really on the economic horizon that are very challenging. And yet they have zero and negative rates and huge central bank balance sheets. So central banks are being very cautious, maybe too cautious about normalizing. But this year is the big change and we think people may be underestimating it.

What does the normalization of monetary policy mean for the bond market?
One of the biggest unknowns is what this normalization does to financial markets. No one really knows. The balance sheet reduction at the Fed and the tapering of the ECB will be a big change for the bond market. We are going to get a lot more net supply. If you’re looking back on the past two or three years, we had two trillion dollars in global quantitative easing by the major central banks every year. But this year that all changes: We go from a two trillion run rate to flat lining. I’m not so worried about it having a major impact on the real economy. But it will potentially slow down inflation in financial assets. It probably has an impact on risk premiums in general and will bring back a little more volatility. Basically, what we are describing is a more normal market environment. But it’s been so long that people have forgotten how that feels like.

In the US, the yield on ten year treasuries climbed to the highest level since June 2014. Will this trend continue?
There are major forces at work here. Normally, when the Federal Reserve is tightening the yield curve flattens. On the other hand, you have the balance sheet reduction and you have a fiscal expansion which at this point of the cycle is very unusual. Both factors are steepening forces with respect to the yield curve and they begin to prevail. This doesn’t mean that yields have to continue to go up dramatically. Ten year yields can edge up into the 2,75% range this year but they probably can’t get much over 3%. The long end could be 50 to 75 basis points higher than that.

Outgoing Fed chief Janet Yellen said that the balance sheet normalization would be a very quiet and almost boring process, like watching paint dry. Is it really going to be so painless?
That’s the way central banks want to frame it. But they know that can’t be true. You can’t go from a two trillion dollar QE run rate down to zero and not expecting an impact. But central banks also see that the costs and risks of doing nothing are growing by the day. So it’s time to stop and push the responsibility back to the fiscal agents. In that sense, the Fed is kind of lucky that they have President Trump and this fiscal expansion because it will allow them to normalize without much risk. Europe needs the same sort of thing probably: There is a little bit of fiscal expansion in Europe, but it would be helpful if it was more because then the ECB could stop quicker.

At the beginning of February, Jerome Powell will take over as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. In what respect will that impact monetary policy in the US?
Normally, there are all sorts of uncertainty that comes when you get a new Fed chair. But I think the new Fed chair looks a lot like the old Fed chair – and the old Fed chair looks a lot like the previous Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, who we talk to all the time since he’s an advisor to Pimco. Based on our understanding, Powell is unlikely to change the Fed’s reaction function. So I wouldn’t expect anything dramatic. He’s a well-known entity and his thoughts and beliefs are recorded by the Fed board for a long period of time. There is no reason to expect that he’s going to change the way the Fed reacts. But it will be interesting to see who the Vice Chair is going to be and who fills the other spots. The real question however, is what happens if the unexpected happens. What if they have an inflation problem? Or what if growth slows down? What if some sort of strange thing happens?

The last time the Fed got caught by an ugly surprise was when housing prices in the US were tanking. How will higher rates impact the mortgage market this time?
We think that private mortgages are pretty attractive. They have been great and they’re in a lot of ways safer than corporate credit because normally you don’t see the housing market that closely linked to the economy. Yes, a recession causes housing prices to slow down. But the last recession was unique because we never had this generalized price decline in the US. So people are still sort of viewing in through that lense but that’s not the right way to view it. The next recession won’t be caused by housing or mortgage problems, it’s likely caused by something else.

So what’s the biggest risk for financial markets in your view?
The biggest risk that we worry about is a geopolitical event. That could really change the economic outlook and it certainly could impact the markets. It’s a higher risk than it has ever been because we have new leadership which is completely an unknown: How would the US respond? How would other countries respond to one another? It’s a completely changed world from where we were ten or twenty years ago. We have a lot of friction globally, so it doesn’t take much at this point. It could be a terrorist event or an accident. The US, Russia and China are always playing with each other in the skies and on the ground. And there’s the one risk that everyone is focused on which is North Korea. That’s bad enough in itself but when you look outside of that, there is a lot of instability.

How can investors prepare for that?
It’s very hard to plan for and it’s very hard to price. You can’t just go and put a trade on because you don’t know how it will unfold. But it’s another reason to say that now is not the time for investors to be counting on asset price inflation to infinity and low volatility. It’s a reason to start betting the other way.

What does this mean in terms of investment strategy?
One mistake market participants are making is they’re sort of looking what the Fed has done in the past two years and they say: “Well, it didn’t seem to cause any issues, there’s no volatility. So why does it matter if the ECB and the Bank of Japan do the same thing?” But people are ignoring the fact that the Fed could do it with having seemingly no impact only because the other central banks were offsetting it with monetary expansion. The difference is, this year nobody is offsetting. Everybody is going into same direction. That’s why investors should not underestimate the very likely scenario that volatility returns to normal. It doesn’t have to be dramatic, but it will look a lot different than the past few years and people need to prepare for it. It’s time to be a bit more defensive.

So what should investors do?
You should look what you are doing now and think about what your asset allocation should be. Most people take on more risk than they should, and they know that. But they feel that they have no alternative. But now is the time to just say: “I’m not going for that last 1%. I’m not going to try to play it to the end here”. What you should do is to give up a little bit of carry, go up in quality, go up in liquidity and gown down in maturity. Just be safer and wait. There will be some opportunities. But there won’t be opportunities if you’re already in the risk. So it’s a good diversifier to have bonds in your portfolio.

Where do you find such kind of safe, high-quality investments in the bond market?
One the things we are focused on is that increasingly people will look for US high quality bonds because the US is normalizing monetary policy faster than other countries. The US is about the only real bond market in the world. You are not going to get that kind of yield in Japan and you are not going to get much yield in core Europe. So investors should look at their portfolios and be comfortable holding more US high quality bonds than they would normally because they can’t get that anywhere else until other countries get further along on the path of normalization.

And what about high yield bonds? How will they react when the Fed is normalizing rates?
It means probably some pressure. We’ve seen a little more of that in the pasts months and it does worry us a bit. Also, the underwriting standards have declined. You have all sorts of companies issuing at relatively tight spreads which should be sending off alarm bells because this is always sowing the seeds for the next big problem. In addition to that, you’ve had a record push from retail investors into the high yield space. You’ve had an explosion of things like ETFs and untested sorts of structures. You’ve had an explosion in low quality loan issuance which is another warning sign. People buy just tons of bank loans and this market has been getting riskier every day for the past several years. So it won’t take much to set off the next bit of high yield spread widening which will spill over. At these yield levels it’s not going to take much at all.

So how risky are junk bonds?
There is sort of a mirage of liquidity out there. No one really knows what happens if you get a big shift of a lot of people trying to get out at the same time because we haven’t had a major widening in the credit market when we’ve had so much money in daily liquidity mutual funds and second by second by liquidity in ETFs. But behind the scene there is not that liquidity, we know that. That means that spreads can widen pretty fast and prices can decline a lot faster than people think.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2E0WMIE Tyler Durden

On 22 January, in a sharp escalation of trade tensions with China and Pacific Rim nations, President Trump approved a recommendation to impose safeguard tariffs on imported solar panels and washing machines, following the findings by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) that both products “are a substantial cause of serious injury to domestic manufacturers.” Also, earlier this month the US Commerce Department submitted the results of its investigation into steel and aluminum imports, with the President expected to announce a decision soon.

In response to Trump’s tougher stance, Barclays thinks that China could retaliate through various channels, including:

1. Banning the importation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) from US, which is the biggest producer of GMO crops;
2. Imposing retaliatory tariffs on some of US exports to China (eg, soybeans, autos);
3. Delaying trade and investment deals signed during Trump’s visit to China last November; and
4. Two additional levers, ie, potentially steering CNY to the weaker side, and potentially slowing the purchases of US Treasury bonds as hinted by Chinese officials earlier this month when Bloomberg reported that “China Weighs Slowing or Halting Purchases of U.S. Treasuries.”

These hypotheticals bring up follow-up questions, the first of which is would escalating trade war result in a slowdown in global trade. According to Barclays, the answer is no:

While the increasing trade frictions could exert some downward pressure on China’s trade in the coming months, we think these sanctions are unlikely to have a material impact on China’s exports. Even if counting together solar panels, washing machines, and (potentially) steel and aluminum products, these account for no more than 4% (in value terms) of China’s total exports to the US (or up to 1% of China’s total exports) in 2017.

Moreover, Barclays believes a full-scale trade war is unlikely, given both sides reiterated that one of the solutions for trade rebalancing is to expand exports to China, rather than simply reducing imports from China. The UK bank then assumes that both players will seek to pursue next steps as rational actors:

With the still rapidly-growing bilateral trade (Figure 3), both sides would want to avoid the serious economic risks stemming from a trade war.

But “what if” trade relations deteriorate despite everyone’s alleged best interests, and “what if” Trump has made up his mind to “punish” China using trade regardless of the cost?

Well, in that case, the tariff on solar panels would simply mark the first of several potential trade actions the Trump administration could take in the coming weeks, with a focus on China’s steel, aluminum, and solar exports. Here Barclays notes that “the US has become more critical of China’s trade practices in recent months, and expect that further unfavourable decisions against China could lead to rising trade frictions in the coming months.”

And, if indeed trade war is on Trump’s mind, there would be no better venue to make that clear than during tonight’s State of the Union address, when he previously announced he would be announcing “some kind of action against China over trade.“

To be sure, tonight’s SOTU is just the first possibility to unveil more trade sanctions against China: over the next three months Trump will decide whether to act against Chinese still and aluminum imports.

But the most immediate risk for markets is tonight’s address starting at 9pm, when the entire world will be watching and listening to Trump’s every word, an opportunity the president will be hard pressed to ignore. And if he is truly intent on pursuing a full-blown trade war, this will be his moment. If so, keep a close eye on the Yuan, Dollar and Chinese risk assets in response: they could all get quite volatile.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FuS0QD Tyler Durden

Many commentators argue that never since the Vietnam War has the United States been so disunited -so much so, that, as Statista’s Dyfe Loesche notes, it feels like people seem to be living in different countries altogether.

Nevertheless, according to custom and constitution, Trump, like other presidents before him, will hold a State of the Union address as required, on tonight at 9 pm EST.

As Statista’s infographic based on Nielsen data shows, Trump’s first unofficial State of the Union address, held before a joint session of Congress on the last day of February 2017, a few weeks after his inauguration, drew a pretty large TV crowd.

You will find more statistics at Statista

However – and these aren’t ‘alternative facts’ – Obama, Bush junior and Clinton at some point drew larger TV crowds during similar speeches.

However, live TV viewership has been on the decline for some time. So, if the figures were adjusted for overall live TV viewership, the results would work in favor of more recent debates.

One indeed has to accredit Trump with the biggest increase of viewers compared to the last speech by a predecessor. Obama drew 14.9 million viewers more than Bush did at his last speech. Trump increased viewership by 16.4 million compared to Obama’s last speech.

Then again, people are just as keen to see a president they like as they can be propelled by ulterior motives, such as seeing a controversial showman perform.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nsl8Rn Tyler Durden

While the FBI’s official report on the Oct. 1 mass shooting in Las Vegas – the deadliest in American history – a judge on Tuesday unsealed 300 pages of search warrant records, including a document that appears to validate claims that shooter Steven Paddock may have had help planning his attack.

That’s because the documents revealed, for the first time, a publicly identified “person of interest” whose name has thus far not been publicly reported as part of the investigation, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

“Until the investigation can rule otherwise, Marilou Danley and Douglas Haig have become persons of interest who may have conspired with Stephen Paddock to commit Murder with a Deadly Weapon,” according to the Metropolitan Police Department document, which was prepared in October.

Danley was in Australia when Paddock carried out his deadly attack. She was reportedly “sent away” by Paddock, her boyfriend of several years, who apparently had a history of domineering behavior toward her.

Haig could not be reached by the RJ. When contacted by phone Tuesday about the newly released name, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo said only, “If you’ve got it, publish it.” He said he could not comment on a federal case. The FBI refused to comment.

During a Jan. 20 update on the LVPD’s investigation, Lombardo noted that the FBI had an open investigation into a second person of interest, but also said that Paddock was the only shooter. He also said he didn’t anticipate Danley facing criminal charges.

Lombardo also said he did not anticipate Danley facing any criminal charges.

“I know and believe there was only one suspect who killed 58 people and injured hundreds more,” Lombardo said. “All the evidence recovered in this case supports that theory. There was one shooter in the 1 October massacre. There was only one person responsible, and that was Stephen Paddock.”

Paddock’s brother Eric Paddock told the RJ that he does not know Haig. The documents were unsealed at the request of the RJ and a handful of other media outlets.

Notably, screenshots of what purports to be Haig’s LinkedIn page quickly began circulating on social media:

BREAKING: Judge unseals search warrant records, 2nd person of interest in the Las Vegas shooting has been identified as DOUGLAS HAIG.

Haig’s LinkedIn shows he had a “DOD Top Secret clearance”, worked for top weapons manufacturers, and specialized in Military Ammunition. pic.twitter.com/NhTWupKF9P

— Mike Tokes (@MikeTokes) January 30, 2018

The LinkedIn page showed that Haig had “DOD Top Secret clearance” and worked for weapons manufacturers. According to the page, he is presently a senior engineer at Honeywell Aerospace.

Paddock killed 58 people and left more than 500 injured when he opened fire on a crowd of fans attending a country music concert across the street from the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2npwrKR Tyler Durden

Wall Street M&A bankers have good reason to celebrate this bonus season: record debt-underwriting fees, driven by still-low interest rates, caused banker bonuses to swell this year.

But record-low volatility was less than kind to their peers in sales and trading, according to Bloomberg:

The dynamic was particularly noticeable at JPMorgan Chase & Co., the biggest Wall Street firm by revenue, and Goldman Sachs Group – which moved up about $100 million worth of bonuses due in January to December to take advantage of a corporate tax break that is being capped under the new tax law – where investment bankers’ 2017 bonus pool grew by about 5%, while fixed-income trading personnel saw theirs drop by about 12%, according to people with knowledge of the payments.

Bank of America saw its investment-banking bonus pool rise between 5% and 10%, while the equities one shrank about 5%, with deeper declines in some other units, including cash equities. The firm’s annual investment-banking fees were the strongest in at least 10 years.

The equities trading bonus pool was roughly unchanged, the people said, asking not to be identified because the information isn’t publicly available.

Banker bonuses didn’t rise as sharply as revenue: Investment-banking fees jumped 17% to $31 billion last year at the five biggest US firms.

Institutions typically choose to cushion some of the volatility between fixed-income, equities and investment-banking divisions so compensation changes aren’t as abrupt, according to Mike Karp, chief executive officer of recruitment firm Options Group Inc. But Bloomberg says the size of the gap could widen further in 2018, though the CBOE volatility index popped above 14 today, a sign that volatility might be slowly returning.

Last year, volatility across asset classes slumped as equity indexes across the world breezily climbed to record highs…

Wall Street bonuses tumbled in 2015 for the second straight year, but began climbing again in 2016.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2E36biM Tyler Durden