Housing Supply Jumps Most On Record As Market Freezes

Housing Supply Jumps Most On Record As Market Freezes

A downturn in the residential real estate market could be nearing, Kieran Clancy, a senior US economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, recently warned. The potential for a major price decline has been on our radar in recent quarters as elevated mortgage rates and record-high prices create an unfavorable environment for buyers.

The only reason housing prices have yet to plummet is because of the lack of housing inventory. That’s the primary difference between the current market and the market during the 2008 housing crash.

For now, we keep our eyes peeled for the changing dynamics in supply/demand. A new Redfin report might be the first sign inventory is increasing. 

For the four weeks ending Dec. 25, the total number of homes for sale jumped 18% compared to the same period a year ago. Redfin said this was a record year-over-year increase, adding homes are lingering on the market longer. 

“Inventory is up even though new listings are down by double digits because homes are taking a long time to sell amid 6%-plus mortgage rates (the average 30-year rate ticked up to 6.42% this week), economic uncertainty and the typically slow holiday season,” the report said. 

The residential real estate market is freezing as homes on the market now take 40 days to go under contract, more than double from a record low of 18 days in May and the slowest pace since January 2021. 

A jump in supply is not a promising sign for the market heading into 2023. Goldman Sachs analysts slashed their outlook for home prices from around flat next year to down 4%, noting “unsustainable levels of housing affordability to continue weighing on housing demand.”

The median home sale price was $351,860, up a measly 0.7% year-over-year, the slowest growth rate since the beginning of the virus pandemic. 

During the four weeks leading up to Dec. 25, prices fell 9% year-over-year in San Francisco, 6.5% in San Jose, 6% in Los Angeles, 4.5% in Detroit, 4.4% in Pittsburgh, 3.7% in Sacramento, 3.6% in Oakland, CA and 2.3% in Austin. They slipped 2% or less in New York, Seattle, Anaheim, CA, Phoenix, Chicago, Newark, NJ, Riverside, CA, Boston, and Washington, DC.

And for more insight into what’s next. Industry insider and CEO of US home-furnishings company RH, Gary Friedman, warned in a recent earnings call “there will be no soft landing” in the residential real estate market. 

The bottom line is that momentum in the housing markets has stalled, inventory is now building, and perhaps it’s just a matter of time before prices decline.  

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 14:19

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Jga5uwy Tyler Durden

Oil Should Lure Bulls Back in 2023

Oil Should Lure Bulls Back in 2023

By Grant Smith and Mark Cudmore, Bloomberg markets live reports and strategists

Oil prices may have surrendered the bulk of this year’s gains, but the conditions are right to lure back bulls in the new year.

Brent crude futures are set to end 2022 with a modest increase of 7% — a mere fraction of the $60-a-barrel gain they had racked up in the spring, when alarm over the war in Ukraine was at its peak. Faltering fuel demand, fears over a US recession and China’s Covid resurgence have all helped to dissolve the rally.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of reasons why oil is poised for a renewed surge next year.

On the demand side, the coldest part of winter has yet to bite and should stoke the need for heating fuels in the first months of 2023. Later in the year, China’s re-opening may have gathered strength, bringing more cars onto the road and planes in the air. Hedge fund star Pierre Andurand estimates that demand growth could double mainstream expectations next year, soaring by 4%.

As for supplies, Russian exports may have defied the skeptics throughout last year but that’s because sanctions are only now going into full force. Insurers are shunning their traditional trade in Russian cargoes, a portent of the supply drop to come. The 15% plunge in Russian output long-predicted by the International Energy Agency may finally be on the way.

Meanwhile oil’s forward curves testify to the underlying market strength, with Brent spreads largely showing a premium — known as backwardation — that signifies supply tightness. If all else fails, Saudi Arabia and its OPEC+ allies have demonstrated they’re willing to defend the market by slashing oil production, even if it means enduring political outcry.

It’s this combination of demand surprises and supply shortfalls that may well send Brent — ending the year close to $83 a barrel — back towards triple digits in 2023.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/SbYIgLV Tyler Durden

Auto-Loan Rates From Credit Unions Are “Well Below” Rates Being Charged By Banks

Auto-Loan Rates From Credit Unions Are “Well Below” Rates Being Charged By Banks

We have been extensively covering the upcoming blowup in the automotive lending area for months now. To us, it seems like only a question of “when” and not “if” large looming defaults and delinquencies will begin their deluge in the auto sector. 

But while lending rates are skyrocketing, there has been one secret corner of the financial world that hasn’t seemed to notice the distress that consumers are under: credit unions. Credit unions are offering some of the lowest rates on auto loans of anyone, a new report in the Wall Street Journal revealed this week. 

They are “undercutting banks and other lenders by a wide margin”, the report says. In fact, in Q3, “credit unions charged an interest rate of 5.94% on average for used cars, well below the 8.36% on offer from banks,” it continues.

This marks the widest gap in at least 5 years. Credit unions have offered a rate of 4.43% for new cars, versus 6.6% for banks, the report continues. John Toohig, who trades credit unions’ auto loans as head of whole-loan trading at Raymond James, told WSJ: “They kept rates low when the rest of the market just exploded.” 

Mike Schenk, chief economist at the Credit Union National Association, a trade group, added: “In a market where interest rates are going up, credit union loan rates will lag the market up, and then on the other side of the coin, savings yields will lead the market up.”

Keeping rates low has allowed some credit unions to add “billion of dollars” worth of auto loans to their books over the year. For example, the Journal noted:

SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union grew its total auto loans by 29% in the first nine months of the year. Navy Federal Credit Union’s auto loans rose by 13% and Golden 1 Credit Union’s climbed by 18%, according to financial disclosures.

Capital One Chief Executive Richard Fairbank said this past fall: “Many auto lenders appear to have reflected rising interest rates in their marginal pricing decisions, but others have not, and they have gained market share and pressured industry margins.”

But one thing is clear to us – no matter what rate you get currently, the industry appears to be in distress. This lengthy writeup from days ago details how a “perfect storm” is brewing in autos and how a “massive wave” of repos and loan defaults are likely on their way. 

For almost a year now, we have been dutifully tracking several key datasets within the auto sector to find the critical inflection point in this perhaps most leading of economic indicators which will presage not only a crushing auto loan crisis, but also signal the arrival of a full-blown recession, one which even the NBER won’t be able to ignore, as the US consumers are once again tapped out. We believe that moment has now arrived.

But first, for those readers who are unfamiliar with the space, we urge you to read some of our recent articles on the topic of car prices – which alongside housing, has been the biggest driver of inflation in the past 18 months – and more specifically how these are funded by the US middle class, i.e., car loans, and last but not least, the interest rate paid for said loans. Here are a few places to start:

So while the big picture is clear – Americans are using ever more debt to fund record new car prices – fast-forwarding to today, we have observed two ominous new developments: the latest consumer credit report from the Fed revealed a dramatic spike in the amount of new car loans, which increased by more than $2,000 in one quarter, from just over $38,000 (a record), to $40,155 (a new record).


 

As Twitter’s CarDealershipGuy – who claims to be an anonymous auto-industry CEO and whose analysis has been featured in places like the NY Post and who frequently Tweets about the state of the auto market – laid out a long thread on Thursday, all of the above may end up being an overly optimistic assessment of the perfect storm that’s about to hit the auto sector:

“This morning I discovered something *extremely* alarming happening in the car market, specifically in auto lending. I’m now convinced that there is a massive wave of car repossessions coming in 2023,” he wrote.

Recapping much of what we said above, he noted that over the past 2 years, many people took out exorbitant loans on cars and while car values were inflated (and still are) but many people simply had no choice and bought an overpriced a car. Then, echoing the Fitch assessment, he notes how those buyers are underwater: “Car valuations are now plummeting. Some cars have declined in value as much as 30% y/y. And these same people that took out these big loans are now ‘underwater’. Basically, they owe banks more on these cars than they are worth. And the banks are well-aware of this.”

The punchline is his personal experience from late last week. “This morning, one of our General Managers opened up DealerTrack — a portal that dealers use to communicate with auto lenders — and highlighted something very concerning. 9 of our lending partners have started WAIVING ‘open auto stipulations’ for consumers.”

What this means, he explained, is that once consumers are stuck with a vehicle they paid too much for, they can’t trade it in without putting some money up front to cover the difference of what is owed on it versus what it is worth. At that point, he notes, “Dealer can’t sell consumer a car, Consumer can’t buy a car, And, you guessed it, lender can’t finance a car!”

The lender then knows that most consumers are stuck and waives the open auto stipulation – meaning they allow the consumer to buy the new car with a second loan knowing they already have a first one. But the lender does it because they know that the buyer will default on the old, other car.

Cue default avalanche: “This is NOT normal. But it’s the only way lenders can finance cars and dealers can put cars on the road. And the implications of this will be tons of repossessions,” the CEO wrote.

He concluded: “I’ve been a doubter, but after what I saw this morning, I’m now FULLY convinced that a wave of car repossessions will hit in early/mid 2023. If lenders are willing to backstab each other in order to put more loans on the road, we’re in trouble.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 13:43

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/pzeg6Jd Tyler Durden

Judge Rules Illinois’ Elimination of Cash Bail Unconstitutional


Judges' gavel with cash

Just days before major bail reforms in Illinois were set to begin, a county judge has ruled the changes violate the state’s constitution.

In early 2021, lawmakers passed a massive bill full of criminal justice reforms called the Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today Act, or SAFE-T Act. Among the many changes included in the bill was the elimination of cash bail. Rather than demanding money in exchange for pretrial freedom, the courts would have to evaluate each defendant to determine whether he may be a danger to others or a flight risk, and then determine nonfinancial release guidelines. Full pretrial detention could only be ordered if the court decided the danger or flight risk was just too high to justify someone’s release.

There were a host of crimes for which judges were cleared to detain defendants, including many firearm offenses, human trafficking, stalking, violent felonies, and domestic violence charges. Nevertheless, throughout 2022, opponents attacked the reforms, some falsely claiming that the changes would require people charged with crimes like second-degree murder and aggravated battery to be released without bail. Lawmakers further amended the rules earlier this month to make it clearer that judges have the authority to detain defendants they deem to be a threat to others or the community.

Prosecutors and police departments nevertheless opposed the reforms and around 60 different law enforcement agencies and prosecutors filed 64 lawsuits, arguing that the bail portion of the law violated the state’s constitution. On Wednesday, Kankakee County Chief Judge Thomas W. Cunnington agreed.

Cunnington didn’t say that the bail reforms are bad or wrong—he ruled that lawmakers didn’t pass the law properly and that it infringes on the power of the judicial branch. The state’s constitution specifically lists guidelines for bail and pretrial detention, and Cunnington determined that “had the Legislature wanted to change the provisions in the Constitution regarding eliminating monetary bail as a surety, they should have submitted the question on the ballot to the electorate at a general election.” In other words, lawmakers should have gotten the public’s approval via a ballot referendum and changed the constitution’s text.

Cunnington also ruled that the bill runs afoul of crime victim rights protections found in the state’s constitution, which require courts to consider the rights of victims and their families when setting bail amounts. Under Cunnington’s logic, the new bail law would have stopped judges from setting bail amounts.

But much of the meat of Cunnington’s ruling is specifically about how the state constitution separates the legislative branch from the judicial branch. While it may seem as though lawmakers should have the power to legislatively establish guidelines for how the courts operate, Cunnington noted that Illinois Supreme Court precedents have determined that there are limits. How a court is administered falls under the purview of the judiciary, and the state’s Supreme Court back in 1975 determined that bail is “administrative” in nature. Over several state precedents, the top court has concluded that the judicial branch has independent authority over bail guidelines.

Cunnington ruled, then, that the bail reforms of the SAFE-T act violate the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. “Because…all judges will be categorically prohibited from even considering in their discretion a monetary component to the conditions of release,” he wrote, “the judiciary’s inherent authority to set or deny bond will necessarily be infringed in all cases.”

This would seem to doom the bail reforms if it’s upheld, but Cunnington rejected the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to stop the reforms from being launched in January. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Attorney General Kwame Raoul say they’re going to appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. Raoul noted in a statement that the ruling applies only in the cases that Cunnington ruled on in the 21st Judicial Circuit. According to Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe, that means the bail reforms won’t be launched in the 65 counties that participated in the lawsuits, but will be implemented in 37 others.

It appears that Illinois will follow through with implementing bail reform changes knowing that they may ultimately be struck down by the state’s Supreme Court. That said, if the bail reforms work out well, judges would be able to voluntarily maintain them even if the top court throws out the legislative mandate. If the reforms stop courts from using money to determine who gets stuck in pretrial detention and it doesn’t affect crime rates or court compliance, then judges should consider keeping them. Bail was never meant to be a mechanism for keeping people detained over low-level offenses just because they can’t afford to pay for their release.

The post Judge Rules Illinois' Elimination of Cash Bail Unconstitutional appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ovUjXMy
via IFTTT

What the Southwest Meltdown Means for Airline Policy


Southwest Airlines plane stranded

In the wake of the Christmas 2022 breakdown of airline service, politicians and consumer advocates are calling for tougher antitrust policy and even the re-regulation of U.S. airlines. While a once-in-a-generation blizzard encompassing about three-quarters of the continental U.S. would obviously disrupt air (and rail and highway) travel, especially over a major holiday weekend, most airlines recovered pretty well from this unprecedented storm.

But not Southwest. With outdated flight- and crew-scheduling technology, the popular lower-cost airline melted down, stranding huge numbers of holiday travelers. To get planes and crews to where they need to be to restore normal service, Southwest has temporarily canceled a large fraction of its near-term schedule.

Some critics blame Southwest’s operating model, which is based on point-to-point flights rather than the hub-and-spoke model used by major carriers such as American, Delta, and United. In a major disruption like the December blizzard, hub-and-spoke yields less dispersion of aircraft and crews and does make it easier to return to normal. But point-to-point enables an airline to serve a greater number of smaller cities without transfers at hubs, which is popular with passengers and yields more daily passenger miles per plane than the hub-and-spoke approach. That’s why most low-cost carriers, such as Allegiant, Frontier, JetBlue, and Spirit (plus Ryanair and EasyJet in Europe) also operate point-to-point.

Southwest’s problem is that its leadership, after legendary founder Herb Kelleher retired, were financial guys, not operations specialists. Southwest’s unions are right in pointing to the airline’s low-tech crew-scheduling software called SkySolver as the culprit in the December breakdown. It was also at fault in a smaller but still devastating Southwest breakdown last year linked to an unexpected air traffic control (ATC) outage in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Jacksonville control center.

So what does this have to do with antitrust policy or the idea of re-regulating airlines? Nothing whatsoever. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) has seized on this one-airline debacle to call for a crackdown on airline mergers. Even more ludicrously, her ally Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project has suggested going back to the federal airline regulation that was in place from the 1930s to 1978, claiming in a recent post that this “was a terrific system which saw dropping ticket prices and expanding capacity.” Neither is true.

The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) ran an airline cartel that banned price competition and severely limited entry by new airlines. Airlines could only compete on amenities like drinks and meals. Most routes had only one or two airlines. And the regulation was cost-plus. Airline unions loved this because large increases in wages and benefits were blessed by the CAB and passed along to airline passengers.

Under this system, about half of what the airlines transported was air—i.e., empty seats. Flying was so expensive that most passengers were upper-middle-income or business travelers on expense accounts. I grew up in an airline family prior to deregulation. The only reason we took airline trips was the ready availability of employee passes; we could not have afforded tickets for five people on my father’s salary. But because an average of half the seats were empty, we nearly always got on to our first-choice free flights.

Thanks to years of research by economists explaining the flaws of this system, a bipartisan Congress deregulated the airlines in 1978, allowing open entry and real price competition. In the four and a half decades since then, air travel has been democratized, to the huge benefit of most Americans.

Stoller is very misleading in his description of the industry: “Airlines are a public utility system, funded by the public on behalf of the public. Airports, air traffic control, safety inspections, bailouts—it’s all public.” In fact, although most U.S. airports (unlike those in Europe and Australia, which are mostly privatized) are run by government agencies, nearly all the large and medium ones are mostly self-supporting from their various revenue sources: airline charges, passenger charges, retail and parking revenues, etc. Likewise, although the FAA provides ATC services, the 80 percent of its budget that covers those costs comes from passenger ticket taxes (user taxes), not federal taxes on everyone. And in most developed countries, the former government ATC providers have been privatized or corporatized, made self-supporting from user fee revenues.

Southwest has lost tremendous goodwill from its winter debacle. It will likely lose market share and market value, and it will have to work very hard to rebuild trust by implementing long-needed technology upgrades. But changing federal airline policy isn’t the solution.

The post What the Southwest Meltdown Means for Airline Policy appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/CiOGJFH
via IFTTT

MIT Adopts Free Speech Resolution: “We Cannot Prohibit Speech As Offensive Or Injurious”

MIT Adopts Free Speech Resolution: “We Cannot Prohibit Speech As Offensive Or Injurious”

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We recently discussed schools joining the University of Chicago free speech alliance. Now, the faculty of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have adopted a resolution defending freedom of speech and expression, including speech deemed  “offensive or injurious.” It is a triumph for free speech. However, while 98 faculty voted for the resolution, 52 professors voted against the free speech principles.

The Free Expression Statement is a balanced affirmation of the essential role of free speech in higher education.

“A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not extend to suppressing or restricting such speakers from expressing their views. Debate and deliberation of controversial ideas are hallmarks of the Institute’s educational and research missions and are essential to the pursuit of truth, knowledge, equity, and justice.”

What is unnerving is that a third of the faculty disagreed with the resolution despite the following reservation:

“MIT does not protect direct threats, harassment, plagiarism, or other speech that falls outside the boundaries of the First Amendment. Moreover, the time, place, and manner of protected expression, including organized protests, may be restrained so as not to disrupt the essential activities of the Institute.”

However, the statement makes the key acknowledgment that “we cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious.” That is clearly unacceptable for many in academic. Silencing opposing views or voices has become a core principle for many professors who now refer to free speech as an ever present danger on campuses.

MIT has not always stood by free speech. As we previously discussed, the university yielded to cancel culture by barring a guest lecture to be given by University of Chicago geophysicist Dorian Abbot in 2021.

MIT also attracted criticism over abandoning standardized testing to achieve greater diversity. It later reversed that decision.

The new resolution is a victory for the “MIT Free Speech Alliance,” which has fought to defend free speech against a growing number of faculty.

University of Chicago emeritus biology Professor Jerry Coyne raised some good-faith objections on his Why Evolution Is True blog, including  the resolution “calling for ‘civility and mutual respect’, as well as ‘considering the possibility of offense and injury’. You simply cannot have free speech without offense and injury. Abbot’s invitation provoked precisely such offense and injury, with many people supporting his deplatforming.”

However, the references are part of a graph that refers to the personal responsibility of faculty to maintain civility and mutual respect. It follows an express protection for offensive speech:

We cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious. At the same time, MIT deeply values civility, mutual respect, and uninhibited, wide-open debate. In fostering such debate, we have a responsibility to express ourselves in ways that consider the prospect of offense and injury and the risk of discouraging others from expressing their own views. This responsibility complements, and does not conflict with, the right to free expression. Even robust disagreements shall not be liable to official censure or disciplinary action. This applies broadly. For example, when MIT leaders speak on matters of public interest, whether in their own voice or in the name of MIT, this should always be understood as being open to debate by the broader MIT community.”

Overall, the resolution is a powerful defense of free speech. MIT has joined a growing minority of schools resisting the anti-free speech movement discussed in my recent law review article. Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 13:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/0k52Ij6 Tyler Durden

Morgan Stanley’s Top 10 Surprises For 2023

Morgan Stanley’s Top 10 Surprises For 2023

As Morgan Stanley rates strategist Matthew Hornbach writes in his final note of the year, “a year without surprises would be a surprise itself.” And given that every year comes with some, Hornbach has laid out 10 that would make investors think differently and move global macro markets. Below, we excerpt from the note “Top 10 Surprises for 2023” (available to pro subs in the usual place), and provide some additional detail on select points.

Surprise #1: Covid-19 in China leads to global deflation fears:

  • An overloaded healthcare system in China leads to weaker growth, lower commodity prices, fears of global deflation, a weaker USD vs. EUR but stronger USD vs. EM, earlier DM rate cuts and steeper DM yield curves.

Surprise #2: The Fed doesn’t cut rates, even in a recession:

  • Even as growth moves into recession territory, inflation stays sticky and lags growth, keeping the Fed on hold through 2023 amid a recession – much like Paul Volcker’s Fed in 1982.

Surprise #3: Dysfunctional UST market forces Fed to pause/end QT:

  • Challenged liquidity continues to pose a threat to QT and could force the Fed to intervene next year.

Surprise #4: 2H23 ECB rate cuts on sharply falling house prices:

  • An acceleration in the decline in house prices, leading central banks to cut rates as soon as 2H23.

Surprise #5: Renewed gilt underperformance due to net supply:

  • Lack of a compositional change in supply leads to high net DV01 issued in FY 2023/24 and hence gilts underperform other bond markets.

Surprise #6: Nothing from the BoJ:

  • The BoJ keeps the status quo even under the new BoJ governor, given a global growth slowdown and lack of a wage-inflation spiral.

Surprise #7: The bull case for GBP:

  • A material fall in energy prices, the return of labor supply and/or a more resilient consumer could lead to a constructive UK growth (and hence GBP) outlook

Surprise #8: Citizens could cushion a Canadian condo crash:

  • A surge in immigration prevents a housing crash from lifting USD/CAD.

Surprise #9: The Fed reviews its 2% target:

  • The 2025 framework review encourages the Fed to consider altering its inflation target amid mounting political pressures.

Surprise #10: EUR and UK breakevens heading to record highs:

  • De-risking from pension schemes amidst low linker supply could send breakevens to new highs in both markets.

* * *

Below are some more details on a handful of these surprises, starting with…

Surprise #1: Covid-19 in China leads to global deflation fears

Healthcare overload leads to weaker growth in China

One of the big surprises to hit global macro markets as we approached the end 2022 was the speed with which Beijing pivoted away from Covid Zero. Many in the market expected the government would aim for a reopening in the spring of next year and use the intervening months to boost vaccinations and healthcare capacity.

Events have led to an accelerated timeline, with a winter reopening now under way. This accelerated timeline alongside more proactive policy easing from Beijing has led our China economics team to upgrade its growth forecast for 2023 to 5.4%. Investors and markets now generally expect Beijing to be determined to push on with reopening as the Covid case count surges over the coming weeks and months, even if it’s a bumpy ride. Living with Covid would be the new normal in China in 2023, just like it was for the rest of the world in 2022. This is the consensus view.

The risk to this view is that China faces waves of surging Covid cases over the coming months, testing healthcare capacity. Nobody would want to reimpose restrictions, when the decision had previously been made to open the economy.

But if healthcare systems become overloaded, then restrictions may need to be reimposed temporarily to simply manage the caseload and give authorities time to make more progress on vaccination and boost healthcare capacity more generally. Such an outcome is hardly farfetched. In the UK, for example, the discovery of the first cases of the Omicron variant was announced on November 27, 2021.

The initial phase of the UK vaccination campaign was in the rearview mirror, with 2nd doses largely complete and a significant proportion of the elderly population having received their 3rd dose too (see Exhibit 1). By this time, restrictions had started to be lifted in the UK, as is currently happening in China, though this is not yet reflected in the Oxford Stringency Index data (see Exhibit 2).

As Omicron swept through the UK, the number of patients in hospital with Covid-19 surged (see Exhibit 3). The situation was serious enough for the UK to re-impose some restrictions on November 27, 2021, as a precautionary measure, and impose other restrictions, such as a two-week circuit breaker, later in December of the same year.

As our China team has pointed out, the effect of Omicron in other economies around the world suggests there could be a sharp but short-lived impact on China’s economy, with the largest effect on demand rather than supply.

This could lead to a drop in mobility indicators (which could explain why oil prices have been trading so softly recently), with Covid cases peaking around the Lunar New Year, before infections gradually come lower and plateau by the end of Q1, in their view.

The hit to activity in the short term seems baked in at this point, given the experience from other economies that have gone through an Omicron wave. However, healthcare capacity in China has not yet been tested. A surge in hospitalizations could force a temporary reimposition of restrictions across the country, leading to weaker growth in China in 2023.

* * *

Surprise #2: The Fed doesn’t cut rates, even in a recession

No “Fed put” in 2023 – for markets, or even the economy

In this surprise scenario, the Fed delays cutting rates until 2024, even when recession begins in 2023. The Fed’s concerns about inflation stickiness trump concerns about slowing growth and weakening labor markets, and the Fed waits for evidence of a sustained inflation decline. Inflation, being a lagging indicator, declines much later than growth and payrolls do, and the Fed cuts rates a few quarters after the recession begins. 10y yields do not decline much in a recession in 2023, and the 2s10s yield curve stays inverted through 2023 – and flatter than expected.

Markets and the economy are conditioned to seeing the Fed ease at the first signs of economic distress, or with tightening financial conditions. And even with the highest, and possibly stickiest, inflation in decades, markets think inflation will cool off next year, and the Fed will be cutting rates beginning in 2H23 (see Exhibit 14), delivering about 7 cuts by the end of 2024.

The Fed has already hinted at this possibility with the latest summary of economic projections at the December FOMC meeting. With the median Fed participant projecting real GDP growth at 0.5% in 2022 and 2023, the Fed plans to maintain a terminal rate of 5.125% through the end of 2023, with core PCE inflation expected to be 3.5% by the end of 2023 in the Fed’s projections.

This disconnect – where markets are heavily priced for a recession scenario, and “Fed put” protects against it – is due to the completely different views on recent inflation prints between the markets and the Fed. As we noted in our December FOMC reaction, the Fed is more focused on service sector inflation, which largely makes up Phillips curve sensitive inflation. Meanwhile, markets are looking at overall inflation (see Exhibit 15), which has been coming down rapidly, driven by goods deflation as well as a healthcare insurance reset.
 

It would not be unprecedented for the Fed to not cut rates in a recession (NBER recession dates : July 81 – November 82). Recall that back in late 1981 to mid-1982, the Fed under Chair Paul Volcker did not cut rates even as real GDP prints were negative and payrolls were clearly declining. In fact, payrolls started falling sharply in September 1981, but the Fed did not start cutting rates meaningfully until July 1982 (see Exhibit 16), a clear departure from the previous quarters, where the Fed had been much more reactive to payrolls.

This was because Volcker decided to hold a restrictive stance until core CPI inflation itself started to cool meaningfully (see Exhibit 17) and, by definition, inflation readings lag the labor market and growth. Chair Powell has referred to this many times, most notably when he said in his Jackson Hole speech that “history cautions against loosening policy prematurely.”

With such a delay in cutting rates, the US rates market had a turbulent repricing. First, US rates markets, which were used to the Fed easing with payroll weakness, priced in easing. 1y and 10y yields fell sharply as payrolls fell, only to realize that the Fed wasn’t cutting rates into a weakening economy, but was waiting for inflation to cool. Soon, the initial easing expected by the market faded and the 10y yield rose again (see Exhibit 18), only falling sustainably when the Fed cut rates in mid 1982.

The 2s10s curve also steepened initially, but then flattened back when it became clear the Fed wasn’t cutting rates anytime soon. We think, given the sticky inflation perception the Fed has, the US rates market could be surprised by the Fed in 2023 – a similar dynamic as in 1982. Yields may not decline much and the 2s10s curve may stay inverted through 2023.

* * *

Surprise #3: Dysfunctional UST market forces Fed to pause/end QT

Challenged liquidity continues to pose a threat to QT

Most investors expect the Fed’s second attempt at QT to come to an end due to reserve scarcity or policy rate cuts. However, a challenged liquidity environment makes market functioning another obstacle to QT that deserves attention from investors.

We see the two main drivers of lower liquidity (elevated volatility and intermediation constraints) lingering into next year, creating the possibility that the Fed would have to intervene and pause/end QT to restore market functioning in the event of a rush to liquidity.

Such an event should result in a rapid cheapening of UST yields relative to swaps, leading to lower swap spreads. Ideally, the best way to position for this is to short swap spreads (short UST, receiver swap), but knowing exactly when this will materialize, if at all, is very difficult. A more attractive proposition could be to go long swap spreads (long UST, payer swap), if evidence of liquidity strains materializes (rapid 10-20bp move in swap spreads), in the expectation that the Fed would intervene and restore market functioning.

The November NY Fed primary dealer survey shows that the market generally expects the Fed to stop reducing its balance sheet in 3Q24 (based on the median response). This is in broadly in line with our expectation that QT will end in mid-2024 as the Fed starts to see evidence of reserve scarcity in funding markets. Alternatively, some investors see policy rate cuts as another strong candidate to bring an end to QT (the market expects the first full 25bp cut by the November 2023 FOMC meeting).

However, as we observe in QT: A Marathon with Multiple Obstacles, challenged liquidity continues to leave the UST market vulnerable, making market functioning another obstacle to QT that deserves attention from investors. Next year, a rush-to-liquidity event (e.g., a surge in demand to sell US Treasuries for USD) could force the Fed’s hand in having to act as the buyer of last resort, leading to a premature pause/end to QT.

As we have highlighted recently (see UST Liquidity: Cloudy Skies), the US Treasury market has experienced deteriorated liquidity conditions this year given:

  1. Elevated levels of both implied and realized volatility; and
  2. Structural market issues such as limited primary dealer intermediation capacity

First, the rapid move higher in rates as the Fed hikes and unwinds its balance sheet to bring down inflation has led to one-sided markets (many sellers versus few buyers) and greater unwillingness from dealers to warehouse interest rate risk. Intuitively, periods of high implied volatility tend to result in worsening liquidity conditions (see Exhibit 20).

Moving forward, a positive is that further clarity around the future path of hikes combined with a Fed that eventually pauses would help to reduce implied volatility next year and, consequently, help to improve liquidity. For now, as shown in Exhibit 21, implied volatility remains relatively elevated, albeit there has been a recent move lower, as a fair degree of uncertainty remains around the future path for inflation, growth, and interest rates.

This week’s FOMC meeting (see FOMC Reaction: An Inconsistent Message) suggests that the path to lower implied volatility could be bumpy over the coming months, particularly as markets balance recent weak inflation data with an FOMC that needs “substantially more evidence to give confidence that inflation is on a sustained downward path.”

In particular, intermediation capacity continues to be limited (see Exhibit 22) as primary dealers have not kept up with the exponential growth of outstanding UST debt given regulatory capital constraints post-GFC (the most relevant being the supplementary leverage ratio). Although we expect to see further progress from regulators in 2023, final changes besides increased data transparency will likely take some time to implement.

Consequently, it is no surprise that deteriorating UST liquidity due to the two factors just mentioned has led to elevated moves in rates relative to past years. As shown in Exhibit 23, the absolute day-over-day changes in the 10-year UST yield have, on average, been elevated this year relative to the 5-year average.

Given that both of the conditions that led to a deterioration in liquidity in 2022 could still linger into next year, the UST market remains vulnerable to an unexpected liquidity event.

If an outsized demand to sell US Treasuries materializes next year, we expect US Treasuries to underperform swaps significantly (i.e., the yield on USTs increases at a faster pace relative to swaps). As shown in Exhibit 24, this occurred during March 2020’s “dash for cash” and led the Fed to intervene to restore market stability. This presents opportunities for investors in swap spreads if such conditions repeat themselves.

Although not our base case, a sharp slowdown in growth and an unexpected increase in global political and financial risks could put US Treasury market functioning to the test. Ideally, the best way to position for this is to short swap spreads (short UST, receiver swap), but knowing exactly when this will materialize, if at all, is very difficult.

* * *

Much more, including details on the remaining 7 surprises, in the full note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/qVieYMh Tyler Durden

Former Chinese Central Banker Admits Results Of Digital Yuan Experiment “Not Ideal”

Former Chinese Central Banker Admits Results Of Digital Yuan Experiment “Not Ideal”

Authored by Jesse Coghlan via CoinTelegraph.com,

A former official of the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), the country’s central bank, has expressed disappointment that China’s digital yuan is seeing little use.

Xie Ping, a former PBOC research director and current finance professor at Tsinghua University, made critical public comments about China’s central bank digital currency (CBDC) at a recent university conference, according to a Dec. 28 Caixin report.

Xie noted that cumulative digital yuan transactions had only crossed $14 billion (100 billion yuan) in October, two years after launch.

“The results are not ideal,” he said, adding that “usage has been low, highly inactive.”

Despite the government’s rapid expansion of the trials and new wallet features to try to attract users, a January PBOC report stated that only 261 million users had set up an e-CNY wallet.

This compares to around 903.6 million people that utilize mobile payments in China, according to a 2021 China UnionPay report.

The former central banker said the use case of e-CNY “needs to be changed” from its current use as a cash substitute and opened to other uses such as the ability to pay for financial products or connected to more payment platforms to boost adoption.

He compared the digital yuan to other third-party payment systems in the country such as WeChat Pay, Alipay, and QQ Wallet, which allow for investments, lending or loans.

He said they “have formed a payment market structure that has met needs for daily consumption.”

Some third-party financial apps are e-CNY compatible but see little use, as Xie said “people are used to” using the original service and change “is difficult.”

Such criticism of Chinese government initiatives is rare from former officials and signals the country may be seriously struggling to gain traction on its CBDC initiative.

The government has rapidly expanded e-CNY trails most recently in December to four new cities. It was previously expanded in September to Guangdong province, its most populous, and three others.

New features were added to the e-CNY wallet app in a bid to attract users in time for Chinese New Year that added functionality to send digital versions of traditional red packets or red envelopes (hongbao) containing money — a popular custom during festivities.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/HhT4yxl Tyler Durden

Major US Anti-Tank Systems Deal Underscores Taiwan Fortifying Itself Against Future Invasion

Major US Anti-Tank Systems Deal Underscores Taiwan Fortifying Itself Against Future Invasion

This week the State Department announced that it has approved the new potential sale of $180 million more in arms for Taiwan, chiefly consisting of anti-tank systems, which the begins the process of Congressional approval next. 

Taiwan’s defense ministry said the Volcano system will boost the island’s “asymmetric warfare” capabilities and the sale should take about a month. Crucially the announcement came mid-week, just after on Monday China sent a record number of 71 aircraft to buzz the self-ruled island, which included more than half of these jets breaching the Taiwan Strait median line.

Chinese PLA drill simulating beach assault, Xinhua photo

“The Chinese Communist Party’s frequent military activities near Taiwan have posted severe military threats to us,” Taiwan’s defense ministry said, stressing that ongoing US military sales are the “cornerstone of maintaining regional stability and peace.”

Northrop Grumman, as well as Oshkosh Corporation, are named as the principal contractors for vehicle-launched Volcano anti-tank munition-laying systems and related equipment.

The Volcano system disperses multiple anti-tank mines when mine canisters are ejected over a large area. The Volcano is part of efforts to shore up the Taiwan military’s ability to protect its coastline from possible Chinese amphibious landing and invasion.

President Tsai Ing-wen this week vowed to bolster the island’s civil defense systems following the recent repeat Chinese PLA incursions of the island’s Air Defense Identification Zone. “The more preparations we make, the less likely there will be rash attempts of aggression. The more united we are, the stronger and safer Taiwan would become,” Tsai ​said.​​

President Biden recently outraged Beijing by signing the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which approves an unprecedented $10 billion in loans for Taiwan to buy US-made arms.

US Army clip showing the Volcano mine-laying system in action…

In response to the new Taiwan funding in the NDAA, China has vowed to keep up the military pressure through drills near the island, which has also of late included naval warships in some instances breaching the Taiwan Strait median line. Beijing officials cited the “the escalating collusion and provocation by the United States and Taiwan.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 12:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/lyDIerf Tyler Durden

House Sergeant-At-Arms Claims J6 Response Would Have Been “Vastly Different” If Rioters Were Black

House Sergeant-At-Arms Claims J6 Response Would Have Been “Vastly Different” If Rioters Were Black

Authored by Chris Menahan via Information Liberation,

The Capitol police would have carried out a bloodbath if the mostly white Jan 6 protesters were black, according to House sergeant at arms William Walker.

From NBC News, “Jan. 6 response would have been ‘vastly different’ if rioters were Black, House sergeant at arms told investigators”:

The House sergeant at arms, who was the head of the D.C. National Guard during the attack on the Capitol, told the Jan. 6 committee that the law enforcement response would have looked much different had the rioters been Black Americans.

“I’m African American. Child of the sixties. I think it would have been a vastly different response if those were African Americans trying to breach the Capitol,” William J. Walker told congressional investigators, in an interview transcript released Tuesday.

“As a career law enforcement officer, part-time soldier, last five years full but, but a law enforcement officer my entire career, the law enforcement response would have been different.”

His testimony echoed the observations of many Americans, including President Joe Biden, who noted the stark difference in the law enforcement response to protests in Washington following the May 2020 murder of George Floyd and the lax security at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

I agree it would have been vastly different. 

The feds would have taken a knee.

Corporate American would have donated $1.7 billion to their cause and Kamala Harris would have touted their bail fund.

NBC News continues:

William J. Walker, the head of the D.C. National Guard during the insurrection, also indicated he thought more people in the crowd would have died if the mob had been largely Black instead of overwhelmingly white.

“You know, as a law enforcement officer, there were — I saw enough to where I would have probably been using deadly force,” he said.

“I think it would have been more bloodshed if the composition would have been different.”

Five people died on Jan 6 (1 overdose, 3 natural causes, and 1 homicide)

Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed, white veteran of the Air Force, was shot in the neck by the cowardly Capitol police officer Lt. Michael Byrd, who was black.

There wouldn’t have been any bloodshed on January 6th if Byrd didn’t execute Babbitt. 

No other cops felt it necessary to shoot any of the other unarmed Trump supporters who arrived that day (evidence suggests other Trump supporters may have died as a result of heart attacks induced by police flashbanging the elderly crowds).

Meanwhile, there’s video showing a black police officer welcoming the peaceful J6 protesters into the Capitol building while telling them he disagrees with their protest but “respects” their right to do so.

Another black cop felt comfortable putting a MAGA hat on. 

The reason so few protesters were killed by police is because they were by and large entirely peaceful and respectful of the Capitol.

Their genuinely mostly peaceful protest stands in stark contrast to the BLM riots which killed dozens and caused an estimated $2 billion in damages.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 12/30/2022 – 12:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/wLMGEA4 Tyler Durden