PMC Weekly Review - August 26, 2019

Can Fed stimulus compensate for trade war damage?

The Treasury’s yield curve inversion headlines, and the bad omen it signals about the state of the economy, dominated the news cycle last week. On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, the yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury Note dropped below the 2-year yield. The scrutinized bond-market spread, when inverted, is seen by many market participants as an important recession signal, though the timing of the eventual downturn is less predictable. The last five yield curve inversions eventually have led to recessions. Some economists have argued that the current low yields and recent yield curve inversions in the US have more to do with the suppressed and negative yields in other parts of the world than with the conditions of the US economy.

Recession fears have indeed grown in recent weeks, fueled by slowing global growth, intensifying trade tensions between the US and China, and mixed economic data in the US. In the last few weeks, US corporate profits were revised down by $200 billion, as were employment numbers, which were revised lower by 500,000 jobs between March 2018 and 2019. The Markit Flash Manufacturing PMI Index dropped to 49.9 this month, falling below 50 for the first time in about 10 years. Consumer and small-business optimism have fallen as well, and two out of five economists surveyed by the National Association of Business Economists now expect the economy to slip into a recession this year or next.

Acknowledging the rising fears of a slowdown, President Trump’s rhetoric shifted notably from a position of “no recession” over the previous two weeks to the “possibility of a recession” warranted in order to fight China. Early in the week the President confirmed that to stimulate the slowing economy, he was considering “various tax reductions,” including a payroll tax cut and indexing capital gains taxes to inflation, although he later retracted from this position. Some analysts believe that the warning of a possible recession could be a sign that the President is preparing the US for a long trade fight with China.

Could indexing capital gains taxes to inflation and reducing the payroll tax help to shield the US economy from the current global slowdown and trade war threats? Economists’ opinions are split on both issues. According to some, indexing capital gains taxes would do very little to actually spur economic growth. Because a capital gain is the profit from the sale of securities or real estate, it is generally the very wealthiest of taxpayers who derive the bulk of their income from capital gains profits on investments. Indexing capital gains to inflation, therefore, would favor higher-income individuals, as the largest increase would benefit only the top 1% of taxpayers, and by just 0.83%, according to the calculations performed by the Tax Foundation. Proponents of indexing capital gains argue that the proposal would unlock trillions of dollars in capital if it were implemented. Analysts at Strategas estimate that doing so would be the equivalent of a 45% tax rate reduction, and that small companies would benefit most from these cuts.

Similarly, the supporters of a payroll tax cut maintain that it could help offset the impact of the tariffs that are set to go into effect in September and again in December. They believe that a payroll tax cut is good for growth and would help in the face of the slower global growth patch. Millions of Americans pay a payroll tax of 6.20% on their earnings, a levy that is used to finance Social Security programs. The payroll tax was last cut in 2011 and 2012, to 4.20%, in the Obama Administration, as a way to encourage more consumer spending during the Great Recession. But the cut was allowed to reset back to 6.20% in 2013. According to some economists, the 2011 payroll tax cut had little impact on growth and consumption, and they expect a payroll tax cut would have little effect on business confidence this time around. Business confidence has slumped since the tariffs were imposed beginning in mid-2018, and capital expenditures have dropped as a result. Interestingly, a simulation by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center shows that a 2% cut in payroll tax would benefit 121 million workers; however, nearly three-quarters of them would be high earners in the top fourth and fifth quintiles. To conclude, the cost of such a measure would be enormous for the government coffers, at a time when the annual budget deficit is expected to approach $1 trillion soon.

It seems for now that the Trump Administration has placed the additional tax cuts on the back burner and is handing the torch to the Federal Reserve (the Fed) to enact more monetary stimulus. However, by not giving a clear sign that the rate cut is coming during his address at the Jackson Hole meeting last Friday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell disappointed the current Administration’s officials who were hoping for a more aggressive Fed stance. As Fed Chair Powell confirmed, monetary policy may not be enough to counteract President Trump’s trade policies, which are fueling uncertainties and posing risks to the US economy. Whether this fact will make the current Administration reconsider its war on China remains to be seen. As of last Friday, the odds looked really low.


Sonila Gjata

Senior Portfolio Manager

The information, analysis, and opinions expressed herein are for general and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this weekly review is intended to constitute legal, tax, accounting, securities, or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment, nor a solicitation of any type. All investments carry a certain risk, and there is no assurance that an investment will provide positive performance over any period of time. An investor may experience loss of principal. Investment decisions should always be made based on the investor’s specific financial needs and objectives, goals, time horizon, and risk tolerance. The asset classes and/or investment strategies described may not be suitable for all investors and investors should consult with an investment advisor to determine the appropriate investment strategy. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Information obtained from third party sources are believed to be reliable but not guaranteed. Envestnet|PMC™ makes no representation regarding the accuracy or completeness of information provided herein. All opinions and views constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. Investments in smaller companies carry greater risk than is customarily associated with larger companies for various reasons such as volatility of earnings and prospects, higher failure rates, and limited markets, product lines or financial resources. Investing overseas involves special risks, including the volatility of currency exchange rates and, in some cases, limited geographic focus, political and economic instability, and relatively illiquid markets. Income (bond) securities are subject to interest rate risk, which is the risk that debt securities in a portfolio will decline in value because of increases in market interest rates. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are subject to risks similar to those of stocks, such as market risk. Investing in ETFs may bear indirect fees and expenses charged by ETFs in addition to its direct fees and expenses, as well as indirectly bearing the principal risks of those ETFs. ETFs may trade at a discount to their net asset value and are subject to the market fluctuations of their underlying investments. Investing in commodities can be volatile and can suffer from periods of prolonged decline in value and may not be suitable for all investors. Index Performance is presented for illustrative purposes only and does not represent the performance of any specific investment product or portfolio. An investment cannot be made directly into an index. Alternative Investments may have complex terms and features that are not easily understood and are not suitable for all investors. You should conduct your own due diligence to ensure you understand the features of the product before investing. Alternative investment strategies may employ a variety of hedging techniques and non-traditional instruments such as inverse and leveraged products. Certain hedging techniques include matched combinations that neutralize or offset individual risks such as merger arbitrage, long/short equity, convertible bond arbitrage and fixed-income arbitrage. Leveraged products are those that employ financial derivatives and debt to try to achieve a multiple (for example two or three times) of the return or inverse return of a stated index or benchmark over the course of a single day. Inverse products utilize short selling, derivatives trading, and other leveraged investment techniques, such as futures trading to achieve their objectives, mainly to track the inverse of their benchmarks. As with all investments, there is no assurance that any investment strategies will achieve their objectives or protect against losses. Neither Envestnet, Envestnet|PMC™ nor its representatives render tax, accounting or legal advice. Any tax statements contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding U.S. federal, state, or local tax penalties. Taxpayers should always seek advice based on their own particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor. © 2019 Envestnet. All rights reserved.