A Macro View: Can Congress Fight The Fed?
The joint US House-Senate Conference Committee has agreed to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a framework to overhaul the US tax code significantly, after the bill was passed in different forms in each Chamber. Among a number of changes to the tax code affecting individuals, the joint tax bill reduces the top individual tax rate to 37% from its current 39.6% and temporarily doubles the standard deduction. Corporate taxes are cut as well, reducing the top rate from 35% to 21%, as well as cutting rates on so-called pass-through entities, such as S-corps and partnerships, to about 30%1. Most estimates predict the tax bill will add at least $1 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.
In economic terms, the tax bill amounts to a sizable fiscal stimulus whereby a government either increases spending or decreases taxes to spur economic activity. It is noteworthy that we are in the midst of the third-longest economic expansion in US history. In addition, the unemployment rate is now 4.1%, a 17-year low. Granted, the current expansion has been marked by sluggish gross domestic product (GDP) growth, averaging an annual increase of merely 2.1%. Wage growth also has been relatively muted, and core inflation remains below the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) 2% target. Considering the overall health of the US economy, it is reasonable to ask if the timing is right for fiscal stimulus.
The same sentiment was broached in a recent interview by influential New York Federal Reserve President, William Dudley. His assessment centered on the fact that the US unemployment rate is near the rate at which the Fed believes inflation would accelerate. Mr. Dudley was referring to the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU), which is the specific level of unemployment that is not expected to increase the rate of inflation. The NAIRU derives from the theory that every economy has a natural rate of unemployment at which the inflation rate will neither increase nor decrease. Although this specific unemployment level is the matter of some debate, the Fed estimates it to be around 4.6%2, well above our present 4.1%.
Assuming the tax bill succeeds in spurring economic growth and expanding payrolls, what are its implications for the Fed’s rate normalization program now underway? This week, the Fed raised its benchmark rate for the third time this year, to 1.25%–1.50%, in response to an improving economic backdrop. In addition, the Fed provided guidance for three 0.25% rate increases for 2018. The Fed also implied it is prepared to raise rates at a faster pace should unemployment drop further and/or inflation tick up beyond these projected targets, potentially muting some or all of the tax bill’s intended effects of spurring the economy. The Fed has incorporated the tax bill into its projections and left the economy’s long term growth rate unchanged at 1.8%, indicating it does not believe the tax reductions will materially affect GDP growth over the long run. In her press conference announcing the rate hike, Fed Chair Janet Yellen indicated she disagrees with President Trump as to whether the tax cuts will pay for themselves, iterating further that the US’s significant government debt problem relative to GDP will be exacerbated by the tax bill.
As of today, it appears likely that the tax bill will land on the President’s desk before Christmas and be signed into law before the New Year, with the hope of stimulating economic growth in 2018 and beyond. Should the tax bill create a significant economic expansion that spurs inflation, we can reasonably assume the Fed will impose even greater monetary tightening than currently planned, thereby muting the intended effect of the tax bill. Given its unclear outcome, it is rational to question whether the tax bill is worth the cost, given our already problematic deficit issues.
Download the full PDF
1 Washington Post
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.
© 2017 Envestnet. All rights reserved.