Connect with us

Business

The trouble with pinning down the neutral rate

Published

on

Stay informed with free updates

© FT montage/Dreamstime

This article is an on-site version of our Unhedged newsletter. Premium subscribers can sign up here to get the newsletter delivered every weekday. Standard subscribers can upgrade to Premium here, or explore all FT newsletters

Good Morning. US dock workers started to strike on Monday. If no deal is reached in the coming weeks, a quarter of US trade could grind to a halt, and inflation could start to rear its ugly head again. How will the Federal Reserve and the market respond to a new supply shock, just as it looked like the previous one was in the rear-view mirror? Rob is out for the rest of the week, so you are in my hands today. You know what they say: when the boss is away, the underling will . . . deliver timely market and economic insights. Email me: aiden.reiter@ft.com.

The neutral rate

Over the course of this interest rate cycle, there has been a lot of discourse about the neutral rate, often called r*, or the long-run interest rate consistent with low inflation and full employment. Though it seems a bit abstract, the neutral rate matters for the markets and investors. It will help determine the rate at which investors and companies can access capital in the long-run, and where money will flow as a result. And if the Fed overshoots r* as it brings down interest rates in the coming months, inflation will stage a comeback.

Advertisement

Unhedged recently observed the Fed has been raising its consensus estimate for r*:

Line chart of Longer run federal funds rate projected policy rate showing soar*ing

But that graph hides a lot of disagreement. The dot plots in the Fed’s most recent summary of economic projections showed the Fed’s governors are split on this number. Estimates of r* ranged from 2.3 per cent to 3.75 per cent, and few estimates got more than one vote. Compare that to June and March’s more united estimates, and it seems that the central bank is getting less certain about the long-run neutral rate. Add to this that the Laubach-Williams estimate, or the New York Fed’s r* estimate based on GDP and market data, is decreasing over the same time period, and it makes for a complicated picture:

Line chart of New York Fed's Laubach-Williams estimate of r* showing Going in the other direction

This is not surprising. As we suggested two weeks ago, r* is very difficult to measure, and is often found by the Fed blowing past it, rather than cautiously tiptoeing towards it. This is because, at its core, r* is the relationship between the level of investment and savings across an entire economy: if savings are too high among companies, households, a government, or even foreign governments, r* needs to come down to incentivise investment and growth, and visa versa. It is therefore impacted by almost every element of an economy, from population size, to productivity, down to consumer confidence, and it is incredibly hard to tell which impacts will be the deepest.

It seems most economists agree with the Fed that r* in the US is going to be higher in the long run. To sum up a few of the arguments:

  • Recent experience: Despite high rates over the past two years, the US economy has remained hot. This suggests to some that underlying investment and savings patterns have shifted and raised r*.

  • New technologies: We are still in an investment blitz for artificial intelligence and green technology. Major private and government investment in these areas over the coming years will require higher rates to stop the economy from overheating.

  • Deglobalisation: In a famous 2005 speech, then soon-to-be chair of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke observed that the growing US current account deficit was evidence of a “global savings glut”, in which emerging economies with high savings rates were buying US Treasuries and assets — for lack of better investment opportunities in their economies or elsewhere. This flowed through to more available credit and higher savings in the US economy, meaning the neutral rate remained low despite high short-term rates, pumped up asset prices, and low Treasury yields (referred to by Alan Greenspan, Bernanke’s predecessor at the Fed, as “the conundrum”).

    But we are now in a period of deglobalisation and waning global growth. Global slowdowns and increasing tensions between the US and China will stymie flows into US assets, and US savings will not be as robust as a result. As evidence, foreign holdings of US Treasuries have decreased as a percentage of US GDP in the past few years.

    The US economy has also been reliant on cheap goods and services from China and emerging markets. If the US becomes more protectionist going forward — potentially through Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs, a crackdown on Chinese overcapacity, or a war in Taiwan — prices could go up, and the neutral rate would have to be higher.

    Advertisement
Line chart of Foreign holdings of US Treasuries relative to US GDP (%) showing No more glut

The market seems to have bought into this argument, too. Long-term Treasury yields, which are a reflection of long-term inflationary expectations, have trended up since the pandemic:

Line chart of Yield on 30-year US Treasuries (%) showing The market has bought in

But all of these arguments have potential faults. To address them one by one:

  • Recent experience: This cycle has been weird. Government stimulus and pent-up savings from a once-in-a-century pandemic collided with supply shocks from an unexpected land war in Europe. To extend our “one month is just one month” phrase, “one cycle is just one cycle”.

  • New technologies: The long-term outcome to the AI investment craze would theoretically be higher productivity, which could translate to higher savings, if more productive companies are able to harvest higher earnings and then pass those on to their employees and investors. And investment could be lower in the long-run if AI raises the marginal productivity gains from investment, meaning that businesses will need to invest less to earn more.

  • Deglobalisation: While the global savings glut might be waning, the US economy and market have still outperformed their developed and emerging counterparts. The market remains liquid, US asset prices continue to rise beyond expectations, and there is still outsized global demand for US Treasuries and equities. In other words, capital is still straining to get to the US.

    We also don’t fully know the direction of travel of the US-China relationship. If Beijing is able to release cheaper green technologies and electric vehicles without clashing with western nations, or if tariffs are implemented that equalise the prices of these technologies, rather than penalising Chinese goods, we could keep the inflationary outlook anchored.

In a blog post last week, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Ricardo Caballero made another interesting point. He observed that sovereign indebtedness has increased around the world, and that trend is likely to reverse in the US and other countries as governments face pushback on ballooning deficits, either from voters or the market. If governments have to claw back their spending and stimulus, they may need to lower rates in the longer-term to stoke domestic demand.

Demographics are also a confusing piece of the puzzle. Generally, the economic logic — promoted by economists such as Charles Goodhart — is that as a population gets older, r* will go up for two reasons. First, young labour will be in shorter supply, so wage competition will drive up inflation. And second, a higher proportion of the population will be spending down their nest eggs and pensions, resulting in investment outpacing savings.

But to some economists, that argument is for an “aged” population, or one that has reached a critical mass of elderly people relative to young workers. Leading up to that point, populations are “ageing,” which drives r* lower. As more people gear up for retirement, savings rates go up, especially as people fret over waning pensions. And before the demographics shift too heavily towards older people, many of the elderly may choose not to spend down their savings, and instead pass them down to their children. Japan is a useful example here: it had negative rates for eight years, but just this past year it raised rates, in part because competition for wages led to inflationary pressures.

Advertisement

It’s hard to say where the US is on the “ageing” to “aged” spectrum, making it difficult to draw conclusions about r*. A recent influx of immigration appears to have helped the broader demographic outlook. But, earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office reduced its fertility estimates, suggesting the US will transition to “aged” sooner rather than later — if it is not already there.

r* may indeed be higher, as the central bank and the market have suggested. But our point here is there is not a consensus among the Fed or economists, and a lot of counterarguments to take into consideration. Bernanke would often refer to the Fed’s efforts as “learning as we go”; After this strange cycle, and with complex political, demographic, and technological shifts on the horizon, the Fed and investors should keep that learning mindset.

One Good Read

Just a great celebrity profile.

FT Unhedged podcast

Can’t get enough of Unhedged? Listen to our new podcast, for a 15-minute dive into the latest markets news and financial headlines, twice a week. Catch up on past editions of the newsletter here.

Recommended newsletters for you

Due Diligence — Top stories from the world of corporate finance. Sign up here

Advertisement

Chris Giles on Central Banks — Vital news and views on what central banks are thinking, inflation, interest rates and money. Sign up here

Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Business

Russia takes strategically important town of Vuhledar in eastern Ukraine

Published

on

Stay informed with free updates

Russian forces have raised their flag over the strategically important town of Vuhledar in eastern Ukraine, paving the way for further advances as Kyiv’s struggle to increase their manpower and secure long-term western support.

The capture of Vuhledar, confirmed by both sides, comes at a critical point in the Ukrainian defence against Russia’s full-scale invasion that started in 2022 — as further western assistance to Kyiv will hinge on the result of the US presidential elections next month.

Advertisement

Drone footage published by Russian forces late on Tuesday showed soldiers hoisting the Russian flag above bombed out buildings in the shattered town used by Ukrainian forces as a vantage point to attack Russian supply lines further south. 

A commander for Ukraine’s 72nd brigade, Stanislav Buniatov, said some of its forces had withdrawn so as not to be encircled, adding “the situation remains tense, not without losses”.

At least 107 residents remain in the town, according to the Donetsk region governor, Vadym Filashkin.

But Russian military bloggers expressed doubt that Russian forces would be able to quickly advance from Vuhledar given that cities further north are better fortified, including the logistical hub of Pokrovsk which, if captured, would sever supply lines for Ukrainian troops in the area.

Advertisement

Still, the capture of Vuhledar highlights the cost of the war for Russia, with thousands of troops killed and hundreds of tanks and armoured vehicles destroyed in exchange for small territorial gains.

Under increased pressure to find a way to end the war, Ukraine’s leadership fears a return to the White House of Republican candidate Donald Trump may force the country into a bad deal.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy toured the US last week to seek security guarantees and further advanced weaponry, including the use of long-range missiles to strike targets in Russia before President Joe Biden leaves office. But other than some additional financial aid, Zelenskyy returned with less than he hoped for.

Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of men in eastern Ukraine, according to western intelligence, largely due to the so-called “meatgrinder” tactic it employs for relatively small territorial gains, sending “human waves” towards Ukrainian front lines with little regard for their lives.

Advertisement

But the tactic has worked, with Russian forces making steady progress this summer and capturing small settlements on almost a daily basis.

Russian President Vladimir Putin last month announced the increase of his armed forces by another 180,000 men. He has been reluctant to conscript people into the army, following a mass exodus in 2022 when he signed such an order, and instead has been using financial incentives to attract more soldiers.

In Ukraine, new recruits are mainly conscripted as the bulk of motivated men are already serving and the country cannot afford to offer sign-up bonuses. Desertions have increased as a result, with many battle-hardened commanders deploring the lack of training and motivation of soldiers sent to replace the ones who have been fighting for years.

For captured troops, the fate is even grimmer.

Advertisement

Just south of Pokrovsk drone footage published on Russian social media channels shows Russian forces executing 16 captured Ukrainian soldiers.

In the birdseye view drone video, reportedly taken between the villages of Mykolaivka and Sukhyi Yar, 16 men are lined up and then executed.

Ukraine’s prosecutor-general’s office said it was investigating the incident, which it described as the largest of its kind. The Financial Times could not independently verify the footage.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Money

Nuveen boosts transactions team with two senior appointments

Published

on

Nuveen boosts transactions team with two senior appointments

The duo will oversee Nuveen’s European series of value-add investment vehicles.

 

The post Nuveen boosts transactions team with two senior appointments appeared first on Property Week.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

how UniCredit built its Commerzbank stake

Published

on

Andrea Orcel stunned Germany last week by raising UniCredit’s stake in Commerzbank from 9 per cent to 21 per cent in a manoeuvre that mirrored tactics made notorious in hostile takeover battles more than a decade ago.

When carmaker Porsche and automotive supplier Schaeffler Group came for German blue-chips Volkswagen and Continental in 2008, they built their stakes by stealth. Back then, there was no legal obligation to disclose positions built through derivative instruments that guaranteed access to shares only at a later point in time.

The loophole in EU disclosure rules has since been closed, making large-scale secret stakebuilding impossible.

For Orcel, a former M&A banker and now chief executive of UniCredit, the stricter disclosure rules for financial derivatives presented a different opportunity: UniCredit has been able to disclose a 21 per cent stake in Commerzbank while complying with rules that, for now, block it from owning more than 10 per cent.

Advertisement

“Think what you may but this is just beautifully done,” said one Frankfurt-based banker.

At the core of the trade is an arbitrage between two rule books.

Eurozone laws governing bank ownership and control mean no one can buy more than 10 per cent of a lender without first getting the green light from the European Central Bank.

Approval may be a formality for an EU-based bank such as UniCredit, which had already said it would seek ECB consent after acquiring its first 9 per cent stake. But the process can take months, which allows rivals to build their own positions, hedge funds to snap up shares and a target to buttress its defence.

Advertisement

However, ECB acceptance is only required for UniCredit to take control of voting rights attached to Commerzbank shares. The rules neither stop the Italian bank from gaining economic exposure to the target’s stock beforehand nor ban the signing of contracts now to receive the shares after central bank approval.

Disclosure rules for share ownership in the securities laws enacted after the Porsche and Schaeffler tussles have a different focus: they require an investor to reveal the position when it owns — directly or indirectly through derivatives — an economic interest in 5 per cent of the shares or when they hit higher thresholds, one of which is 20 per cent.

This discrepancy allowed Orcel to reveal a huge jump in UniCredit’s stake in Commerzbank, taking it from a minority investor to leapfrogging the German government as the single biggest shareholder. Its position is also big enough to make it difficult for potential competitors to make a counter-offer for the German bank, should it decide to pursue a takeover.

At the core of the transaction are contracts UniCredit entered with Barclays and Bank of America, according to voting rights disclosures and bankers familiar with the deals.

Advertisement

Both investment banks struck so-called total return swap agreements with UniCredit, in effect committing to replicate the economic performance of Commerzbank’s stock. If the German lender’s shares go up, or the bank pays its dividend, the counterparties will pay the change in value to UniCredit. If the stock goes down, UniCredit must cover the difference.

Barclays and BofA also committed to physically deliver the Commerzbank shares to UniCredit later, should the Italian lender still want them. While the banks have bought a few Commerzbank shares directly, they hedged their trade mostly through put and call options, according to disclosures.

Four people familiar with the deal say the two investment banks will each make €12mn in fees and other income on the trade, which has a notional value of €2.3bn. The income each bank stands to receive could rise to €40mn-€50mn if the contracts are extended beyond 2026 or otherwise modified, they said.

People familiar with UniCredit’s thinking said the fees were “far lower”, without elaborating.

Advertisement

“In itself, a total return swap is not a very complex transaction and relatively simple from a technical point of view,” said former senior Deutsche Bank derivatives trader Pius Sprenger.

But “applying it on such a large scale as in the Commerzbank case required a lot of determination”, said Thomas Schweppe, a former Goldman Sachs M&A banker and founder of Frankfurt-based investor advisory boutique 7Square.

And last week’s 11.5 per cent total return swap was far from the first step in Orcel’s pursuit of Commerzbank.

Preparations to acquire the German bank started back in 2023 when the Italian lender silently built a direct stake of just under 3 per cent, said two people with direct knowledge of the matter, hovering below the first disclosure threshold for direct holdings.

Advertisement

In August 2024, when rumours started to circulate that the German government may soon start selling down its 16.5 per cent stake, UniCredit acquired another 1.7 per cent through a much smaller total return swap, still sitting below the 5 per cent threshold for combined direct and indirect positions.

Then on the night of September 10, the Italian bank bought another 4.5 per cent from the German government when it outbid financial investors in a block trade, clearing the 5 per cent disclosure threshold for the first time and subsequently revealing its 9 per cent position. By September 23, it had converted the initial, smaller total return swap into shares.

On the same day, UniCredit entered two much larger total return swaps, relating to stakes of 5 per cent and 6.53 per cent, that will expire in 2026. A two-year exercise period — much longer than the expected six to 12 months timeframe for obtaining regulatory clearance — shows the Italian bank is “patient”, said one insider.

UniCredit negotiated the derivatives without external advisers, relying on in-house expertise, said people with knowledge of the situation.

Advertisement

UniCredit’s equity and credit sales and trading team is headed by derivatives specialist Salvatore “Chicco” Di Stasi, who joined from UBS last year and previously worked at Goldman Sachs.

“He has something that you don’t [often] find in a large commercial bank, nor in UniCredit . . . He is very, very creative as far as structuring is concerned,” one former colleague said.

Total return swaps can come with risks. During the 2008 financial crisis, large drops in VW and Continental shares left Porsche and Schaeffler Group exposed to huge losses when their derivative stakes lost billions of euros in value.

Orcel has eliminated that risk with another layer of financial engineering, said people familiar with the transaction. He is using a so-called collar to hedge the Commerzbank position against share price declines, while also waiving large parts of the upside.

Advertisement

The structure — consisting of opposing call and put options — in effect locks in last week’s Commerzbank share price.

The careful stakebuilding served to underscore Orcel’s seriousness about gaining control of Commerzbank despite political opposition.

Revealed days after the German government announced it was pausing sales of its remaining stake in Commerzbank in the wake of UniCredit’s initial stakebuilding, one insider said Orcel had used the trade to ask: “Can you hear me now?”

Another banker familiar with the deal said Orcel used the derivatives to “walk the talk”, with the position underpinning his verbal interest in Commerzbank.

Advertisement

Hedging the downside to the Commerzbank trade backs Orcel’s claim he could walk away from his pursuit of the German group, the banker said.

While such an announcement could lead to a steep fall in Commerzbank’s share price, UniCredit’s losses would be limited. Similarly, if a future deal with the German bank did go through, Orcel could take full possession of the underlying 11.5 per cent stake at its mid-September price without having to pay a meaningful takeover premium.

UniCredit’s trades have also made it far harder for potential rivals such as Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas or ING to build a similar derivatives position in Commerzbank.

Advertisement

While Commerzbank is a highly liquid stock, close to a third of the total market capitalisation is tied up: 12 per cent is owned by the government, and 21 per cent is controlled by UniCredit.

As one German banker said: “For everyone else, mustering a counter bid has become quite a lot harder.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Money

Labour wants growth but ‘you need investment’: Parmenion CIO

Published

on

Labour wants growth but 'you need investment’: Parmenion CIO

Following Labour’s general election victory in July 2024, the party has been clear it wishes to kickstart economic growth, but to do that it “needs to encourage more investment”.

This is what Parmenion chief investment officer Peter Dalgliesh told Money Marketing while discussing the upcoming Budget on 30 October.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves background as a supply side economist “means she is always focused on investment”, Dalgliesh said.

Reeves used to be an economist at the Bank of England, where she worked on the central bank’s Japan desk. She also worked for HBOS, a UK banking and insurance company owned by Lloyds Banking Group.

Advertisement

However, in regards to the rumours circulating Labour could raise money through extra wealth taxes, Dalgliesh added: “If you put taxes up on those who can afford to invest, you will score an own goal.”

He is still optimistic looking forward though, due to wage growth and rising property prices.

Dalgliesh also feels the UK is a “pretty resilient country” irrespective of what is announced by Reeves on 30 October.

As a whole, from an investment point of view, he feels the UK is an “interesting market at this point in the cycle”.

Advertisement

He has seen in recent surveys that financial advisers want to increase exposure to the UK. Additionally, the Bank of America releases a quarterly survey that showed institutional managers wish to do the same.

Dalgliesh also touched on the ongoing pensions review launched by Labour, which he hopes will result in the minimum of auto-enrolment to be raised and that UK pension funds will start to invest in “our own market”, the UK.

He said France, Italy, US and Australia all do this, but the UK is an “anomaly”.

Still, Dalgliesh is “sympathetic” for the new government as he believes everyone got a “bit ahead of themselves in our anticipation” following the general election result.

Advertisement

“Let’s see what happens when they take their time.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Africa’s Fastest Growing Companies 2025

Published

on

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The FT is seeking entries for its fourth annual list of Africa’s fastest growing companies, which will be published in May 2025. 

In partnership with data provider Statista, the FT aims to identify companies with the strongest revenue growth between 2020 and 2023. The ranking will appear in a special report published in a weekday edition of the newspaper and on FT.com, alongside articles by FT correspondents on trends identified in the research. 

Advertisement

Entries will highlight, not least, the type of companies that have performed well in spite of the difficulties induced by the Covid pandemic. Our previous rankings indicated the growing body of African businesses achieving a healthy increase in revenues.

Potential candidates for the next list can forward their names via this website. Others will be contacted by Statista.

The deadline for submission of entries is January 31, 2025.


Why should companies participate?

New business opportunities

Advertisement

Inclusion in the ranking is a visible and public acknowledgment of a company’s performance that extends beyond its specific industry and country. It may also generate attention from potential partners, customers and worldwide investors.

Reputation 

Corporate growth usually generates demand for new employees. Being featured in the ranking will increase awareness of you as an employer, and of your potential. 

Effective media coverage 

Advertisement

Reporters will write about standout companies, specific sectors and business trends in Africa. The ranking will be published in a print report in an FT weekday edition and the full rankings will appear online. 

Employer branding 

Companies included in the list may use the award logo for marketing purposes upon payment of a licence fee. Companies can still publicise the award free of charge if they do not use the official label.


Which companies are eligible? 

To be included in the ranking, your company must meet the following criteria:

  • Revenue of at least $100,000 generated in 2020¹; 

  • Revenue of at least $1.5mn generated in 2023¹; 

  • A independent company (not a subsidiary or branch office of any kind);

  • Headquartered in an African country. 

 ¹ Countries that do not use the dollar to express revenues should provide average local currency value equivalent over the course of the relevant fiscal year 

Advertisement

How do I register? 

1. Online registration 

Please register with Statista by January 31 2025. Alternatively, download this form and send it to ft-africa@statista.com upon completion. 

 2. Verification of revenue information 

Your revenue data must be verified using this form. The form must be signed in person by a managing director or a member of your executive committee (chief executive or chief financial officer) and emailed to Statista by January 31, 2025 at ft-africa@statista.com

Advertisement

All downloads 

In English

In French 

Please email ft-africa@statista.com with any additional questions.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Money

BPF stalwart Ian Fletcher set to retire

Published

on

BPF stalwart Ian Fletcher set to retire

Fletcher joined the BPF in 2002 following eight years at the British Chambers of Commerc,e where he was head of policy and chief economist.

The post BPF stalwart Ian Fletcher set to retire appeared first on Property Week.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 WordupNews.com