The Debt-to-GDP ratio has stabilized since 2011, and the budget deficit has declined dramatically. Gross government investment as a percentage of GDP is at
a 70-year low. What’s more, lobby groups such as the American Society of Civil Engineers claim that us GDP growth could be diminished by $4 trillion
between 2016 and 2025, due to lost sales and rising costs associated with bad infrastructure.
Pitching into the debate are the likes of Larry Summers and even Fed Vice Chair Stanley Fischer with arguments that fiscal largesse is the solution to
concerns over “secular stagnation” (a phrase originally coined by Alvin Hansen in 1938 following the Great Depression).
In Canada, the Liberal government was elected on a platform that placed austerity and balanced budgets on the back burner.
More globally, fiscal stimulus is also making a comeback. For the first time in five years, more developed economies plan to loosen than tighten fiscal
policy (16 countries for the former, while only nine for the latter). We expect this to be a multi-year trend.
Turning to other “megatrends” in the world of investing, consider three others that our Investment Committee is closely tracking:
Trump’s message to the world: You’re fired!
Who knew Trump would make it so far? And what implications will a Trump presidency have on global markets? We see four big ones.
* First, and most clearly, Trump’s policies will significantly reduce taxes and increase spending on military and infrastructure. Early estimates predict
$10 trillion in higher debt and deficits. Over the short term, this would boost corporate profits (given the current period of low corporate investment
along with a current account deficit).
* Second, and offsetting the first, would be a likely damage to business confidence (surely the quickest way to short circuit growth). Here any number of
Trump’s policies (take your pick: abrogation of trade treaties; censorship; a tariff war with China; etc.) could create a confusing business environment
and slow a still-fragile us economy.
* Thirdly, especially compared with the more predictable Hillary Clinton, market volatility would soar as markets adjust to new political realities (and
* Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mr. Trump’s nationalism is highly risky. Trump not only advocates America retreating behind a wall, he also
threatens to shelve trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In a globalized world defined by a move toward closer interconnectedness, the
“biggest loser” would undoubtedly be the U.S.
Consider China’s longer running ambitions to establish Beijing at the center of a new Asian imperial domain. A Trump presidency would allow China to send
this message to every Asian country: Do you want to be with us or with the United States, who is openly against you? No doubt, President Xi Jinping is
celebrating Trump’s win in November.
Running for the Brexit? Not quite
The U.K. has voted to leave the European Union. Undoubtedly, it is having a negative impact on business and investor confidence. What’s more, it is
increasing fears of the entire bloc’s disintegration – emboldening anti-EU parties like Spain’s Podemos and Italy’s Five Star Movement and creating an
upsurge in populist groups promoting nationalism and protectionism. That’s a clear negative for risk markets.
However, Brexit will very likely prove to be yet another post-crisis macro fear with limited fallout. Why? First, markets had already been pricing in
damage to investor sentiment. The post-Brexit bounce has simply relieved an oversold market. Second, the U.K. will likely be a member of the EU for a few
more years at least (even “Leave” leaders have cited 2020 as a likely exit). Referendums are merely a recommendation to politicians (who often drag out the
process to determine particulars of the actionable result). Thirdly, Brexit has forced central bankers into action – further underwriting higher asset
Emerging market investing: So hip it hurts (again)
After a long and punishing period of underperformance, emerging markets (EM) are hot again. Global fund managers are scrambling to close their deep
underweights, and emerging market ETF inflows are surging. One can almost hear echoes of the prolific Gord Downie’s lyrics: “Come in, come in…from thin and
wicked prairie winds, come in/It’s warm and it’s safe here.” The rich irony, of course, is that many countries in the so-called emerging universe now
appear more secure than their developed world counterparts, offering a “heartening” refuge from the perilous world of quantitative easing, negative rates,
and their associated freakish offspring – overvalued stock and bond markets. Tragically hip indeed.
Looking back, was the EM underperformance of last year justified? Not likely.
First, revulsion toward China was unduly influenced. The consensus spun a narrative that policy has finally pivoted to pursuing a weak renminbi, providing
evidence of an imminent hard-landing scenario. While growth is slowing and should not be trivialized, the more important story is China’s solid progress on
the road to rebalancing — namely, a shift away from manufacturing and construction activity toward consumers and services. This is exactly what
well-intentioned Western economists urged EMs to do: rebalance economies away from cheap exports to more self-sustaining middle class consumption.
While Beijing can be criticized for a poorly communicated agenda, their longer-running ambitions shouldn’t be understated – internationalize the currency,
modernize the financial system, address excesses in debt markets, and transform state-owned enterprises – all couched in a nationalistic revival of the
Second, forecasts of a widespread EM crisis were also off the mark. Here, the commentary focused on slowing growth and high debt, with extravagant
comparisons to the 1997-98 Asian crisis. Yes, exports are slowing. But this is concentrated in the commodity exporters (declining by almost 40% in July,
year-on-year). And, the outlook is actually improving for a number of countries. It’s important to recognize that EMs already had a large slowdown between
2010 and 2012. Since then, currencies have weakened (boosting competitiveness), commodity prices have fallen (raising consumption), and policy has turned
stimulative (lowering the cost of capital). These benefits always show up with a lag. Why should this time be different?
Looking ahead, despite recent events like Brexit, our Investment Committee’s outlook has not changed significantly. In fact, it has confirmed our longer
running thesis: We continue to live in an era of new realities. The best approach for investors is wide global diversification with exposures tilted to
longer-running megatrends. We remain committed to that investment discipline, striving to ensure that our clients meet their financial objectives.
Tyler Mordy, CFA, is President and CIO for
Forstrong Global Asset Management Inc., engaged in top-down strategy, investment policy, and securities selection. He specializes in global investment strategy and ETF trends.
This article first appeared in
Forstrong’s Gobal Thinking feature. Used with permission. You can reach Tyler by phone at Forstrong Global, toll-free 1-888-419-6715, or by email at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow Tyler on Twitter at
Notes and Disclaimers
© 2016 by Fund Library. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part by any means without prior written permission is prohibited.
The foregoing is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of the writer. The author and clients of Forstrong Global Asset Management may
have positions in securities mentioned. Commissions and management fees may be associated with exchange-traded funds. Please read the prospectus before
investing. Securities mentioned carry risk of loss, and no guarantee of performance is made or implied. This information is not intended to provide
specific personalized advice including, without limitation, investment, financial, legal, accounting or tax advice.