Den amerikanska ekonomin har sett 1,5 miljoner arbetstillfällen skapas under år 2017, eftersom sysselsättningen fortsätter att öka. Återhämtningen på arbetsmarknaden har pressat arbetslösheten till sin lägsta nivå sedan december 2000. Många frågar sig nu vad som kan tyckas vara en ologisk fråga: är arbetslösheten för låg. Finns det en nackdelen med låg arbetslöshet?
Arbetslöshetsgraden definieras som andelen arbetstagare som är arbetslösa och aktivt söker jobb, och på 4,1 procent kan man argumentera för att det är för lågt. Så varför är arbetslösheten för låg? Uppstår det en ekonomisk skada när alltför många människor har jobb?
En produktivitetsfråga
Arbetsmarknaden kommer att nå en punkt där varje ytterligare jobb inte skapar tillräcklig produktivitet för att täcka kostnaderna. Detta gör varje successivt jobb efter det är ineffektivt Detta är produktionsgapet, som ofta kallas för slack på arbetsmarknaden. I en ideal värld har en ekonomi ingen slöja, vilket betyder att ekonomin befinner sig i full kapacitet och att det inte finns någon produktionsgap. I ekonomin beräknas slacken av U6 minus U3, där U6 är den totala arbetslösheten, dolda arbetslöshet och deltidsarbetare som söker heltidsarbete, och U3 är helt enkelt total arbetslöshet.
Precis som temperaturen i en ekonomi stiger och faller, gör också produktionsgapet det. När det finns ett negativ produktionsgap, är ekonomins resurser – dess arbetsmarknad – underutnyttjad. Omvänt, när det finns ett positivt produktionsgap, ökar marknaden över resurser och ekonomin blir ineffektiv – det här sker när arbetslösheten sjunker.
Nivån på vilken arbetslösheten befinner sig är lika positiv som en hög debatt. Ekonomer föreslår emellertid att när den amerikanska arbetslösheten ligger under 5 procent ligger landets ekonomi mycket nära eller i full kapacitet. Så vid 4,1 procent kan man hävda att arbetslösheten är för låg och den amerikanska ekonomin blir ineffektiv.
Stigande löneinflation
Inflation är i allmänhet en bra sak. Men inom vissa industrier är löneinflationen över den naturliga inflationstakten en dålig sak. Sektorer som industri och konsumentdiskretionär kamp med löneinflation och småföretag har inte marginaler för att klara av stigande löner. Förutom lönsamhet genererar småkapitalet mindre intäkter per anställd och utövar en större andel av sin verksamhet i USA skrev Goldman Sachs i en analys tidigare i år.
En ökning om 100 bp i arbetskraftsinflationen motsvarar cirka två (2) procent för vinst per aktie i Russell 2000. Det är ungefär dubbelt så mycket som Goldman Sachs uppskattar för S&P 500.
Löneinflationen uppstår genom en ökad efterfrågan på arbetskraft då arbetslösheten sjunker. Med färre människor tillgängliga för att arbeta blir arbetsgivare tvungna att höja lönerna för att locka till sig och behålla talang. En knock-on effekt från stigande löner är att vissa småföretag måste dyka in i den mindre begåvade arbetspoolen, vilket minskar produktiviteten.
Slutsats
Efter att ha nått nått den lägsta nivån på tio år blir amerikanska arbetslösheten ironiskt nog ett problem för beslutsfattare. Eftersom Federal Reserve anpassar penningpolitiken för att nå den full kapacitet, står det inför både ekonomiska och sociala problem. Den snabbare löneinflationen från för låg arbetslöshet kommer att ge upphov till vinst, men med 7 miljoner människor söker fortfarande arbete, är det svårt att neka dem möjligheten.
Precis som finansmarknaderna väntat. FED höjde räntan, precis som väntat vid sitt senaste möte. Det betyder att den andra räntehöjningen för 2017 kom att ske i onsdags. I ett uttalande som publicerades efter mötet sades att Federal Open Market Committee sedan mötet i maj anser att data tyder på att arbetsmarknaden har fortsatt att stärkas och att den ekonomiska aktiviteten har stigit måttligt hittills i år
Med tanke på realiserade och förväntade arbetsmarknadsförhållanden och inflation, beslutade kommittén att höja målområdet för federala medel till 1 till 1-1/4 procent. Ståndpunkten för penningpolitiken är fortsatt tillmötesgående och därigenom stöds ytterligare stärkta arbetsmarknadsförhållanden och en fortsatt avkastning till 2 procent inflation. För de flesta hypotekslåntagare så innebär en räntehöjning med en kvarts procentenhet en mycket försumbar inverkan.
De fasta räntorna är knutna till den tioåriga statsobligationen
De fasta bostadsräntorna är knutna till den tioåriga statsobligationen och dess ränta. Många långivare har väntat på höjningen av räntan i flera månader, varför räntehöjningen redan är diskonterad och inbakad i dessa priser.
För de konsumenter som har lån med justerbar ränta är det nog en bra idé att överväga refinansiering och låsning i låg takt innan FED höjer räntorna igen. Konsumenter som har stora kreditkortsskulder kommer sannolikt att få se en ökad räntekostnad inom de närmaste månaderna.
Enligt FED har sysselsättningsvinsterna minskat men har varit i stort sett varit stabila sedan årets början och arbetslösheten har minskat.
Hushållens utgifter har ökat
Hushållens utgifter har ökat de senaste månaderna, och företagsinvesteringarna i USA har fortsatt att expandera. Under den senaste tolvmånadersperioden har inflationen minskat, exklusive livsmedels- och energipriser har de legat strax under två procent enligt FED.
Vid fastställandet av tidsplanen och storleken på framtida anpassningar av målinriktningen för federala medelräntor ska kommittén utvärdera realiserade och förväntade ekonomiska förhållanden i förhållande till målen för maximal sysselsättning och 2 procent inflation.
I veckan som gick höjde Banco de Mexico sin styrränta med 25 punkter till 6,75 procent. Banco de Mexico överraskar med räntehöjning och det är den femte höjningen sedan det amerikanska valet. Marknaden blev överraskad, men inte tagen på sängen av räntehöjningen. Ungefär hälften av dem som tillfrågades av Bloomberg förväntade sig en ändring av räntan i Mexiko.
Dagens nivå på styrräntan, 6,75 procent är den högsta nivån på åtta år. Höjningen kan vara ett tecken på att den mexikanska centralbanken bedömer att inflationen kommer att stiga. Inflationsmålet för Banco de Mexico ligger mellan 3,0 och 4,0 för 2017. Under april 2017 såg vi emellertid hur den mexikanska inflationen steg till 5,82 procent. Detta gör det till den tionde månaden i rad med en högre inflation. Inflationen i mars är nästan den högsta nivån på åtta år. Fortsätter inflationen kanske Banco de Mexico överraskar med räntehöjning vid kommande möten.
Inflationen har främst drivits av liberaliseringen av bensinpriserna och av att värdet på den mexikanska peson har fallit på de internationella valutamarknaderna.
Styrräntan i Mexiko uppgick under perioden 2005 till och med 2017 i genomsnitt till 5,34 procent. Den toppade som till högst på 9,25 procent i oktober 2005 och bottnade på rekordlåga 3 procent i juni 2014.
Central banks: hear no inflation, see no inflation, speak no inflation
While global inflationary expectations have moderated as a risk-on mindset has gained momentum following the French Presidential first round vote, actual inflation is surprising to the upside. While the Bank of Japan (BOJ) and European Central Bank (ECB) have met investor expectations for policy announcements in recent days, the US Federal Reserve (Fed) could disappoint at its June meeting. hear no inflation, see no inflation, speak no inflation
Major central banks have recently maintained the status quo with expansive stimulus programs, reluctant to rein in stimulus programs. While such cautious behaviour will prevent another ‘taper tantrum’ it could see inflation meaningfully breach inflation targets. Inflationary expectations have moderated, but we feel rising inflationary momentum is being underestimated by some central banks.
Understandably, the BOJ is no closer to tapering: the Japanese central bank softened its inflation outlook at this week’s meeting (from 1.5% to 1.4% by 2017/18), as wage growth remains muted, despite a relatively tight labour market.
Similarly, the ECB remains cautious in its approach, appearing to lack confidence in its expectation that inflation will return to its target. Although not explicitly stated, the political uncertainty in Europe must be a concern for the central bank as it delays the return of normal economic activity. The political uncertainty that is rife in Europe hinders a proactive reform agenda for government policy. The ECB’s simulative stance is positive for supporting growth but will likely need to be modified before year-end as inflationary pressure picks up, fuelled by growth momentum, as uncertainty fades. Undervalued European equity markets are likely to benefit, not be hampered, by a more hawkish ECB, as they respond to the potential from a stronger economic landscape. The Euro should also be supported by the ECB reducing its stimulus,
Meanwhile the Fed is likely to disappoint the market by keeping rates unchanged. The market is pricing in a 60% chance of a rate hike at its June meeting (from highs of 85% in recent weeks). We expect that June is too soon for the Fed to raise rates despite the upward momentum in core inflation. The USD will remain soft, encumbered by a central bank that remains behind the curve despite evidence of building growth and inflation pressures.
Central banks: hear no inflation, see no inflation, speak no inflation by Martin Arnold
Martin Arnold, Global FX & Commodity Strategist at ETF Securities
Martin Arnold joined ETF Securities as a research analyst in 2009 and was promoted to Global FX & Commodity Strategist in 2014. Martin has a wealth of experience in strategy and economics with his most recent role formulating an FX strategy at an independent research consultancy. Martin has a strong background in macroeconomics and financial analysis – gained both at the Reserve Bank of Australia and in the private commercial banking sector – and experience covering a range of asset classes including equities and bonds. Martin holds a Bachelor of Economics from the University of New South Wales (Australia), a Master of Commerce from the University of Wollongong (Australia) and attained a Graduate Diploma of Applied Finance and Investment from the Securities Institute of Australia.
Gold’s Resilience Strengthens in February. Gold moved through the $1,200 level and showed resilience in February as a number of normally bearish factors failed to weaken prices. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s mid-February testimony to Congress indicated tighter monetary policies, and subsequent comments from regional Fed presidents reinforced Yellen’s hawkish views. This lifted the market odds for a March Fed rate increase and in response the U.S. dollar strengthened considerably, with the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY)1 up 1.9% for the month. The weakness in Chinese and Indian demand for physical gold seen in 2016 continued into the new year, and January Swiss trade statistics showed that exports to both China and India are below last year’s levels. In addition, markets in China were closed at the start of the month for the week-long lunar New Year holiday. At the same time, U.S. equities had a strong month with the Dow Jones Industrials Average (DJIA)2 setting a record of twelve straight days of new all-time highs above 20,000 beginning on February 9. While none of these events would typically be supportive of gold, bullion nonetheless gained $37.68 (3.1%) for the month. In fact, through the end of February, gold is up 8.3% and has outperformed the DJIA by 2.5% in the first two months of 2017.
We attribute the recent resilience of gold to three factors: 1) a new era of geopolitical uncertainty since Brexit; 2) February saw the first significant net inflows to bullion exchange traded products since the November U.S. presidential election; and 3) upticks in inflation have caused a decline in real rates. The February releases of both the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI)3 and the Producer Price Index (PPI)4 surprised analysts with their largest monthly jumps in several years. Annual core CPI inflation is now at 2.3%, putting it at the upper bounds of where it has been trending since the 2008-2009 financial crisis.
Lackluster Yearend Reporting Highlighted by Downgrades and Increased Spending
In contrast to bullion, gold stocks lagged in February, as the NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR)5 fell 3.9% and the MVIS™ Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR)6 declined 2.2%; however, January’s results have helped to keep the YTD returns strong at 9.2% and 15.3%, respectively. Most gold producers have reported yearend results and given guidance for 2017, but the reporting has been lackluster. Although most producers have met expectations, there have been a few negative surprises that have weighed on their stocks. Additionally, a couple of miners downgraded the quality of their reserves or lowered production forecasts, and a couple of others raised equity. Given higher gold prices, spending is on the upswing. BofA Merrill Lynch expects that North American senior and mid-tier companies will increase total exploration spending by 51% and new project capital by 32% in 2017. While this will reduce cash flow this year, it should pay off with discoveries and developments further down the road.
Gold Stocks Price Movement Not Fundamentally Driven
While these announcements cast a negative tone over the fourth quarter earnings season, they do not explain the significant underperformance of gold stocks relative to bullion. The weakness in gold stocks was exaggerated by the unusual trading on the afternoon of February 27. Gold trended lower beginning around noon that day as Robert Kaplan, President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, made comments supportive of a rate increase, which stimulated U.S. dollar strength. Gold ended the day with a $4.38 (0.3%) loss, reflecting a normal fundamental reaction to the news. In the same afternoon gold stocks reacted as if gold had taken a $30 beating. Trading volumes hit a historic daily high. The unusual trading and lack of fundamental drivers suggest that technically driven funds received sell signals that induced further stop loss selling. What prompted such sell signals is a mystery, but it has resulted in making stock valuations that were already attractive, dirt cheap. Miners will try to turn that dirt into gold.
Gold Looking for a Price Catalyst in 2017 (and It’s Not Likely to be Inflation)
Thus far in 2017, gold has lacked a catalyst that would move the price strongly higher. We believe such a catalyst is likely, but the source and timing are impossible to predict. In the coming months or years, it is our opinion, that a geopolitical, economic, or financial event that motivates investors to seek safe haven7 investments is likely. Given the easy monetary policies globally, recent expectations for growth, and the potential for trade protectionism, we understand those who see inflation as the next gold catalyst. Gold has always reacted strongly to inflation that is out of control. However, while we could be wrong on this, we do not believe that inflation will trend much higher. Much of the increase in inflation over the past twelve months can be attributed to the resurgence in commodities prices from very oversold levels. In our view, the commodities rebound is not likely to further drive inflation in the near term. The popular reflation theme relies on growth and government spending that may not be as strong as expected, as President Trump may face challenges passing his agenda through Congress. Lastly, the Fed seems poised to tighten policies for an extended period, which works against inflation. Until inflation or some other catalyst emerges, we believe that the gold price will follow the usual ups and downs this year but in general terms, will be well supported in 2017.
Substantial Cost Reduction Across Industry Stabilizing
We have just returned from the BMO Capital Markets 26th Annual Global Metals & Mining Conference held in Hollywood, FL, an annual gathering of metals and mining executives, including many gold producers and developers. It is becoming increasingly clear from the yearend reporting results across these mining companies that the substantial decline in mining costs of the past few years is beginning to reach its limits. While we see no mining cost inflation on the horizon, some companies are seeing costs level out. On average, all-in sustaining costs (AISC) for gold companies are now around the $900 per ounce level. Some companies, particularly among the majors, continue to guide for lower costs, which should enable the average to decline further in the next couple of years.
New Crop of Gold Companies Key to Future Growth
In basic terms, one of the most direct ways to create value for shareholders in the gold sector is to discover a piece of real estate in some remote part of the world that can be turned into a gold mine. There is a new crop of emerging producers that attracted significant attention at the BMO Conference. These are development companies that were able to advance projects through a very difficult bear market and are now favorably positioned producers in an improving market. What is remarkable is that each of these companies started production on time and on budget. There have been no indications of significant problems with these startups because they have been staffed with excellent talent and have been able to access high quality engineering and construction teams. Going forward, these companies are now focused on optimization, expansion, and exploration to help grow their businesses.
There are two routes a development company can take: 1) be acquired by a producer, or 2) build a mine. For shareholders, either outcome is attractive provided the mine is successful. Historically most large producers have grown through acquisitions, however acquisitions can be costly because they usually come at a premium. Thus far in this cycle, producers are using a different approach by taking equity stakes in early stage, pre-resource companies that they believe will develop winning properties. Meantime, emerging producers could become the mid-tiers and majors of tomorrow. As we expect production among the majors to stagnate or decline in coming years, these new emerging companies are helping to revitalize the sector. If the major’s current growth strategy does not pay off, these young companies could become the acquisition targets of the future.
With more than 30 years of gold industry experience, Foster began his gold career as a boots on the ground geologist, evaluating mining exploration and development projects. Foster is Portfolio Manager and Strategist for the Gold and Precious Metals strategy..
Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the author and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time.
1NYSE Arca Gold Miners Index (GDMNTR) is a modified market capitalization-weighted index comprised of publicly traded companies involved primarily in the mining for gold. 2MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index (MVGDXJTR) is a rules-based, modified market capitalization-weighted, float-adjusted index comprised of a global universe of publicly traded small- and medium-capitalization companies that generate at least 50% of their revenues from gold and/or silver mining, hold real property that has the potential to produce at least 50% of the company’s revenue from gold or silver mining when developed, or primarily invest in gold or silver. 3Safe haven is an investment that is expected to retain its value or even increase its value in times of market turbulence. 4Tail risk is a form of portfolio risk that arises when the possibility that an investment will move more than three standard deviations from the mean is greater than what is shown by a normal distribution.
Important Disclosures
This commentary originates from VanEck Associates Corporation (“VanEck”) and does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation to buy any security.
VanEck’s opinions stated in this commentary may deviate from opinions presented by other VanEck departments or companies. Information and opinions in this commentary are based on VanEck’s analysis. Any forecasts and projections contained in the commentary appear from the named sources. All opinions in this commentary are, regardless of source, given in good faith, and may only be valid as of the stated date of this commentary and are subject to change without notice in subsequent versions of the commentary. Any projections, market outlooks or estimates in this material are forward-looking statements and are based upon certain assumptions that are solely the opinion of VanEck. Any projections, outlooks or assumptions should not be construed to be indicative of the actual events which will occur.
No investment advice
The commentary is intended only to provide general and preliminary information to investors and shall not be construed as the basis for any investment decision. This commentary has been prepared by VanEck as general information for use of investors to whom the commentary has been distributed, but it is not intended as a personal recommendation of particular financial instruments or strategies and thus it does not provide individually tailored investment advice, and does not take into account the individual investor’s financial situation, existing holdings or liabilities, investment knowledge and experience, investment objective and horizon or risk profile and preferences. The investor must particularly ensure the suitability of an investment as regards his/her financial and tax situation and investment objectives. The investor bears the risk of losses in connection with an investment. Before acting on any information in this publication or report, it is recommendable to consult one’s financial advisor. Forecasts, estimates, and certain information contained herein are based upon proprietary research and the information contained in this material is not intended to be, nor should it be construed or used as investment, tax or legal advice, any recommendation, or an offer to sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy, an interest in any security. References to specific securities and their issuers or sectors are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended and should not be interpreted as recommendations to purchase or sell such securities or gain exposure to such sectors. Each investor shall make his/her own appraisal of the tax and other financial merits of his/her investment.
Sources
This commentary may be based on or contain information, such as opinions, recommendations, estimates, price targets and valuations which emanate from: VanEck portfolio managers, analysts or representatives, publicly available information, information from other units or Companies of VanEck, or other named sources. To the extent this commentary is based on or contain information emerging from other sources (“Other Sources”) than VanEck (“External Information”), VanEck has deemed the Other Sources to be reliable but neither the VanEck companies, others associated or affiliated with said companies nor any other person, do guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of the External Information.
Limitation of liability
VanEck and its associated and affiliated companies assume no liability as regards to any investment, divestment or retention decision taken by the investor on the basis of this commentary. In no event will VanEck or other associated and affiliated companies be liable for direct, indirect or incidental, special or consequential damages resulting from the information in this publication or report.
Risk information
The risk of investing in certain financial instruments, is generally high, as their market value is exposed to a lot of different factors such as the operational and financial conditions of the relevant company, growth prospects, change in interest rates, the economic and political environment, foreign exchange rates, shifts in market sentiments etc. Where an investment or security is denominated in a different currency to the investor’s currency of reference, changes in rates of exchange may have an adverse effect on the value, price or income of or from that investment to the investor. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Estimates of future performance are based on assumptions that may not be realized. When investing in individual shares, the investor may lose all or part of the investments.
Conflicts of interest
VanEck, its affiliates or staff of VanEck companies, may perform services for, solicit business from, hold long or short positions in, or otherwise be interested in the investments (including derivatives) of any company mentioned in this commentary. To limit possible conflicts of interest and counter the abuse of inside knowledge, the representatives, portfolio managers and analysts of VanEck are subject to internal rules on sound ethical conduct, the management of inside information, handling of unpublished research material, contact with other units of VanEck and personal account dealing. The internal rules have been prepared in accordance with applicable legislation and relevant industry standards. The object of the internal rules is for example to ensure that no analyst will abuse or cause others to abuse confidential information. This commentary has been prepared following the VanEck Conflict of Interest Policy.
All indices named in the commentary are unmanaged indices and include the reinvestment of all dividends, but do not reflect the payment of transaction costs, advisory fees or expenses that are associated with an investment in the Fund. An index’s performance is not illustrative of the Fund’s performance. Indices are not securities in which investments can be made.
