Trump

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
For the last two weeks, I have been in the US visiting investors; hedge funds; corporates and officials.
I still have more meetings to complete, including with other Fed officials, but I would like to set out some assessments so far.
One debate is whether current pricing for interest rates; the USD; and the stock market is dependent on a successful fiscal policy outcome for Trump. Alternatively, pricing might be factoring in some economic reform (particularly banking) and not much more. The answer is probably that the share market is more optimistic about a successful policy outcome than the bond market. Bank deregulation (freeing up bank lending) would be stimulatory as long as confidence holds and, with the Fed now proclaiming that the US economy is at full employment, the higher bond rates are justified. However, if the share market needs a successful fiscal plan (centred on tax cuts) to hold current levels, then equities would be vulnerable to a marked sell off in the share market should the plan prove to be elusive.
The problems with a significant tax cut are manifest. It seems that there are around five Republicans in the deficit hawk camp who are firmly opposed to any policy that is not "revenue neutral" and five are "soft no's". The current controversy over Russia will only harden opposition within the party.
Failure to deliver a package by the summer would expose the initiative to a Democrat filibuster. The Ryan/Brady Plan, which was laid out last summer when the Republicans appeared unlikely to win the Presidential Election, does deliver a revenue neutral result (after assuming a fairly optimistic growth response to the plan) but it requires the Border Tax (featuring no tax deduction for costs of import_s and no tax on export sales). This would be an effective tax on the trade deficit. Such a tax would be hugely disruptive and is encountering significant opposition, we understand, from within the White House. Other "nasties" in the Ryan/Brady Plan are to allow interest cost or state tax deductions and no real allowance for retaliating moves from trading partners.
Another possible funding channel might be to impose large tariffs to help fund the tax cuts and achieve some of Trump’s protectionist objectives. Tariffs can be introduced by Executive Order without the need to go through Congress, although they may be subsequently challenged in the courts and by the WTO.
Overall, arbitrary tariffs are likely to be a more distortive mechanism than the Border Tax. However, that option, linked with some unpopular entitlement reform, might be back-end loaded and more modest tax cuts might constitute a plan that could be manipulated to “look” revenue neutral.
In such circumstances, the USD would rise further but the inevitable response from other trading countries would likely trigger a disruptive trade war – the recent encouraging lift in global PMI's and global equity markets would soon dissipate.
It was disappointing to hear generally, that infrastructure reform was a low priority well behind dismantling the Affordable Care Act, tax cuts, banking deregulation and trade. For instance, Trump could establish an infrastructure bank capitalised with $150-$200 billion in Federal funds. That would be funded by the repatriation of deferred foreign profits (taxed at 7.5% - 10.0%) and geared at 6x1 with a Federal government guarantee (the impact on the deficit would only be the funding cost). That would deliver on a key promise and probably gain full Democrat support along with enough Republicans to pass Congress. Such an initiative would encourage growth optimism and, if well managed, boost productivity expectancy.
Alternatively, there could be a national effort to privatise current infrastructure (for example, most toll roads are state owned) with a commitment that funds would be reinvested in other infrastructure assets (not used to fund other contingent liabilities of the state). Complex issues between city/local/state/federal governments would need to be resolved with a likely solution being that the Federal government would need to provide incentives to the cities and states to sell the assets.
There are solutions to the successful implementation of an infrastructure plan. If markets saw genuine progress in banking and other sectorial deregulation along with an infrastructure plan, the inevitable shock to confidence that is likely to occur in the summer if trade and unfunded tax initiatives dominate the agenda could be avoided.
So where does the Fed stand in all of this uncertainty? I expect that it will be comfortable to "skip" a March move until we see more clarity on these issues and, more import_antly, the impact such developments have on confidence and markets. For example, the Fed sees that "financial conditions" have eased due to narrowing credit spreads and a rising stock market despite higher rates and a higher USD. A reversal in markets would tighten financial conditions and associated drop in confidence would force a review of the growth outlook.
I also expect that the "asymmetric" approach to policy-setting is still a key majority view amongst FOMC members - better to err on the side of higher inflation than risk entrenched low inflation. With the slow response from wages to "full employment", there is little risk of getting too far behind the curve. On the other hand, I assess that the Chair now believes that the US has reached full employment and, therefore, the normalisation process should proceed (but with two hikes not three in 2017).
I remain comfortable with the June/December call for Fed policy in 2017.
What do investors think of all these issues for Australia? In short, the key channel will be Trump’s trade policies. Any indiscriminate large tariff or Border Tax would pressure China's foreign reserves and growth outlook. This would likely trigger a protectionist response from China, which while not impacting our resource exports, would most likely threaten our services exports to China.
My central thesis is that the Australian economy is likely to slow in 2018 due to a construction downturn and falling terms of trade. Commodity prices are likely to fall sharply under the weight of a supply response from Australian and Chinese (private) producers; an unwinding of speculative positions in China; and a slow-down in growth associated with a resumption of reform in China following the November Congress.
Downward pressure on the AUD will only intensify in the event of Mr Trump taking the “trade option”. 
BILL EVANS is chief economist of <a href="https://www.westpac.com.au/" target="_blank">Westpac</a>. 
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Trump; trade and the FED: Bill Evans

<html><body>
Australia’s largest online lender loans.com.au says that fixed mortgage interest rates will soon increase across the board.
This follows rises in key swap rates driven by the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States.
Managing director Marie Mortimer said 3, 4, and 5-year swap rates had been drifting up for six weeks. 
It really jumped after Mr Trump’s victory in the expectation that his promised tax cuts and infrastructure spending would drive up prices.
“There is no doubt that global markets were pricing in a rise in rates in the medium-term and that has now been aggravated by expectations of higher inflation if Mr Trump implements his election promises,” Ms Mortimer said.
“These higher rates are now being reflected in the fixed rates that lenders can offer homebuyers with at least six Australian lenders raising their fixed-rates in the last three weeks and many more to follow shortly.”
According to Bloomberg, since mid-September this year, 3-year swap rates have risen from 1.69 percent to 1.99 percent, while 5-year swaps have risen from 1.97 percent to 2.40 percent.
In June, loans.com.au slashed its 3-year fixed rate home loan by 32 basis points to a record low of 3.67 percent (3.88 comparison rate).
However it warns that at the time that it probably represented the bottom of the cycle for fixed rates.
This week, loans.com.au increased its 3-year fixed rate to 3.89 percent, while cutting selected variable rates.
The largest variable rate cuts included its Offset (interest only) loan for homebuyers which was reduced by 19 basis points to 3.87 percent and its Essentials (principal and interest) loan for refinancers which fell by 30 basis points to just 3.79 percent. Other key rate cuts are shown below.
<a href="/images/2016/11/15/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-15%20at%2010.27.32%20AM.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/11/15/Screen%20Shot%202016-11-15%20at%2010.27.32%20AM.jpg" alt="">
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Trump win means fixed rates to rise soon

<html><body>
The Hillary Clinton campaign released a three-and-a-half minute video of a small businessman, Andrew Tesoro, who tells how Donald Trump cheated his five-person architecture firm out of thousands of dollars back in 2006.
It was when the practice designed the clubhouse at the Trump National Golf Club in the Westchester County town of Briarcliff Manor, NY.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfSWPmw86k" target="_blank">Manhattan-based architect Andrew Tesoro</a> said throughout the design process, Trump asked for multiple redesigns. 
Tesoro provided $140,000 worth of extra work and Trump shared that he loved the design. Trump’s representatives then told Tesoro they would only pay him $50,000, later decreasing  the amount even further to $25,000. Trump responded through his lawyers: Accept pennies on the dollar or I’ll tie you up in court for years.
The video intersperses Tesoro’s narrative with footage of the candidate at a campaign rally saying, “I’ve built an extraordinary business on relationships and deals that benefit all parties involved.”
The video had more than 7 million views on Facebook. Tesoro, 64, doesn’t hate Trump.
He told Forbes magazine although he resented that Trump shorted him a huge amount of money, "his organization does that to everybody.
"At the time I could see that the carpenters, the tile guy, the landscape consultant, the mechanical engineering consultant, other vendors and tradespeople were all subjected to an after-the-fact renegotiation challenge.
"I didn’t take it personally. 
"And I believed Donald Trump when he showered me with compliments. 
"Maybe that was his way of manipulating me into accepting less money. 
"He was also nice and decent to me on an individual basis."
</body></html>

Trump

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Trump

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News