Connect with us

Economy

‘Make That Trade!’ Biden Plans Unprecedented Stimulus for US Economy

Published

on

The revolving doors to the White House, the Senate, and the House are set to welcome president Joe Biden and his administration. Now that the Democrats control the executive and the legislative branches of government, they have carte blanche to push through unprecedented economic stimuli to benefit all Americans. Taking center stage is a massive $1.9 trillion stimulus on top of the $900 billion stimulus recently passed by Congress under President Trump. Combined with the $2.9 trillion stimulus in 2020, the US economy is now flush with cash.

All that money has plenty of different directions to go, including Wall Street and Main Street. Americans across the board are anticipating $1400 stimulus checks to go with the $600 released in December 2020. Dubbed the ‘American Rescue Plan,’ the stimulus money is intended to get the economy moving again, by empowering consumers who have faced sweeping job losses, cutbacks, and personal difficulties.

The stock markets have reacted to these stimuli as expected – bullishly. A snapshot of the US financial markets confirms the impact of the stimulus, and what’s to come. The 1-year change for the major US indices reflects strong gains for the NASDAQ composite index (38.44%), the S&P 500 Index (13.17%), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (5%).

Markets across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia have performed poorly over the past 1 year, owing to the government enforced lockdowns vis-a-vis the pandemic. The best performing European market over the past 1 year was the DAX (+2.38%). This begs the question: How will all the stimulus money impact the stock markets, and demand for gold?

What Happens When Central Banks Start Flooding the Market with Trillions of Dollars?

Monetary stimulus is designed to assist struggling American households who through no fault of their own were furloughed, or now face tremendous economic uncertainty. SMEs across the board are cutting costs, and letting people go. In December 2020, hiring rates in the US dropped for the first time in 7 months. Industries affected most by the pandemic include service-related businesses, travel and tourism, restaurants and bars.

It’s not only low income families struggling against adversity; it’s middle income earners too. Several measures have been proposed, including raising unemployment benefits to $400 weekly, and increasing the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour. All of these bold initiatives have yet to be passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President.

The effects of these massive stimuli will reverberate across the economy. There are definite winners and losers from massive spending. The Deficit/GDP ratio is already 15%, and monetary supply growth has increased by 25%. Inflationary concerns are growing, but for now the stock markets are shrugging off the prospect of higher prices and welcoming the stimulus. Low-income earners will benefit most from the stimulus, but every action has a reaction in the financial markets.

Currently, the Federal Reserve Bank has indicated no change to interest rates. This is surprising, given that bond yields are increasing. Multiple economists are concerned that the infusion of trillions of dollars into the economy will ultimately lead to rising prices, and nullify the intent of the stimulus packages. Equity markets and housing markets have shown tremendous resilience, and growth in recent months. State governments will be getting their fair share of stimulus money, as ‘financial healing’ kicks off in earnest.

TheFed’s bond-buying program continues in earnest as quantitative easing goes into overdrive. Millions of Americans remain out of work, and the unemployment rate is at pre-pandemic numbers. If the proposed economic boom kicks in, inflation will likely result before the end of the year. Markets across the US rallied in 2020, and bullish sentiment continues into 2021.

Analysts point to high valuations in the stock markets that are not supported by the fundamentals. The CARES Act was like a steroid shot for the market. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) ensured that at least some of the $1200 + $600 checks found a way to stock markets. Brokerages across the board reported increased registrations and trading activity. Americans are certainly taking to stay-at-home work/life by actively engaging in the financial markets. This will likely continue with an additional $1400 stimulus check.

Which Stocks Will Benefit?

Source: StockCharts.com SPX 500 Large Cap Index

Major US banks are set to benefit over the short-term, thanks to their ability to borrow money at short-term interest rates, and lending that money out over the long-term at higher rates. The biggest US banks should all see an uptick in stock price performance. Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) has a market capitalization of $285.563 billion, and the performance outlook for the stock is bullish over the short-term, mid-term, and long-term.

Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) has a market capitalization of $132.469 billion, with a medium-term and long-term bullish performance outlook. Much the same is true for Citigroup (NYSE: C) with a market cap of $133.77 billion, and a medium-term bullish outlook. Energy efficient stocks will also benefit from the Biden administration. Companies like Tesla stand in good stead with a green energy-focused Presidency, House, and Senate

Analysis of bank stocks provides interesting insights. For example, BAC has climbed from November lows of under $24 per share to $33 per share. The stock price is higher than its short term moving average (50-day MA), and the long-term moving average (200-day MA) of $29.04 and $25.26 respectively. Technical analysis of BAC, using the Ichimoku Cloud confirms bullish momentum moving forward.

Indeed, experts at Bank of America attested to the benefit of passing the stimulus, without which a recession would have occurred. In a similar way, WFC stock, and C stock are also up sharply since the November 2020 lows. Bollinger Bands indicate that the run on bank stocks is likely to continue as momentum is clearly on rising prices for bank stocks.

Source: StockCharts AAPL

Besides bank stocks, there are plenty of other stocks to watch, including (NASDAQ: BKNG), Renesola Ltd (NYSE: SOL), Snap Inc (NYSE: SNAP), and Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL).Pictured above, AAPL is currently trading around $127.14 per share [January 18, 2021]. It is bullish, compared to the 50-day moving average of $124.24 and 200-day moving average of $103.77 per share.

Bollinger Bands for Apple indicate a slight tightening,and stabilisation of prices at a much higher level than the lows recorded in July and August 2020. As the world’s most valuable company, AAPL is on the rise once again.  Momentum indicators such as Ichimoku Cloud tend to suggest that AAPL is set for additional gains.

Which Sectors of The Stock Market Will Flop?

The shift away from crude oil and natural gas to green energy will cripple the oil industry and all the stocks that populate it. If these companies don’t start switching to alternative energy investments they will stagnate. WTI crude oil is currently trading around $52.09 per barrel, while Brent crude oil is trading around $54.76 per barrel [January 18, 2021].

The long-term charts of companies like Exxon Mobil Corp, Chevron Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell all point in the same direction – decline. In fact, these major multinational companies are at their worst levels in 10 years. US oil consumption is flattening out, while that of global oil consumption is increasing. Overall, nonrenewable energy sources such as oil and natural gas are long-term bearish, and best avoided. The global focus is on clean energy, not oil and natural gas.

Other long duration assets such as biotech stocks will likely slump over the short-term. Given that these stocks are discounted to the present, makes them unattractive to investors right now. However, any attempts to expand the Affordable Care Act will work to the advantage of biotech stocks, and pharmaceutical stocks, because people have greater access to healthcare.

The lukewarm reaction of stocks to the stimulus plan is predicated on the notion that additional stimulus will invariably result in additional taxes. If lawmakers in Congress require that taxes be raised in order to pay for the income redistribution, stocks will slump. The cruise ship industry, hotel industry, and entertainment industries still have a ways to go before a recovery is on the cards.

The strongest-performing sectors include many household names. The likes of shopify, Nvidia, cryoport, Pinduoduo, and Albemarle were considered winners in 2020. The biggest losers were airlines such as Boeing, and United, real estate and retail operations such as Simon, and oil and gas industries like British Petroleum.

Overall, the stocks which outperformed market expectations included freight and logistics, basic materials, Internet retail, software applications, and semiconductors. Heading into 2021, the S&P 500 index was up 16.3%, and growth continues. There are ‘moral hazard’ concerns with any big stimulus. Prior to the pandemic, approximately 20% of public companies were operational, but unable to repay their debts. After the pandemic hit, that number swelled to 32%.

How will the Stimulus Affect Demand for Gold?

Source: MarketWatch SPDR GLD

Traders and investors tend to buy gold when stock markets are performing poorly. The pandemic hit the brakes on the economy, and gold benefited. During uncertain times, gold becomes the go-to commodity, as it functions as a store of value. With trillions of dollars in stimulus money finding its way into the markets and households, there is no threat of a recession anytime soon. Gold prices such as GLD are off their highs, and trading at weaker levels.

When the Fed decides to raise interest rates once again, possibly to curb inflation, gold will again get hit. Since gold is not an interest-bearing commodity, it doesn’t benefit investors the same way that interest earning bonds do. As the 10-year yields on bonds continues to increase, capital will exit gold stocks, ETFs, and holdings and move to the bond markets, and interest-bearing accounts. That the gold price forecast is bearish is par for the course under current conditions.

It is against this backdrop of change and uncertainty that trillions of dollars in stimulus will weave its way into the fabric of the American economy through households and businesses. How that plays out in the stock markets remains to be seen, but for now all signs are positive.

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

COVID-19: New Dynamics to the World’s Politico-Economic Structure

Published

on

How ironic it is that a virus invisible from a naked human eye can manage to topple down the world and its dynamics. Breaking out of CoronaVirus, its spread across the globe and the diversity of consequences faced by the individual states all make it evident how the dynamics of the world could be reversed in months. Starting from the blame games regarding coronavirus to its geostrategic implications and the entire enigma between COVID-19 and politics, COVID-19 and economies have shaken the world. Whether it is the acclaimed super power, struggling powers or third world states or even individuals, the pandemic has unveiled the capability and credibility of all, especially in political and economic domains. Wearing masks in public, avoiding hand shake and maintaining distance from one another have emerged as ‘new normal’ in the social world of interaction.

Since the pandemic has locked its eyes upon the globe, world politics has taken an unfortunate drift. From the opportunities for leaders to abuse power during state of emergency (which is imposed in different states to limit the spread of novel Coronavirus) to the likelihood of rise of far-right nationalists to the emergence of ‘travel bubbles’ between states (such as New Zealand and Australia) and the increased chances of regionalism in post-pandemic world to the new terrorist strategies to gain support and many others, all are result of the pandemic’s impact on the political world, one way or the other. Since the end of WWII, the United States has taken the role of global leadership and after the Cold War, it became more prominent as it was the sole superpower of the world. Talking ideally, pandemics are perceived to bring up global cooperation but in the COVID-19 scenario it has started a whole new set of debates, sparkled nativism versus globalization and the sharp divide in global politics has drifted the focus from overcoming the global pandemic through global response to inward looking policies of leaders.

Covid-19 has impacted every sphere of life, be it social, political, health or economic. The pandemic itself being the result of a globalized world has affected globalization badly. It is the best illustration of the interrelation of politics and economics and how the steps in one sector impact the other in this interdependent, globalized world. Political actions such as restricting travel had drastic economic impacts especially to the countries whose economy is largely dependent on tourism, foreign investment etc. Similarly, economic actions such as limiting foreign products’ access had political implications in the form of sudden unemployment and downturn in living standards of people.

For the first time in history, oil prices became negative when its demand suddenly dropped when industries were shut down almost everywhere. Russia and Saudi Arabia’s oil clash which led to increased oil production by Saudi Arabia further complicated the situation. This unprecedented drop in oil demand and consequently its price would only help in the economic recovery of countries. Covid-19 has impacted three sectors badly. First of all, it affected production as global manufacturing has declined due to decrease in demand. Secondly, it has created supply chain and market disruption. Finally, lockdowns affected local businesses everywhere. Bad impact aside, pandemic has led to the change in demand of products. Instead of investment and foreign trade, states having strong medical and textiles industries have got the opportunity of increasing exports. This is because there are requirements of face masks everywhere to avoid contagion. Need for medical instruments have also increased such as ventilators in developing countries specially. 

The only positive impact of Coronavirus is that it fostered environmental cleanliness. It is said that it can avert a climate emergency but the fact is that, as soon as the lockdown will be eased and businesses will begin returning into functioning, economic growth and prosperity will be prioritized over sustainability and we might even witness, more than ever, carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Novel coronavirus has brought new dynamics to the world’s politico-economic structure. While the world has the opportunity to come close for cooperation and consensus to fight it, we might witness increased regionalism in the post-pandemic world as a cautious measure and alternative where crisis management would be more cooperative and quick. There is a likelihood of the emergence of an international treaty or regime to ban bio-weapons. While the prevalence of political optimism is not assured in the post-pandemic world, we are likely to see the interdependent economic world, as before, to overcome the economic slump and revive the global economy. 

Continue Reading

Economy

The free trade vision and its fallacies: The case of the African Continental Free Trade Area

Published

on

The notion of free trade consists of the idea of a trade policy where no restrictions will be implemented on imports or exports in the respected countries that have signed such an agreement. Some economists argue that free trade is understood through the idea of the free market being forced through international trade. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is a trade area that was founded in 2018, and it is the most ambiguous project in the history of the continent. This project has plenty of potential successes, as well as fallacies. Particular African nations are either in favor or against this project, and it is a matter of time before the world understands if this project will reflect the true notion behind the idea of a free trade policy.

The African Continental Free Trade Area: The European Union Vision in Africa?

The African Continental Free Trade Area was founded in 2018 in Kigali, Rwanda. It is believed to be the most prestigious project ever created on the continent. It was created by the African Continental Free Trade Agreement and it was signed by 44 countries. Some of the general objectives of this agreement include: The creation of a single economic market, the establishment of a liberalized market, the allowance of free movement of capital and people, diversification of the industrial development in the continent, e.t.c. In some ways, this project can be compared with the European Union and the vision that it represents for a single market and free movement of goods and people. However, due to the size and the geopolitical tensions of the African continent, there are a few obstacles to the achievement of this project. The European Union itself was a project that took more than half a century to be established in its current form, and still, we can see some problems that remain. With that being said, among the 27 member states, there seems to be more or less a coherent economic and political stability. In the case of the African Union, there are far more obstacles, ranging from huge economic differences, political and religious turmoils, and in general a neglected infrastructure; that might not be able to support a mammoth project like this. Any sort of optimism should be also approached with a realistic perspective when it comes to its implementation, which might not be happening anytime soon, certainly not before 2030.

The Relevance of the Free Trade Notion in Africa

It is important to remember that this project deals with the concept of free trade, and free trade itself is something that economists still argue about. Generally speaking, most economists seem to be in favor of free trade. There is an argument that supports the idea of free trade and any kind of reduction in government-induced restrictions on free trade which will be beneficial to economic growth and stability. On the other hand, some economists suggest that the policy of protectionism could be a more lucrative alternative for an economic policy. There is a suggestion that the liberalization of trade will result in an unequal distribution of losses and profit gains while economically dislocating a large number of workers in import-competing sectors.

In the case of the AfCFTA however, the opinion of Ha-Joon Chang, a South Korean economist, might be more relevant. He suggested that if there is going to be any kind of free trade liberalization in the African continent, some prior steps should be taken. For example, the improvement of the institutions in those developing African nations must be achieved to have sustainable economic growth and development. In addition, the idea of demanding from the developing nations to achieve institutional standards that we see in the developed nations such as the U.S or Great Britain, but have never before been achieved in those countries, will only hurt these nations since they might not need or even afford the implementation of these institutions that we see in the West. There is a valid point in the argument because the concept of the AfCFTA might indeed benefit some nations in Africa, but still, it will not develop to its full potential to benefit all 44 countries that have signed the agreement. This is because this project involves countries with different views and needs. Some of them see the AfCFTA as a blessing for the liberalization of the African economy, while other nations are more skeptical about it, thinking that this project will result in African states “biting off, more than they can chew”. This dichotomy is visually striking when we compare some African nations and examine the true reasons why they are in favor or against the AfCFTA.

The African Dichotomy

Rwanda is a small nation in East Africa, having at least 12.5 million people, with a total estimate of its GDP being close to $33.45 billion. A very impressive number, if someone considers the fact that in 1980 its GDP was barely $2.1 billion. It is also the nation that is strongly in favor of the ambitious free trade project in the continent. It is estimated that from 1994 until 2010, Rwanda’s economy grew an average of 6.6%. This is mostly based on the fact that the president of the country, Paul Kagame, led a strong campaign towards the liberalization of the country’s agricultural sector. His reforms allowed the producers to benefit from this liberalization boom while boosting productivity through capital investments. It is clear by now that any sort of project that aims to liberalize the economies of other African nations will be beneficial to Rwanda that aims, as President Paul Kagame mentioned before, to make Rwanda the “Singapore of Africa”.

However, some countries pose some key arguments that need to be addressed for the AfCFTA. There are concerns regarding the massive difference between populations in many African states, as well as the potential of the markets to sustain such a project. With that being said, there is still optimism from some experts that view this project as a win-win situation for Africa since it will allow a trade-led diversification away from Africa’s commodity dependence and focus towards industrial development. On the other hand, this optimism is being taken with a “pinch of salt” from certain African nations, like Nigeria. Nigeria is a nation of at least 205 million people with a total GDP of $1.087 trillion. Nigeria was one of the last nations to sign the agreement, but not before firmly opposing the deal. The strongest argument that Nigeria had against the deal, was the fact that Nigeria could do nothing to undermine the local Nigerian manufactures and entrepreneurs of the country. There was strong domestic opposition to regional trade liberalization and concerns about the government’s ability to implement it effectively. In the same line of thought, Togo’s Foreign Minister Robert Dussey did not hide his concerns. In an interview with Deutsche Welle, Mr. Dussey stressed the fact that many African countries will need to be firstly well-equipped with the right technical tools to meet the challenges of such an enormous project. He shared his views that some rich nations in the West are not so keen to see the potential industrialization of the African continent: “African development is foremost the responsibility of Africans. We have a problem with work for our youth. It is important that we have strong industries to have work for the young”, said Mr. Dussey for Deutsche Welle.

Can we safely say that the AfCFTA project complies with the economic policy of free trade? Theoretically, it does. The project has the potential to change the socio-economic status of all the countries involved. Even if some nations are more industrialized than others, and can take full advantage of the opportunities for manufactured goods, other nations that might not be so privileged can benefit by linking their economies into regional value chains. This can happen again theoretically if there is a reduction in trade costs and facilitating investments. However, one should not overlook the growing challenges of this project. It is not feasible to suggest a 90% tariff cut, a unified digital payments system, and an African trade observatory dashboard that the AU Commission promises in the next five years. For the simple reason that you cannot have this liberalized economic system when most of the African countries are suffering from socio-political instability. How can a system which in some ways is based on the European Union, work when there is such a striking inequality among African nations? There is a lack of industrial infrastructure to support such a project, and it will be more beneficial to address these regional problems before expanding in a global vision. One day Africa will reach its full potential, but not in the next five years and not in the next ten years. Such an agreement is a blessing, but it needs careful examination before being implemented; otherwise, we will talk about a disaster in the African continent that could potentially bring more inequality and regional tensions.

Continue Reading

Economy

Turning to sustainable global business: 5 things to know about the circular economy

Published

on

Due to the ever-increasing demands of the global economy, the resources of the planet are being used up at an alarming rate and waste and pollution are growing fast. The idea of a more sustainable “circular economy” is gaining traction, but what does this concept mean, and can it help save the planet?

1) Business as usual, the path to catastrophe

Unless we make some major adjustments to the way the planet is run, many observers believe that business as usual puts us on a path to catastrophe.

Around 90 per cent of global biodiversity loss and water stress (when the demand for water is greater than the available amount), and a significant proportion of the harmful emissions that are driving climate change, is caused by the way we use and process natural resources.

Over the past three decades, the amount of raw materials extracted from the earth, worldwide, has more than doubled. At the current rate of extraction, we’re on course to double the amount again, by 2060.

According to the International Resource Panel, a group of independent expert scientists brought together by the UN to examine the issue, this puts us in line for a three to six degree temperature increase, which would be deadly for much life on Earth. 

2) A circular economy means a fundamental change of direction

Whilst there is no universally agreed definition of a circular economy, the 2019 United Nations Environment Assembly, the UN’s flagship environment conference, described it as a model in which products and materials are “designed in such a way that they can be reused, remanufactured, recycled or recovered and thus maintained in the economy for as long as possible”.

In this scenario, fewer resources would be needed, less waste would be produced and, perhaps most importantly, the greenhouse gas emissions which are driving the climate crisis, would be prevented or reduced.

This goes much further than simply recycling: for the circular economy to happen,  the dominant economic model of “planned obsolescence” (buying, discarding and replacing products on a frequent basis) would have to be upended, businesses and consumers would need to value raw materials, from glass to metal to plastics and fibres, as resources to be valued, and products as things to be maintained and repaired, before they are replaced.

3) Turn trash into cash

Increasingly, in both the developed and the developing world, consumers are embracing the ideas behind the circular economy, and companies are realising that they can make money from it. “Making our economies circular offers a lifeline to decarbonise our economies”, says Olga Algayerova, the head of the UN Economic Commission for Europe, (UNECE), “and could lead to the creation of 1.8 million net jobs by 2040”.

In the US, for example, a demand for affordable, high-quality furniture, in a country where some 15 million tonnes of discarded furniture ends up in landfill every year, was the spur for the creation of Kaiyo, an online marketplace that makes it easier for furniture to be repaired and reused. The company is growing fast, and is part of a trend in the country towards a more effective use of resources, such as the car-sharing app Zipcar, and Rent the Runway, a rental service for designer clothing.

In Africa, there are many projects, large and small, which incorporate the principles of the circular economy by using existing resources in the most efficient way possible. One standout initiative is Gjenge Makers in Kenya. The company sells bricks for the construction industry, made entirely from waste. The young founder, Nzambi Matee, who has been awarded a UN Champion of the Earth award, says that she is literally turning trash into cash. The biggest problem she faces is how to keep up with demand: every day Gjenge Makers recycles some 500 kilos of waste, and can produces up to 1,500 plastic bricks every day.

4) Governments are beginning to step up

But, for the transition to take hold, governments need to be involved. Recently, major commitments have been made in some of the countries and regions responsible for significant resources use and waste. 
The US Government’s American Jobs Plan, for example, includes measures to retrofit energy-efficient homes, electrify the federal fleet of vehicles, including postal vans, and ending carbon pollution from power generation by 2035.

In the European Union, the EU’s new circular economy action plan, adopted in 2020, is one of the building blocks of the ambitious European Green Deal, which aims at making Europe the first climate-neutral continent.

And, in Africa, Rwanda, Nigeria and South Africa founded the African Circular Economy Alliance, which calls for the widespread adoption of the circular economy on the continent. The Alliance supports African leaders who champion the idea, and creates coalitions to implement pilot projects.

5) Squaring the circle?

However, there is still a long way to and there is even evidence that the world is going backwards: the 2021 Circularity Gap Report, produced annually by the Circle Economy thinktank, estimates that the global circularity rate (the proportion of recovered materials, as a percentage of overall materials used) stands at only 8.6 per cent, down from 9.1 per cent in 2018

So how can the world be made “rounder”? There are no easy answers, and no silver bullet, but Ms. Algayerova points to strong regulation as a big piece of the puzzle.

“I am proud that for the automotive sector, a UN regulation adopted at UNECE in 2013 requires 85 per cent of new vehicles’ mass to be reusable or recyclable. This binding regulation influences the design of around one quarter of all vehicles sold globally, some 23 million in 2019.”

“It’s a step in the right direction, but these kind of approaches need to be massively scaled up across all sectors”, she adds. “Shifting to the circular economy is good for business, citizens and nature, and must be at the heart of a sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending