The Fed's policy may just drive a recession

On 16 March, the US Federal Reserve (Fed) hiked its policy interest rate by 25 basis points and started the process of monetary policy tightening after slashing rates to 0% during COVID. This move along with its plans to hike at each of the subsequent six meetings this year was expected by the market. What surprised market participants was the Fed’s terminal policy rate expectation (the highest policy rate it expects out of this rate-hiking cycle) at 2.75% by 2023 versus the estimated long-run neutral rate (the rate supporting full employment while keeping inflation constant) of 2.35%. The Fed also plans to start shrinking its balance sheet earlier than expected and as soon as in May.

What prompted this degree of hawkishness? For one, US inflation at 7.9% in February is the highest since 1982! Second, the US labour market is pretty tight with the unemployment rate at 3.8% in February, close to the pre-pandemic rate. Additionally, job gains have been widespread across leisure and hospitality, professional services, healthcare and construction.

The Fed published its revised economic forecasts for 2022–24 after the policy meeting. It was striking to see the downward revision to its US growth forecast at 2.8% in 2022 compared to its December forecast of 4.0%. The significant increase in commodity prices and economic uncertainty are expected to drive this slowdown. Simultaneously, it projected personal consumption expenditure growth at 4.3% vs 2.6% in December. The epic level of policy stimulus undertaken during COVID both from the fiscal and monetary sides had driven inflation higher throughout 2021 in the US. 2022 added the extra layer of commodity price shock arising out of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Following the announcement, the 10Y-5Y US Treasury (UST) spread turned negative, in other words, the yield curve inverted, signaling that the market has started pricing in an economic recession. This was driven by expectations around a global growth slowdown from elevated commodity prices and the degree of monetary policy tightening projected by the most important central bank. Thanks to the 0% interest rate in the US over the last two years, corporate America issued copious amounts of debt to stay afloat. Non-financial corporate debt rose by USD 1.2 trillion during the pandemic. Corporates will now face higher interest rates and some are bound to go bankrupt in trying to meet their debt obligation. Although the Fed did not amend its unemployment forecast for 2023 (at 3.5%), I would assume job losses starting this year as corporates restructure to raise cash and service their debt.

Despite the degree of interest rate hikes forecasted, the Fed does not expect a recession. In fact, Fed chair Jerome Powell cited three historical instances in 1965, 1984 and 1994, where the Fed was successful in cooling the economy through interest rate hikes without causing a recession. The market disagrees and between you and me, the market usually pre-empts and forces the Fed’s actions.

In this stagflation scenario — with growth slowing and inflation remaining persistently high — how should an investor think about portfolio construction? Consumer staples are an obvious beneficiary as higher prices force buyers to cut back on discretionary spending. Utilities and healthcare are other defensive sectors that could protect the portfolio. Loading up on blue-chip names is another good move. You may have come across the argument that ESG investment is inflationary as it penalizes investment in fossil fuel and metals and thereby creates an uneven supply for important commodities. I would take this prompt and add green metals that are needed for renewable energy generation to my portfolio. These include lithium and cobalt (used in batteries), copper (wind, solar PV) and zinc (wind, solar, hydro, energy storage) among others.

Some regions such as Asia have relatively dovish monetary policies compared to the West as inflation is not out of control. Here, ASEAN stocks continue to benefit from their disproportionate exposure to financials, real estate, materials and construction sectors that outperform during inflation. Please check my piece on ASEAN as an inflation hedge for this topic.

Central banks globally are struggling to juggle high inflation and easing growth. At the moment, containing inflation appears to be the number one priority. However, as monetary policy tightening weakens growth, central banks may disappoint the market’s rate hike expectations in order to protect the economy. This would create a good environment for bond investments to thrive, particularly next year.

Conclusion:

The Fed’s aggressive interest rate projections coupled with elevated commodity prices suggest the rising probability of a recession in the US and global economy.

Portfolio construction during stagflation periods should tilt towards defensive sectors such as consumer staples, healthcare and utilities.

Green metals that are used in renewable energy generation and select sectors that benefit from inflation are a good fit in the current environment.

Please consider contributing to humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. Refer to this or this website for organizations undertaking humanitarian efforts.

Reforming corporate Korea out of stagnation

 

South Korea is the tenth largest economy by gross domestic product and has a per capita income of USD 31,360 (2020), qualifying it as an advanced economy. Korea was given the title of the ‘Miracle on the Han River’ for its spectacular rise from an agrarian economy in the 50s to an industrial power house in the latter half of the 20th century.

Despite its notable economic achievements, the Korean equity and currency markets are hindered by governance challenges and investment hurdles. These have kept Korea in the emerging market (EM) bucket by equity index provider MSCI since 1992. Weak corporate governance in large conglomerates, restricted access to the currency market and onerous onboarding hurdles for foreign investors among other factors, have prevented Korea’s upgrade to developed market (DM) status.

Why is corporate governance a big issue in Korea?

Korea’s benchmark Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) is dominated by family-run conglomerates called Chaebols (wealth clique in Korean) such as Samsung, LG, SK Hynix and Lotte among others. Chaebols constitute over 50% of the KOSPI’s market cap and the top 10 own over 27% of all business assets in the country. Chaebol families were praised for their role in industrializing Korea during the 60s and 70s and turning the nation into a manufacturing powerhouse from an agrarian economy. Today, Korea’s economy is the 10th largest in size, in a large part thanks to Chaebols.

Notwithstanding their massive contribution to the economy, Chaebols are notorious for their opaque corporate governance policies to retain power with founding family members. These conglomerates have often used circular shareholding structures, made decisions to favour family members and generally disregarded minority shareholder returns. To provide context — the gap in the dividend payout ratio of MSCI World (comprising developed market stocks) and MSCI Korea stood at 21.72 ppt in 2000, 28.01 in 2010 and 29.85 in 2020. The persistent weakness in dividend payout — as Chaebol managements prefer to hoard cash rather than invest — drive Korean stocks’ valuation discount to peer indices as well.

Activist hedge funds are trying to force policy changes

An activist hedge fund invests in companies and plays an active role in changing policies and / or management to unlock business improvement and value. Several activist funds have endeavoured to implement governance reforms in Korean corporates. Local fund KCGI attempted to remove Korean Air / Hanjin Group CEO and establish an independent board of directors to improve decision-making. Samsung’s Lee family is notorious for retaining power with family members. In 2015, activist hedge fund Elliott Management failed to prevent the merger of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries as the Korean government intervened and backed the Chaebol. This was despite Samsung heir Lee Jae-yong’s blatant attempt to consolidate power in the corporation. These examples highlight the difficulties faced by minority shareholders to unlock value from the biggest Korean firms.

Korean stocks have stagnated over the past decade

Aside from corporate governance challenges, Korean stock prices are held back by the cyclical nature of businesses. For instance, the KOSPI is dominated by cyclical stocks such as semiconductors (Samsung, SK Hynix), shipbuilding (Hyundai), construction (Hyundai Engineering and Construction) and steel (Hyundai Steel, POSCO) that are sensitive to the economic cycle. Korea is an important producer of memory chips that go into manufacturing electronics. The memory chip sector is highly cyclical and correlated to global economic cycle and firm inventory. The KOSPI is often vulnerable to shifting sentiments of the memory chip sector. This generates earnings volatility for corporates and prevents steady flow of capital from foreign investors.

An upgrade to developed market status to the rescue?

If Korea were to achieve an upgrade from emerging to developed market (DM), its stocks would be added to the MSCI World indices which have greater capital invested in them. Against the USD 960 billion tracking MSCI EM, MSCI World Indices benefit from approximately USD 3.6 trillion in assets under management. Research houses estimate USD 20–50 billion capital inflow into Korean stocks upon inclusion into MSCI World indices. These flows may finally help the KOSPI reach the aspired 4000 level and exit the prolonged period of stagnation.

Public officials may be keen for reforms

Korea elected conservative People Power Party’s Yoon Seok-youl as its next president on 9 March. As a former high-profile prosecutor general, Yoon took corrective action against large corporations, suggesting the potential for corporate governance improvements under his leadership.

Democratic Party (DP)’s candidate Lee Jae-myung called for reforms to facilitate Korea’s upgrade to DM during his election rally. In response to MSCI’s wish list, the Korean finance minister spoke about implementing currency reforms this year. It is too early to tell, but these developments paint an optimistic picture for Korean stocks.

Conclusion

Given the stagnation in Korean stock prices and the very low expectation of an upgrade to DM (following numerous failed attempts), the realization of an upgrade and entry into MSCI World indices could be very positive for Korean stocks. From an investor’s perspective, any seriousness from policymakers and Chaebols for corporate reforms is positive. In recent years, Korea’s Fair Trade Commission (FTC) banned new circular shareholdings in 2013, facilitating a reduction in business owners holding key board posts. Companies with independent audit committees rose and the KOSPI’s dividend payout ratio has been inching higher. This momentum needs to continue to see any evident impact on share prices.

Please consider contributing towards humanitarian efforts in Ukraine. Refer to this or this website for organizations that are assisting Ukraine.