≡ Menu
Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

Last week we talked about the infamously inverted yield curve in the US. Meanwhile here in the UK the Bank of England has already hiked its policy rate to 0.75%. Now policymakers and pundits alike are mulling over how much faster and farther central banks will go.

There are various ways a higher Bank Rate could slow (or worse) the economy. Theories will lead you into a Spaghetti Junction of the money supply –  M1, M2, M3 and beyond – or down other half-forgotten cul de sacs.

In the UK though, it’s probably easiest just to think about the housing market.

For good or ill (okay, ill) the UK economy is still geared around property and especially residential homes. A sector that seemingly has been flying through the stratosphere on fumes for decades.

But I believe when something has been seemingly running on fumes for decades, it’s probably better to assume you haven’t properly identified the fuel.

In the early 2000s both politicians and punters blamed supply and demand for high house prices. And I did too, for what it’s worth. Not enough houses were being built to meet demand, we believed. Never mind that rents had failed to soar by anything like the same extent – even though everyone has to live somewhere.

About a decade ago I finally realized that interest rates were all-important. Along with the laxity of bank lending, rates decide how much somebody feels they can pay each month for a property.

Very many home buyers will pay as much as they can manage without totally derailing their lifestyle. They hope prices will rise in time, or if not that their income will. And most pay via a mortgage.

What could go wrong?

Something going up beyond the rent

Take a look at this graph from Capital Economics, as highlighted this week by This Is Money:

The graph suggests that soon mortgage payments will become more expensive than rent. This should not normally be the case, because landlords want to make a profit1.

As rates and house prices rise, the monthly payments required to own a home via a mortgage climbs further. The graph forecasts that monthly payments will soon be above their last peak.

Of course, a pound is worth a lot less now, and it will be worth even less by Christmas. But the pressure from rates shrugging off their torpor and struggling to their feet is clear.

Caveats abound. Many people are on fixed-rate mortgages nowadays. Affordability is stress-tested when you get a mortgage. The nice lads on The Property Podcast reckon this cycle has several years more to run as regulations are loosened and banks go a bit crazy.

Also, would policymakers really want to provoke a housing market crash by raising rates too far?

Long ago I used to scoff at such talk as clutching at straws in the face of an elevated market. But actually, presuming policymakers will do all they can to avoid a repeat of the early 1990s housing crash has been a pretty good heuristic over the years. How much higher could Bank Rate go before roiling UK PLC and its stretched populace?

With vast government debt also looming large, you can see the appeal of inflating away these problems by avoiding real yields from climbing too far (aka financial repression).

In such a world, you might think you’re getting finally 4% from your savings account, but you’re forgetting inflation is running at, say, 5%. The real value of your money is still getting gently mullered.

Interesting times. Have a great weekend all!

[continue reading…]

  1. Although that’s yet another truism that’s gotten screwy in the near-zero interest rate years, as landlords in pricey parts of the country have banked on capital returns. []
{ 36 comments }

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q1 2022

The portfolio is down 3.48% year to date.

Once more the contrast between my daily diet of media-amplified fear and the damage done to our Slow & Steady passive portfolio surprises me.

The portfolio is down just 3.5% since its peak last quarter. Essentially, we’re back where we were six months ago. 

That’s despite the arrow-headed threats of stagflation, economic crisis, and a geopolitical winter converging on our positions.

We count our blessings as private investors who sleep soundly at night. As ever, you only need glance at the conveyor belt of horror on the news to gain a proper sense of proportion.

Nothing to be down about

In writing about a rare down period for the S&S – when nothing in the portfolio offers much cheer – I’m minded how rarely I’ve had to report a knock back. 

The table below shows how often a World equities portfolio has historically registered a loss, depending on how often you checked in on it. (See the ‘Look frequency’ column on the left):

A table showing how often world equities are likely to be down over time

Albion Strategic Consulting is passive investing champion Tim Hale’s firm. This table was published in wealth manager BRWM’s regular newsletter.

The Slow & Steady portfolio has only nosed down in ten quarters out of 45, which is just 22% of the time. That compares well with the 31% chance of a quarterly loss suggested by the table. 

Negative years have rained on our portfolio’s parade twice in eleven years. That’s 18% of the time versus an expectation of 23%. 

We’ve lived through a benign era, which only heightens our fear that it might come undone. 

Bond-o-geddon 

Indeed, the long-predicted bond reckoning does seem to be upon us. Our bond fund inflicted an 8% loss in the last three months. That compounds a poor 2021. 

Here’s this quarter’s portfolio carve-up brought to you by DystopiaVision:

Portfolio results in table form for the Slow and Steady portfolio April 2022

The Slow & Steady portfolio is Monevator’s model passive investing portfolio. It was set up at the start of 2011 with £3,000. An extra £1,055 is invested every quarter into a diversified set of index funds, tilted towards equities. You can read the origin story and find all the previous passive portfolio posts tucked away in the Monevator vaults.

The one-year return for our UK government bond fund is -6%. Layer on the current annual inflation rate of 5.5% (CPIH) and you’re looking at a real return loss of 11.5%. 

Conventional UK gilts are quite capable of inflicting double-digit annual losses.

2013 and 2021 both returned a -10% inflation-adjusted loss.

Before that, 1994 brought -14% worth of bond pain.

You have to go back to the stagflationary 1970s to see big bond losses in consecutive years though. UK government bonds took a -47.6% real terms pasting between 1972 and 1974. 

Nasty, but it’s not wealth-wrecking on the scale of UK stock market storms such as:

Moreover the bond losses quoted above measure the hit to long gilts. You’d have suffered less if you held intermediate or short-dated bonds. 

This post on bond prices explains how bond losses (and gains) work. 

It’s always darkest before dawn 

People seem to intuitively understand mean-reversion when it comes to equities, but miss how bonds sow the seeds of their own resurrection.

Capital losses today mean your bond holdings will reinvest in higher-yielding varieties tomorrow.

That mechanism will eventually put you further ahead, compared to if yields hadn’t risen.

Inflation-linked bonds go AWOL

Notably our global inflation-linked bond fund isn’t covering itself in glory – despite spiralling prices in the shops and on the petrol station forecourts.

Our fund somehow managed to return -0.26% over the last quarter. How can that be?

The data below shows that investors were bidding up index-linked bonds from 2019 – well before official inflation rates took off in 2021. 

A graph showing the growth of the portfolio's inflation-linked bond fund Annual returns for inflation-linked bonds

Source: Royal London Asset Management

The market saw inflation coming and our fund did okay these last three years. Though it still lags all of our equity funds over the same period.

The problem is short-dated government bonds only offer so much juice. And inflation-linked bonds are battling a negative yield headwind before they can even register a gain.

Also note that our fund can drop if the market anticipates lower inflation, even while we grit our teeth when filling up the car.

A short-dated fund like this is not going to make you rich. It’s about capital preservation.

If inflation explodes then it’ll protect a corner of your portfolio while equities and conventional bonds get their marrow sucked. 

From that perspective, our inflation-linked fund is doing its joyless job.

If I was an early to mid-stage accumulator then I’d likely dispense with this asset class. I’d rely on equities to beat inflation over the long term instead.

Investing in index-linked bonds is probably something that can wait until you’re on the glidepath to decumulation. Perhaps ten or even just five years out. 

We have an upcoming post on inflation hedges that will investigate the reasons why.  

Leave well alone

We only need rewind the clock a couple of years to recall that inflation worries were about as fashionable as a mutton-chopped general preparing to fight the last war. 

Chalk it up as another piece of evidence that few can predict what’s going to happen next. 

Conventional bond losses could mount. On the other hand, they could be your best refuge if a colossal recession lies around the bend. 

It always makes sense to maintain a dry powder store of bonds to cushion your losses and buy equities on sale. 

That’s why given the balance of risks, in recent years we’ve been advocating capping bond exposure rather than throwing them overboard. 

If you own a 60/40 portfolio then perhaps you can tolerate a 65/35 or 70/30 equity/bond mix. 

Your defensive asset allocation is hard to judge. Tread cautiously, and assume your risk tolerance is lower than you think. 

New transactions

Every quarter we buy £1,055 of ammunition for the skeet shoot that is the global market. Our shots at glory are split between seven funds, as per our predetermined asset allocation.

We rebalance using Larry Swedroe’s 5/25 rule. That hasn’t been activated this quarter.

These are our trades:

UK equity

Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust – OCF 0.06%

Fund identifier: GB00B3X7QG63

New purchase: £52.75

Buy 0.223 units @ £236.50

Target allocation: 5%

Developed world ex-UK equities

Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-UK Equity Index Fund – OCF 0.14%

Fund identifier: GB00B59G4Q73

New purchase: £390.35

Buy 0.728 units @ £536.24

Target allocation: 37%

Global small cap equities

Vanguard Global Small-Cap Index Fund – OCF 0.29%

Fund identifier: IE00B3X1NT05

New purchase: £52.75

Buy 0.133 units @ £395.58

Target allocation: 5%

Emerging market equities

iShares Emerging Markets Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.19%

Fund identifier: GB00B84DY642

New purchase: £84.40

Buy 44.858 units @ £1.88

Target allocation: 8%

Global property

iShares Global Property Securities Equity Index Fund D – OCF 0.17%

Fund identifier: GB00B5BFJG71

New purchase: £52.75

Buy 20.303 units @ £2.60

Target allocation: 5%

UK gilts

Vanguard UK Government Bond Index – OCF 0.12%

Fund identifier: IE00B1S75374

New purchase: £305.95

Buy 1.83 units @ £167.17

Target allocation: 29%

Global inflation-linked bonds

Royal London Short Duration Global Index-Linked Fund – OCF 0.27%

Fund identifier: GB00BD050F05

New purchase: £116.05

Buy 102.608 units @ £1.13

Target allocation: 11%

New investment = £1,055

Trading cost = £0

Platform fee = 0.35% per annum.

This model fund portfolio is notionally held with Charles Stanley Direct. Take a look at our online broker table for cheaper platform options if you use a different mix of funds. InvestEngine is even cheaper if you’re happy to invest only in ETFs.

Average portfolio OCF = 0.16%

If all this seems too much like hard work then you can buy a diversified portfolio using an all-in-one fund such as Vanguard’s LifeStrategy series.

Interested in tracking your own portfolio or using the Slow & Steady investment tracking spreadsheet? This piece on portfolio tracking shows you how.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 52 comments }

Defusing capital gains: a worked example

Image of a wires being cut to defuse.

The UK tax year ends on 5 April. For many people, the weeks before are a rush to put money into an ISA before the year’s annual allowance is lost.

This rush is despite them (maybe YOU?) having already had 11 months to open or add to an ISA in order to enjoy – forever – tax-free interest, dividends, and capital gains on shares.

Tsk. People, eh?

But what about those of us who do dutifully max out our ISAs every tax year? Those lucky enough to have cash leftover – even after making our pension contributions?

Or what about those who inherit a fat wodge, say, and haven’t been able to ISA-size it all yet?

And what about those people (*whistles* *looks at feet*) who years ago were dumb enough to buy shares outside of an ISA for literally no good reason?1

After a few years and a strong stock market, even modest-sized investments made outside of tax wrappers can be carrying significant capital gains.

High-rollers / reformed muppets with this high-class problem – unsheltered assets with gains – should consider using up their annual capital gains tax allowance2 every year – by end of day 5 April.

I call the process defusing capital gains because it helps to nullify a future tax time-bomb.

Keep on top of growing capital gains

In the 2021/2022 tax year, you have a £12,300 capital gains tax (CGT) allowance.

This means you can enjoy £12,300 in gains CGT-free, across all your CGT-chargeable investments.

Remember, CGT is only liable when you realize the capital gain. This happens (in most cases) when you sell sufficient assets to generate more than £12,300 worth of gains (aka profits).

Until you sell, you can let your gains roll up – unmolested by tax.

Deferring gains like this is better for your finances than paying taxes every year.

But it’s even better for your long-term returns to pay little to no taxes on gains at all.

The trick? Sell just enough assets to use your CGT allowance in order to trim back the long-term tax liabilities you’re building up – but not enough to trigger a tax charge.

You may also want to realise some capital losses, to defuse even more gains.

That, in a nutshell, is defusing capital gains.

Remember, taxes can significantly reduce your returns over the long-term.

Yet paying capital gains taxes is also a bit optional, like high investment fees. Similar to high fees, by being vigilant over a lifetime most people can dampen or even sidestep their potential impact.

Let’s consider an example.

Defusing capital gains

We’ve written before about how to manage capital gains by using your CGT allowance to curb the growth of your CGT liabilities. Read that before this article.

Let’s now see an example of how you go about defusing a gain.

Don’t make it harder for yourself! Your broker, software, or a record-keeping spreadsheet can help you track the ongoing capital gains on each of your holdings. I’m showing the underlying calculations below for clarity. Make sure you keep great records if you invest outside of tax shelters! The paperwork can be painful. But it is necessary.

A worked example of defusing capital gains

Let’s say you invest £100,000 in Monevator Ltd – a small cap share that pays no dividend, but whose share price proceeds to compound at a very rapid 30% a year for three years.

(I wish!)

After this period you decide to sell up. You plan to use the money to buy an ice cream van and become a self-made mogul like Duncan Bannatyne.

The question: is it a good idea to defuse or not to defuse capital gains along the way?

Here are two scenarios to help us decide. I’ve rounded numbers to the nearest pound throughout for simplicity’s sake.

Scenario #1: You don’t sell any shares for three years

What if you don’t defuse? In this case your initial £100,000 of shares in Monevator Ltd compounds at 30% a year for three years.

At the end of the third year / beginning of the fourth year your shareholding is worth £219,700. You sell the lot. You have thus realized a potentially taxable gain of £119,700. (That is: £219,700 minus your initial £100,000).

Assuming the annual capital gains tax-free allowance is still £12,300 in four years time – and assuming this is the only chargeable asset you sell that year, so there are no other gains or losses to complicate things – you will be taxed on a gain of £107,400. (That is, £119,700-£12,300.)

The tax rate you’ll pay depends on your income tax bracket.

At the basic rate, you are taxed on capital gains on shares at 10% (18% for residential property). Higher-rate taxpayers pay 20% on their gains (28% on property).

From our previous article, you’ll know that the taxable capital gain itself is added to your taxable income to determine your tax bracket.

The current income tax bands from HMRC:

(Wales has the same bands. Scotland is different – see HMRC.)

In other words, you’ll pay a 10% CGT rate on your gains on shares if your overall annual income is below the £50,270 higher-rate threshold.

You’ll pay 20% on your gains if your total annual income is above £50,270.

Clearly, in our example most or all of the £107,400 in gains is going be taxed at a rate of 20%. So to keep things simple, let’s presume you’re already a higher-rate tax payer from your job.

At your CGT rate of 20% then, that £107,400 taxable gain will result in a CGT tax bill of £21,480.

You pay your tax. You are left with £198,220 after the sale.3

Remember: to keep things simple I’m presuming you don’t have any capital losses that you can offset against this gain to further reduce your liability.

Scenario #2: You defuse your gains over the years

What if instead you sold enough assets every year to use up your capital gains tax allowance?

In the first year your holding in Monevator Ltd grows 30% to £130,000 for a capital gain of £30,000.

Remember: you are not charged taxes on your gains until you actually sell the shares.

You can make £12,300 a year in taxable capital gains before capital gains tax becomes liable.

So what we need to do is to sell enough shares to realize a £12,300 taxable gain, which we are allowed to take tax-free. (i.e. We cannot just sell £12,300 worth of shares).

First we need to work out what value of shares produced a £12,300 gain.

A quick bit of algebra:

x*1.3 = x+12,300
1.3x-x=12,300
0.3x=12,300
x=41,000

So £41,000 growing at 30% results in an £12,300 gain, which we can take tax-free under our CGT allowance.

We need to sell £41,000+£12,300 = £53,300 of our £130,000 shareholding.

You could reinvest this money into the same asset after 30 days have passed, according to the Capital Gains Tax rules. Or you could invest it into a different asset altogether.

In the second year, we start with an ongoing holding of £76,700. (That is, £130,000-£53,300.) Again it grows by 30%, so we end the year with £99,710.

But remember, this ongoing shareholding had already grown 30% in the previous year!

So the maths now is:

x*1.3*1.3 = x+12,300
1.69x-x=12,300
0.69x=12,300
x=17,826

So £17,826 has grown by 30% per year for two years to produce the £12,300 tax-free gain we want to use up our allowance.

We need to sell £17,826+£12,300=£30,126 of the £99,710 shareholding.

In the third / final year, we are down to a shareholding of £69,584, which grows by 30% once more to £90,459.

x*1.3*1.3*1.3 = x+12,300
2.197x-x=12,300
1.197x=12,300
x=10,276

Over the three years, £10,276 has grown by 30% every year to produce an £12,300 gain. (You can check this with a compound interest calculator).

We must sell £10,276+£12,300 to realize this gain and use up our CGT tax-free allowance.

That is, we need to sell £22,576.

This leaves us carrying a holding of £67,883.

In total over the three years we have sold £106,002 worth of shares, and realized £33,900 in capital gains4 entirely free of tax.

Let’s once again assume we still need all our money as cash for the ice cream van at the start of year four, as in Scenario #1.

The fourth year is a new year, so we’ve a new £12,300 capital gains allowance.

But now we are going to pay some capital gains tax.

The £67,883 holding we are still carrying was originally worth £30,898, before it grew at 30% every year for three years.5

We pay tax on the gain only, which is:

£67,883-30,898 = £36,985

We have that personal allowance of £12,300:

£36,985-12,300 = £24,685

Our final (and only) tax bill on selling up the remaining £67,883 stake is therefore:

(£24,685) x 0.2

= £4,937

Compared to Scenario #1, we’ve saved £16,543 in taxes.

After paying capital gains tax we have £62,946 from our final share sale, plus the £106,002 we sold along the way. That gives us total proceeds of £168,948.

Before you start to type something in response to that number being less than the end total in Scenario #1, please read on!

Is it worth defusing capital gains?

I can think of plenty of things I’d rather do with £16,543 than give it to the Government, so I vote ‘yes’. Defusing is worthwhile.

Your mileage may vary.

But note that I’ve worked through a simplified example.

A 30% a year gain for three years in a row is very unlikely, even with winning shares. In reality, even with the best-performing companies or funds you’ll get up years and down years, likely spread over many more than three years.

If you invest a lot outside ISAs and SIPPs you’ll probably also have more than one investment that sees capital gains. So you’ll need to consider your gains and losses across your portfolio to best defuse gains.

Are you a millionaire who invests outside of tax wrappers? Then capital gains issues are a reason to avoid an all-in-one fund, if you want to be as tax-efficient as possible. If you instead buy and manage a basket of separate shares or funds, you may be able to defuse any growing CGT liability by offsetting gains against losses, as well as by using your personal allowance every year.

I’ve also completely ignored the issue of what you’d do with the money you liberate each year if you do defuse your gains along the way.

In fact, I’ve ignored overall returns altogether. I just wanted to show the tax consequences.

As I hinted at the end of the worked example, the eagle-eyed may have spotted that Scenario #1 leaves you with more money than Scenario #2 – despite Scenario #1’s higher tax bill.

This is simply a consequence of ever-more money being left idle in Scenario #2 after annual defusing.

In contrast, in the ‘pay all the tax at the end’ strategy, all the money grows at 30% for three years – clearly a great return – before you pay any tax.

In practice, cash released from defusing capital gains can of course be reinvested (though I wouldn’t bank on getting 30% returns each time if I were you!)

Reinvesting your gains

  • £20,000 a year of the proceeds could be put into an ISA and thus be free of all future CGT. You can immediately re-buy exactly the same share you defused if you do so within an ISA (or in a SIPP). The 30-day rule doesn’t apply here.
  • You could also sit on the money for more than 30 days before re-buying the same asset outside of an ISA or SIPP.
  • Or you could immediately buy something different. Or just keep the proceeds in a cash savings account.

In Scenario #2, the cash released could have been reinvested in the same share in an ISA and/or a SIPP at the end of years one and two for further gains.

So just to complete the circle, if we again over-simplify and assume the proceeds of defusing in my example were reinvested at the same 30% rate, then you’d be left with £214,763 in total6, which is £16,543 more than you were left with in Scenario #1.

Which is: exactly what we saved in taxes!

Fair’s fair?

You might argue I didn’t give the non-defusing strategy the very best shake.

For instance, we could have sold one chunk on the last day of the third tax year, and then the rest on the first day of fourth year, to use up two lots of tax-free allowance.

This would have slightly reduced the tax bill. But selling over two years like that counts as defusing capital gains!

So my example is good enough I think.

The last word

As I say, this was all just a fanciful illustration.

I chose a sky-high annual return number because the alternative was to illustrate a much more realistic 30-year defusing schedule. That’s fine in a spreadsheet, but even duller to work through.

We’re talking taxes here. I don’t want to try your patience.

Incidentally, a few people typically complain whenever I talk about mitigating taxes on investments.

We’re not fat cats here. We’re just ordinary people trying to achieve financial freedom on our own terms in an expensive and uncaring world.

And the reality is it’s pretty challenging to get rich by investing on a middle-class income. You can’t afford to leak money away by paying taxes you don’t have to.

Indeed I’ve been investing for two decades and I can confirm it’s at least as hard as sitting in your million pound house in London that you bought in the late 1990s with a 95% mortgage – at a price that has quintupled since, multiplying your initial deposit 80-fold, entirely tax-free to you – while you occasionally look up from the Guardian to moan about tax-dodging share ‘speculators’.

Tax mitigation is legal and sensible. People can use the money they save however they see fit.

And we admire those who eventually give it to good causes or invest in noble pursuits.

But handing over more than your share to the State just because you weren’t paying attention hardly seems like intentional living.

The bottom line is taxes will reduce your returns, but there are things you can do to reduce them.

Talking of which, reinvesting the money via your new annual ISA allowance from 6 April is one of the very best. Check out our broker table for some options.

  1. Here’s short list of NOT good reasons. Laziness. Trying to save a few pennies in charges. Thinking “taxes won’t affect me” because you only look at one or two years expected returns. Not doing your research on the impact of taxes on returns. []
  2. Also known as your ‘Annual Exempt Amount’, if only by HMRC. []
  3. £219,700 – £21,480. []
  4. £12,300×3. []
  5. x*2.197=£67,883, so x=£30,898. []
  6. £90,077+£39,164+£22,576+£62,946. []
{ 82 comments }

Weekend reading: Curve balls

Weekend reading logo

What caught my eye this week.

This week saw the all-important US yield curve ‘invert’. This happens when short-term rates in the bond market exceed longer-term rates – typically two-year bond yields versus 10-year yields.

Is this newsworthy? The Internet news-machine thinks so:

Confession time! I admit I haven’t read all 35,200,000 articles that Google tells me are available about ‘yield curve inverted’.

I’ve read maybe three. Perhaps that’s irresponsible, even if we presume 34 million of them were talking about some previous inversion of the yield curve.

Well that’s me: all rock-and-roll.

Or more precisely… like most active investors I’ve been force-fed developments in the interest rate market daily for at least six months now, like some goose being fattened for Christmas.

Thus the US yield curve finally inverting was about as surprising a development as British Summer Time. (Note: I mean the clocks going forward, not us actually getting a summer.)

Still, perhaps you have been doing better things with your time than reading about rates? Want to catch-up? Here’s a link to those search results. Have at them!

Or else just read this excellent article on the yield curve inversion from Morningstar.

Ahead of the curve

A couple of readers have asked me what I think about this portentous event. Which is flattering, but also like asking Richard Dawkins to tell you your horoscope.

This stuff is not really my bag. However in my defense that’s a strategic decision.

You see, I don’t really think the US yield curve inverting is signalling anything we don’t already know.

And nowadays I doubt it ever could.

I’m old enough to remember when – outside of investment banks, trading floors, and economics classes – the only people who ever mentioned yield curves inverting were weirdos on discussion forums who’d at some point presumably escaped from banks, trading houses, and classrooms.

In those quieter days, the yield curve inverting was maybe a useful tell.

But honestly, I now expect my mum to tell me about the yield curve inverting when I call her this Sunday. In-between her spring gardening plans.

In theory, the US yield curve inverting is worth watching for as historically it’s presaged recessions.

In theory, again, that’s because an inverted yield curve indicates the market expects interest rates to decline in the longish-term (ten years or so out) which is the sort of thing that happens in recessions. (Due to central banks cutting rates and also market forces, as there’s a bid for safer assets).

And having advance knowledge that a recession is coming is – again, in theory – useful for investors, because recessions are bad for at least some markets.

But.

Curves in all the right places

For starters, the yield curve has to be inverted for a while to matter. And even then it can give false positives.

But rather than listen to me waffle on about the empirical evidence, have a look at this summary from the Chicago Fed. It’s pretty compelling in arguing that yes, the yield curve inverting probably does indicate a coming recession, but no we don’t really know why.

(That’s not be confused with ‘people won’t tell you they know why it forecasts a recession’. People most certainly will. Even I just gave one reason above. People are always very ready with a Why.)

Let’s just agree for now that the yield curve inverting is indeed a strong indicator of a coming recession. Does this really tell us anything new about the US or even the global economy?

I mean compared to all the information we already have about central bank plans to raise interest rates, and the soaring inflation that is causing the cost of living to skyrocket around the world?

Oh, and energy supply problems and the war in Ukraine?

I think you might accuse the yield curve of rather gilding the lily.

We know the US central bank is aiming to raise rates at least half a dozen times. If the bond market hadn’t reacted to that by pushing up short-term rates then that really would be worrying.

We also know bad times eventually follow good times.

Personally I’ve felt recent US GDP growth was being ginned up by restocking and other artifacts of exiting lockdown, for instance, and thus that there would always be a cooling. (This was also why I expected inflation to have started to fall by now, albeit Russia has done for that).

A recession is just technically defined as two quarters of negative growth. It doesn’t need to mean dust bowls or Hollywood movies about Michael Burry shorting Wall Street.

The UK situation is murkier because of the impact of Brexit, but for what it’s worth our yield curve is flat rather than inverted, so far. But nobody watches the UK yield curve much.

Behind the curve

What investors – and our curious readers – really want to know is what does this mean for stock prices?

Indeed some pundits seem to take it as read that the yield curve inverting is predicting not a recession but a stock market crash.

However this is not the case. If anything, I think it’s a bit bullish.

First there’s data to suggest that. For example have a look at these tables showing that US stocks usually rise over most periods following a yield curve inverting.

It’s also logical, at least to me, that markets would rally in the wake of the yield curve inverting.

Why?

Because by the time the yield curve has inverted really everyone knows everything. Worries about interest rates have rumbled on for months. The yield curve flattening was kind of interesting in 2021, but now it has finally inverted is that dramatically more interesting?

It’s not irrelevant. But it’s the continuation of a trend, rather than a shocking bolt from the blue.

Shares often fall in advance of a recession – which is perhaps just what we’ve seen this time – and people have already noticed the economy has been having it ‘too good’, which is what we saw with all the euphoria in the US in 2021.

And if share prices are already lower, then they are already discounting bad news.

For example I was noting well before Christmas that there had been an almighty crash in high-flying growth stocks that was likely to spill into the wider market. A few readers scoffed that their trackers hadn’t moved more than a percentage point or two. Hence they weren’t bothered at all.

(Which, by the way, is totally fine. Having readers not being concerned about this stuff is an aim of this site! I’m the weirdo here.)

Anyway, as we all know the past three months did actually turn out to be quite a bit rougher. We saw technical corrections for many major stock markets and even a roughly three-second long bear market for the US Nasdaq tech index.

Shares have since recovered quite a bit, despite further bad news. And now the yield curve is inverting, to tell us what you really needed to know six months ago to do much useful with.

Remember, you need to buy the rumour and sell the news if you’re playing the active game. (Which, again, most people really shouldn’t).

Otherwise you’re playing the reacting game. Also known as the ‘sell low and buy high’ game. And that maths doesn’t work out so well.

To be clear I am not saying we’re definitely set for a stock market rally, or that it was obvious shares would wobble in early 2022.

I’m saying one can make vague probabilistic bets about such things, if that’s your wont.

But given that nobody really knows until everyone knows – because it’s happened, because a yield curve has inverted, say – then reacting to this stuff after the bets are in is a bit futile.

You’re better off sticking to your regular investing plan and leaving well alone.

Flattening the curve

Finally the other reason to be wary of acting on this particular yield curve inversion is that it probably reflects in-part some funny business regarding the US Federal Reserve.

I don’t mean anything nefarious. Rather that, as we all know, via quantitative easing and more recently quantitative tightening central banks have been manipulating the yield curve for years.

So it’s hard to compare today’s yield curve shenanigans with your grandma’s yield curves.

Can the US Fed and other central banks get out of the near-zero rate era and tame inflation without triggering an economic downturn?

The Economist has its doubts and so do I.

But I don’t think it means investors need fear a disastrous future, nor even change what we’re doing. At least not if you had a well-balanced portfolio to begin with.

Many companies have been posting mega-profits for the ages. They have the margins to cope with inflation, take a bit of pain, and balance sheets to get to the better times.

Bonds have finally faced a bit of a reckoning. But in the long-term lower bond prices mean better returns due to higher yields. You’ll also notice that so far this bond market crash doesn’t feel anything like the equity slumps of 2000 or 2008 or 2020. Equities are always the riskier asset.

Inflation is what really hurts the return from bonds. It hits the nominal return from shares, too, of course, but shares are expected to deliver higher returns than other assets over longer-term periods, which is why they have eventually outpaced inflation.

Shares don’t hedge against inflation, in my view, but rather they beat it. Subtle difference.

Maybe this time it’ll take a while for that to happen, or the recession will be worse than I expect, or some new awful thing will roll along and knock us and our portfolios for six. So stay diversified.

Concentrate on keeping an income coming in and stopping your outgoings getting out of control.

However I wouldn’t fret too much about the yield curve inverting. It is only telling us what we already almost certainly knew.

Have a great weekend!

[continue reading…]

{ 23 comments }