If there’s anything we know in this profession, it is the people’s yearning for certainty in an uncertain world. Yet, speaking with some authority on the matter, we have never really seen what certainty looks like. If anything, we have learned to fear those who are ‘100%’ sure of anything.

Talking about the ‘return of normalcy’ after the US mid-term election might be premature. We don’t yet know the narrative or the players that will emerge who will pave the way to the next, far more consequential 2024 election. The race for the next president is wide open, and politicians rarely abandon their playbooks unless they are absolutely certain that they are defunct. Talking about the ‘end of the Social Media era’, after Twitter and Meta (Facebook) were forced to lay off thousands of employees and their impact on US elections appears minimal is also premature. Technology is like a five-year-old child. By the time older people have an understanding of how it behaves, the child has already evolved into the next level. Despite the fact that 2010s tech giants have managed to buy out and then stifle competition and revenues are back to pre-pandemic normal and Unicorns are no longer sold at triple multiples, we would not yet write off big tech. They are lean operations, sitting on too much cash and low valuations for competitors could become the key for Big Tech’s resurgence.

Talking about ‘a Santa Rally’, or ‘falling inflation’ (as much as we are in that camp) as early signs of a ‘Fed Pivot’, may be equally premature. Last week’s good consumer inflation figures in the US (7.7% down from 8.2%) are certainly encouraging. But they are mostly the product of simple year-on-year arithmetic especially on energy and commodity prices. Meanwhile, the sticky part of inflation, services inflation, is rising persistently.

The S&P 500 jumped back to nearly 4000 points on the news. However, during the week, we heard from no less than ten Fed officials, most of which suggested double instead of triple rate hikes, but no one even so much hinted at a ‘pivot’. We would not fight the Fed on this.

Instead, it is now time to consider what the pivot itself looks like.

To be honest, we can’t be certain.

We think there might be two types of pivoting. The ‘orderly’ and the ‘disorderly’ pivot. The ‘orderly’ pivot would start with verbal cues. There could be some more accommodative language by the Fed, possibly acknowledging the build-up of external risks or that the terminal rate has been reached. The Fed could simply signal the end of hikes, acknowledging the time-lag for its policy decisions, peaking rates around 5% and staying there for some time until it sees evidence that the economy is slowing enough. This should be enough to reassure the markets that the ‘Fed Put’ is there, unlocking liquidity and reducing volatility, without the Fed having to compromise its Quantitative Tightening programme significantly, and helping its overarching goal, the normalisation of the yield curve. A steady de-escalation of rates would follow, with Quantitative Tightening moving independently.

This would leave it with ammunition to fight off a resurgence in inflation (high rates and a reduced balance sheet).

The Fed has played this game many times, but will a directionless market buy it, or will it want more concrete accommodation?

We believe that giving the signal which would unlock vast amounts of private residual liquidity could be enough for markets for some time, and for the Fed to continue with its overarching goal, the normalisation of the yield curve. Short term rates giving a small return and long-term rates a measurably bigger one.

Normalising the yield curve should improve the allocation of economic and financial assets and unlock long term lending. Pension funds, as Brits painfully found out, have long suffered from a flat yield curve and negative bond yields, which have compromised their ability to pay off their growing obligations. A normal yield curve should contribute to providing pensions to an ageing western population.

Having said that, inflation could fall faster than expected, growth could falter, or the bond market could begin to crack. This would give the Fed no option other than to print more money and de-escalate rates quickly. The ‘disorderly’ pivot would be an accelerated version of the previous, with a possible return to Quantitative Easing.

The possibility of this scenario is why we believe the pivot might be drawing closer. Not because the Fed  said so.It hasn’t. But because we believe it wants to go ahead with Plan A as painlessly as possible and to expend the least amount of ammunition. If the FOMC waits for too long, then a volatile market could continue to expose weak spots (UK pensions funds, FTX), until something of value finally breaks, forcing the US central bank to quickly rewind a very painful rate normalisation process.

Better headlines for inflation are certainly welcome, but unless something breaks in the bond market (Liz Truss’s premiership wasn’t enough), we don’t expect the pivot this year. We maintain, however, that the Fed’s language could change significantly after the 31st January meeting when new regional Fed Presidents (Evans, Harker, Kashkari, Logan) will be voting.  In the meanwhile, investors should be patient with market volatility.

– David Baker, CIO