More stories

  • in

    Value in the short(er) end

    Good morning. Ugly day for stocks yesterday. The blame was pinned on a bad reading on the Conference Board’s consumer confidence index. Feels more like a market looking for an excuse to sell, though. And for good or bad, the market half-life of economic data is measured in hours at this point. Email us with measured, sensible, long-term views: [email protected] and [email protected] in short end credit?Working on yesterday’s letter about long-maturity corporate credit, I chatted with Jim Sarni, a principal at Payden & Rygel, a good friend of Unhedged. He pounded the table a bit, saying that I had things backwards: the real opportunity was in the short to middle bit of the curve. “It’s appealing from the simple standpoint of, where the hell do I put my money right now, whether as an institution or a private investor,” Jim says. “And it can appeal no matter what view a person has — that we are facing Armageddon, or we are going to be fine.”The argument goes like this. A portfolio of investment-grade corporates with an average duration around 2.5 years provides a yield of up to 4 to 4.5 per cent. “Doing the math on the back of a napkin,” Sarni says, “that means Treasury yields can move up another 180 basis points or so before total return to the investor turns negative.” The two-year Treasury, roughly mirroring the expected peak for the fed funds rate, is yielding 3.1 per cent. Suppose that does move up to, say, 4.6 per cent. Now your basket of mid-duration corporates are barely at break even. But under those circumstances, equities and longer-duration bonds will probably be doing a lot worse than break even. Losing only a little money might have you feeling pretty good. And if rates fall (or spreads tighten), there will be bonus returns along the way. CPI, of course, is running at 8 per cent or so, which makes a yield of half a lot less enticing. Sarni is undeterred: “You’ve gotta be somewhere. Eight per cent is not a long-term number. It’s 8 per cent coming down. Over the duration of this portfolio inflation won’t be close to 8 per cent — north of 3, south of 4, maybe?” Sarni thinks that, given the palpable slowing in the economy when the Fed is only halfway to its anticipated destination, the bet is tilted towards lower inflation and rates. And if the Fed pushes the economy into a hard landing, you could do worse than owning the debt of companies “that are going to weather the storm just fine”.For a proxy of the kind of portfolio that Sarni is talking about, you can look at, for example, the Ice BofA 1-5 year corporate ex-144a index (yield to worst 4.25 per cent, average duration 2.7 years); or the Bloomberg US corporate bond 1-5 year index (yield 4.33 per cent, duration three years). Here is the price and spread of the latter over the past year:

    You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

    Keen to hear from our readers in the bond business whether they also see value in this bit of the curve. After 60/40, reduxWe’ve been asking around these parts what the next 60/40 portfolio — 60 per cent stocks for growth, 40 per cent bonds for stability — should look like if we are moving into a world of persistently higher inflation. In such a world, the glorious negative correlation of bonds and stocks of the last 30 years or so may be nothing but a memory. We call this replacement, affectionately, the dumb portfolio. It has to generate decent returns over a long horizon, require little active oversight and can’t be too complex. There also have to be enough assets for a broad swath of investors to pile in. Inflation-linked I-bonds, for example, have less than $60bn in circulation. They don’t fit. We noted last time that commodities looked better as an inflation hedge than as a way to grow capital. A few readers pointed out that we used an index that understates how well commodities have done by focusing only on raw price performance. They rightly suggested we try a total return index instead, which includes the extra yield earned by the collateral, usually Treasury bills, that must be held against commodity futures. The difference is noticeable:Still, this is not a resounding growth story. The latest rally puts us back to early 2000s levels. The last sustained period of appreciation before that, from the early 1980s to early 2000s, saw commodities grow 531 per cent, versus over 2,000 per cent for the S&P 500. Unless you believe a commodity supercycle is coming (lots of people do!), expect a growth trade-off for the diversification benefit.Another possibility is publicly listed infrastructure projects. Tim Robson, spooked by inflation a year ago, wrote that he cut out his 35 per cent bond allocation to add infrastructure and has liked the results:This construct has performed as I hoped with significant gains and yield from this infra allocation offsetting my equity losses since the turn of the year.In the UK this shift was relatively easy to achieve by buying a selection of UK listed infrastructure investment trusts.Several readers suggested getting exposure to factors such as value or momentum. Here’s Caleb Johnson, formerly at AQR and now at Harbor Macro Strategies:Investors don’t just need exposure to more asset classes, like commodities, they need exposure to factor and style premia. Yes, this has typically been available mainly through private investments . . . but they are also available through “liquid alts” in the form of mutual funds and [exchange traded funds] that non-accredited investors can access as well.Consider a style factor like momentum. A commodities ETF treats an entire asset class like a monolith and is only going to give an investor passive exposure to it. But a factor-oriented fund is going to do more than offer long-only exposure, allowing investors to profit from exposure to individual markets across asset classes even when they are going down in price. Along similar lines, Philip Seager at Capital Fund Management wrote that trend following, factor investing’s close cousin, looks promising:Not only is it a diversifier (on average zero correlated with equities) but also has mechanical features that make it a hedge against long, drawn out, protracted moves down in equities (see the 2008 crisis for example). We have also shown recently that TF as applied to commodities provides an effective hedge against inflation (end 2021 and 2022 year-to-date demonstrate this). On top of all this because of its long term nature and exposure coming from very liquid futures contracts it also scales very well.We don’t deny the proven power of trend following and factor investing (when done right) but wondered whether the underlying concept might be too complex, even if you can buy it in an ETF. In general, the point of the dumb portfolio is maximum returns given minimum trust in your fund manager. Factor investing asks for a lot of trust.Paul O’Brien, a 60/40 optimist, suggested a simpler change:The key premise of the 60/40 is not the negative correlation of stocks and bonds. It is the low covariance of stocks and bonds. Bonds are less volatile than stocks and so will diversify a stock portfolio (lower portfolio volatility) even if the correlation is [positive].Rather than ditching the 60/40, investors may want to hold lower-duration bonds, or [Treasury inflation-protected securities].Could building the inflation-proofed dumb portfolio be as easy as take 60/40, sprinkle in some Tips and small caps, and call it a day? (Ethan Wu)One good readIs the Fed tightening faster than it thinks? More

  • in

    US blacklists Chinese companies for allegedly supporting Russian military

    The Biden administration has placed five Chinese companies on an export blacklist for violating sanctions by allegedly providing support to Russia’s military and defence companies before and during the invasion of Ukraine.The commerce department put the Chinese firms on the “entity list”, which effectively bars US companies from exporting to them. The companies, which are not globally recognised names, are Connec Electronic, King Pai Technology, Sinno Electronics, Winninc Electronic and World Jetta (HK) Logistics.“Today’s action sends a powerful message to entities and individuals across the globe that if they seek to support Russia, the US will cut them off,” said Alan Estevez, under-secretary of commerce. The blacklisting was announced as the US grows increasingly worried about strengthening ties between Beijing and Moscow, particularly after Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin in February signed a statement that described the China-Russia partnership as having “no limits”.The Financial Times reported in March that China had signalled a willingness to provide military assistance to Russia, which set off alarm bells in Washington. Over the past two months, Jake Sullivan, US national security adviser, and Lloyd Austin, secretary of defence, have warned their Chinese counterparts that Washington would take strong action if China gave Russia any military equipment or assistance. US officials said there was no evidence that China had provided military assistance.The commerce department did not accuse the Chinese government or military on Tuesday of supplying equipment to the Russian army. “We have not seen China provide Russia with military equipment or systematic evasion of sanctions,” said a White House official.But the decision to place the companies on the entity list emphasised the broader concern about ties between China and Russia. It also marked the first time that President Joe Biden’s administration has penalised Chinese entities for helping the Russian military since Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine in February.

    Chinese and Russian nuclear bombers flew over the Sea of Japan last month while Joe Biden was in Tokyo, further stoking US anxieties. Experts said the exercise highlighted how Beijing was co-operating with Moscow even as Russian forces waged their assault on Ukraine. The Chinese embassy in the US said Beijing was playing a “constructive role” in promoting peace talks and had not provided military assistance to Russia. “China and Russia maintain normal energy and trade co-operation, and the legitimate interests of Chinese companies should not be harmed,” said an embassy spokesperson, who criticised Washington for imposing unilateral sanctions under its “long-arm jurisdiction”.Follow Demetri Sevastopulo on Twitter More

  • in

    Ships going dark: Russia’s grain smuggling in the Black Sea

    Earlier this month, a ship called the Fedor steamed south through the Bosphorus before stopping at Bandırma, a Turkish port just south of Istanbul. The Russian bulk carrier was hauling 9,000 tonnes of corn, which it delivered to local buyer Yayla Agro, one of Turkey’s leading producers of pulses, grains and rice. According to the official documentation, the cargo had come from a small port in Russia on the Black Sea coast. Given that there are no sanctions on foods from Russia, a major source of grains to the world, this would not present any legal problems. But in reality, the voyage appears to be part of an apparatus that uses commerce in the Black Sea to evade other sanctions on Russia — and potentially to smuggle goods out of Ukraine. The Financial Times has established that the ship actually picked up the cargo in Sevastopol in Crimea, the region illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. Photographs taken by Myrotvorets, a Ukrainian activist group, show the Fedor in the port of Sevastopol on June 12. Using photos from Planet Labs, a satellite photography platform, the Financial Times has corroborated this visit. The photos show it moored at the Aval terminal, which loads ships with grains — including corn. The satellite photographs appear to show the ship being filled.Even before Russian troops poured into Ukraine in February, shipping goods out of Crimea was illegal for many companies: the region has been covered by a patchwork of sanctions since it was annexed in 2014. The registered owners of Sevastopol’s grain terminal have been directly targeted by US sanctions for being a subsidiary of a Russian state-owned enterprise, United Shipbuilding Corporation. Companies trading with the occupied territory also risk action by Ukrainian prosecutors. But in recent weeks, the shipments have become even more controversial after Ukrainian authorities claimed Crimean ports, including Sevastopol, are being used to export grain looted from their country, primarily from areas of the south-east that have been occupied by Russian forces. In early June, Russian state media acknowledged that grain was being sent from Melitopol, in the occupied south of Ukraine, to be exported from Crimea.There is no evidence that the grain being shipped out of Crimea on the Fedor or other ships analysed by the FT has been stolen from parts of Ukraine now occupied by Russia. However, there is a pattern of activity that indicates a rise in smuggling from Crimea. Although there is little historical data about volumes of exports through the port, Ukrainian activists who monitor the port say they have seen a rise in grain traffic at Sevastopol in May and into June compared to previous years. FT analysis of satellite photographs, combined with port records, suggests that in May alone, around 140,000 tonnes of grain was exported from the Sevastopol terminal in eight separate shipments. This total flow is equivalent to about 6 per cent of known Russian grain exports during the month, according to shipping data platform Sea/. Given that Russia is one of the world’s biggest food exporters, that represents a substantial volume of grain being shipped out of a port that is under international sanctions. Of the eight vessels photographed in Sevastopol, one could not be identified or tracked. Four were sent to Syria, with customs and port declarations suggesting this flow was of about 90,000 tonnes. The other three — carrying about 43,000 tonnes — went to Turkey.The evidence from Sevastopol is supported by the activity at Port Kavkaz in Russia, along the coast from Crimea, which industry executives say is a key location for enabling the smuggling of goods from the region. Although it is only a modest port, it has also seen a significant and unseasonal increase in declared exports in recent months. The Russian-flagged Fedor in dock at Bandırma, a port on the Sea of Marmara, where it unloaded grain on to trucks © Yoruk Isik/FTThe listed owners of the Fedor and the Aval terminal did not respond to requests for comment. Yayla, the Turkish company that bought the shipment on the Fedor, said it believed the cargo had come from a port in Russia and was therefore not subject to sanctions.The voyages demonstrate the relatively straightforward steps that Russian companies operating in the Black Sea can use to evade the patchy sanctions applied to the country — from switching off devices that report ships’ positions at sea to faking paperwork. Shipping experts believe that the sanctions-busting through Crimea underlines how hard it is to prevent smuggling of grain and other, looted, goods from Ukraine — and potentially to enforce sanctions on the export of other Russian commodities, such as coal and steel through the Black Sea. Russia has announced it is beginning to reopen other Black Sea ports that have been occupied, including Berdyansk and Mariupol, and has been accused of using techniques deployed in the illegal grain trade to smuggle out steel seized by Russian forces. According to Matthew Wright, a senior freight analyst at Kpler, a commodities analytics company, the shipments that have come from Sevastopol in recent weeks are “perhaps the most blatantly illegal grain entering the market — maybe stolen, definitely from a sanctioned source and photographed in the act”. Strategic locationWhen Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, it gained complete control of the naval base in Sevastopol that had long been the home to its Black Sea fleet. But Moscow has also sought to develop the port as a commercial enterprise. Several of the businesses integral to the shipping of grain from Crimea are subsidiaries of Russian state enterprises.Russia wants to encourage trade through Sevastopol to integrate Crimea into the rest of the country and to build international acceptance of its occupation of the region. The FT has identified grain exports from Crimea that took place prior this year to Syria, a Russian ally that disregards US sanctions, as well as Libya and Turkey.According to one Russian grain exporter, it is quick and cheap to move grain through Crimea because of its infrastructure and position. With a deepwater port that can accommodate large ships, he says, Sevastopol is “without false modesty, by far the best” port from which to export grain. Since the invasion began, at the end of February, Sevastopol has become the nearest major port to much of newly occupied parts of Ukraine. Truckloads of grain have been reported heading to Crimean depots and silos from occupied Ukrainian territory.

    Russian servicemen prepare to demine Peschnaya beach near the cargo sea port of Mariupol, Ukraine, on June 12 © Sergei Ilnitsky/EPA-EFE

    Government and industry officials say that it is almost impossible to trace whether any shipments contain grain that has been stolen from Ukrainian farms, because it can easily be combined with grains from legal sources. According to one European official, if a company takes crops from Ukraine and “then mixes it with Russian grains and exports it from the Russian harbours, it is very difficult to follow up”.But ships exporting grain from Crimea have used practices that were largely designed to evade sanctions. Under international law, ships are supposed to operate transponders, devices that automatically report their location and route to other vessels and ports, unless they face exceptional circumstances. However, in a number of cases tracked by the FT, ships in the Black Sea turned off their transponders — often when they were approaching Crimea. Doing so makes it much more difficult to both trace journeys and to catch ships whose paperwork is incorrect — allowing vessels that picked up cargo from a sanctioned port to claim the goods were loaded elsewhere.Yayla declined to reveal its supplier, but says its contract — plus the bill of lading, certificate of origin and other cargo documents — all stated that the port of loading was Port Kavkaz, just down the coast from Crimea. Grain shipments that originate from Russian ports such as Port Kavkaz are not covered by sanctions.The three ships identified by the FT as coming from Crimea to Turkey in May also listed Port Kavkaz as their cargo’s origin. The three vessels were brought to the attention of the Turkish authorities by Ukrainian officials. A Turkish official says that customs officers did the “necessary screening process and informed us that the declared origin of the cargo was Russia”.The official adds: “This is based on the documentation issued by the Russian authorities. It is technically very difficult to determine the geographic origin of grain.” Industry figures in Turkey have told the FT that port officials in the country are well aware of the possible Crimean origin of grain shipments listed as coming from Port Kavkaz. Grain industry executives say that Port Kavkaz also plays another important role in efforts to evade sanctions because it is a hub for ship-to-ship transfers of goods, using anchorages outside the port. Loading at sea has legitimate uses, especially given that Port Kavkaz is not capable of admitting large vessels. But it can also enable smuggling, since it makes it particularly difficult to establish where a cargo was initially loaded.One potential use of this practice is for ships that picked up cargo from Crimea or from a business that was subject to sanctions to then shift their load to another vessel while still at sea. A Russian grain exporter says that one particular Port Kavkaz anchorage has been used for several years as a favoured spot for laundering grain loaded in Crimea, using ship-to-ship transfers.“You would absolutely use ship-to-ship to obscure the source of dry cargo,” says Wright, the shipping analyst. “It’s pretty much the standard behaviour for any illicit activity.”Satellite photography from Planet Labs shows there is currently a significant amount of ship-to-ship transfer happening in the Port Kavkaz anchorage. Although the practice stopped for a month at the start of the war, satellite photographs from late May showed seven large ships being filled by, or emptied into, smaller ships simultaneously.Claims of grain smuggling through the Black Sea create an acute dilemma for the western governments that have imposed sanctions on Russia © Khaled Elfiqi/EPA-EFEThe FT has also identified journeys in which ships loiter in Port Kavkaz with their transponders on before or after heading to Crimea to be filled — creating the impression that they were loaded in the Russian port. In some cases, port paperwork has shown ships reporting to Russian authorities they were filled in Sevastopol but telling other governments they were loaded in Port Kavkaz. Although there is no direct evidence that any of the grain exported from Port Kavkaz in recent weeks has been stolen, there has been a substantial increase in the use of the port this year. According to vessel tracker Shipfix, 576,000 tonnes of agricultural commodities were declared as coming from Port Kavkaz in May. This is an extremely large flow at this time of year, albeit after several months of war-interrupted trade. In May, Port Kavkaz accounted for the equivalent of 28 per cent of total Russian grain exports, compared with a monthly average for the four previous years of about 11 per cent.Delicate diplomacyThe claims of grain smuggling through the Black Sea create an acute dilemma for the western governments that have imposed sanctions on Russia. They do not want to aggravate the global food crisis the war has helped produce, but they are reluctant to turn a blind eye to smuggling.Last year Russia and Ukraine accounted for more than one-quarter of the world’s grain exports and just under one-third of all wheat exports, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization. Black Sea wheat has historically been particularly important in north Africa and the Middle East.“Ideally, we need Russia and Ukraine to supply grain to the rest of the world,” says Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, a think-tank in Washington. “But we do not want Russia to make a lot of money from it. And we definitely do not want it to make any money from grain it has looted from Ukrainians, nor the places the Russians have occupied.”G7 foreign ministers last week discussed a UN effort to enable shipments of Ukrainian grain from the port of Odesa, which is not occupied by Russia but has been closed since the start of the war. The UN is spearheading an effort to try to enable shipments, however a senior US official said the administration is skeptical about how far the talks can go.The practices being used to export from Crimea also reveal how Russian companies might evade the broader net of sanctions they now face. Unlike the UN-imposed measures on Iran, the sanctions on Russia are driven largely by western governments. This means their impact is more patchy.

    A tractor damaged by a Russian attack at a grain farm in Cherkaska Lozova, near Kharkiv, eastern Ukraine in May © Bernat Armangue/AP

    Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose nation controls the two crucial waterways linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, has sought to perform a delicate balancing act since the invasion. The Nato member state has supplied armed drones to Kyiv and limited the use of its waters and airspace by the Russian military. But Erdoğan has also tried to avoid damaging his close relationship with Vladimir Putin and declined to sign up to the sanctions unleashed by western states.A 2017 directive by the Turkish Chamber of Shipping advised ports to turn away ships from Crimea upon the request of the Ukrainian chief prosecutor. Last week, Mevlut Cavusoglu, the Turkish foreign minister, said Ankara was investigating claims that grain looted from Ukraine had come to Turkey and would “not allow these goods to come to us”.But Turkish officials have been reluctant to stop ships that Kyiv claims are carrying stolen grain, citing a lack of evidence. Başak Aldı from the Istanbul-based law firm AKT says vessels sailing from Crimea could face administrative fines, but these penalties only apply if the vessel comes directly from Crimean ports without an intervening stop. Ankara’s ambivalent stance has caused concern in Washington and the EU, where officials are eager to ensure Turkey does not become a centre of sanctions evasion. Deputy US Treasury secretary Wally Adeyemo visited Turkey last week to discuss sanctions co-ordination with senior Turkish officials. Ukraine is also working to create a legal mechanism to ensnare international buyers of grain shipments from Crimean ports.

    Visitors walk in front of a banner of Turkish company Mysilo Grain Storage Systems at Cereals – Mixed Feed – Veterinary 2022 fair in Moscow last week © Sergei Ilnitsky/EPA-EFE

    Even if Turkey does not apply sanctions, there is still serious risk for large companies doing business with entities sanctioned elsewhere. Aline Doussin, a partner at Hogan Lovells, says that if a company in a country without sanctions on Russia were revealed to be engaged in trade prohibited by the UK, EU or US, “they might find that large multinational companies from those places stop trading with them over concerns that they were indirectly trading with sanctioned entities”. Yayla, which exports its products across the world, confirmed they had bought the shipment on the Fedor but added that it was an “absolute priority” to operate “within ethical rules and carry out trade in accordance with international law”. The company says it will investigate the allegations presented by the FT, adding: “It is our obligation as a company to check whether the company we are trading with is on the international sanctions list . . . and to ensure that the contract is fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of the contract we have made.”More ports openingAs the war continues, the potential for Black Sea commerce to evade sanctions could grow — as will the opportunity for selling other goods that have been looted. On grain alone, Ukraine claims to have had 500,000 tonnes stolen. One example involves the Lady Augusta, a general cargo ship which satellite photographs show is stranded in the occupied city of Mariupol, where it docked before the outbreak of war to pick up 6,500 tonnes of wheat. It has now been claimed by the “Donetsk People’s Republic”, the Russian-run separatist group. Tetiana Alaverdova, commercial director of HarvEast, the company which was filling the vessel, says that since February is has lost control of 52,000 tonnes of grains that was in areas now controlled by Russia. “We heard that some of the grain in our stockpiles there disappeared. But in what volumes, we don’t know,” she says. In addition to grain that has been stolen, some Ukrainian farmers in occupied areas have been forced to sell their crops very cheaply. Masha Belikova, a Dnipro-based grain analyst for Fastmarkets Agricensus, says traders reported Russian businesses were buying grain in the occupied regions at knockdown prices.

    The Lady Augusta, a Jamaica-flagged cargo ship (outlined in blue), is docked next to the Mariupol grain silos. A partially sunk cargo ship (outlined in red) blocks one of the berths © Planet Labs

    Earlier this month, before a recent price fall, wheat that buyers said cost $192 a tonne in safer central Ukraine could be bought for around $90 to $100 in occupied areas. The European market price for wheat is currently just under $370, meaning that this trade can be enormously lucrative. Yayla said that the amount it paid for the Fedor shipment was in line with market prices. The potential for looted goods to be resold goes beyond grain. At the Azotoval steel plant in Mariupol, there were about 234,000 tonnes of metal on site prior to the invasion, worth roughly $148mn. Officials with Metinvest Holdings, which owns the steel, say it is all now under Russian control.The company says it has been able to track at least 2,500 tonnes shipped from Mariupol to Rostov-on-Don in Russia.“Our analysis shows us that the most likely [ultimate] destinations might be countries in Asia and in Africa and there is a small chance of some of the goods, namely slabs, going into Europe [because] slabs are not under the trade embargo,” says Svitlana Romanova, Metinvest’s chief legal officer.Romanova says Metinvest has filed criminal complaints with the Ukrainian government and is trying to pursue other avenues, but there is no clear legal path to do so.Russian soldiers guard an area next to a field of wheat as foreign journalists work in the Zaporizhzhia region in an area under Russian military control in southeastern Ukraine on June 14 © APThe theft of the steel signals what could become a growing problem for sanctions enforcement: the opening of more occupied ports. At least three ships have entered the port of Mariupol to load the stolen steel, according to Ukrainian officials in Donetsk. This claim is supported by satellite photography. Alexander Saulenko, the Russia-imposed district governor, has also stated that the port of Berdyansk will soon start exporting grain from occupied Ukraine. “It’s 100 per cent that the grain will be sent from here [through Berdyansk],” Saulenko told journalists. “There is quite a lot of grain in the district. Since we will soon have a new harvest and need to free up the warehouses, something needs to be done with the existing grain. Farmers also need to sell it in order to earn money . . . We have the prospects of signing contracts with Turkey.”Sevastopol port has continued to be busy throughout June, with further shipments to Turkey. At around midday on Tuesday last week the Fedor passed Istanbul and travelled north through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea. The ship’s transponder was then switched off. Its last reported position suggests the Fedor was sailing to Port Kavkaz.Additional reporting by Emiko Terazono in London, Felicia Schwartz in Washington and Yörük Işık in Istanbul More

  • in

    The risk of a flip-flopping Fed

    The writer is president of Queens’ College, Cambridge, and an adviser to Allianz and GramercyThe markets are evolving their minds about US economic prospects just as the Federal Reserve has been scrambling again to catch up to developments on the ground.This risks yet another round of undue economic damage, financial volatility and greater inequality. It also increases the probability of a return to the “stop-go” policymaking of the 1970s and 1980s that exacerbates growth and inflation challenges rather than addressing them.Good central bank policymaking calls for the Fed to lead markets rather than lag behind them, and for good reasons. A well-informed Fed with a credible vision for the future minimises the risk of disruptive financial market overshoots, strengthens the potency of forward guidance on policy and provides an anchor of stability that facilitates productive physical investment and improves the functioning of the real economy.Coming into the second half of June, the Fed had already lagged behind markets twice in the past 12 months and in a consequential manner. First it stubbornly held on to its “transitory” mischaracterisation of inflation until the end of November, thereby enabling the drivers of inflation to broaden and become more embedded. Second, having belatedly course-corrected on the characterisation, it failed to act in a timely and decisive manner — so much so that it was still injecting exceptional liquidity into the economy in the week in March when the US printed a 7 per cent-plus inflation print.These two missteps have resulted in persistently high inflation that, at 8.6 per cent in May, is hindering economic activity, imposing a particularly heavy burden on the most vulnerable segments of the population, and has contributed to significant market losses on both stocks and government bonds. Now a third mis-step may be in the making as indicated by developments last week.Having rightly worried about the Fed both underestimating the threat of inflation and failing to evolve its policy stance in a timely manner, markets now feel that a late central bank scrambling to play catch-up risks sending the US economy into recession. This contributed to sharply lower yields on government bonds last week just as the Fed chair, Jay Powell, appeared in Congress with the newly-found conviction that the battle against inflation is “unconditional”.The markets are right to worry about a higher risk of recession. While the US labour market remains strong, consumer sentiment has been falling. With indicators of business confidence also turning down there is growing doubt about the ability of the private sector to power the US economy through the major uncertainties caused by this phase of high inflation.Other drivers of demand are also under threat. The fiscal policy impetus has shifted from an expansionary to contractionary stance and exports are battling a weakening global economy. With all this, it is not hard to see why so many worry about another Fed mis-step tipping the economy into a recession.In addition to undermining socio-economic wellbeing and fuelling unsettling financial instability, such a mis-step would erode the institutional credibility that is so crucial for future policy effectiveness. And it is not as if Fed credibility has not been damaged already.In addition to lagging behind economic developments, the central bank has been repeatedly criticised for its forecasts for both inflation and employment — the two components of its dual mandate. A recent illustration of this was the sceptical reaction to the Fed’s update on monetary policy released on June 15.The scenario that worries the market — the Fed aggressively hiking rates only to be forced to reverse by the end of this year due to the threat of recession — is certainly a possibility, and it is not a comforting one.There is another equally possible alternative, if not more likely and more damaging economically and socially: A multi-round flip-flopping Fed.In this scenario, a Fed lacking credibility and sound forecasts would fall in the classic “stop-go” trap that haunted many western central banks in the 1970s and 1980s and remains a problem for some developing countries today lacking policy conviction and commitment. This is a world in which policy measures are whipsawed, seemingly alternating between targeting lower inflation and higher growth, but with little success on either. It is a world in which the US enters 2023 with both problems fuelling more disruption to economic prosperity and higher inequality. More

  • in

    Nestlé and Unilever CEOs: we will make our supply chains deforestation-free

    The writers are the chief executives of Nestlé and UnileverAcute crises don’t magic away chronic ones. In fact, an exclusive focus on today’s pressures risks making those of tomorrow far worse.Nestlé and Unilever are contending with some significant challenges right now: food and energy security and sharply rising commodity prices. Alongside these, the effects of climate change are rippling across our value chains. And the impact will only get worse. That is why we are committed to net zero carbon emissions.The business upsides of solving these global challenges are clear: consumers are demanding more sustainable products, workers want to work at more sustainable businesses, and investors recognise the risk and opportunity.In our own companies, we’ve turned our commitments into action, but we need to see more from the food, land and agriculture industries. The sector contributes 22 per cent of global emissions, and fully half of that comes from deforestation and land conversion to provide food, fibre and fuel. We know this isn’t easy. Nestlé and Unilever’s efforts to eliminate deforestation from our supply chains, whether for cocoa or palm oil, have often been the subject of public debate. But unless we end deforestation, achieving net zero is impossible.New analysis launched today by the UN’s Race to Zero in collaboration with the Science Based Targets initiative finds a fivefold increase in the number of major companies in the forest, land and agriculture sector that are committed to net zero.But this encouraging momentum masks two concerns. Even though investors responsible for nearly $9tn in assets are looking to eliminate commodity-driven deforestation from their portfolios, a majority of companies critical to tackling tropical deforestation are yet to set a net zero target. Moreover, of the 148 companies to have made such climate commitments, only 6 per cent have made strong progress on tackling deforestation to date, based on a review of their performance by the Global Canopy. This lack of progress risks derailing the net zero commitments of over 94 per cent of major food and land use companies.That’s an issue for all of us. Four things must happen, urgently.First, all companies with land-based emissions must demonstrate how their business models and value chains can be made consistent with a net zero world. To reiterate: there is no net zero without ending deforestation. A new methodology about to be launched by the Science Based Targets initiative offers the promise of transparent reporting on progress made by companies in the food, land use and agriculture sector.Second, our sector must go beyond just managing deforestation risks in our supply chains if we are to help conserve and restore the world’s forests and natural ecosystems, while promoting sustainable livelihoods. That means embracing regenerative agriculture to develop “nature positive” supply chains. It also means recognising the legitimate domestic interests of developing countries, specifically those of smallholders, indigenous peoples and local communities. Tropical forest countries often have to balance competing environmental and socio-economic priorities — development, jobs and livelihoods — so we need solutions that deliver all these objectives together.Third, business must fully harness the potential of technology to track, improve and report on progress. There have been huge advances in increasing the visibility of what is happening to forests in real time. Much of this can now be delivered at low cost.Fourth, governments, multilateral institutions and development banks, with banks, investors and business, must help accelerate forest finance ahead of the COP27 summit in November. Nature-based solutions, including forests, could deliver over a third of the emissions reductions needed, but currently receive just $133bn of available climate finance. We need to repurpose $1.8tn of environmentally harmful subsidies so that available finance is commensurate with the size of the challenge and opportunity.Unilever and Nestlé recognise that net zero is a central goal for the global economy. We are working to make our key commodity supply chains, considered to have the highest impact on deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems, deforestation-free by the end of 2025 and to support the communities that protect them.There is a fervent debate about the merits and methods of sustainable business. But action is what is now needed. Ending deforestation is a necessary condition of achieving net zero, delivering benefits for consumers, communities and companies alike.

    Video: Scrutiny of the carbon offset market is growing | FT Moral Money More

  • in

    UK shop prices jump by the most since 2008 – BRC

    The British Retail Consortium (BRC) said on Wednesday that average prices among its members in early June were 3.1% higher than a year earlier, the biggest jump since September 2008 and speeding from May’s 2.8% rise.The BRC’s measure of inflation covers a narrower range of goods than Britain’s official consumer prices index, which showed inflation hit a 40-year high of 9.1% in May.Food prices on the BRC’s measure were up 5.6% on the year in June compared with a 4.3% rise in May, the largest food price rise since June 2011. Non-food prices rose by 1.9%, a touch slower than in May but close to record highs.”Retailers are working to find more ways to protect their customers from the worst effects of inflation, but if costs continue to spiral, government may need to find ways to help retail businesses support their customers,” BRC chief executive Helen Dickinson said.The Bank of England is watching for signs that Britain’s inflation jump leads to persistent inflation pressures and it has said it will act forcefully if that happens. The BoE has raised interest rates five times since December.The BRC survey was conducted between June 1 and June 7. More

  • in

    Cryptoverse: Ether holds its breath for the lean, mean 'merge'

    (Reuters) – Investors in ether and its troubled twin stETH are nervously anticipating a crypto milestone: The merge.That’s the name for a major upgrade of the Ethereum blockchain network upon which many crypto projects are built, aimed at making it leaner, meaner and cleaner.It’s elusive. The merge was supposed to happen years ago but has been delayed several times, with developers most recently axing plans to push the button in June, unnerving investors who began to fear it might never see the light of day.Now though, market players are betting that the end of the waiting is nigh. But it’s no slam dunk.On Polymarket, a crypto site where users place bets with stablecoins on the occurrence of future events, investors have priced in a 67% chance that the upgrade, also known as Ethereum 2.0, will come to pass by October, and a 13% probability by September.The Ethereum Foundation, which uses the analogy of changing the engine of a spaceship mid-flight, says on its website that the merge is “shipping” around “Q3/Q4 2022″.The merge finally happening would prove a big relief for ether, which has slumped on past delays and waning confidence in the upgrade. The second-biggest cryptocurrency was last trading at around $1,200, down from just over $3,500 in April, though much of the recent pessimism about the upgrade has been swamped by wider recent market ructions. The merge could also represent the end of an ordeal for those investors holding a crypto derivative token called staked ether or stETH, which represents ether locked up in a testing environment for the upgrade, and which is hard to redeem at scale until at least six months after the merge happens. Yet doubters remain.”It’s just the sheer mass of the protocol. Ethereum is just so huge that I don’t think they’re going to reach their deadline in time,” said Brent Xu, founder and CEO at Umee, which is building a base-layer blockchain for borrowing and lending. “People are just scared that their stETH is not going to be worth anything because the Merge is probably going to take longer than expected,” said Xu. THE STUMBLING OF stETHThe upgrade will see ether mining transition away from the energy-intensive proof-of-work. Ethereum’s existing execution layer will merge with the new proof-of-stake consensus system.Any further delays would be bad news for those holding stETH, a token created by a crypto project called Lido that can be converted into ether on a 1:1 basis between six and 12 months after the merge happens. Until then, stETH trades at a price set by the market, with most trades occurring on a trading platform called Curve. It reached a market cap of $11 billion in May, according to price site CoinGecko, and until last month traded broadly at parity with ether. However, when crypto markets sold off last month stETH tumbled in value to trade at around an 8% discount to ether, hurt by major selling by investors such as Celsius and Three Arrows according to public data. The price has recovered a little – stETH currently trades at a 4% discount to ether – but has not made it back to parity, partly because of the impact of the delayed merge. Major investors in stETH include embattled U.S.-based crypto lender Celsius.ANY TAKERS FOR THAT TRADE?The stETH project was popular because while investors can earn interest elsewhere by “staking” their ether, to do so they must lock away a minimum of 32 ether (currently roughly $38,000) until the network upgrades to the new standard. Lido, instead, allowed them to stake as little ether as they wished in return for yield, and receive stETH. Yet repeated delays to the merge is testing the nerves of stETH investors.The concern is that liquidity is fast drying up at Curve, said Ryan Shea, crypto economist at global fintech company Trakx.io. Curve’s stETH liquidity has more than halved since mid May, according to the platform’s data. “You’re going to have to find alternative sources if you want to sell a huge amount of stETH,” Shea said, such as putting stETH as collateral in another lending protocol.”But in this type of environment where people are looking closely at crypto lending companies, whether anyone will be prepared to take that trade, I don’t know.” More

  • in

    Crypto more popular than mutual funds among millennials, survey shows

    The report, dubbed “How Millennials See Their Financial Future,” reveals that nearly 40% of millennial respondents have invested in cryptocurrencies. According to the report, this is “greater than the percentage of millennials who own mutual funds.” Moreover, the percentage is almost equal to those millennials who own stocks.Continue Reading on Coin Telegraph More