WEBVTT - Mitul Kotecha on the Markets (Radio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.800
<v Speaker 1>Let's get to our gas middle cotech ahead of emerging

0:00:02.840 --> 0:00:06.520
<v Speaker 1>market strategy at TV Securities Middle. I got to ask

0:00:06.559 --> 0:00:08.840
<v Speaker 1>you a question I asked a little bit earlier this morning.

0:00:08.960 --> 0:00:12.240
<v Speaker 1>It still kind of galls me. Um, the comments from

0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:16.680
<v Speaker 1>Bill Dudley. Now I understand, but he's basically saying that

0:00:16.720 --> 0:00:19.799
<v Speaker 1>if the stock market is optimistic, then the FED is

0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:25.400
<v Speaker 1>going to punish everybody with with even higher interest rates. Um.

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:27.040
<v Speaker 1>And And I just want to ask you the basic

0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:31.040
<v Speaker 1>question and semi answer it myself. Does the stock market

0:00:31.160 --> 0:00:34.319
<v Speaker 1>cause inflation? And in my semi answer, and you tell

0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:36.960
<v Speaker 1>me if I'm wrong or right? When you when you

0:00:36.960 --> 0:00:39.920
<v Speaker 1>have an illness, you don't try to cure the symptoms.

0:00:40.080 --> 0:00:45.279
<v Speaker 1>You cure the disease. Markets and their optimism whatever, are

0:00:45.440 --> 0:00:49.000
<v Speaker 1>symptoms of the Fed's battle with inflation. How successful the

0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:52.720
<v Speaker 1>FED is or might be, it's inflation that's the disease,

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>not the markets. Does that make sense to you? It

0:00:57.760 --> 0:01:01.040
<v Speaker 1>does make sense, Um. But the same time, I think

0:01:01.080 --> 0:01:04.039
<v Speaker 1>the Fair is probably looking at the easing in financial

0:01:04.080 --> 0:01:07.720
<v Speaker 1>conditions that has been taking place via a weaker dollar

0:01:07.880 --> 0:01:11.080
<v Speaker 1>as well as stronger stock markets, and probably looking at

0:01:11.120 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>this is going against the impacts of their policy decisions.

0:01:14.800 --> 0:01:18.319
<v Speaker 1>It does effectively, whether it's direct or indirect, have some

0:01:18.360 --> 0:01:22.440
<v Speaker 1>impact on inflation, as it does boost balance sheets of companies,

0:01:22.480 --> 0:01:27.200
<v Speaker 1>consumers feel healthier, spending increases. Potentially it could feed into wages.

0:01:27.200 --> 0:01:29.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, there's a number of angles here that the

0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:31.360
<v Speaker 1>FED is probably looking at. And the reality is that

0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:35.360
<v Speaker 1>we know that core services inflations in the US, tight

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:38.600
<v Speaker 1>to the labor market is still very very high and elevated,

0:01:38.760 --> 0:01:41.160
<v Speaker 1>and the FED is concerned that they will need to

0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:44.160
<v Speaker 1>like rate much more significantly. So of course, if equities

0:01:44.160 --> 0:01:46.880
<v Speaker 1>are much stronger, it kind of plays into that some extent.

0:01:46.880 --> 0:01:48.640
<v Speaker 1>I do understand what you're saying that the partly it

0:01:48.720 --> 0:01:51.080
<v Speaker 1>is a symptom, and that's very true. But I do

0:01:51.200 --> 0:01:54.400
<v Speaker 1>think that the easy in financial conditions in general is

0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:56.280
<v Speaker 1>probably not something the FED wants to see at this

0:01:56.400 --> 0:02:00.639
<v Speaker 1>point in the cycle. However, I think that Brian stated

0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:03.240
<v Speaker 1>perfectly is it seems how investors look at this, the

0:02:03.680 --> 0:02:07.560
<v Speaker 1>FED is punishing us. The Fed is causing pain. If

0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:09.520
<v Speaker 1>you look at it from the Fed's point of view,

0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:15.040
<v Speaker 1>They're doing what's necessary unfortunately to bring down ultra high inflation.

0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:18.880
<v Speaker 1>And if they ease up because investors feel the feel

0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:21.040
<v Speaker 1>pain you know, it's actually the workers are going to

0:02:21.080 --> 0:02:23.600
<v Speaker 1>feel the pain, not the investors as much. Um, how

0:02:23.600 --> 0:02:26.560
<v Speaker 1>do you handle that as someone who's got to run money,

0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:29.880
<v Speaker 1>because now you have to gage two um elements, you've

0:02:29.880 --> 0:02:32.000
<v Speaker 1>got to gage the FED, and you've got to gage

0:02:32.040 --> 0:02:38.440
<v Speaker 1>the market's reaction. You know too that that's right. I mean, look,

0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:41.600
<v Speaker 1>I think pain is is the key word here, and

0:02:41.639 --> 0:02:45.560
<v Speaker 1>I think really where the pain is something that the

0:02:45.600 --> 0:02:47.440
<v Speaker 1>set is targeting is going to be in the labor market,

0:02:47.520 --> 0:02:50.000
<v Speaker 1>and as yet we're not seeing that. We've seen anecdotal

0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:53.200
<v Speaker 1>evidence that many companies are starting to look at shedding

0:02:53.280 --> 0:02:56.799
<v Speaker 1>labor and start layoffs the process of layoffs, but the

0:02:56.840 --> 0:02:59.079
<v Speaker 1>reality is, if you look at the job stata, it's

0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:02.360
<v Speaker 1>still pretty strong. Wage inflation is still very high. And

0:03:02.400 --> 0:03:06.000
<v Speaker 1>I think the said fees this is key um in

0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:08.760
<v Speaker 1>terms of only say inflicting pain, but it will be

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:11.200
<v Speaker 1>jobs pain that's going to be the key hereof and

0:03:11.280 --> 0:03:14.640
<v Speaker 1>from the asset markets. And when they do finally start

0:03:14.680 --> 0:03:16.840
<v Speaker 1>to see that coming through, I think then we can

0:03:16.840 --> 0:03:19.720
<v Speaker 1>start talking about hitting the terminal rate and potentially even

0:03:19.840 --> 0:03:22.760
<v Speaker 1>cutting rates further out. But at this point we're just

0:03:22.800 --> 0:03:25.720
<v Speaker 1>not there. And I think, you know, that pain partly

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:29.240
<v Speaker 1>and indirectly when when companies are struggling in a sense

0:03:29.280 --> 0:03:32.520
<v Speaker 1>of against higher interest rates and pressure on profits which

0:03:32.560 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 1>are likely to intensify, that will hurt equity markets, that

0:03:36.280 --> 0:03:40.640
<v Speaker 1>will potentially lead to more layoffs, and indirectly that could

0:03:40.640 --> 0:03:44.080
<v Speaker 1>put some lower pressure eating pressure on the wages. And

0:03:44.240 --> 0:03:45.920
<v Speaker 1>I think all of that is is directly going to

0:03:45.960 --> 0:03:49.520
<v Speaker 1>be linked with head policy. So clearly wages very big

0:03:49.560 --> 0:03:51.960
<v Speaker 1>part of this store, as you mentioned, and we had

0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:55.320
<v Speaker 1>a big balance over the past eighteen months. Coincides with

0:03:55.600 --> 0:03:58.720
<v Speaker 1>we did have a pandemic. So it's a big question.

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.600
<v Speaker 1>Is it a one time or is there some structural

0:04:02.680 --> 0:04:05.560
<v Speaker 1>change in the economy now that could be permanent which

0:04:05.600 --> 0:04:08.800
<v Speaker 1>gives you this feedback loop in which prices and wages

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:14.200
<v Speaker 1>drive each other up. Yeah. I think the risk is

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:18.159
<v Speaker 1>that what we've seen via COVID and the the structural

0:04:18.200 --> 0:04:20.240
<v Speaker 1>shifts that we've seen in the labor market, you know,

0:04:20.480 --> 0:04:24.880
<v Speaker 1>the great resignation, the shift in the demographics, the whole

0:04:25.279 --> 0:04:28.480
<v Speaker 1>structure of the labor market shifting towards a significant work

0:04:28.480 --> 0:04:32.039
<v Speaker 1>from home tyme, bias, productivity changes all has an impact

0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:36.000
<v Speaker 1>that could be more prolonged going forward and could weigh

0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:38.839
<v Speaker 1>on the FED thinking. And I think the reality is

0:04:38.880 --> 0:04:40.840
<v Speaker 1>at the moment, you know, is we talk about what

0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:43.839
<v Speaker 1>keep talking about wages, but really wages are the key.

0:04:44.000 --> 0:04:47.880
<v Speaker 1>If we don't see any easing in pressure in wage

0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:52.080
<v Speaker 1>growth and earnings going forward, it does suggest effects policies

0:04:52.120 --> 0:04:54.720
<v Speaker 1>not taking effect, and I think that means again we

0:04:54.800 --> 0:04:57.160
<v Speaker 1>go back to an issue of pain. But all of

0:04:57.200 --> 0:04:59.240
<v Speaker 1>that means that we will probably need to suffer more

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:04.040
<v Speaker 1>pain via even higher rates, a higher terminal rate going forward.

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:05.960
<v Speaker 1>We think the terminal could get up to five and

0:05:05.960 --> 0:05:09.400
<v Speaker 1>a half per cent um into next year, but the

0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:11.880
<v Speaker 1>risks are still skewed towards even higher rates if we

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:14.240
<v Speaker 1>don't see any easing in these pressures. So what does

0:05:14.279 --> 0:05:16.640
<v Speaker 1>this mean from emerging markets? Because coming into the end

0:05:16.680 --> 0:05:17.920
<v Speaker 1>of the year, a lot of people have said, that's

0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:20.080
<v Speaker 1>what we're going to see opportunities If for no other reason,

0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:23.360
<v Speaker 1>then the inflation problem isn't as bad. Uh. And yes,

0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:26.560
<v Speaker 1>the FED may put pressure on the dollar and downward

0:05:26.600 --> 0:05:29.320
<v Speaker 1>pressure on emerging market currencies, but they still see some

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:32.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, areas where you can make some money. What

0:05:32.200 --> 0:05:36.920
<v Speaker 1>do you see? I think emerging markets have been backward

0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:40.000
<v Speaker 1>significantly in the last year or so, and obviously a

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:42.960
<v Speaker 1>lot of that is through higher FED rates, it's through

0:05:43.960 --> 0:05:49.080
<v Speaker 1>general pressure on risk assets and worries that China's growth

0:05:49.160 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 1>is weakening and COVID concerns, etcetera, etcetera. And I think

0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:54.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, the one positive factor for EM into the

0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:57.240
<v Speaker 1>next year is positioning is very very light. We've seen

0:05:57.240 --> 0:05:59.719
<v Speaker 1>a huge outflow from e M as sets. I think

0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 1>what benefit EM is if the FED, if the market

0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:06.800
<v Speaker 1>sees the FED peak UH and potentially starts pricing and easy,

0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:11.160
<v Speaker 1>that will start pushing flows back into emerging markets assets

0:06:11.160 --> 0:06:13.839
<v Speaker 1>that are in some ways pretty cheap and under invested.

0:06:13.880 --> 0:06:16.160
<v Speaker 1>So I'm a little bit more constructive on e M

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:17.600
<v Speaker 1>next year. I know there's going to be a lot

0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:21.080
<v Speaker 1>of economic pain. I'm not particularly bullish on China next year,

0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:23.359
<v Speaker 1>but I do think we may see better prospects for

0:06:23.400 --> 0:06:26.760
<v Speaker 1>e M assets. We've just seen China leave the loan

0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:29.920
<v Speaker 1>prime rates unchanged, the one year at three sixty five

0:06:29.960 --> 0:06:33.159
<v Speaker 1>and the five year at four point three zero percent,

0:06:33.400 --> 0:06:37.880
<v Speaker 1>so no change there, no extra stimulus. Um your thoughts

0:06:37.880 --> 0:06:40.880
<v Speaker 1>on China here in the shorter term where they have

0:06:41.000 --> 0:06:45.919
<v Speaker 1>these issues tied to the reopening. I think China is

0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 1>going to struggle in the near term. I think the

0:06:48.040 --> 0:06:53.719
<v Speaker 1>reopening process is still a little bit uncertain. It's still

0:06:54.080 --> 0:06:56.040
<v Speaker 1>got a lot of volatility in it. We can hear

0:06:56.040 --> 0:06:59.560
<v Speaker 1>anecdotal evidence of a ramp up in COVID cases even

0:06:59.600 --> 0:07:01.440
<v Speaker 1>if you've issue in numbers are not showing that to

0:07:01.520 --> 0:07:04.360
<v Speaker 1>some extent because they're not counting a symptomatic cases. The

0:07:04.720 --> 0:07:06.600
<v Speaker 1>data I think is going to be fairly weak in

0:07:06.640 --> 0:07:09.320
<v Speaker 1>the next one or two months. But medium term, I

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:11.440
<v Speaker 1>think the opening up is a positive. I think as

0:07:11.480 --> 0:07:13.720
<v Speaker 1>we go into next year, it will help to push

0:07:13.720 --> 0:07:17.480
<v Speaker 1>them upside risk to Chinese activity, potentially getting us up

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:20.320
<v Speaker 1>to sort of five percent or above growth. We're not

0:07:20.360 --> 0:07:22.680
<v Speaker 1>talking about seven eight percent we've seen in the past.

0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:24.680
<v Speaker 1>But I think you know, there is still a lot

0:07:24.720 --> 0:07:28.440
<v Speaker 1>of constraints on the economy. Trade is weakening, Exports aren't

0:07:28.440 --> 0:07:31.520
<v Speaker 1>going to pick up anytime soon. Uh, Consumers are still

0:07:31.600 --> 0:07:33.840
<v Speaker 1>very cautious of property sector still under a lot of

0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:36.240
<v Speaker 1>pressure despite recent measures. So it's going to be a

0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:39.280
<v Speaker 1>very slow grind to recovery for China's economy in the

0:07:39.360 --> 0:07:44.000
<v Speaker 1>next several months. Well. A lot of concerns possibly a

0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:48.240
<v Speaker 1>budding humanitarian disaster, and that the cases are starting to

0:07:48.320 --> 0:07:51.360
<v Speaker 1>run through a population that's not fully vaccinated. And then

0:07:51.360 --> 0:07:54.400
<v Speaker 1>also we had the US expressing concerns that we might

0:07:54.440 --> 0:07:59.040
<v Speaker 1>see some mutations that could extend the grip of this

0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:03.559
<v Speaker 1>virus on on human kind as it were. Anyway, Mittle,

0:08:03.560 --> 0:08:06.280
<v Speaker 1>thanks very much, Mittle, Katachia from Ted's Securities