One of the key themes that I anticipated would affect markets this year is disruption. I have maintained that disruption would likely come in different forms: geopolitical risk and monetary policy risk. (There is one additional form — disruption caused by innovation — that will be addressed more fully in a future commentary.) At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I must underscore the concerns I have articulated time and again about geopolitical risk. In many ways, these risks can be viewed as black swan events — difficult to predict, but with far-reaching potential consequences.
North Korean standoff rattles capital markets
Top of mind is, of course, North Korea. In the past week, tensions between North Korea and the US escalated further — enough to finally have an impact on capital markets. The United Nations Security Council voted 15–0 last week to impose new sanctions on North Korea in response to its continued testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This was a victory for the US, as both China and Russia voted in favor of the resolution. These sanctions, which target North Korea’s key exports, are estimated to reduce the country’s export revenue by about $3 billion, according to the US Ambassador to the United Nations.
That set off a war of words between the leaders of North Korea and the United States. The rhetoric rose to the level of serious threats, causing the financial markets to shudder. Global stocks fell, gold saw increased demand, and safe-haven sovereign bonds, such as US Treasuries and German bunds, rose. As a result, the yield on the US Treasury bond fell from 2.36% to 2.19% from July 11 through Aug. 11, while the yield on the German 10-year Bund fell to 0.38% from 0.55%, and the yield on the French 10-year note fell to 0.68% from 0.92% — both over the same one-month period.
China’s role in tensions between North Korea and the US
The US is placing a lot of importance on China’s potential role in the resolution of tensions with North Korea. However, China has been clear that the US is not exactly an ally. The Global Times, which has historically been a proxy for the Chinese Communist Party, stated that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil and the US retaliates, China will remain neutral. However, if the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime, China will then retaliate against both countries. This puts the US between a rock and a hard place, and is arguably emboldening North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un.
So, given this difficult situation, what happens next? It seems that the US may be trying to use trade issues with China in order to take an aggressive stance with North Korea. Today, President Trump is expected to sign a memo that will set into motion an evaluation of possible Chinese intellectual property violations. If an investigation does occur, the US could seek remedies, including tariffs. (Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 allows the US to place a tariff on another country without Congressional approval.)
This memo was supposed to be signed earlier, but President Trump reportedly wanted to wait until after receiving China’s support in the UN Security Council for North Korean sanctions. China’s response this morning was to warn the US that an intellectual property investigation may trigger a “trade war.” The reality is that it behooves China to keep North Korea’s current regime intact. As a result, I believe it is unlikely that China will be able to provide the solution that the US seeks. And current trade posturing could aggravate the Sino-American relationship, pushing China closer to North Korea. While the situation has cooled for the moment, we need to be prepared for the likelihood that tensions between North Korea and the US could flare up again.
At what price would Russia support US sanctions on North Korea?
Russia was the other pivotal country on the UN Security Council whose support the US needed in order to secure new sanctions against North Korea. Now that Russia has voted, the question is what it will request in return. The price may be silence when Russia conducts its “war games” in Europe next month. These war games are a Soviet-era, wide-scale military exercise known as “Zapad,” which was reinstated by Vladimir Putin in 1999. Zapad can be considered both military training and Russian military posturing. Western observers have estimated that as many as 100,000 Russian personnel may be involved, although Russia has pegged that number at fewer than 15,000. Previous Zapad exercises have been significant, with the last one in 2013 reportedly involving approximately 75,000 troops and personnel.
Eastern European nations are already expressing concern that Zapad may be a Trojan horse — a way for Russia to enter countries such as Belarus and then stay with the intent of invading nearby countries such as Ukraine or Poland. For example, only a few months after the last Zapad, Russia used troops that it deployed into Crimea and its vicinity as part of a military exercise in order to annex Crimea. Russia refuses to be transparent about the details of its planned war games, so it would be difficult to know whether military movements are merely an exercise, or something more significant. NATO is clearly a more vulnerable institution today than it was just a few years ago, so it stands to reason that Russia might test NATO with a military incursion. While unlikely, any actions on the part of Russia beyond what would normally be expected from a training exercise could result in fear, market volatility and a flight to safety.
Uncertainty reigns in Britain and France
Britain and France are experiencing their own set of challenges. However, I am hopeful that geopolitical risk can decrease from this point. Brexit negotiations are reportedly hitting roadblocks — largely because of infighting within Prime Minister Theresa May’s own cabinet. Polls show greater public disapproval of Brexit, with some even lobbying for a second Brexit vote. Others are critical of Philip Hammond, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his desire to extend the Brexit negotiation period. While uncertainty surrounding the May administration’s stance on Brexit negotiations could create short-term anxiety and a drop in business capital investment, I am optimistic that it could also result in a more thoughtful Brexit. After all, diversity of thought can ultimately lead to a better outcome.
In France, President Emmanuel Macron’s approval ratings have plummeted, suggesting his ability to execute his agenda will be hampered. However, I am not too concerned about negative public sentiment, which should be expected, given that Macron’s proposed reforms could be a difficult pill for France to swallow. President Macron’s En Marche! party has a majority in the National Assembly, which should enable him to bring his plans to fruition if he can overcome recent gaffes. More importantly, French business sentiment is at a five-year high, which could spur greater business investment.
Trump agenda stalls amid tensions with Congress
Finally, in the US last week, geopolitical risk escalated on the heels of tensions between President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. A deteriorating relationship between the President and his own party in Congress does not bode well for the many agenda items that we will be watching once Congress returns from recess. With time running short, I believe the debt ceiling should be the first order of business. However, there is significant uncertainty around whether Congress will be able to raise the debt ceiling. The closest the US has come to not lifting the debt ceiling occurred in the summer of 2011. This resulted in the most tumultuous week for US capital markets since the global financial crisis, as global stocks fell dramatically (the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged more than 500 points in one day), and a flight to safety led bond investors to, somewhat ironically, US Treasuries.
Who will chair the Federal Reserve next year?
With regard to monetary policy risk, there is a lot on the horizon. For example, investors will need to assess the impact of US balance sheet normalization on the capital markets; this process is likely to start sooner rather than later. In addition, a new Federal Reserve chair could be in place in just six months. This means there may be a very different approach to monetary policy; a data-dependent rate hike cycle may soon be a thing of the past.
However, we may not know much about the new chair’s “monetary policy ideology” if he or she is an unconventional choice — one pulled from the business world, rather than from academia. The beauty of choosing an academic is that he or she has likely articulated his or her positions in writings; choosing someone from the business world means they likely have not. What’s more, that person may not even have an ideology with respect to monetary policy. This could be an added source of disruption, given how much markets have come to rely on transparency, communication and even “pre-communication.”
As we look ahead to the potential for greater geopolitical risks and more black swans of varying sizes, investors should give thought to downside risk mitigation in their portfolios. Those looking for added diversification may wish to consider alternative asset classes, such as real estate, market-neutral or long/short strategies, or even gold.
Blog header image: f11photo/Shutterstock.com
Diversification does not guarantee a profit or eliminate the risk of loss.
Alternative products typically hold more nontraditional investments and employ more complex trading strategies, including hedging and leveraging through derivatives, short selling and opportunistic strategies that change with market conditions. Investors considering alternatives should be aware of their unique characteristics and additional risks from the strategies they use. Like all investments, performance will fluctuate. You can lose money.
Investments in real-estate-related instruments may be affected by economic, legal or environmental factors that affect property values, rents or occupancies of real estate. Real estate companies, including REITs or similar structures, tend to be small and mid-cap companies, and their shares may be more volatile and less liquid.
The opinions referenced above are those of Kristina Hooper as of Aug. 14, 2017. These comments should not be construed as recommendations, but as an illustration of broader themes. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future results. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions; there can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations.
Global Market Strategist
Kristina Hooper is the Global Market Strategist at Invesco. She has 21 years of investment industry experience.
Prior to joining Invesco, Ms. Hooper was the US investment strategist at Allianz Global Investors. Prior to Allianz, she held positions at PIMCO Funds, UBS (formerly PaineWebber) and MetLife. She has regularly been quoted in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Reuters and other financial news publications. She was featured on the cover of the January 2015 issue of Kiplinger’s magazine, and has appeared regularly on CNBC and Reuters TV.
Ms. Hooper earned a BA degree, cum laude, from Wellesley College; a J.D. from Pace University School of Law, where she was a Trustees’ Merit Scholar; an MBA in finance from New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, where she was a teaching fellow in macroeconomics and organizational behavior; and a master’s degree from the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, where she focused on labor economics.
Ms. Hooper holds the Certified Financial Planner, Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst, Certified Investment Management Analyst and Chartered Financial Consultant designations. She serves on the board of trustees of the Foundation for Financial Planning, which is the pro bono arm of the financial planning industry, and Hour Children.