(New York)

The fixed income market used to be where you went for safety and steady income. Those days seem long ago, and fixed income is not just as likely as any other asset class to eb the riskiest and most volatile in your portfolio. Between COVID and the Fed, interest rates are extremely low, with yields low and bond price very high, and vulnerable. Some have been comparing the situation to Japan in the 1990s and beyond, but there is a huge difference that makes the US bond market much worse than Japan ever was—inflation. When Japan started its massive zero rate, ultra-low yield period, it was experiencing deflation, which meant there was still a positive real rate. But that is not true in the US today, as yields are actually well below real-world inflation, meaning genuinely negative real interest rates.

FINSUM: There is ultimately going to have to be a reckoning in the bond market, because real returns are not sustainable. That said, it does not seem like the Fed is going to let that happen any time soon.

(Boston)

Anyone who sell variable annuities, or even has a passing familiarity with the business, know that the headline above is a controversial one. The reason why is that the first version of the DOL rule caused annuities sales to drop. Even though that rule was vacated, it had already changed the structure of the market. However, Harvard is now saying the rule actually helped the VA industry. It says fees were lower and returns higher, that the rule did not force smaller investors out of the market, and that captive brokers put more weight on client interests. However, those in the annuity industry say the report is completely biased and that the researchers went in with the intention of proving the exact points they already assumed were true. Critics cited a number of flaws with the study, such as the methodology for calculating expenses and commissions.

FINSUM: While it is clear that variable annuity product suites, including fees and commissions, came down because of the rule, it does not seem clear that it helped everybody in general because of differing market access based on investor size.

(New York)

A lot of investors are hoping a new government stimulus package will be a shot in the arm for markets. However, the reality might be something much more disappointing. While a deal would be a nice benefit for the economy, the weight of an autumn case surge and a highly volatile election are heavy on the shoulders of markets. According to one market strategist at Miller Tabak, “We believe an agreement on a new fiscal plan is likely, but we’re not so sure it will help the stock market rally in a sustainable way. The market is still quite overvalued and the combination of the weakening employment picture plus a second wave of the virus does not bode well for any improvement for the ‘E’ part [earnings] of the P/E ratio going forward”.

FINSUM: The stimulus deal will likely be good for a 0.50% move in indexes, but with little continued benefits. It just doesn’t seem enough to re-spark the bull market given everything else going on.

(New York)

The market seems to be in a tussle with itself. On the one hand, some investors are feeling bullish on the economic outlook, while many others feel the recovery is losing momentum. The data isn’t helping because it seems to validate both sides. For instance, jobs recovery numbers have been strong (disappointing somewhat today though) and the overall dip in output is not as bad as many expected. Metals prices, like silver and copper, have been rising, a leading indicator of growing economic activity. However, consumers seem to be hurting with real income dropping tangibly because of the end of government stimulus checks.

FINSUM: It increasingly seems like a k-shaped recovery is taking hold on the sector level. Certain areas of business are doing very well, while others like airlines, retail and more are doing poorly. This appears to mirror what is happening in consumer spending, where the upper middle and wealthy are surviving fine, but the middle and lower classes are getting hurt badly.

(New York)

Goldman Sachs is stressed about the election. In particular, they are concerned about what a contested outcome could mean for stock prices. Because of that, they think the debates which started this week have the potential to be an “important catalyst for investors to assess risks”. The debates have the possibility of swinging the election strongly one way or the other, which means they can be tipping points for investors. “One way to lower the odds of a contested outcome (that brings noise and volatility) is via a large margin of victory that cannot be undermined”. That said, according to the bank’s strategists, even a big win could have risks: “Although undoubtedly under the clean-sweep scenario there is the negative implications for risk assets to be considered, stemming from a Democratic legislative agenda including higher corporate taxes and increased capital-gains taxes”.

FINSUM: Goldman is making it abundantly clear that they think most paths for the market lead lower—likely until the end of the year. With Trump now having COVID, that makes uncertainty even higher.