The global economy is experiencing a whirlwind of transitions that will eventually affect everyone. These transitions are not new, but the will have a greater impact in business and society: automation will be highly disruptive in terms of employment and productivity; population young to old ratio, which in Mexico is set to reach its peak in less than five years; generational layers, with new generations entering the job market, such as generation Z, while others, such as millennials, are reaching midlife; and a sense of upper echelon exploitation felt by the masses, a transition that portends most enduring and strong effects in the social fabric.
In spite of these trends, the world is currently enjoying a brief period of stability. Nor the unemployment rate, interest rate levels, inflation or fiscal deficits are at alarming levels. Nevertheless, there are still some global economic risks in 2020:
Future markets expect interest rates to remain below the economic growth rates for several more years. For example, the long-term target set for the Fed rate was reduced from 3 % to 1.5 %, and most of the OECD countries follow suit. One of the reasons behind this is the economies’ high sensibility to the rates increases.
OECD countries had balance sheet of 20.5 trillion dollars in their central banks by the end of 2016, when the quantitative easing (QE) strategy started, which is the approach that is currently being applied (as a reference, the global GDP will be closing this year with around 87.5 trillion dollars).
So, what has been the expansionary monetary policy? The central banks’ balance sheets of those economies that conducted the QE strategy had an overall growth of 12 trillion dollars. For example, in the U.S., the U.K., the E.U., and Japan, there was a growth from 3.7 trillion in 2008 (8% of their GDPs) to 14 trillion in 2019 (33% of their GDPs). It is expected that 2020 and 2021 will see further growth.
A very tangible risk of the (unprecedented) QE policy is that perception of money as a safeguard of value could fall (due to abundance), which may result in the search of other goods that could substitute its function, mainly in the form of real assets such as lands and buildings, and also stock market shares, gold and metals, and even bonds and credit.
In this global trading scenario, it is expected that this year’s earnings per share (EPS) will grow approximately from 3 to 5% in the U.S. (which could increase to a positive scenario of 8% or 177 dollars per share in the SPX) in the base case. At the shock case, and after a correction of 15% on the stock market, EPS could have a negative impact of -4%.
There has never been a greater EPS gap between Big Tech companies (Facebook, Amazon, Google, Netflix, Microsoft, and other tech firms) and the rest of the SPX index, and there are only two ways to close it: either by increasing all of the firms’ profits as a whole, or by implementing a tighter regulation concerning Big Tech operations.
To put this scenario into perspective, in the course of the last five years the profits of American corporations have grown about 0%, while Big Tech’s profits have grown 38% , mainly due to buybacks, their aggressive accounting methods, and their tax strategies. Big Tech own a third of all profits on the index, which is also a sign that the economy is slowing down, since technology is the less regulated sector.
Given this situation and the various expected trends, the following facts seem to be a cautious guideline for portfolio formation:
This is a summary of the research paper Los mercados en 2020, you can download it full-length here.