Dear friends,

We wish you the very best for the new year ahead. Here at Washington Square Capital Management, we are marking our 18th year of providing independent financial advisory, retirement planning and investment management services to our clients and their families.

As we enter 2026, we find the investment landscape mostly unchanged from where we were in the latter half of 2026. Economic and fiscal risks remain elevated, but markets appear to be largely unperturbed. Since the turbulent weeks after the initial tariff announcements of last spring, markets have largely ignored news from DC. The implicit assumption seems to be that the Trump administration will back off from, or water down, policies if the market and businesses do not like them. This seems to hold true for both invasions of foreign countries and prosecutions of senior Federal Reserve officials.

Meanwhile, it is increasingly difficult to wave off the state of American public finances. The US continues to run 1.5 trillion dollar budget deficits per year, levels that were not seen previously except for deep recessions in 2009. Spending has risen from 20-21% of GDP pre COVID to 23% over the past 3 years. Revenue has fluctuated, but is trending a couple of points lower (16-18%) than it was in the early 2000s (18-20%).

If we do enter a recession, we can expect deficits above $3Tn, levels seen only in the Covid year. US Federal debt levels have grown from 55% of GDP in 2001, to over 120% today. This puts the US in the top two large economies by this measure, behind only Japan, where government debt stands at 235% of GDP. Japan has been able to sustain these levels by virtue of having very low interest rates. It differs from the US by having undergone a sustained deflationary period and a larger domestic bond investor base that has shied away from equities since the Japanese equity bubble burst in the 80s.

If rates on US debt average 4%, interest costs alone would stand at 5% of GDP. That would amount to 30% of the US Federal tax revenue. A business enterprise with interest expenses averaging 3/10ths of its revenue would be considered very poorly run. However, as the Japanese example shows, governments that issue most of their debt in their own fiat currency tend to have a lot more room to maneuver. The interest burden represents a transfer of tax revenue from households composed of workers to households composed largely of those with excess savings (or foreign investors). This is not a stable social arrangement unless there is real growth in incomes, something that the median American household has not seen for decades.

On the inflation front, official data shows CPI steady under 3%, after two years of 5-8% readings post COVID. The deflationary impact of mass production in Asian factories continues to help keep inflation in check, despite the impact of US tariffs. The scale and depth of the deflation was brought home to us in a recent story about the largest Sturgeon caviar farm, which happens to be in China. China has become the largest producer of caviar from Sturgeon, employing modern aquaculture techniques to produce a product that competes with other Central Asian countries that have a long history of producing this luxury product. Farms have been built on lakes and waterways along the Russian border, and in Zhejiang. A large majority of Michelin starred restaurants now source Caviar from these fisheries. The end result has been to ameliorate prices as demand for this luxury has increased, a microcosm of what we have seen in the prices of many other goods. Prices for branded luxury goods have seen a great degree of inflation over the past five years, but that appears largely to be the result of price management by large fashion houses, extracting rents from a status-chasing upper class. If this dynamic continues, we do not see inflation being a major factor in Federal Reserve decisions. The Fed appears to have many other things being pushed on its plate by the current administration.

US equity market indices remain close to all time highs, driven largely by technology stocks associated with the AI infrastructure buildout. The largest AI related stocks remained at their highs. This is despite concerns that the vast amounts being spent on fast depreciating hardware may not be justified by revenue or earnings for decades, if ever.

Prior technology cycles, even those vindicated by later advances (railroads, telegraphs, early Internet), have seen early over-investment end in tears. We do not know exactly how this technology investment cycle ends, but thus far, the immediate uses have been limited. The bill for infrastructure investments will likely come due well before the returns begin to justify the carrying costs for these outsized investments.

Geo-political events continue to be a risk factor with many foreign policy observers reading a broader change in the renewed US interest in Latin America. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the late 80s, the US has enjoyed unrivaled influence on the global stage. The misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with the rapid, steady rise of Chinese military and economic power has challenged this position.. One outcome would be a balance of powers arrangement, with various regional hegemons exercising control in their immediate vicinity. Another outcome would be two or more global powers competing across the world for political and economic influence, as was the case at the height of the Soviet Union. Constituencies for both strategies exist within the US, and in China. Less powerful states such as India, Russia, Brazil and the EU block would be courted by either side.

The economic risks in such a transitional period stem from the actions of the major political actors. One actor may disrupt trade in an attempt to gain an advantage. In many readings, that is what the US has been doing with its regime of sanctions, tariffs and other constraints on trade and the flow of payments. A second form of disruption would be open conflict between the great powers and their allies or proxies. We have also seen brief flashes of this in the Middle-East, Latin America, Africa and even Eurasia. There is a chance that these conflagrations subside and we step away into a new, largely peaceful arrangement. But substantial risks remain.

We continue to advise investors with a long-term outlook to maintain a balanced portfolio, weighted towards assets that can withstand sudden risk shocks.

Regards,

Louis Berger

Subir Grewal, CFA

Friends,

The investment cycle in AI capacity continues to be the main story in equities markets. Though other parts of the US economy appear to be slowing, the hundreds of billions of dollars being invested in data center capacity and GPUs is driving the market higher. The stock market has rewarded any corporate announcement of spending on AI. To us, this has begun to resemble the heady days of the tech cycle at the turn of the millennium. When any and every company that made a “.com” announcement was  applauded with an immediate bump in its stock price. 

Something similar is happening today. As with the 2000 tech bubble, we have also seen a number of “circular transactions” in this cycle. A GPU manufacturer “invests” in a customer and the customer buys a few tens of billions in GPUs. The market cap of both companies rises by a multiple of the additional “revenue”. A database company makes an announcement with an eye-catching headline figure about a customer that has outsourced a datacenter build (and the capex) to it. The database company becomes one of the most valuable companies in the world. 

Such transactions blur the lines between revenue and investment and bring into question the assumption that most sales happen at arm’s-length. If hardware manufacturers and AI service companies are joint ventures, how should “sales” between them be valued? Thus far, the market has brushed off any concerns about these questions.

Meanwhile, real business applications for generative AI have remained limited. Classic internet search is quickly being replaced by generative AI search, but this is more of a like for like replacement rather than a truly new feature. Internet marketers have glommed on to conversational AI, which is clogging our voicemails and e-mails. Meanwhile, internet shoppers are using AI to search for better deals. Researchers are using generative AI to accelerate research projects. Middle school students are using AI to accelerate their homework. In the longer term, we see many productive real-world applications such as embedded, specialized models operating robotic equipment, machinery and vehicles. 

In the early days of the internet overbuilding of capacity led to a boom followed by a bust in networking companies and early internet retail companies. The promise wasn’t realized till a decade or more later, after smart phones became ubiquitous and many fortunes had been destroyed. A veteran tech investor reminded readers that some of the largest tech companies almost went bankrupt during the tech wreck due to out of control spending.

Dystopian uses for our current generation of crude AI have kept pace with positive ones. We have seen increased reports of generative AI used for fraudulent activity. This includes the generation of fraudulent documents and voice as well. We urge all clients to be watchful for such attempts. We have also seen reports of people developing para-social relationships with chatbots. This is true for all age groups. Large corporations have indicated a desire to market “virtual friends” to lonely consumers. In the past week a digital studio has released a portfolio of reels for an AI actress. We find these potential uses troublesome.

Our hopes and fears appear to be shared by policy makers at the highest levels. The Dallas Federal Reserve recently published a chart that visualizes scenarios in the event humanity can create Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

In their analysis, AI boosts GDP by 2% as incremental improvements occur. The paths diverge however, when AGI is achieved. In the benign scenario, AGI drives enormous technological advances and GDP becomes a hockey stick. In the not so benign “extinction scenario”, GDP drops to zero. These are clearly extreme scenarios, but the Federal Reserve is explicitly drawing inspiration from science fiction. In Asimov’s classic Robots series, the author proposed “three laws of robotics” that constrained the actions of super-intelligent machines. In the Foundation trilogy, he imagined a group of scientists who create a new science and mathematics of psycho-history that aids in predicting the future trajectory of events, and this group hastens the fall of a galactic empire in decline, seeking to shorten the period of interregnum. We do not ascribe to a vision of sole global or galactic hegemony as an ideal. Nevertheless, these concepts have an eerie relevance today. Apple TV has dramatized an updated Foundation, with a plot in the last series that dwells on how the aging, self-centered emperor of an empire in decline seeks to avoid relinquishing power by destroying all potential heirs.

This is all heady stuff, but it remains speculative and we should revert to more near-term considerations. 

The credit and rates markets have been eventful as well. Investors have been watching the tussle between the Federal Reserve and an administration that seeks to exercise much more direct control over interest rate policy. Thus far, the Fed appears to have warded off the administration’s attempts at direct interference, but this standoff has only been deferred.

We are also hearing more concern about the amount of private credit that has been extended in recent years, primarily to companies owned by private equity funds. First Brands, a company formed by consolidating several smaller car part manufacturers, declared bankruptcy last month. As did Tricolor, a sub-prime lender that built its business on car loans and car sales to the Spanish-speaking population.

Tricolor was undoubtedly affected by the administration’s targeting of immigrant communities. First Brands, on the other hand, tried to grow too quickly, and there have been news stories that contain questions about accounting at the firm. Each of these failures can be explained as idiosyncratic, but isolated failures can be the early signs of latent issues in the system.

The Fed has signaled that it is cautiously lowering interest rates in response to a weaker labor market. In our view, inflation concerns will likely continue to limit the pace at which it drops rates.

We continue to recommend a cautious, balanced allocation in high-grade securities for investor portfolios, including larger than typical exposure to international securities, commodities and precious metals. Equity valuations are overstretched, the credit markets appear to be showing some signs of stress, and the range of possible outcomes appears to be wider than normal. However, as the economist John Maynard Keynes once said, “markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”  So while warning signs are flashing, we recognize that markets can certainly continue their march higher despite sky-high valuations and weakening economic conditions.

Regards,

Louis Berger

Subir Grewal, CFA

In the 1990s, policy analyst Joseph Overton proposed a theory that policy proposals were only viable if they were deemed acceptable by the mainstream of the population. Proposals that fell outside this range were deemed to be unlikely to succeed, and sit outside what was subsequently renamed the “Overton Window”. Political scientists and economists have since recognized that the Overton window can be moved, or expanded. Through repetition, proposals that might previously have seemed extreme, can gain the imprimatur of acceptability. The US is certainly experiencing an expansion of the Overton window for public policy. The old order, in both domestic and foreign affairs, appears to be on its way out.

In introductory probability theory, students are taught to work with bell-curve shaped distributions, where observations cluster around a median, mean or prior readings. Abrupt changes are rare, and trends generally shift gradually. Outcomes that are very extreme are called “tail events”, they exist out at either “tail” end of a bell curve. Probability theorists will discuss extreme events, or tail events, or refer to distributions that have more outliers as having “fat tails”. 

We believe the range of possible or even likely political and economic outcomes in the medium term has widened to include more extreme events. The Overton window for political events has moved internationally as veiled and not so veiled threats are made to trading partners. It has moved internally, as masked, armed agents of the state disappear people from the streets. This administration seems to relish confrontations and in human history such confrontations generally lead to a response from countervailing forces, followed by a stronger state response, in an escalating cycle of brinkmanship. The likelihood of tail events in markets have increased as businesses and market participants orient themselves for unexpected outcomes, most of which appear to be negative.

Though we are loath to give him further attention, Elon Musk has recently exited the administration and proposed creating a new political party. His critics have countered that he should focus on his business and ignore politics. We are not admirers of Mr. Musk in his business practices or politics, but we do believe his critics are misunderstanding something. All great fortunes, such as Mr. Musk’s, and even small fortunes are dependent on the law, which in the end is dependent on politics. 

The political environment in the US has shifted abruptly over the past few months. Trade is now viewed negatively and the executive branch has accused several of our trading partners of taking advantage of the US by running trade surpluses. We agree that tariffs and industrial policy are valid policy tools, however, spurring domestic growth in industries requires assuring investors that relevant policies will be stable over the course of their investment. What we have seen over the past few months from the administration is constant zig-zagging, which makes longer term investment or capital allocation difficult or impossible. At some point, as enough business managers adopt a “wait and see” attitude, a slowdown materializes. A countervailing force here is business investment in the technology sector and adjacent industries around Artificial Intelligence. The potential rewards for early movers are believed to be so large that investment has continued unabated.

Yet here too, there are significant policy risks. The US is largely a service economy, which means most of what we produce, and the value of our economy  is embedded in human capital– the accumulated knowledge and capabilities of its people–rather than assets in the ground or hard goods. This certainly applies to the technology industry, including AI related enterprises.

Large swathes of the knowledge economy view their livelihoods and even their entire fields of work to be at risk under this administration. This includes researchers at universities, millions of immigrants and federal workers in specialized fields from Air Traffic Control to the National Weather Service. We have seen anecdotal reports of teams and researchers receiving offers of employment from foreign universities and enterprises as word of this administration’s hostility towards academia spreads. Relocating factories overseas atrophied domestic production lines, which will now require years or decades to rebuild. The departure or mothballing of critical talent in the US will have a long-lasting impact as well.

Our major trading and political partners have surely begun to reassess the US, and it is unlikely that many will conclude the US is a bastion of stability. In international affairs, as this administration’s actions towards Ukraine and various Middle-Eastern countries demonstrate, we are playing a destabilizing role. Even staunch allies such as Japan are therefore reconsidering where their long term interests lie. We can see this reflected in global surveys, where the US’s favorability has fallen in almost all major countries (Financial Times, July 8, 2025: Trump’s assault on American greatness)

Amongst all this uncertainty, the US consumer has continued to spend. This resilience is partly due to equity markets themselves. The US has very high levels of income and wealth inequality compared to other developed economies. Almost half of all consumer spending is driven by the top 10% of US households. These households are wealthier and tend to have larger investment portfolios. That means they are more susceptible to the “wealth effect” which postulates households spend less when they feel less wealthy (for example if their investment portfolio value falls). Conversely, their spending remains unaffected if equity markets remain high as they have this year, despite the tariff-related selloff in Q1.

The US lost its AAA rating from Moody’s this quarter. Moody’s was the final holdout, the other major rating agencies had downgraded the US years earlier. This news came on the eve of Congress passing a budget that starkly erodes public finances. The CBO estimates the budget will add $2.7 Trillion to the US deficit over the next 10 years. The credit-worthiness of any borrower, even one as large as the US Treasury, rests on two factors: the ability to pay back its debts and its willingness to do so. This budget further erodes the US’s ability to repay its debt, but that is not all. Individuals close to the current administration have suggested it could unilaterally force foreign bondholders to swap their holdings for cheaper bonds, a prospect that creditors would view as a selective default (Financial Times, May 2, 2025: How China is quietly diversifying from US Treasuries). We can envision a day where we hear senior administration officials argue that a selective default targeting NATO members is one way to get allies to share the cost of past spending for armed forces. The administration has also broadly and repeatedly undermined the Federal Reserve (Financial Times, June 29, 2025: Donald Trump’s fiscal policy and Fed attacks imperil US haven status, say economists). Taken together, most sober analysts will conclude that the US has eroded both its ability and willingness to repay its debts.

That said, some of these events could surely blow over, and all administrations float ideas to gauge public sentiment, before backing off unpopular ones.  While it remains to be seen how this all plays out in the coming months/years, we will be watching these developments closely. 

We are occasionally asked what we see other investors as doing, and particularly those investors we consider to be the “smart money”. We will interpret the views of three investment firms we consider worth paying attention to in matters or asset allocation or risk analysis. 

1. Berkshire Hathaway is a large conglomerate which has been led by legendary investor Warren Buffet for many decades. Since the beginning of 2024, Berkshire Hathaway has more than doubled its holdings in cash, from $167 billion to over $350 billion. The explanation from its management team is that there is a paucity of profitable investment opportunities. That is another way of saying Berkshire’s leadership believes equity prices are too high.

2. GMO is a Boston-based asset manager. Unusually for large institutional asset managers, GMO actively allocates within different asset classes and is a proxy for what the smart money on the “buy side” is thinking. GMO estimates the annualized 7 year, fair value return for Large Cap US equities to be -4.9% as of May 31, 2025.  GMO does believe international stocks and certain “deep value” stocks in the US offer positive return outlooks for a seven year horizon, but growth stocks which make up the largest portion of major US equity indexes appear very much overvalued in their opinion.

3. Goldman Sachs, the global investment bank, has for the past several decades carved out a niche as one of the better connected and astute sell side firms on Wall Street. No major investment bank will publicly espouse a bearish position. We can, however, see what Goldman is doing with its own book. The Fed recently completed its annual stress test for systemically important institutions, which includes Goldman Sachs. Notably, Goldman’s portfolio suffered very small losses in the scenario outlined by the Fed which includes a 40% drop in US equity prices. (Financial Times, July 2, 2025: How Goldman Sachs won big in the Fed’s annual stress test). Many observers have suggested this indicates some foreknowledge at Goldman of the test’s contours. The simpler and more direct interpretation is that the leadership at Goldman has decided to hedge much of its tradable securities portfolio because it does not like the risk-reward profile.

In Q2, equity markets rebounded from the tariff-driven selloff in March/April to set new all time highs.  Some of this rally can be attributed to institutional equity managers who became overly defensive during the selloff and either went entirely to cash or shorted equities to hedge their portfolios.  They are now playing catchup and have been deploying cash back into the market now that the rally has shown legs.  While equities may continue to push higher from here, the circumstances that precipitated the sell-off – the Trump administration’s unpredictability around policy, their aggressive tariff stance and signs of weaker economic data– remain largely unchanged.  As a result of this recent rally, equities are once again trading near all-time multiple valuations, which in the past has been a red flag signalling an eventual correction.

Because of these factors we continue to recommend a defensive, balanced allocation for most investors, in keeping with their long term goals. 

Regards,

Louis Berger

Subir Grewal, CFA

Friends,

Many years ago, Subir had a front row seat as his wife realigned the production of apparel and accessories across factories in Asia on behalf of a large retailer which is a household name. The aim was to achieve a saving of around 2% on duties and diversify production out of China. The business unit spent over 500 million producing products in factories across the world. The resulting cost saving approached eight figures. The work took months as raw materials sourced from Europe, Africa and other parts of Asia were redirected to a new set of factories in South-East Asia. In many cases, production was moving from a factory in one location, to one owned by the same manufacturer in another country. Nevertheless, the move required re-organizing the entire supply chain, and months of preparation. A raw material supplier in Italy that had shipped the prior season’s fabric to a factory in Guangzhou might be instructed to split the following season’s materials between plants in Vietnam and Philippines. Working relationships had to be established with personnel at the new plants, In certain cases, line workers had to be trained on new machines, or new techniques to produce a type of garment or bag they had not worked on previously. Samples produced earlier in the cycle were of limited value since the people and factory that had produced them would not produce the production run. Would the color, strength and luster of the red thread a Philippines factory used match what had been used in Guangzhou? Would line workers apply glue in exactly the same way at the same temperatures, so as to pass quality checks? Would the new factory package the finished goods in the same way? Would the freight forwarders in the new location work on the same timelines and deadlines? The questions, and the answers, and the late night calls to resolve them went on and on and on. 

It took almost a year to plan, test and execute this migration from one factory to another, for a business where the product line changes 4 times a year and everyone involved is used to getting new specifications, for new products, every 3 months. There are businesses impacted by the new tariff regime that have made the same product at the same factory for years, without any change to specifications or materials. In the case of durable goods, the production line may involve thousands of parts, and simply retooling the final assembly line is an effort that costs millions.

All to say that the impact of our new tariff regime is, in our view, being underestimated by politicians. The administration has tuned out the business community’s legitimate concerns by conflating it with political agendas. It may also be true that in our popular democracy, every other generation of voters needs to learn the hard lesson of tariff wars that their grandparents did. The last time US tariffs fell into the 25-50% range for major trading partners was 1930. The infamous Smoot-Hawley act of that year began a trade war that most historians believe exacerbated the Great Depression. 

Since the 1940s, the Global Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has helped avoid such tariff wars along with the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. The GATT/WTO era has seen a regime of predictable duties that businesses can plan around. That predictability seems to have ended, in the most dramatic fashion possible. 

At millions of businesses across the world, the cost and margin implications of taxes such as duties and tariffs have become the most important issue to address. Enterprises with finished goods or materials “on the water” are going to face taxes that they did not account for when shipped. In many cases, these have to be delivered to customers at  contractually agreed prices. In such cases, enterprises will have to absorb the cost of the tax and increase prices later. In other cases, they will pass on the costs immediately, and prices will rise immediately. In either case, we now have an environment where most businesses face price uncertainty. Companies will re-evaluate their unit sales expectations to account for higher costs. Consumers are likely to reduce discretionary consumption as food and other prices rise due to duties. We import virtually all our coffee for example. Business enterprises considering investments will have to account for higher costs. If you are building a factory or datacenter, you now face higher costs for machinery and raw materials. Some projects will be shelved or delayed due to the uncertain outlook. Leveraged businesses and those most affected may find they are no longer solvent. And if you still believe duties are unimportant, recall that the American revolution was at least partly driven by a change in tariffs on tea.

Earlier in the year, this administration took actions that dramatically raised insecurity for federal employees. Federal employment and more broadly government sector jobs have historically been a shock-absorber for overall employment. Positions in government don’t pay as well as equivalent roles in the public sector, but they were considered secure and reliable. The federal government has the capacity to smooth out its operations in a way that no private enterprise can. When the Trump administration began to fire Federal employees and cut federal programs, it sent shockwaves through that community. Consumer spending was down slightly in January, recovered in February, but our expectation is that spending by public sector employees will remain soft. Fear of additional job losses and tariff driven inflation are also likely to pressure consumer spending. 

The sharp and sudden hike in taxes have delivered a negative external shock to the economy. The tariffs are a tax, no doubt about it. Prices for most goods will rise, creating an inflationary shock. We have already seen the market respond dramatically, with a steep drop in equities, concentrated on consumer discretionary and associated industries. This has brought us into bear market territory. If the administration were to reverse course now, the air of caution that has descended on the global business world will remain. Even if the brinksmanship at play produces the stated result and leads to trading partners agreeing to the administration’s terms, and the tariffs on such compliant trade partners are dropped, the animal spirits of the bull market will have receded. 

There is a further risk that has not been discussed extensively. The US runs an overall goods and services trade deficit. We are increasingly a services economy, and we run an overall trade surplus in services (banking, software, entertainment etc), while running a deficit in goods (apparel, toys, consumer durables etc.). The current round of US duties target goods only. Trade partners may retaliate by targeting the US’ services exports alongside goods.

With these large tariff increases, the Fed is likely to find itself struggling to balance its twin objectives of price stability and full employment. Employment statistics are going to struggle under multiple short-term pressures. The Fed is likely to face a situation where they have to choose between ignoring rising unemployment or risk exacerbating inflation. Our read is that the Fed governors need to see very poor unemployment numbers to lower target interest rates significantly.

Up until April 2, much of what the Trump administration had said on trade was being discounted as bluster. We are now at a stage where these threats have been taken seriously and a recalibration is underway. The impact will deepen when the first round of tariffs takes effect on April 5. It will set in further on April 9 when the second, higher set of tariffs are implemented. Even if the administration is spooked enough to withdraw or delay the tariff regime, enough damage has been done to trade and price stability that a negative shock is baked in. President Trump has not hidden his desire to create a theater of trade deals by inviting the world leaders to directly negotiate with him. Various surrogates have echoed this invitation, thus far the Vietnamese president is the only one to have taken up the offer. Notably, the Chinese administration has not offered up a negotiation with President Jinping. Instead the ministry of trade announced an equivalent tariff. We are not sure how the current administration will respond to such perceived slights, we fear it will harden its combative elements.

So what does all this mean for investors? 

There is a great deal of uncertainty ahead, but we do know a few things with high confidence.

Market strategists have begun to revise their targets downwards for 2025. Prominent strategists and economists now believe a recession is more likely than not in 2025. Price targets for companies and indices are being revised downwards. Earnings estimates will also trend downwards. Forward guidance delivered alongside first quarter results is another important indicator. We expect guidance to be negative for many listed companies. Friday saw leveraged investors (including hedge funds) confronted with a rash of margin calls. 

Taken together, these observations tell us that consensus opinion has begun to shift to a negative outlook, which tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Risk assets remain close to cyclical highs in terms of valuation. The S&P 500 is at a trailing P/E ratio of 26. Major bear markets (1994, 2000, 2006, 2010) have seen this ratio approach reach or breach 15. Last week’s drop has left the Nasdaq Composite index and the Russell 2000 Index in technical bear markets. It typically takes the market 6 to 18 months to find a bottom in a bear market. Bear markets do often see short-lived, volatile rallies. But they end when long-term cycle timers, convinced that stocks now look cheap, begin buying.

We recommend extreme caution and adopting a defensive portfolio position. This is a change from our prior recommendation to stick with a balanced allocation. We will be in touch with clients this week to discuss portfolio rebalancing steps.

Regards,

Subir & Louis

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

We trust you and yours had a warm holiday season and a good start to the New Year.

Sadly, we know some of our friends are dealing with the impact of the massive fires in Los Angeles over the past month. We know of several families in our extended network who have been displaced and some who have suffered devastating losses. Our thoughts are with them and their loved ones.

The immediate human impact of the fires has been apparent for weeks. In our view, there are three long term impacts which will take longer to manifest themselves over the coming years.

Firstly, the role of climate change in the extent of these fires cannot be denied. Seasonal rains have failed to materialize in Southern California. This coupled with the hottest year on record globally and high winds, created the conditions for a devastating group of wildfires. The impact of climate change has been evident for decades, yet efforts to limit it have barely made a dent in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. The largest advances in moving towards renewable fuels have been made outside of the various diplomatic efforts to reduce emissions, driven by certain countries (primarily China and India) seeking to address the fact that they do not have significant fossil fuel reserves. The move to electric vehicles has now gained enough momentum to bend the emissions curve in the medium term, but we will still have to contend with the impact of the warming that has already occurred.

Second, the failure at national and global levels to limit greenhouse gas emissions is coupled with the unwillingness or inability of local governments to prepare for the impacts of climate change. Los Angeles’ building codes and local services were unprepared for such a disaster, despite many premonitions. Local officials are unwilling to institute the tough budgetary and zoning measures that would harden their environments. This is not unique to Los Angeles. Various cities with waterfront property are unprepared for storm surges and the rise in sea levels implied by our current 1.5 degrees of global warming. Los Angeles is one of the wealthiest places in the world, as is California. Poorer regions and cities will have to contend with far fewer resources to deal with the coming impacts of climate change. It is also unreasonable for us to expect that we might be insulated from the impacts by wealth or individual preparedness. A widespread series of natural disasters will impact us all. As Los Angeles vividly demonstrates, the wealthiest regions of the world shall not be immune to the deleterious effects of climate change. Even in wealthy areas, retro-fitting housing and other structures to harden them against climate change will face funding obstacles and opposition from naysayers. The eventual result is likely to be a series of entirely predictable disasters, with pliant local authorities absolving their inaction by references to acts of god. This pattern is likely to enhance the appeal of strongmen for a citizenry that is frustrated by the inaction and lack of vision exhibited by the status quo.

Third, the losses are going to change the behavior of the insurance industry. On one day in January, we saw estimated insurance claims from the LA fires rise from $10Bn to $50Bn, with total losses estimated at over $150Bn. These losses can easily be covered by US property & casualty insurers and global re-insurers. However, close on the heels of the $25Bn losses from Hurricane Helene, mostly inland, insurers have begun to change their risk assessments. We expect many insurers to exit markets they deem uninsurable, especially in areas prone to flooding during storms and those vulnerable to wildfires.

Risk assets continued their rise in 2024, with the S&P 500 ending the year close to all time highs. This was coupled with an election that unified control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches in the hands of Republican officials. We suspect internal divisions among Republican factions may limit action on certain controversial proposals, but tax and regulatory policy can be expected to be less strict under this administration. This would normally argue for a risk-on strategy, but two factors should limit such exuberance. Firstly, internal divisions and the unpredictable nature of the Trump administration is likely to cause concern among investors, though in contrast to the first Trump administration, large American businesses are lining up to ally themselves with the current administration. Secondly, market valuations remain at cyclical highs, advocating for more moderate positioning.

We continue to recommend a balanced allocation that includes exposure to commodities and fixed income, especially given the more attractive rates that are on offer.  While growth stocks have substantially outperformed value over the past two years, we expect investors will start to rotate back into value stocks if inflation continues to moderate and economic growth cools.  Since Trump’s election win, investors have been concerned with the inflationary risk inherent with two of his major policy goals – immigrant deportation and tariffs.  While these concerns are certainly warranted, it’s very possible they have already been fully baked into market expectations and there could be a disinflationary surprise if the Trump administration is unable to fully deliver on these campaign promises.  Either way, we expect 2025 will likely see heightened volatility compared to the past two years as the market adjusts to this new political reality.

Regards,

Subir and Louis

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

We trust you have been well and had a pleasant summer.

The storms of the past month reminded us of the precariousness of life and the old quote from radio broadcaster Paul Harvey: “despite all our accomplishments, we owe our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains”. We have friends and acquaintances in the Asheville, NC area who have lost homes and had their lives upended. It is clear that man-made climate change has made weather events much more powerful and capable of dropping enormous amounts of rain far further inland than previously imagined. We saw a very similar set of floods in the mountains of Vermont after Hurricane Irene. As we write this, Hurricane Milton has just torn through the western coast of Florida after record-high water temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico fueled it to become the fastest hurricane on record to reach category 5 level.

We have witnessed decades of inaction on climate change by American lawmakers in both parties, who are largely captive to domestic fossil fuel interests. Thankfully, the other large global economies, Europe, China, Japan and India do not have large, domestic fossil fuel energy reserves. Over the past few decades, these countries have begun to treat fossil fuel imports as a national security issue and prioritized a transition to renewables (and nuclear energy in some cases). This has dramatically changed the energy consumption mix of the world. Over the next 10-20 years, we expect to see fossil fuel use begin to drop in many large economies. Let us hope it isn’t too late to prevent enormous suffering.

As widely anticipated, the Federal Reserve began cutting interest rates in September with a 50 bps initial reduction.  This comes on the heels of continued softening of inflation data as the Fed has now determined that higher rates are unnecessarily restrictive on the economy. We expect a slow, steady pace of rate cuts going forward, and, absent extraordinary circumstances, we would expect the Fed to aim to stabilize at around 3%. This is good news for bond investors who have had to muddle through roughly 20 years of near-zero interest rate policies.

That said, there are significant tail risks that could drive markets and rates in extreme directions. The Israeli bombing and invasion campaigns in the Middle-East, and unwavering US support for them are contributing to a change in long-term political alignments in Asia and much of the global south.  When coupled with the US’s active sanctions policy and actions like the Biden administration’s ban on Chinese electronic components in cars, the potential exists for a dramatic shift in global trade. 

The US currently imposes some form of sanctions on roughly 20% of the world’s economic activity. Successive US administrations have increased the pace of sanctions, viewing it as a convenient policy tool. The result is that the US now imposes hundreds of sanctions each year.

This is rapidly isolating the US, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to claim sanctions are driven by a moral imperative when the US supports questionable, but pliable regimes on multiple continents. We can easily imagine a future where China and Russia establish, or re-establish parallel technology, trade and industrial systems to protect themselves from US sanctions. We can also see a future where Asian, Latin American and African industry shift to these alternative trade, industry, technology platforms. Such a move would not be unprecedented. We have seen such shifts in trade and industry during the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the US and Soviet Union in the 20th century, and throughout human history. This change is made possible by the trajectory India and China are on to recover the positions they occupied as industrial powerhouses prior to the 19th century. Within the US, such changes can exacerbate a difference in views between the East and West coasts, with elites in the west looking towards Asia, while those in DC and the east continue to look towards Europe as their primary partner in trade. Whether these tensions are resolved, or lead to breaks, may determine the long-term health and state of the US economy.

Despite increased geopolitical tensions and the specter of a potentially chaotic presidential election on the near horizon, markets have continued to remain remarkably resilient this year  

as risk assets have scaled new highs over the past month, in spite of a short-lived correction during the summer. Long term measures of equity market value (Shiller P/E) are at near record highs (37x times earnings).  The last time we saw multiples at these levels were briefly in 2021 and before that in 1999/2000 during the run-up to the dot com bust.  During that period, the Shiller P/E level reached the low 40’s before falling precipitously with the stock market in 2001/2002.  It’s possible markets revisit those stratospheric valuation levels, but if they do, it’s likely the aftermath will be particularly unpleasant for equity investors.

With the Fed launching into their easing campaign, we think dividend stocks, bonds and precious metals continue to look compelling as interest rates come down and the USD weakens in response.  For now, economic data has been holding up relatively well, but if we see signs of a slowdown, we would expect the speculative growth tech stocks that have been fueling the rally of the past two years to sputter.  So far that has not been the case, but we are keeping a close eye on the data and will look to reduce risk when appropriate.

Let us know if you’d like to discuss any of the above.

Best,

Subir and Louis   

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

As we head into spring, we are reminded of new beginnings. Like most people of a certain age in the northern hemisphere, we have been pottering about in our gardens. Pulling out old growth and planting the new. It seems to us that the American economy has been in the throes of a decades-long process that mirrors spring planting, in a way, but that this process has been lacking clear direction.
 
In the middle of the last century, American industrial might reigned supreme. Most competitors had seen their industrial capacity destroyed by the war, and it took decades for them to recover. American enterprise had almost no meaningful competition in certain sectors. The US built an extensive network of roads, airports and ports that helped transport goods across the country and the world.
 
Since the 1980s, these advantages have steadily eroded. Transportation policy has been mired in a morass of special interest jockeying by the oil industry and suburban communities. No meaningful public transport project has been undertaken in the US since the mid 20th century. The contrast with other wealthy economies is staggering: Europe, Japan and China have each managed to build extensive high speed rail networks. Meanwhile, transport policy discussions here revolve around adding lanes to aging urban roads. The decline of our transport infrastructure and how unsuitable it is for today’s needs was brought to dramatic light recently with the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. This is not the first bridge collapse in the country’s history. The cause in this case is complex and has as much to do with deregulated shipping as it does with US infrastructure. Tellingly though, it will take years to rebuild the bridge with estimates much longer than they were for the bridge’s original construction. 
 
We were also reminded of the decline in American industrial capability by a recent report on the installation of industrial robots. Chinese plants are installing five times as many industrial robots as Japan per year, and the US is even further behind. The fact is that most industrial supply chains are now centered in Asia. US industry is at a significant disadvantage in many segments, except in certain specialties such as electronics and weapons manufacturing. Even the advantage previously enjoyed in very complex industries such as commercial aircraft manufacturing appears to be fading. Though manufacturing has grown in nominal terms, it has become a much smaller portion of the US economy in terms of overall contribution to GDP and employment. In the 1950s, over 35% of the US workforce was employed in manufacturing, today that number is under 10%.
 
What has replaced it of course are service industries. This includes IT, financial services, healthcare, hospitality etc. This re-alignment has had an impact on the relative success of communities. Former industrial powerhouses such as the mid-west, have seen declines in wealth and well-being. Service industry focused regions, such as the North-East and West coast, have enjoyed remarkable growth. The advantages that accrued to US manufacturing centers from dominating global trade, have steadily migrated to US service centers which play a major role in global services, whether they operate in capital markets, or data center software. 
 
This realignment has already had a major impact on US politics, and will likely continue to. The lack of industrial work opportunities will continue to have a material impact on communities previously organized around such economic activity. 
 
From an investor’s perspective, this means investors focused on the US will have fewer profitable opportunities to invest in sectors where the US does not have a competitive industrial policy and is losing ground to industrial sectors based in Asia or Europe. Investors focused on US markets will find better opportunities in services focused industries that have a larger footprint and where American companies remain globally competitive.
 
In terms of near term and broader factors that affect the market, despite the Fed’s rate hikes, inflation remains stubbornly high. The US yield curve now suggests rates may remain where they are for another 6-9 months, with rate cuts occurring in late 2024 or possibly 2025. This is in stark contrast to the beginning of 2024 when the prevailing market view was for 6 rate cuts beginning in the spring.
 
With long term rates drifting higher again and inflation appearing remarkably sticky, investors have shifted back towards what worked last year – growth stocks, particularly tech companies in the AI space, despite increasingly stretched valuations.  This has come at the expense of value/income stocks which have been pummeled yet again to start the year.  We expect this trend of growth over value will reverse if/when the Fed begins easing interest rates.
 
Investors have also recently started to diversify into commodities as oil prices move higher again and precious metals, most notably gold, are attracting increased attention.  Gold’s surge is likely a result of several recent trends: central banks diversifying away from bonds, Chinese investors seeking stability in a slumping economy where the real estate market is imploding and macro investors sensing the beginnings of a possible paradigm shift towards commodities as a hedge against entrenched inflation.  When looking back at the 1970’s (the last time inflation was this pervasive), gold outperformed equities and bonds.
 
While it’s difficult to know for sure whether we are entering an environment similar to the 1970’s, we can’t rule it out so long as the economic data shows inflation re-emerging.  The next few months of data will be important in shedding light on where things are headed.  While growth stocks continue to be favored in this environment, we believe value stocks will have their due and it’s important for investors to maintain a diversified portfolio with exposure to bonds and commodities.
 

 Best,
 Subir and Louis

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

We hope you’ve enjoyed a restful holiday season and a wonderful start to 2024.

The fourth quarter saw heavy volatility across nearly all asset classes as inflation and the Fed’s response continued to be the main driver of market direction.  October began with long term interest rates continuing their upward trajectory as the “higher for longer” narrative took hold and investors expected the Fed would need to raise rates considerably higher in order to rein-in inflation. Due to the projected increase in borrowing costs, this move in rates put considerable pressure on stocks, particularly stocks in capital intensive industries. From the end of July to the end of October, the S&P 500 suffered a 10% correction despite near-record corporate earnings.  But following a cooler than expected inflation print for October–3.2% vs. 3.3% expected in the Consumer Price Index–and dovish commentary from Fed Chairman Powell, both stock and bond markets reversed course in November and rallied strongly into year-end, with the S&P 500 ending within striking distance of all time highs.

As discussed in previous letters, our expectation was to see a sharp rally in risk assets once the Fed signaled a pause in rate hikes and inflation looked to be under control.  And markets responded accordingly in November and December.  The key question for investors is will this rally have follow-through into the New Year? 

For 2024, like 2023, we think market direction will continue to hinge largely on inflation and the Fed’s response.  The market currently expects the Fed to begin cutting rates this year as inflation cools (as signaled by the Fed Board of Governors).  However, as we saw in October, market expectations don’t always jibe with how things eventually play out. 

Going forward, there are three paths the economy can take this year with regards to inflation and Fed response:

1. Soft landing:  In this scenario, inflation continues to cool, reaching the Fed’s target of 2% in a gradual and controlled manner without triggering a significant spike in unemployment or an economic recession.  The Fed would slowly ease rates and we would expect to see stocks and bonds continue to perform well.
2. Hard landing:  In this scenario, the Fed’s rate hikes cool the economy too much, triggering an economic recession and a significant spike in unemployment.  This would lead the Fed to cut rates aggressively in order to re-stimulate the economy.  We would expect to see stocks (particularly growth stocks) perform poorly while investment grade bonds and treasuries would perform well (acting as a safe haven).
3. No Landing:  In this scenario, inflation would reignite and remain sticky, settling in at a rate 1-2% points above Fed target with continued economic overheating.  This would cause the Fed to keep nudging rates higher.  We would expect floating rate bonds and commodities to perform well while longer term bonds would perform poorly.  Growth stocks would likely outperform value stocks.

Which scenario is most likely?   A no-landing scenario is very uncommon (and somewhat controversial) – one could argue the last time the US economy experienced anything like this was in the late 1970’s/ early 1980’s.  This period also coincided with the last time the economy encountered a similar spike in inflation, so, while unlikely, one can’t rule this scenario out entirely.

A soft landing, which is the ideal scenario for the Fed, policy makers and investors, has more historical precedence.  The most recent clear example would be in the mid-90’s, where the rate hiking cycle ended in April of 1995 and there was no subsequent economic recession.

The end of the last three rate hiking cycles arguably resulted in hard landings: Jan 1999-July 2000 culminated in the Dotcom bust, May 2004-July 2006 preceded the Great Recession, and Nov 2015-Jan 2019 preceded the Covid crash.  Some current and former Fed officials argue that Fed interest rate policy was not directly responsible for the Great Recession and the Covid crash and that the economic contraction following the rate hikes of 1999-2000 was mild.  There may be some credence to this argument, but as investors we believe it’s important to consider that the end of the last three rate hike cycles (cycles in which the Fed has had an increasingly influential role) presaged significant market corrections.

All that said, if market expectations are correct and the Fed is done hiking and we eventually see a hard landing, does that mean it’s now time for investors to run for the hills?  Not necessarily. If we look at the end of previous rate hike cycles since 1974, the S&P 500 averaged an 8.1% return over the 12 months following the last hike.  Four out of the last five cycles saw double digit positive returns (the exception being the 2000 cycle).

If we are to assume the Fed is done raising rates for this cycle, the S&P 500 has returned 4.75% from the last hike date of 7/23/23 through 1/12/24.  This is below the 8.1% average, implying there could be further upside for equities.

But what happens when the Fed starts cutting rates? 

Things look decidedly less rosy.

Looking again at rate cycles from 1974, once the Fed begins cutting, the S&P 500 has returned an average of 3.4% in the following 6 months.  However, when considering the S&P 500 cycle low from the date of the first rate cut, the average return is -20.5% with a duration of 276 days to the cycle low from the first cut date.

When looking at the data, you can see the gold standard for soft landings occurred in 1995, when the S&P 500 returned 12.6% over 6 months following the first rate cut and saw a cycle low of just -0.5% 13 days after the first rate cut.  On the flip side, the hard landing of the Great Recession saw the S&P 500 return  -15.1% 6 months after the first rate cut and saw a cycle low of -55.5% 538 days after the first rate cut.

So what conclusions should investors draw?  When the Fed concludes its rate hiking cycle and pauses, historically on average, equity markets tend to perform pretty well over the following 12 months.  However, once the Fed begins to cut rates, near term upside for stocks is muted and downside risk increases significantly after the first 6 months.  So, in our view, investors should view a rate cut as a signal to reduce risk across all assets.

Of course, each market cycle is unique and past performance is no guarantee of future results.  Also, 2024 is a year in which there is a presidential election and what looks to be a pronounced uptick in geopolitical conflicts.  These types of events of course can and will influence markets and upend prior narratives.
We continue to believe a well-diversified portfolio with exposure to US and international stocks along with bonds and commodities is a prudent approach to the current market environment.  Should we see a slowdown in economic growth that leads the Fed to begin cutting rates, our approach will be to reduce equity exposure and increase exposure to short term treasuries.

Let us know if you would like to discuss any of the above in more detail.
 
Best,
Louis and Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

We hope the end of summer and beginning of fall have been pleasant for you and those close to you.

The third quarter saw the emergence of several market dislocations, driven primarily by the impact of rising interest rates on various parts of the economy. Long-term rates in the US jumped in Q3 and are now higher than they have been in over 15 years. The speed of this move has taken many market participants by surprise.  While 2023 has seen the Fed continue to raise short term rates to over 5% (albeit at a slower pace than 2022), the long end of the curve remained well below this level as the market expected rates would go back down in short order once inflation had been tamed.  Q3 saw the market shift away from this view to a “higher-for-longer” thesis, where the expectation is that rates may not be cut for several quarters, or at least not until durable progress has been made on inflation or the economy begins showing signs of slowing.  This reversal in thinking was evident in the move in the 30-year treasury bond.  At the start of Q3, the 30-year was trading at a 3.86% yield (after starting 2023 at 3.975%).   By mid-August it had run up to 4.45% and then, after a brief lull at the end of August, ran through 5% by early October, and has traded in that area since. 
 
This move in long-term rates has had a wide-ranging impact on investment decisions across credit and equities markets. For years, investors seeking income had been forced by very low interest rates to look further afield, in riskier segments of the market.  Traditional income investors could not rely on savings accounts, treasuries or CDs for meaningful yields, but instead ventured into income securities like preferred stocks, high yield bonds, and dividend-paying equities including REITs and utilities.   Now that yields on bonds have returned to meaningful levels, some income investors have switched back to the safety of treasuries and other highly-rated bonds.  This move has put selling pressure on income securities — September saw a notable pullback in defensive sectors like utilities, consumer staples and healthcare stocks.  We expect this pressure will likely continue until it is evident long term yields have peaked.
 
Higher interest rates and wage inflation have hit capital intensive industries particularly hard.  Renewable energy stocks have seen a sizable sell-off as the market expects higher capital costs, material costs and specialized labor costs to eat into profit margins.  While these concerns are warranted, in our view the recent selloff has created opportunities for investors who recognize that the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is a long term trend.
 
In addition to the impact on investor sentiment, higher rates have also begun to shift consumer behavior. The average interest rate on credit cards stands at 21%, and consumers have responded by trying to pay down balances. Outstanding consumer credit fell by 3.8% in August. All credit-linked markets have been impacted, including real estate, with existing home sales dropping to levels last seen in 2008 (as housing supply wanes and mortgage rates reach 8%). This change in consumer behavior is what the Fed desired when it started raising rates. The Fed Board of Governors were clear that they were taking this action to staunch inflation and reverse what they saw as an associated asset bubble. The risk to investors is that materially higher rates will stall economic activity in a manner that impacts asset prices dramatically. We believe the Fed is determined to control both inflation and limit asset price speculation. This suggests investors should be cautious and the Federal Reserve (for the first time in about 15 years) does not appear to be supportive of a booming stock market.
 
Though there have been several important geo-political events over the past several months, in our view, the most consequential to financial markets is the deterioration in the relationship between China and the US. For the past 30 years, the Chinese and US economies have become ever more tightly coupled, with commingled supply chains across every conceivable industry, from iPhones to rubber duckies. The past several years have seen a steady change in the political relationship between the two countries and this has impacted their economic relationship as well. China remains the US’s largest trading partner, and it has developed several industrial specialties that cannot be easily replicated, including battery technology and certain portions of the semiconductor manufacturing industry. Unwinding the close trading relationship between China and the US will take decades, as it has taken decades to develop. The more acute and immediate risk is that political relationships deteriorate enough to drive a trade stoppage. Such an event would reverberate through markets, creating worse supply chain and production challenges than we saw at the beginning of the Covid pandemic.  Due to the symbiotic nature of their relationship, neither side necessarily wants this outcome, but there could be circumstances that make it unavoidable (an invasion of Taiwan, for example).
 
While inflation has trended downward over the course of 2023, it has not dropped at the pace the Fed, policymakers and investors were hoping.  We expect inflation will continue its downward trajectory, although the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East will likely place upside pressure in the immediate term (war is often inflationary).  We think the Fed may opt to raise short-term rates one more time before the end of the year, depending on how they interpret recent economic data.  Either way, we think the Fed is likely at or near the end of their hiking cycle. 
 
Once long term rates do peak and start to reverse lower, we expect to see those asset classes that have been under the most pressure start to outperform: defensive stocks, small cap stocks and intermediate/long term bonds.  In recent weeks, commodities, and gold in particular, have seen buying as geopolitical tensions have escalated.  We expect gold will continue to perform well if rates fall and the USD weakens. Floating rate bonds, short term treasuries and CDs have been a strong safe haven during recent volatility as yields exceed 5%.   We expect these yields to remain compelling until the Fed begins to cut short term rates, likely sometime later in 2024. 
 
Let us know if you would like to discuss any of the above in more detail.
 
Best,
 
Louis and Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

We hope you are having a pleasant start to summer. 

Over the past three months, financial market commentary has been driven largely by a focus on changes in interest rate policy and inflation data, with a sidebar on Generative AI (artificial intelligence). We believe interest rate and inflation dynamics will be the primary driving force in determining market movements in the medium term. 

Most Central Banks in the US and Europe have taken decisive action to control inflation. Interest rates in most of these economies are now at 5%. In Canada, the 5% benchmark rate is higher than it has been any time since 2001. In the UK, EU and US, the last time rates were this high was in 2008. Central Banks have signaled the intention to maintain these rates till inflation is brought in check. Though some of the recent readings for inflation look promising, they are still quite high compared to the prior 25 years.

The interest rate environment we are now seeing is good news for savers as CDs and money market accounts are seeing yields much closer to the historic norm in years prior to 2001. Since the mid-90s, most developed country Central Banks have maintained very low or zero interest rate policies for extended periods in response to the tech wreck of 2000/2001, the financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the Covid crash of 2020. An entire generation of home buyers, business executives and investors has spent over 20 years operating in an environment with very low or zero rates. This era is ending and the changes will have wide ranging impacts.

In the UK, Canada and several EU countries, fixed mortgage rates are uncommon. Most home-buyers obtain variable interest rate mortgages with a short fixed period. Millions of home-buyers are beginning to see their monthly housing payments creep up with interest rates. This will have the effect Central Banks want, to reduce the amount of spending in the economy, and therefore tamp down inflation. It will also impact the discretionary income and spending of millions of homeowners.

In the US, a popular Covid-era relief program is set to expire on Sept 1st as 45 million student loan borrowers will once again see interest accrue on their loans.  This policy was put in place three years ago, during the Covid lockdowns, in an effort to give borrowers some budgetary flexibility.  Like the variable rate mortgage payments in the UK, the end of this program will likely have a measurable effect on spending as households with student loans will again need to budget for interest expenses.  While this is bad news for the budgets of these households, this resulting reduction on discretionary spending will likely contribute to the cooling of inflation.

Similarly, business loans and investor margin loans have had very small carrying costs for almost two decades, Businesses looking at investments for growth now have to contend with higher financing costs. Higher margin rates will make some investments unattractive for a group of investors. All of this is designed to reduce the rate of economic activity and its inflationary impact. This will eventually be reflected in the market prices of risky assets.

Despite all this news, the stock market has been steadily rising, shrugging off the market volatility that came after the failure of three notable regional banks in March and May.  Much of the stock buying has been driven by investments in technology companies (a sector that had sold off significantly last year), and more specifically those that have anything to do with the current generation of AI technology. We believe AI is a misnomer for the technology in question. In most instances, it is the next evolution of search and natural language processing, aided by statistical analysis of documents and data made available on the internet. Intelligence, in the sense of critical thinking, is not really a part of the current generation of models. That is not to diminish their usefulness or impactfulness. We have seen very powerful results from some of the generative AI models. The ability to process documents written in human languages and synthesize information from them, has implications for every corner of human activity, including all economic activity.

As with the internet, mobile phones, cloud computing and smartphones, it will take several years for the Gen-AI market to mature. Some of the newer players will not survive, and some existing, larger entities will catch up. We are watching this space, both the core technology and its application quite carefully. However, as is often the case with market trends, the sudden rush of buying has driven valuations far higher than what is warranted and we’re seeing that again with AI-related companies.

As we’ve written in previous letters, if/when inflation is contained and the Fed signals an end to their interest rate increases, we expect risk assets to move appreciably higher.  The Fed elected to pause their rate hikes in June.  While the general market consensus is that they will raise rates again in July, most market prognosticators believe we’re in the later innings of this rate rising cycle.  If inflation data continues to cool, it’s possible that July may represent the last hike.  This, of course, remains to be seen and is dependent on the data.  However, the rally in stocks implies many investors are anticipating this regime change.  

While the Fed’s policies appear to be working to combat inflation, there are often lags in how quickly a change in rates works its way through the economy.  With the unprecedented pace at which the Fed has raised rates (a pace not seen in the 1980’s), it’s likely the Fed risks overshooting and a byproduct of taming inflation could potentially be sending the economy into recession.  There’s no certainty this will happen, but it’s been clear the Fed’s priority has been getting a handle on inflation at any cost before it becomes entrenched.  The thinking being if the economy does go into recession, the Fed can always cut rates to stimulate growth (which has worked in the past), but it has far fewer tools to handle entrenched inflation.

The second half of 2023 should provide a clearer picture on where inflation and rates are headed.  We will continue to monitor the data closely and look for investment opportunities that come as a result.

Best Regards,

Louis & Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear friends,

The first quarter of 2023 was eventful, baffling and utterly predictable all at the same time. As with all manias, the bubble in crypto currencies finally burst last year and financial markets are seeing the repercussions. Unsurprisingly, the retrenchment in crypto currency prices exposed weaknesses and fraud. Crypto exchanges, service providers and investment funds have failed. Celebrities and others who promoted crypto-currency investments are being sued by investors who have suffered heavy losses. Regulators, who had previously seemed content to let crypto participants “innovate”, have suddenly discovered the virtues of regulation and enforcement, ostensibly their reason for existence.

The rot was deep enough to have impacted the ordinarily staid world of regional banking. Two regional banks associated with technology and crypto finance, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, found themselves the hapless targets of bank runs. The runs were a result of several factors: high risk lending practices, a large proportion of uninsured deposits relative to other banks, a balance sheet overexposed to long duration bonds and a savvy customer base that were quick to withdraw funds when rumors of potential failure spread. The FDIC placed both banks into receivership, and remarkably, extended deposit protection to all deposits, retroactively erasing the $250k limit on deposit insurance. This extreme step was taken to stem the flood of deposits fleeing regional banks, headed directly for accounts in banks believed to be Too Big To Fail.

The speed with which these banks failed was breathtaking and caught most depositors, investors, regulators and ratings agencies by surprise. On Wednesday March 8th, SVB announced it had sold $21 billion in long-dated bonds at a $1.8 billion loss to raise cash to meet depositor withdrawal requests. SVB also announced they would raise $1.75 billion in capital via common and preferred stock sales. By Friday March 10th, just two days later, the FDIC had taken over the bank and placed it into receivership. The stock never traded that day and was frozen at $106.04 per share, the price it had closed on Thursday. That day, the ratings agencies S&P and Moody’s, presumably blindsided by the collapse, promptly lowered their credit ratings for SVB from investment grade BBB and Baa1 to D and C (respectively). By Sunday March 12th, Signature Bank suffered the same fate as the FDIC placed the bank into receivership with the stock frozen at $70 per share. Moody’s and Fitch responded by lowering their ratings from Baa2 and BBB+ to D and C (respectively). In most cases, when a bank is at risk of failure, the market sniffs it out and there is time (weeks and in some cases months) for investors to position themselves appropriately. In this case, the failure was so swift the market and investors were largely unprepared (as evidenced by the levels the stocks were last trading at).

The banking crisis wasn’t limited to the US alone. Over in Europe, on March 19th one of the world’s most storied banks, Credit Suisse, was ignominiously sold to its chief competitor UBS in a weekend deal enforced by the Swiss government. This action broke all sorts of convention, shaking up the markets again.

Though we understand the reasons for some of the extraordinary steps undertaken by regulators and authorities, we do wonder whether some of this might not have been avoided. As anyone who has watched the classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” knows, no bank can survive a crisis of confidence. Once fleeing depositors reach a tipping point, a bank is no longer a going concern. Deposit insurance was designed to reduce the likelihood of runs and protect smaller depositors who might lack information on the health of their bank and would be at a disadvantage to more sophisticated depositors. In SVB’s case, the bank’s business model had two Achilles heels. First, it relied on large depositors (tech startups and tech entrepreneurs), whose accounts were not covered fully by FDIC insurance. SVB also held a portfolio of long dated treasuries, which lost substantial value due to rising interest rates. Banks are allowed to carry loans and bonds at par on their books if they intend to hold them to maturity. Once the run started, SVB was forced to liquidate some of these bonds to meet withdrawal requests causing it to recognize the losses. This was the death knell, with the bank run accelerating as soon as SVB’s large depositors became aware of this dynamic.

On March 12th, in an effort to stabilize the banking system, the Fed took the unprecedented step of creating a new liquidity facility called the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) which allows banks to pledge longer dated treasuries for immediate liquidity at par. The hope is this facility should help prevent similar bank runs from occurring. In the subsequent weeks of this facility’s establishment, there have been no further failures in the US and the banking sector has shown signs of stabilizing. That said, while the cause of these bank failures is very different, we are reminded of the early days of the Great Financial Crisis when the prevailing wisdom was that the failure of a few smaller, over-leveraged financial institutions was an isolated incident that would not cause wider financial contagion. We’re not predicting a repeat of the 2008 cataclysms. However, ten years of zero interest rate policy has indulged a great deal of speculation in various markets, and we believe vigilance remains the prudent route.

Despite the current turmoil, markets have been remarkably resilient with both stocks and bonds posting positive returns for the first quarter. Large cap technology stocks, which took a beating last year, have rebounded and were the equity safe haven of choice for investors fleeing bank stocks in March. We’ve also seen both gold and silver perform well, which is to be expected when there is a crisis of confidence in the banking sector. Short term rates have crept higher as the Fed continues its ongoing battle to stop inflation before it becomes entrenched. This has created a great opportunity for cash investors as yields on short term CDs, treasury bills and money market funds approach, and in some cases eclipse, 5%. These are yields investors have not seen in over 15 years.

While 2022 saw a major correction in risk assets (with speculative assets taking the greatest hit), we don’t believe the asset bubble has fully deflated. We expect 2023 to be volatile as the Fed continues to grapple with inflation and maintain our preference for quality assets – highly rated bonds and equities with strong balance sheets in defensive sectors. With volatility comes oversold conditions and buying opportunities which we will look to take advantage of.

Please let us know if you’d like to discuss any of the above in more detail.

Best,

Louis and Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

We hope you’ve had a chance to spend some time with friends and family over the holidays.

As we begin 2023, many investors are looking back at 2022 as a year they are more than happy to see come to a close. 2022 broke a multi-year streak of positive returns for equity markets with broad indices finishing in firmly negative territory. Speculative growth stocks were hit hardest as momentum investors reversed course and sold many high-flying tech and recent IPO companies. The S&P 500 finished the year down nearly 20% while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite was down almost 33%. International stocks didn’t fare much better as the MSCI World Ex-US Index was down nearly 17%. And the bond market, typically a safe haven during stock market selloffs, had one of its worst years on record as the Bloomberg Aggregate US Bond Index was down approximately 13%.

The immediate cause for this across-the-board drop is the trajectory of interest rates, as the world confronts inflation levels not seen in decades. US rates started 2022 at nearly zero and ended the year at 4.5%, a remarkable pace of increases in a very short time period. Several other central banks also raised rates in an effort to rein in inflationary pressures. Acting belatedly, but with determination, central banks have taken away the easy money punch bowl put in place in the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, ending one of the longest bull market rallies in history.

Last year, we wrote about the risk in speculative assets and how many were trading at unsustainable valuations, appearing vulnerable to a market correction. The rapid rise in interest rates created an environment ripe for mean-reversion as investors bailed on these assets almost as quickly as they had bid them up. The ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK), a much followed barometer for speculative growth stocks, was down nearly 67% in 2022. Cryptocurrencies, rocked by several high-profile scandals and bankruptcies (FTX, Block-Fi, Voyager and Celsius) also saw steep losses. The Bitwise 10 Crypto Index (BITW – a fund comprising the 10 largest cryptocurrencies) fell over 68%. SPACs (special purpose acquisition companies) – quasi IPO companies taken public via mergers that had become popular in recent years – were also clobbered. The AXS De-SPAC ETF (DSPC) was down over 73%.

So what did well in 2022? Despite the broad carnage, there were a few bright spots. Defensive sectors did ok, with healthcare and consumer staples down slightly, while utilities were up slightly. Rising energy prices boosted energy stocks and commodities, with both asset classes posting their strongest returns in years. Rising interest rates benefitted floating rate bonds, money markets, and cash. The USD, riding the wave of higher interest rates, was up nearly 8%, its best return since 2015. Gold and silver also held up well, posting slightly positive returns.

And while investors are hoping 2023 brings stability to markets, the last two weeks have reminded us that several non-economic factors have the potential to create further turmoil. The Chinese government suddenly reversed its policy on Covid isolation, leading to a sharp increase in the number of cases. This has placed stresses on the Chinese health care system that are similar to those experienced in the US in 2020 and 2021. It has also impacted several industries within China, where a large number of workers are absent. The re-opening of the Chinese economy will also likely put renewed pressure on commodity prices, which only in recent months had started to fall. The recent US midterm election has left the House of Representatives in a very delicate balance. The possibility that a financial crisis might originate with action or inaction in the House of Representatives is distinctly higher than it was prior to this election (debt ceiling negotiations are already set to be a battleground). The political situation in several South American countries is quite tenuous, with Peru and Brazil in the headlines. Both countries are major producers of raw materials for industry and agriculture. The Ukraine war enters its second year without a clear path towards resolution. The potential for negative exogenous shocks to the global economy are higher than usual.

That has driven the World Bank to reduce its global growth forecast to below 2%, one of the lowest projections since the 1990’s. Most larger US-listed companies operate globally, and will be impacted by this slowdown in global growth. We have already begun to see businesses focus on cost reduction in a form that we haven’t seen for several years. While times were good and order books were brimming, weaker business models could limp along. We expect 2023 will be a year of reckoning for aging or obsolete product lines, with corresponding impacts on revenues and earnings, as well as an uptick in bankruptcy filings.

We expect the US Federal Reserve to continue its tight monetary policy through the middle of this year, albeit at a slower and more guarded pace. We expect rates to rise another 50-100 basis points, depending on inflation data. The impact of the past raises has not yet been felt by all enterprises, but it will reverberate through the entire economy over the coming year. Higher than expected rates will continue to place a drag on businesses for 2023, and we expect to see a visible impact on earnings, which have thus far been remarkably stable. This has the potential to lead to more selling of risk assets. That said, if we see inflation tamed and the Fed pause or reverse course on their interest rate policy, it’s likely markets will rally. It remains to be seen whether this rally would be short-lived or a sustained change of course for markets.

We continue to advise cautious allocations to risk assets as part of balanced portfolios. We have begun to see more reasonable valuations in certain sectors, notably technology. International and emerging market stocks with strong balance sheets are starting to look more compelling for long term investors, especially if we see weakening of the USD. After last year’s route, entry points for high quality bonds of short and intermediate duration look good. We believe gold and silver remain important components of a diversified portfolio in the current environment.

In general, though, froth and speculation remain in several sectors, and we aim to be selective in our investments, focusing on quality businesses that can weather an economic downturn and have long term potential for sustainable growth.

Let us know if you would like to discuss any of the above in more detail.

Best,

Louis and Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

The 3rd quarter saw the US markets continue to be dogged by persistently high inflation with levels not seen since the early 1980’s. The underlying cause is partly lingering supply chain issues with a large contribution (over 60%) coming from energy and auto-related costs. Some of the supply chain issues (which began cropping up post-Covid lock downs) are now related to the on-going war in Ukraine. Dovish market observers and economists have vocally opposed the Fed’s aggressive interest rate policy response, claiming (not without merit) that the inflation figures are being driven by exceptional factors. Thus far, these arguments have not swayed the majority of voting members among the Fed board and 2022 has seen rates rise at a much steeper pace than the Fed themselves had projected just last year. The Fed has indicated a commitment to raising rates until they see inflation drop substantially from its current levels. Since unemployment remains at very low levels, there is little (barring a liquidity crisis) to stop the Fed from continuing on this path.

Elevated interest rates negatively impact credit-dependent businesses as well as stock/bond markets. They also impact public finances, since governments of all sizes have to pay more to borrow. Corporate borrowers also spend more on servicing debt, and marginally profitable projects get shelved when the cost of financing them rises. Consumers are also hurt as mortgages, auto loans and revolving credit lines become more costly, thus curtailing spending. All of this impacts corporate earnings, which will almost certainly drop from cyclical highs as the impact of rate rises is felt across industry.

In addition to inflation, we see several other signs to discourage aggressive risk taking. We have begun to see early indications of a drop in business activity. Certain US sectors such as real-estate, which are particularly credit dependent have slowed dramatically. US Job postings have dropped precipitously, though there continue to be far more job openings than in prior years. The IMF(International Monetary Fund) published a report indicating they now expect a global recession in 2023. The IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report indicates that the stability of global financial markets has “materially worsened” and markets face a higher likelihood of “disorderly pricing”. The US Treasury publishes an indicator of financial stress, which has been rising (albeit from very low levels) over the past few weeks. All of these indicators combine to raise risks for investors.

The lack of clarity around inflation as well as the potential for the Fed’s response to drive the economy toward recession has resulted in substantial selling in both stock and bond markets, with the bond market (through the first three quarters) posting one of its worst years on record. We expect to see continued volatility in both markets until investors see definitive data suggesting a cooling of inflation and/or a pause/reversal of the Fed’s interest rate policy. If and when markets see a shift in policy, we expect stocks and bonds will rally sharply. However, there remains the risk that elevated inflation could become entrenched (which the Fed is aggressively fighting), in which case stocks and bonds would likely remain under pressure.

While market volatility can resemble a dizzying roller coaster ride, it often comes with opportunity. Bear markets can cause investors to act impulsively and sell assets indiscriminately in response to short term market conditions, without considering the long term. This leads to quality assets priced at discounted levels, levels much lower than an investor would typically find during a bull market. We continue to recommend a defensive allocation (due to the risks outlined above), but with an eye towards shifting money towards risk assets as prices fall further and entry points become compelling. Our long term outlook for the global economy remains positive and we expect patient investors will be rewarded.

Let us know if you’d like to discuss any of the above in more detail.

Best,

Louis and Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

We hope you’re enjoying a pleasant summer with friends and family.

As we enter the third quarter of 2022, we are reminded of Lenin’s words on the Russian Revolution: “there are decades when nothing happens, and weeks when decades happen”. Events in the last three months have certainly fit into the latter category.

Earlier this year, the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to remarkable actions by financial and commercial institutions allied with the EU and US. As the war has dragged on, it is increasingly clear that the EU and US will not directly engage Russian forces, which reduces the immediate risk of this war drawing in many other actors. The tragic reality for Ukraine is that it is likely facing a loss of territory which will impact about half its population. The longer term lesson that all small/mid-sized countries will likely learn from this is that the only true deterrent for larger hostile nations is independent nuclear weapons capability. The treaty obligations made by Russia when Ukraine dissolved its nuclear weapons program in the 1990s aren’t worth the paper they were written on. The assurances made by the EU and US to Russia on the cusp of the breakup of the Soviet Union have been broken in both spirit and word.

In terms of impact to global markets, for now they appear primarily limited to the energy sector which has seen further supply issues. Equity investors exposed to Russia are directly impacted, but given Russia’s limited output and energy concentration, the short term direct impact remains minimal. Commodity prices have also been impacted, most notably oil/natural gas and wheat (Ukraine produces approximately 10% of the world’s wheat). This in turn has put additional short term pressure on inflation.

US financial markets have much broader issues to absorb and deal with. The weeks before the official start of summer saw every major US stock market index slip into bear market territory (defined as a 20% drawdown from the index highs). This was presaged by sharp, steep declines in the most speculative assets such as crypto-currencies and related tech. The onset of summer and a seasonal drop in trading has temporarily halted the declines, but the underlying causes have not disappeared and we suspect markets will continue to experience sharp volatility in the coming months.

We now have several months worth of inflation figures at levels we have not seen for decades. The Federal Reserve has telegraphed its intent to raise interest rates until inflation is under control. Their target rate for inflation is 2%, while inflation currently stands at approximately 9%. The risk of increasing rates too quickly is that it could drive the economy into recession. However, given where unemployment levels are (still historically low), it appears the Fed is more concerned with runaway inflation than recession risk. The thinking being they can always reverse course with rates once inflation is more manageable. Industries most sensitive to interest rates (mortgage origination and speculative new home construction among them) are experiencing sharp declines in revenue and canceled orders. In financial markets, speculators and corporate insiders who have borrowed against stock, find themselves exposed as prices fall and the cost of carrying margin debt rises. This is a vicious circle that can lead to rounds of forced selling.

Since inflation concerns are driving the Fed’s aggressive policy moves, if inflation slows meaningfully, we could see the Fed pause to take stock. In this scenario, we would likely see both stocks and bonds rally (though this may be a shorter term relief rally). Intermediate and long term bonds are pointing towards such a pause in rate hikes. The closely watched 10-year treasury is back under 3% after nearly touching 3.5% in June. This suggests bond investors don’t expect interest rates to remain elevated long term.
This bear market comes at the end of a nearly 40 year long secular decline in interest rates and sustained low inflation. These trends were coincident with very large labor pools in Asia being integrated into the global economy. The deflationary impact of adding hundreds of millions of workers across Asia to the global industrial and services labor market seems to have run its course. Anecdotally, we are seeing salaries for remote service workers approaching rough global parity. This is likely to mean better conditions and more bargaining power for workers in the long run. In the short term though, the inflationary pressures will likely mean higher labor market volatility, including elevated unemployment. Similarly, an improvement in labor conditions and wages will lead to more sustainable and better quality corporate earnings. In the short term, it means increased market volatility.

Corporate earnings remain at cyclical and all-time highs for large capitalization stocks. Despite the recent declines, price/earnings ratios are not yet close to past cyclical lows. When we look around for signs of a bottom, they are scarce and distant. Our expectation is that the markets will remain volatile and further declines remain likely. We continue to advocate for defensive portfolios incorporating high quality stocks, short term/floating rate/inflation protected bonds, commodities and precious metals.

On the other side of this bear market lies another bull market and we will continue to keep an eye out for investment opportunities as they appear.

Best,

Louis and Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.

Dear Friends,

The first three months of 2022 have been very eventful in global affairs. The concerns surrounding the global spread of the Omicron variant have faded and been replaced with the surprising invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces followed by the unexpectedly robust retaliatory economic sanctions imposed by the US and EU. As with all such conflicts we hope it ends quickly with minimal further loss of life and suffering.

Russia’s invasion and the response it has engendered will likely have a long term impact on global finances. Within the span of days after the invasion, in a move that surprised many political pundits, Russian entities were shut out of the global payments systems. Credit cards issued on major networks stopped working and banks lost the ability to settle US dollar payments. The size and scope of the sanctions along with the widespread denunciation of the invasion (led by US and EU nations) seemed to have caught Russia off guard as prior Russian-led conflicts (Georgia, Donbas, Annexation of Crimea) had not been met with such unified opposition. Despite all this, EU markets continue to purchase Russian conventional energy, a position that appears increasingly farcical as other sanctions are strengthened.
In response to these measures, over the long run, we believe major economies outside North America and the EU will develop parallel financial systems to insulate themselves from any such punitive sanctions. The hand-wringing over the demise of the dollar as a global currency is probably exaggerated (that will likely not happen over the next two decades). But eventually we believe other currencies will play a larger role in global trade. This is to be expected and is a dynamic similar to the one that occurred over several decades when the British pound was replaced by the US Dollar as the primary means of international settlement in 1944. In the short term, there is no other major economy with a stable currency that can serve such a purpose since most aspirants (apart from the Euro) are either too small or have some form of capital control to limit currency fluctuation. The Swiss Franc has historically been a neutral alternative, but Swiss participation in the recent sanctions partly undercuts this role in the future. The Euro meets the size and stability criteria, but the Eurozone’s close alliance with the US is similarly likely to give other major countries pause when considering it as a backup. Physical gold has historically been a medium of last resort, but these sanctions have targeted Russian central bank gold reserve holdings as well as currency. This makes it less likely that non-allied countries will maintain large gold reserves in US/EU financial centers. It’s not unreasonable to say that blockchain concepts will play a role in any newly developed payment networks. We think it is unlikely that major central banks adopt one of the existing, independent crypto payment networks. They are far more likely to develop a new system/currency using the same technology as the early independent networks.

Both China and India have been moving towards developing independent payment networks for small and large transfers. We see this trend accelerating and the decades-long uncontested primacy of US/EU systems and networks will likely fade. This was, of course, bound to happen at some point as the locus of economic activity moves back towards Asia.

On the economic front, Q1 saw the US record inflation figures at levels not seen for decades. Some of this is due to a spike in energy prices and other dislocation in global supply chains. Regardless of cause, the hike in price levels likely spells trouble for both equities and bond markets. The Federal Reserve is poised to embark on a series of quick interest rate raises, coupled with a rapid reduction in its balance sheet. These moves would shift a virtually uninterrupted 16 years of easy money policies. The combination of inflationary pressure and rising rates are likely to have a larger impact on long-tenured instruments such as long-dated bonds and speculative growth stocks.

While the economic environment seems primed for rates to run higher, the Fed does have a recent history of pivoting on rate hike policy. 2019 saw the Fed reverse course after raising interest rates steadily over 2017 and 2018. The Fed made three rate cuts in 2019 (Trump’s trade war was referenced as a reason) and then slashed rates again to 0 in 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic took hold. If inflation ebbs, the economy falters or demand slackens, we could see the Fed backtrack on their rate tightening plans.
While stocks and bonds have gotten off to a rough start in 2022, alternative assets such as commodities and precious metals have performed well. Value stocks in industries such as utilities and energy have shown positive returns on the year while speculative technology companies are deeply in the red. We continue to recommend a defensive, diversified portfolio that is weighted towards value stocks over growth. With interest rates rising in anticipation of the moves from the Federal Reserve, we’re starting to see some compelling opportunities in the bond space. Tax free municipal bonds are starting to look interesting again for the first time since the bond market upheaval in Q1 2020. While many speculative growth stocks have come down considerably in price, we still think there remains risk for further downside. We expect volatility to persist in 2022 and will continue to look for opportunities in stocks and bonds as they present themselves.

Best,

Louis and Subir

The foregoing contents reflect the opinions of Washington Square Capital Management and are subject to change at any time without notice. Content provided herein is for informational purposes only and should not be used or constructed as investment advice or a recommendation regarding the purchase or sale of any security. There is no guarantee that the statements, opinions or forecasts provided herein will prove to be correct. 

Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Indices are not available for direct investment. Any investor who attempts to mimic the performance of an index would incur fees and expenses which would reduce returns. Securities investing involves risk, including the potential for loss of principal. There is no assurance that any investment plan or strategy will be successful.