宏觀視野:我們是否處於通脹制度改變的邊緣?(只供英文版)

通脹已經比我們多數人記憶中來的高。但是,它是否會持續下去,或者回復到在過去40年裡我們都已經習慣的較低水平?投資組合經理Alex Holroyd-Jones和Jason Borbora-Sheen解釋了通脹為何完全取決於央行即將採取的行動。

2022年7月19日

通脹已經比我們多數人記憶中來的高。但是,它是否會持續下去,或者回復到在過去40年裡我們都已經習慣的較低水平?投資組合經理Alex Holroyd-Jones和Jason Borbora-Sheen解釋了通脹為何完全取決於央行即將採取的行動。

19 July 2022

In politics, ‘regime change’ typically signifies one governing party replacing another; in economics, the same term is used to indicate a shift in various parts of the economic or financial system. While political regime changes are easy to identify, defining a regime change in economics can be more challenging.

Take inflation, for example. The developed world was in a structural inflation regime for a significant portion of 1948-1980, with price levels rising aggressively following the Second World War, a booming US economy from the mid- the ‘60s and the oil surges of the ‘70s. Since 1980, however, we’ve been in a structural disinflation regime. Under Paul Volcker, chair of the Federal Reserve (Fed) for much of the 1980s, inflation was ultimately contained by his focus on the growth of the money supply rather than interest rates, and price levels remained low and stable until the Covid-era.

Since the third quarter of 2020, we have seen persistent upside surprises, but the shape of the next inflation regime is an open question. In our view, it entirely depends on what central banks do.

Is a recession inevitable?

If inflation doesn’t prove self-correcting, there is a straight choice between a deep recession and a once-in-a-generation inflation regime paradigm shift. Regarding the former, central banks can tighten policy for a sustained period and bring inflation back under control, thereby causing a recession.

For context, the post-War bout of inflation in the late 1940s offers some parallels with today’s environment. There was a sudden release of pent-up demand from consumers wanting to spend, there were supply-chain disruptions as the economy pivoted from a military footing, and there were widespread commodity shocks. The Fed – which had tripled the money supply from 1939-1946 to help fund the war effort – sought to shrink its balance sheet and slow the availability of credit. The result was that inflation sharply fell back from nearly 20% to a deflationary environment, and an 11-month recession ensued from late 1948.

The second option central banks have is to take policy tight but then quickly back off, due to weakness in growth, without fully getting inflation back under control. This is likely to be more painful in the long-run, increasing the likelihood of a period of stagflation, which historically leads to weakness in risk assets as the growth backdrop weakens, but – unlike in the recessionary scenario – bonds notably underperform, with real assets providing protection from inflation.

What are central banks actually doing?

Central banks have rightfully taken a bit of bad press in recent months. They were wrong about inflation because their own inflation models are designed to always forecast inflation returning to target, and therefore are unable to deal with shocks. Looking at inflation forecasts back in Q3 2020 for the US, Eurozone, Japan and China serve to highlight this point. They were wildly inaccurate, so much so a random number generator would have outperformed their forecasts. To be fair, private forecasts were not better.

We have also had several wide-ranging and interrelated series of economic shocks that have continued to broaden from goods into services, including the supply bottlenecks across all categories resulting from pandemic-induced cuts, and of course the war in Ukraine. This has left central banks behind the curve. But they are now acting as they need to, and financial conditions are tightening. Even when actual rates have not fully risen, the increased size of the financial sector relative to the overall economy and relatively high leverage mean, as Mary Daly of the San Francisco Fed pointed out earlier this year, “the long and variable lags [of policy] may not be as long, or variable, as typically assumed.”

This cycle of hikes is already one of the fastest in recent decades, with the Fed’s policy rate expected to approach 3.6% by the end of 2022. For now, the Fed is being very clear it does not want a shift to a higher inflation regime, and if this comes at the expense of growth and weaker asset prices then this is the price they are willing to pay.

重要資訊

本文的資訊可能會討論一般的市場活動或行業趨勢,不擬作為預測、研究或投資建議的憑據。本文提供的經濟及市場觀點反映晉達資產管理截至所示日期的判斷,可能會隨時更改,恕不另行通知。概不保證所表達的觀點及意見正確無誤,可能未能反映整個晉達資產管理的觀點,按不同的投資目標可能會表達不同的觀點。儘管我們認為來自外部的任何資訊均為可靠的,但我們並未對其作出獨立審核,因此我們不能保證其準確性或完整性。晉達資產管理的內部數據可能未經審核。晉達資產管理未有提供法律或稅務建議。準投資者在作出與稅收相關的投資決定之前,應諮詢其稅務顧問。

本通訊僅視為一般資訊,並非投資邀請,亦不構成提呈出售。投資涉及風險。此並非對任何特定證券作出買入、沽售或持有之建議。概無聲明任何投資將會或可能取得類似過往的利潤或虧損,或將會避免出現重大損失。本文中提及的證券或投資產品可能未有在任何司法管轄區註冊。

於香港,本通訊由晉達資產管理香港有限公司發行,並未經證券及期貨事務監察委員會(證監會)審核。

除非另有授權,否則未經晉達資產管理事先書面同意,不得將本文件資料顯示、複製、傳送或以其他方式提供給任何第三方。©2022年晉達資產管理。版權所有。

所列示的過往表現數據並不反映未來表現。投資者應注意,投資帶有風險。投資者應參閱銷售文件以了解詳情,包括風險因素。本網站未經香港證監會審查。

一經點擊以下投資者關係的連結,閣下將離開專為香港零售投資者提供資料的本網站,進入全球網站。

務請注意,全球網站並非以香港投資者為對象。該網站未經香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會(「證監會」)審閱。該網站可能包含未經證監會認可的基金及其他投資產品的資料,因此不得向香港零售投資者銷售。該網站亦可能包含據稱由晉達集團旗下的香港境外公司提供或採取的投資服務/策略的資料。

本網站所載的任何產品文件及資料僅供參考,並供位於有關資料及其使用並無違反當地法律或規例的司法管轄區或國家的人士或實體使用。

發行人:晉達資產管理香港有限公司
電郵:[email protected]ninetyone.com 
電話:(852) 2861 6888
傳真:(852) 2861 6861