What happened?

Since the beginning of the year, the world’s major stock indices are down, and the United States indices in particular have suffered losses. From their early January highs, the All Country World index and the S&P 500 had fallen ~10%, while the Nasdaq composite had fallen ~15%, before each recovered slightly on January 28, 2022.

Although the downward moves are not severe within the context of normal stock market volatility, they appear so for two reasons. First, 2021 was particularly calm following the turbulent market events of 2020. As shown on Chart 1 below, the S&P 500 rose or fell more than 2% only seven times in 2021 versus 44 times in 2020. Moreover, Chart 2 shows that while realized volatility in 2021 was slightly below the 10-year average, it was significantly below the market volatility experienced in 2020. More broadly, the stock market tends to fall 10% every 1.5 to 2 years, so these recent moves only are unusual when comparing the stock market to particularly calm times. Second, underneath the headline indices, there is a notable rotation happening and pockets of truly astonishing capital destruction. For an example of a rotation, the S&P 500 Energy index has gained ~18% YTD while the S&P 500 Consumer Discretionary index has lost ~13% YTD, compared to the last five years when energy stocks generated annualized losses of 2% and consumer discretionary stocks generated positive annualized returns of 16%. For examples of capital destruction, there are many, including meme stocks, SPACS, recent IPOs, retail favorites being cut in half, or worse. On the Nasdaq composite, the number of companies making 52-week lows versus 52-week highs currently has only been exceeded in March 2020 and late 2008 over the last 25 years. See Chart 3 from Citi.

Chart 1


Chart 2


Chart 3


Why Has This Happened?

It is always hard to pinpoint the cause of market moves, and there frequently is no one single cause. Nonetheless, our succinct perspective is that the market’s risk appetite has changed. There is little chance that the earning or cashflow prospects of many of the individual stocks have dropped 50-80% in the past few weeks. (One also can query whether their prospects had gone up 5-10x from mid-2020 to late 2021 in the first place). However, the market’s perception of the adequate compensation for investing in certain high-risk stocks or similar exposures has changed markedly.

The longer perspective is that we have had a confluence of economic changes which has made the market less certain as to the economy’s future path. This fundamental change has rather suddenly made certain stocks less attractive. Exacerbating this move has been a myriad of technical adjustments, such as overall liquidity in the market, computer-driven algorithmic trading which often amplifies market moves, so-called “black-out” windows (where companies cannot repurchase their own stock), less stock interest by retail investors, and big banks’ positioning changing as a result of different option purchase patterns (i.e. when many people buy call options, banks then buy the underlying stock to hedge; when many people buy puts, banks then sell the underlying stock to hedge).

In our view, the fundamental economic change has been driven by: a) the Federal Reserve (and other central banks) becoming more hawkish; and b) a medium-term view of potential underlying economic weakness, in part driven by the lower chances of additional fiscal stimulus. Between the two changes, we think the former is largely driving markets and has led to the repricing of risk.

As you can see in Charts 4 and 5, the Fed has become increasingly hawkish as inflation has not abated (so less chance it is merely “transitory”) and employment is close to full. As the Fed gauges its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability, it now is focusing more on price stability, in part because rampant runaway inflation can lead to skewed economic decisions and a knock-on, lowering effect on unemployment. As you can see, the Fed has “talked the market” from roughly two interest rate hikes in 2022 as of early October 2021 to 6 expected hikes during 2022 as of last week. Six hikes would be more than all of the hikes the Fed did from 2013 (the infamous taper tantrum) to late 2017.

Chart 4


Chart 5


In addition to the Fed signaling many more hikes than the market had anticipated a few weeks ago, the Fed has been accelerating its projected pace of so-called balance sheet normalization. When you put all of these changes in context, the market seemingly no longer believes that there is a near-term “Fed Put”,1 whereby the Fed may pause on rate hikes or balance sheet normalization if the stock market swoons. Some believe the Fed Put is now at lower levels than previously thought. Some even believe that there is a Fed “sold-call” dynamic, whereby if the stock market does not adjust and help cool the economy through wealth effects, the Fed is more likely to keep raising rates, ceteris paribus (i.e., for a given level of inflation). Critically, every other recent time the Fed Put has been relevant, the Fed had more options as inflation was near or below 2%. Today is very different with inflation running 300-400bps above the Fed’s comfort level. These perceived changes and the pace of the change has caused, in our view, a lot of the market machinations we have observed over the past few weeks and months. Where the Fed relents is hard to predict. Clearly, the Fed is reacting to evolving inflationary pressures. We believe that the Fed will continue to modulate its rhetoric and actions to ensure that inflation does not become entrenched at anywhere near current levels.


What Are We Doing About This?

In short, we are doing three things: (1) we are maintaining our slight overweight to equities, (2) we are staying underweight to fixed income, and (3) we are watching our underlying managers to see if they are taking advantage of the rotation and violent trading patterns.

We are maintaining our allocation to equities because we think the odds are on our side. (Here, we will speak mostly of the United States as it is the largest position and most impactful to our clients.) It strikes us that of the three most relevant factors effecting equities, two on our side. The first is the basic construct of equities. They represent a share on the earnings of companies. We perceive that people are working hard, innovation and productivity are happening, and there is nothing fundamentally different regarding equities and that claim to company earnings than during the prior 100 years.

The second factor is our view of the economy. While we believe the economy is unlikely to repeat its epic recovery in 2021, it is unlikely to flip into recession. There is a halting reopening still going on, there is pent up

demand for various services, consumers have substantial savings (compared to pre pandemic), the Fed is still accommodative (despite the changes discussed above), and the federal government is still running deficit spending. For these reasons and numerous others, we think it is unlikely the United States flips into recession. The market seems to agree with our evaluation as there is little indication of distress in other recession sensitive asset classes, such as credit (spreads have not widened), and the Yen (has not rallied strongly). Of course, there is no guarantee that we will avoid a recession, but recessions themselves are rare, and the odds seem slightly lower now than on average due the factors noted above. Critically, when we are not in recession, the stock market usually delivers positive returns. In fact, the stock market does so more than 80% of the time. To go against these odds, one must be very confident this time is different.

We acknowledge that the third element, the Fed’s posture, is against us. No longer can the Fed be counted on to “prime the pump.” The old saw of “don’t fight the Fed” comes to mind. However, we believe the market now has digested a more hawkish Fed, and that inflation will moderate over 2022 as: (i) comparisons drop out, (ii) some supply bottlenecks ease, and (iii) labor shortages abate as (hopefully) omicron wanes. As long as the Fed stays roughly where it is now, with an expected Fed funds at ~1% – 1.5% in 2022 and ~2% in 2023, we think the economy and market can handle these increases. We do concede that the Fed could become yet more hawkish if inflation persists (as could well happen due to oil supply reductions, other goods supply constraints, or China’s zero COVID policy leading to further shutdowns). As we gauge the three critical elements, and the odds of staying invested, we continue to believe maintaining full equity exposure is prudent. This view in no way precludes additional bouts of volatility and of course the potential for even more steep drops. Sometimes sentiment becomes self-fulfilling. Based on our read of the market, we do not think this is one of those cases. But nothing is assured.

Our second view is to remain short fixed income. We have held this view and have provided our thinking around it a number of times. In short, we understand that rates can be driven lower by economic weakness, investor fear and non-economic actors (such as central banks) deciding to drive them lower. However, one of the main actors, the Fed, has just told us they will no longer be driving rates quite so low. We expect yields to trend higher at a measured pace. We do not expect the longer end of the curve to increase rapidly, but given a choice between it falling precipitously lower or jumping precipitously higher, we would choose the latter. As the Fed has indicated where they intend to drive rates, and we believe there is asymmetry in rate increases versus rate reductions, we have maintained slightly less than full fixed income exposure and less duration in the fixed income we do hold.

Finally, we note that our managers are finding interesting opportunities. There are big chunks of the markets that are down far more than 10% over the past few months. We and our manager partners believe there has been material indiscriminate selling, which is to be expected in a market that has become dominated by passive capital and ETFs. One of our largest managers tracks the required return to reach “intrinsic value” in their portfolio. It is currently at 95%, a level that it has reached less than 2% of days since their inception. Despite a modest value bias, this group has outperformed in eight out of the last nine years. We are inclined to trust their judgment about the individual companies that they own. Managers are finding opportunities in a variety of areas including payments, biotech, small/mid cap, and pieces of the energy/materials/industrials complex that are likely to benefit from decarbonization. For some but not all of these areas, inflation in the economy may actually prove a modest benefit.

Overall, we expect that the markets will continue to have bouts of volatility more consistent with historical patterns. Volatility may be even higher as the market digests a more hawkish Fed, for only the second time in the last 14 years. For now, we are maintaining our positioning as slightly overweight equities and shorter fixed income. We will continue to monitor the economy and our managers to gauge whether we should change our view, paying careful attention in particular to central banks actions and rhetoric, and the inflation dynamics. We appreciate the opportunity to manage your capital through this interesting time.

1 There are valid reasons to believe that the Fed should observe the stock market, not as its primary objective, but in so far as through the “wealth effect”, consumers and CEOs are more likely to spend and take risks when they feel wealthy than when they feel less well off. Whether the Fed Put is valid, good public policy, a skewing of capitalism, leads to excess risk-taking, or beneficial to income equality is beyond the scope of this note.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results and the opinions presented cannot be viewed as an indicator of future performance.

There is no guarantee that any particular asset allocation or mix of strategies will meet your investment objectives.

These materials are being provided for informational purposes only and constitute neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. Opinions expressed herein are those of TIFF and are not a recommendation to buy or sell any securities.

These materials may contain forward-looking statements relating to future events. In some cases, you can identify forward- looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. Although TIFF believes the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, future results cannot be guaranteed.

Right now, people around the world are celebrating the fifth anniversary of the publication of “Laudato Si’ Of The Holy Father Francis On Care For Our Common Home.” Known simply as the Laudato Si, this groundbreaking, 180-page papal encyclical calls on us to act with urgency to stop the relentless damage being done to our planet and all living things. Pope Francis’s passionate and compelling argument for a better world has won admiration and support from people around the world, of all faiths and backgrounds, young and old.

The encyclical’s insights and guidance have been particularly valuable to Catholics who strive to invest their money in ways that align with their beliefs and their values, particularly protection of the environment.

Before the Laudato Si, these investors sought inspiration from the Socially Responsible Investment Guidelines of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Those guidelines, published in 2003, called for investor advocacy to prompt greater ecological preservation on the part of corporations. However, there was no specific mention of how to handle investments in fossil fuels, which today represent a core issue for many investors.

In the 2015 encyclical, however, fossil fuels finally found their way into the spotlight. Early in the Laudato Si, Pope Francis singles out these energy sources as he urges concerted global action to reduce carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions:

“There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.” (Para. 26)

Catholic investors who read only this statement might reasonably conclude that a complete divestiture of fossil fuels stocks is in order. After all, the Holy Father is calling for a “drastic reduction” of harmful emissions, while scientists have demonstrated clear connections between global climate change and our continued burning of fossil fuels. However, later in the encyclical, Pope Francis highlights one of the conundrums investors face as they take on the fossil-fuel question:

“We know that technology based on the use of highly polluting fossil fuels – especially coal, but also oil and, to a lesser degree, gas – needs to be progressively replaced without delay. Until greater progress is made in developing widely accessible sources of renewable energy, it is legitimate to choose the less harmful alternative or to find short-term solutions. But the international community has still not reached adequate agreements about the responsibility for paying the costs of this energy transition.” (Para. 165)

In other words, we must assess the fossil fuels question with an understanding of the vast differences in energy consumption globally. While renewable options – and investment opportunities – might abound across highly developed nations, they are nearly non-existing in other nations, where fossil fuels are essential for all the basics of life, from cooking and heat, to health care and education.

So, what might Catholic investors glean from the encyclical’s call? It’s that a transition away from fossil fuels is imperative and we all must act, although not necessarily in lockstep. As we explore potential responses with Catholic investors – from large institutions to individuals – we’ve seen three key strategies emerge:

  1. Immediate divestment of fossil fuel stocks – Some have taken this step already, while others are in process. Although our investment solutions currently have an immaterial exposure to fossil fuels, we plan to remove this exposure in the near future.
  2. Sequenced transition to renewable energy – Certain investors have sought to maintain their exposure to the energy sector by investing in companies or private funds that are advancing alternatives, a strategy our organization is pursuing as well.
  3. Gradual divestment of fossil fuel stocks – Some are gradually thinning out their holdings by applying filters for company performance across environmental, social, governance, fair labor and other factors. Poor performers are thus the first to go.

Whether we are Catholic investors or simply citizens of the world who care about our planet’s future, Pope Francis’s Laudato Si remains a powerful source of inspiration and pragmatism. It falls to all of us to continue our progress toward the encyclical’s challenging goals, and to invest in ways that make sense for a world facing its most important challenge.

Tom Lanctot is Chief Executive Officer and Jeremy Taylor, CFA is Investor Relations Director of Catholic Investment Services. This Boston-based non-profit SEC registered investment advisor seeks to deliver strong investment returns aligned with Catholic principles so Catholic organizations can make a bigger impact in their communities.

Additional Resources

Laudato Si’ Five-Year Anniversary: Pope Francis Calls on Us to “Care for Our Common Home” Here’s What That Means for Conscientious Catholic Investors

Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter in PDF format

Resources from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Laudato Si’ Week 2020 Resources

Catholic Investment Services tends not to opine on current events owing to our efforts to remain focused on the long-term. In times like these, it seems more prudent to observe and reflect rather than to react or comment, particularly when there are so many unknowns and the situation is rapidly evolving.

Nonetheless, the spread of the coronavirus has sent significant shock waves through global stock markets, so we recognize the importance of sharing our thoughts and observations.

  • The coronavirus, COVID-19, is beginning to spread well beyond China and is creating uncertainty for the global growth outlook and sparking volatility in broad financial markets. The human impact of the virus has been significant, and no one can say for certain how the spread of the coronavirus will evolve. The World Health Organization still identifies several “Knowledge Gaps” in their most recent report including “the behavioral and socio-economic risk factors for infection in households / institutions and (public) communities.”
  • The Chinese economy is much more significant to the rest of the world today than it was during the SARS outbreak. Importantly, we believe the Chinese government is also far more transparent today than it was during SARS epidemic when the initial response was something akin to “no problems here, everything is under control.” Today, in addition to limiting the travel of millions of those in infected areas, the government appears to be much more proactive in building new hospitals to care for the sick, sequencing the genetic makeup of the virus, using new blood tests to try and detect infected people, and testing existing (HIV) medications against COVID-19 while also working on a vaccine. Both China and the rest of the world are fighting the virus from a much earlier stage than might have been the case in the past. This is positive.
  • From an investment perspective, we are monitoring the impact of COVID-19 from all angles including communicating with our investment partners and CIS board members. The impact of this virus on business performance and supply lines won’t be known for some time – however, it seems likely that many businesses won’t make their original performance targets for 2020. The markets are doing their job of trying to discount the impact this virus is expected to have on the Chinese and global economies and on corporate earnings. The recent market decline followed fairly spectacular gains in 2019 and is not out of line with historical market corrections.

With so little known and such a wide set of potential outcomes, the job of making investment decisions is harder than normal, but these types of events often prove to be opportunities for long-term investors to put capital to work. It is too early to draw that conclusion and so until we know more, we will continue to monitor the situation and maintain our long-term focus.

-Tom Lanctot, CEO of Catholic Investment Services

DISCLOSURES: The information discussed in this article is the opinion of CIS and is for informational purposes only. Nothing contained in this article should be construed as investment advice or should be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security or guarantee future results. This article also does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy interests in any particular security, including interests in any CIS investment vehicle. This article may include “forward-looking statements,” such as information about possible or assumed investment returns or general economic conditions. Actual results may differ materially from the information included in this article and no information in this article will be updated to reflect actual results or changes in expectations. CIS, a non-profit organization, is an SEC registered investment adviser that maintains a principal place of business in the State of Massachusetts. For further information about CIS’s business operations, please consult the Firm’s Form ADV disclosure documents, the most recent versions of which are available on the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov.