Connect with us


Separate but unequal: How Tribes, unlike states, face major hurdles to access the most basic public finance tools

Economic development benefits communities through job growth, higher standards of  living and improved subjective well-being.    Fiscal Capacity, which…



This article was originally published by Brookings

By Matthew Gregg

Economic development benefits communities through job growth, higher standards of  living and improved subjective well-being.    Fiscal Capacity, which allows governments to deliver programs and services such as health care, education, workforce development and law enforcement, is also a product of growing economies.  As a result, state and local governments use an artillery of public finance tools such as subsidized borrowing and tax incentives to spur development.   Consistently overlooked and largely underappreciated, the responsibilities of tribal governments mirror those of state and local governments. Yet, unlike these sub-national governments, tribal governments face hurdles when accessing even the most basic forms of public finance tools. This lack of parity is especially harmful today as recent research shows that the COVID-19 pandemic has crippled tribal government revenues and disproportionately impacted American Indian and Alaska Native age-adjusted mortality and prime-age employment. this short article, we summarize three distinct ways in which tribes have been shut out of tax-based economic development tools that are readily available to state and local governments.


Barrier #1: Tribal Access to Subsidized Financing


State and local governments use sizable amounts of tax-free debt obligations (i.e, municipal bonds) to supply public goods such as highways, bridges, and parks along with private goods such as hotels, golf courses, and sports stadiums.  In addition, these governments can issue non-taxable [i] which let the benefits of low-cost borrowing flow directly to the private sector — provided that these bonds are used on specific projects such as airports, educational facilities, and affordable rental .  These bonds benefit the public by building economic  infrastructure without raising taxes.

For decades, however, tribes have been effectively shut out of the ability to issue both non-taxable government bonds and private activity bonds. Starting with the passage of the Indian Tribal Government Tax Status Act in 1982, which was later amended in 1987, U.S. tax code restricts the use of non-taxable tribal government bonds to only “essential government functions”, which effectively narrows the set of eligible projects to those typically financed by states through tax revenues, and prohibits the use of tribal private activity bonds (the lone exception was for the construction of manufacturing facilities).  These restrictions are especially onerous on tribes since, unlike local governments, tribes cannot levy property taxes on land held in trust and, as a result of Supreme Court rulings, even when land is owned privately on a reservation, property tax revenues flow to local governments.

The stark difference in the utilization of tax-free debt obligations between state and tribal governments is shown in Figure 1.  Using data from 2014 to 2020, state governments issue a total of $47 billion annually in non-taxable municipal bonds compared to a total of $84 million annually by tribal governments.  This equates to a 559-fold gap in the usage of tax-exempt government bonds.

The lack of involvement in tax-exempt bond finance is not because of the lack of potential investments in Indian Country.  In fact, as part of a Great Recession-era stimulus package, the federal government ran a pilot program, called the Tribal Economic Development (TED) bonds program. This gave all federally recognized tribes access to a national cap of $2 billion to issue tax-free debt obligations in the same manner as states and local governments. Thus, for the first time since the 1980s, tribal government could issue tax-exempt bonds to incentivize much-needed investments in infrastructure on reservation lands without the requirement of passing the essential governmental functions test.  The essential governmental functions test was waived for tribal tax-free bond financing and .  Not surprisingly, the allocation pool has been effectively exhausted, which highlights the need for greater tax parity between states (and other sub-national sovereigns) and tribes.  The permanent wavier of the “essential government functions” standard for tribal governments even has support from the Treasury Department who, as part of a program evaluation of the TED program, recommended its repeal ten years ago.

Unless this standard is eliminated or the TED program is expanded, tribes will continue to face different standards to access the tax-exempt bond market.[ii]

Figure 1: Differences in Tax-Exempt Government Bond Issuances, 2014-2020

Notes: Calculations constructed by authors.  Source: The Bond Buyer’s 2015-2020 Year In Statistics, Inflation Calculator from Best Inflation Calculator (2021) – Historical & Future Value |


Barrier #2:  Tribal Access to Tax Incentives


Tribes and states are often pitted against each other when taxing non-tribal activity within reservation boundaries.  If left unchecked, both sovereigns can levy taxes on the same activity which will effectively deter any economic development.  This situation is referred to as double taxation and one practical solution is for tribes and states to enter into tax agreements called  state-tribal tax compacts, where both governments agree to set a single tax on non-tribal activity within reservation boundaries and share in the .

For tribes, these agreements provide benefits and disadvantages.[iii] The advantage of tax compacts is that essential revenues from non-tribal economic activity within reservation boundaries are distributed back to tribes.  The consequence is that states often set the negotiated tax rate to the state’s sales tax.  As a result, if a state chooses to lower their sales tax without tribal consent, two problems may arise: (1.) tribal tax revenues may decline and (2.) tribal loans tied to revenue generated from compacts will become inherently unstable.  In addition, when the on-reservation tax rate mirrors that of the state’s, tribes lose their ability to use taxes as entitlements for development.

While state and local governments spend close to $50 billion annually in tax incentives that comprise of, among other things, property tax abatements and job creation tax credits, tribal governments are forced to utilize a smaller set of tax tools, if any. A logical solution, as emphasized in a recent report by the Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee (TTAC), is to acknowledge that tribal sovereignty predates the sovereignty of the United States and allow tribes to be the sole tax authority within their reservations.

While the barriers to fully utilizing subsidized financing and tribal tax incentives are idiosyncratic in nature, they all share a similar theme: each barrier is the consequence of an infringement on the inherent sovereign rights of tribes.  Until we resolve the diminishment of tribal sovereignty, tribal governments will continue to navigate through these structural barriers looking for second-best .  These tribal constraints to public financing instruments —  which are imposed on tribes by the federal government — affect the ability to govern and provide public goods which is widely recognized as a fundamental barrier to development.

Matthew has conducted research on a wide range of topics within tribal economic development and published work on historical development, Indian removal, land rights, and agricultural productivity. Matthew is a member of the Association for Economic Research of Indigenous People.



[i] Private activity bonds (PABs) are tax-exempt bonds issued by state and local governments on behalf of private entities as long as they serve a “qualified project” such as those mentioned in the article (airports, educational facilities and rental housing). Technically, these tax-exempt bonds are sold by state and local governments in the bond market and the proceeds from the sale are used to make low-cost loans to private entities.  Hence, the term “private activity bonds.” Each state can issue PABs up to its volume cap which varies by state and is based on their population.

[ii] To place the size of the TED program’s volume cap in perspective, since the passage of the TED program in 2009, state and local governments have issued a total of $189 billion (in inflation-adjusted, 2009 dollars) in private activity bonds alone.

[iii] The pros and cons of entering into a tribal-state tax compact can be seen in Blackfeet Nation – Montana Tobacco Tax Agreement where taxes are set by the state, rather than the tribe, but remitted back to the tribe.  For a more comprehensive list of the characteristics of many tribal-state tax compacts, see recent research by Mark Cowen at Boise State University.













Author: Matthew Gregg


Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market 2021 Outlook and Development Status 2028

Get Sample Report   Purchase Complete Report Now Global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market research is an intelligence report with meticulous…

Global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market research is an intelligence report with meticulous efforts undertaken to study the right and valuable information. The data which has been looked upon is done considering both, the existing top players and the upcoming competitors. Business strategies of the key players and the new entering market industries are studied in detail. Well explained SWOT analysis, revenue share and contact information are shared in this report analysis. It also provides market information in terms of development and its capacities. 

MR Accuracy Reports crafted the report, titled Global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market 2021 is a methodical research study based on the Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market , analyzing the competitive framework of the industry in the world. Using efficient analytical tools such as SWOT analysis and Porter’s five forces analysis, the report provides a comprehensive assessment of the Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market . Our big research team were able to captured all-important chapters in the final report as they have been striving towards it.

Download Free PDF Sample Report with Complete TOC and Figures & Graphs (with covid 19 Impact Analysis):

According to MRA, the Global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market is estimated to reach xxx million USD in 2021 and projected to grow at the CAGR of xx% during the 2022-2027. The report analyses the global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) market, the market size and growth, as well as the major market participants.

The analysis includes market size, upstream situation, market segmentation, market segmentation, price & cost and industry environment. In addition, the report outlines the factors driving industry growth and the description of market channels.The report begins from overview of industrial chain structure, and describes the upstream. Besides, the report analyses market size and forecast in different geographies, type and end-use segment, in addition, the report introduces market competition overview among the major companies and companies profiles, besides, market price and channel features are covered in the report.

Key Regions

Asia Pacific

North America


South America

Middle East & Africa

Key Companies

Kopafilm Elektrofolien GmbH

SRF Limited

Chemosvit A.S.

Tempo Group

Taghleef Industries

Vibac Group S.p.A.

Treofan Group

Rowad Global Packaging Co. Ltd.

Zubairi Plastic Bags Industry LLC

Poligal S.A.

Futamura Chemical Co., Ltd.

Manucor S.p.A.

Oben Holding Group

Innovia Films

Xpro India Limited

Uflex Ltd.

Jindal Poly Films Ltd.

Biaxplen Ltd.

Cosmos Films Ltd.

Dunmore Corporation

Polyplex Corporation Limited

Vitopel S.A.

Key Product Type

Tenter Method

Bubble Method

Market by Application





Personal Care


Main Aspects covered in the Report

Overview of the Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) market including production, consumption, status & forecast and market growth

2017-2021 historical data and 2022-2027 market forecast

Geographical analysis including major countries

Overview the product type market including development

Overview the end-user market including development

Get Exclusive Discount on this report:

Key questions answered in the report include:

  • What will be the market size and the growth rate by the end of the forecast period?
  • What are the key Global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market trends impacting the growth of the market?
  • What are the potential growth opportunities and threats faced by the leading competitors in the market?
  • What are the key outcomes of Porter’s five forces analysis and the SWOT analysis of the key players functioning in the Global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market?
  • This report gives all the information regarding industry Overview, analysis and revenue of this market.
  • What are the market opportunities and threats faced by the vendors in the Global Bi-axially Oriented Polypropylene (BOPP) Market?

If you have any special requirements, please let us know and we will offer you the report as you want

You can buy the complete report @

About Us:

MR Accuracy Reports’ well-researched inputs that encompass domains ranging from IT to healthcare enable our prized clients to capitalize upon key growth opportunities and shield against credible threats prevalent in the market in the current scenario and those expected in the near future. Our research reports arm our clients with macro-level insights across various key global regions that equip them with a broader perspective to align their strategies to capitalize on lucrative growth opportunities in the market.

Contact Us:
MR Accuracy Reports,
USA: +1 804 500 1224
UK: +44 741841 3666
ASIA: +91 747888728100
Email: [email protected]   

Continue Reading


Why the Fed Will Slow-play Things

Big talk on curbing inflation … what happened the last time the Fed was in this situation … weighing the pros and cons of different approaches


Big talk on curbing inflation … what happened the last time the Fed was in this situation … weighing the pros and cons of different approaches

Before we begin today’s Digest, a quick note…

Our InvestorPlace offices and Customer Service Department will be closed this Monday, 1/17 in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

If you need assistance, we’ll be happy to help when we re-open on Tuesday.

***Yesterday, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard spoke before the Senate Banking Committee

From her testimony:

Inflation is too high, and working people around the country are concerned about how far their paychecks will go.

Our monetary policy is focused on getting inflation back down to 2 per cent while sustaining a recovery that includes everyone.

This is our most important task.

This “most important task” now has many thinking we’ll see three or four rate hikes this year alone.

As regular Digest readers are aware, we’ve watched a massive sector rotation in stocks as a result of this forecast of rising interest rates. Money has fled the rate-sensitive tech sector in favor of value plays.

But even with Brainard’s comments, there can be a stark difference between big-talk projections and what will actually happen.

And if we use past as a guide, the Fed may be more talk than action.

***The last time the Fed attempted to both shrink its balance sheet and hike rates led to huge volatility in the market

Here’s Josh Brown from The Reformed Broker, reminding investors of what happened in this situation back in 2018:

It was a disaster…

Two separate major corrections occurred that year, culminating with a nasty 20% crash into Christmas Eve which finally forced the Fed to say “Okay, just kidding. Not only are we not raising rates anymore, actually, the next few moves will be cuts. Merry Christmas, we’re sorry.”

I’m paraphrasing, but that’s literally what happened.

The Fed had gotten up to 2.5% Fed Funds and both the stock and bond market called “Bullshit!” on them – meaning, the economic growth story was no longer being bought.

By Q3 2019 the yield curve had inverted and in 2020 we were maybe on track for a recession, with or without Covid.

***So, are there similarities between today and 2018?

And speaking of the yield curve, what’s its shape right now, and what is that telling us?

The “Bond King,” Jeffrey Gundlach of Doubleline sounded off on this earlier in the week.

From MarketWatch:

Today [Tuesday] sounds like Jay Powell repeating the 2018 formula: end QE and raise official short-term interest rates,” Gundlach said in a webcast to clients that was live tweeted late Tuesday.

He said that he’s not “predicting a recession yet” but sees those pressures building.

He said the yield curve had seen “pretty powerful flattening” and was “approaching the point where it signals economic weakening.

At this stage, the yield curve is no longer sending a don’t-worry-be-happy signal, says Gundlach. It is instead signaling investors to pay attention, he said.

To make sure we’re all on the same page, a yield curve is a graphical representation of the yields of all currently available bonds – from short-term to long-term

In normal times, the longer you tie up your money in a bond, the higher the yield you would demand for it. So, you’d expect less yield from a two-year bond and more yield from a 10-year bond.

Given this, in healthy market conditions, we usually see a “lower-left” to “upper-right” yield curve.

Chart showing what a normal yield curve looks like

But when economic conditions become murky and investors aren’t sure what’s on the way, this can change. Specifically, uncertain economic times tends to flatten the yield curve.

And if the yield curve actually inverts, history has shown that it serves as a highly-accurate predictor of recessions, though the timing of those recessions is varied.

Charts showing how a normal and an inverted yield curve appears

From Reuters:

Yield curve inversion is a classic signal of a looming recession.

The U.S. curve has inverted before each recession in the past 50 years. It offered a false signal just once in that time.

***So, with 2018 as our guide, the markets will not react well to “too much, too fast,” especially in light of today’s flattening yield curve

With all this in mind, let’s jump back to Josh Brown:

And now, four years later, there are people who want to tell you that the Fed is anxious to repeat this experiment?

Lift-off in rates while simultaneously shrinking its balance sheet and tightening financial conditions, upending stocks and bonds while it seeks to normalize policy.

With Omicron running circles around the CDC and local governments?

Yeah, okay. That’s a dumb f***ing bet. Powell is smart.

If you got spooked by the Fed Minutes (last) week, where one or two members were sort of maybe discussing the possibility of run off, it’s understandable. A lot of very serious, very (self-) important people were doing TV hits actually taking this scenario seriously.


…they’re not looking to go so fast as to repeat the mistakes of 2018.

Why would they? Where is the gun to their heads?

It’s an interesting point.

***From the Fed’s perspective, you generally have two not-great options on the table in front of you

Option A, you repeat 2018’s formula of letting assets run off the balance sheet while hiking rates. Of course, as today’s Digest has highlighted, Powell is very aware of how the market responded the last time he did this.

It wasn’t pretty, and Powell was dragged through the mud in the financial press.

Option B, Powell moves slower. Not so aggressive with the bond portfolio. And perhaps instead of four rates hikes this year, there’s three. Maybe two.

The risk here is that inflation lingers. But who knows? Perhaps that’s offset as supply chains get back to normal. Maybe it ends up being the best of both worlds.

And perhaps moving slower is given cover by underwhelming economic data.

For example, what happens if Omicron or a new variant causes more lockdowns? Or what if it complicates supply chain problems? What if the employment trend worsens? What if trade issues with China flare up?

There are any number of potential variables that Powell could point toward as valid reason to slow things down on tightening.

Now, let’s say he does. Under this Option B, who suffers most of the collateral damage?

Well, primarily lower income and fixed income individuals who are more sensitive to inflation than wealthier Americans who have assets that climb in value alongside with inflation.

Now, I might be cynical, but the following tradeoff has likely crossed Powell’s mind…

In one corner we have the risk of deep-pocketed, powerful investors who are furious over an imploding stock market, calling for Powell’s head because he moved too fast.

In the other corner, there’s the risk of lower-income Americans losing some of their purchasing power to lingering inflation, though Powell can point toward an assortment of reasons why a more cautious approach was warranted.

If I was a betting man, I would wager that if Powell is going to misstep, look for him to favor inflation over heightened market turbulence.

***So, what does this mean, bottom-line?

It clears the path for the market to continue climbing in the coming months.

Yes, expect volatility. There is still uncertainty and the market hates uncertainty.

Plus, we’re just entering earnings season and it’s unclear how beats or misses will impact broad investor sentiment.

But looking further out over 2022, as Wall Street comes to the realization that Powell might not be in quite the hurry that many fear, it could serve as a pressure release, helping support a broad move higher.

In any case, it will be fascinating to watch. We’ll keep you updated here in the Digest.

Have a good evening,

Jeff Remsburg

The post Why the Fed Will Slow-play Things appeared first on InvestorPlace.

Author: Jeff Remsburg

Continue Reading


How Goldman Is Convincing Its Clients Not To Freak Out About Fed Rate Hikes

How Goldman Is Convincing Its Clients Not To Freak Out About Fed Rate Hikes

Rate hikes are now just right around the corner and traders are…

How Goldman Is Convincing Its Clients Not To Freak Out About Fed Rate Hikes

Rate hikes are now just right around the corner and traders are freaking out, but not so fast according to Goldman.

Following the FOMC meeting in mid-December, and especially last week’s FOMC minutes and the subsequent jawboning by various Fed officials,, it has become clear that the Fed will not only double the pace of tapering but also signaled three hikes in 2022. As a result, virtually all sell-side economists – even stern holdouts such as Morgan Stanley and Bank of America – have raised their forecast from three hikes in 2022 to four – with the first hike now expected to occur in March. Their forecast reflects the greater sense of urgency on behalf of FOMC participants towards quelling inflation, which rose to a four-decade high of 7% as measured by the latest year/year CPI. Why this urgency? Because as one can imagine, Biden was very clear in what Powell’s mandate was when he was renominated: “crush inflation as it is crushing my approval ratings”, because as BofA’s Michael Hartnett noted on Friday, “US inflation is up from 1.4% to 7.0%, while Biden’s approval rating is down from 56% to 42% past 12 months.”

But why is the Fed rushing to hike when a growing chorus of economists now agrees with us that the Fed is hiking right into a recession (or alternatively, hiking to create a recession) an observation that was validated by Friday’s dismal retail sales data… and even without validation, the endgame is clear: as David Rosenberg noted recently, every time the US has had 5%+ inflation, it ended in recession.

Well, according to Goldman’s David Kostin, the unprecedented strength of the labor market has made the Fed more sensitive to high inflation and less sensitive to slowing growth. Alongside rising inflation, the Fed has also cited strong employment data as a catalyst for earlier liftoff and balance sheet reduction. The unemployment rate now stands at 3.9%, falling slightly below the FOMC’s 4.0% median estimate of its long-term level (although looking ahead, Kostin notes that surveys of workers and businesses indicate wage growth is expected to slow to about 4% this year).

To be sure, the market already reflects this and real and nominal rates have both jumped in anticipation of the upcoming tightening cycle. Since the December FOMC meeting, the 10-year US Treasury yield has surged by 26 bp to 1.77%. Consistent with historical experience, equities have struggled amid this rapid rise in yields, and the fastest-growing and longest-duration pockets of the market – i.e., the biggest bubbles such as profiless tech names, the ARKK ETFs, SPACs and so on – have de-rated most.

As a quick aside, perhaps the main reason for the equity puke in the past two weeks is not so much the jump in absolute yield in the past month, but the speed of the move. As Goldman showed in a separate report earlier this week (also available to professional subs), regardless of the level of interest rates, equities react poorly to sharp changes in the interest rate environment, and the past week has been no exception: “Historically, equity prices have declined when interest rates rose by two standard deviations or more. This is true for both nominal and real interest rates across both weekly and monthly periods. The two standard deviation threshold was exceeded on both horizons last week, and the accompanying equity weakness followed the usual historical pattern.”

But while that may explain short-term moves, surely higher rates will lead to longer-term weakness no matter what. And while the answer is yes, the next table shows the sensitivity of the S&P 500 forward P/E multiple to various interest rate and ERP scenarios. Goldman’s interest rate strategists forecast a continued rise in real interest rates that will lift the nominal 10-year Treasury yield to 2% by year-end 2022 (more below), however they also expect the ERP to compress modestly from current levels as the pandemic recovery continues and economic policy uncertainty surrounding potential reconciliation legislation passes. In this base case scenario, the S&P 500 P/E multiple would remain roughly flat this year, allowing earnings growth to lift the index price level. But, if the ERP were to rise to its 10-year median and the Treasury yield rises to 2.25%, the P/E multiple would compress by roughly 15% to 17x, and not even Goldman can spin that as positive.

In any case, as Kostin writes in his latest Weekly Kickstart, market pricing and client conversations indicate investors are braced for a string of hikes in 2022, and as a result, questions from Goldman clients during the past two weeks “have focused on the relationship between equities and interest rates, indicating that the hawkish FOMC pivot is being actively assessed by equity investors.” Moreover, the overnight index swap (OIS) market is currently pricing 3.6 rate hikes in 2022 and 2.6 in 2023, just below the 4 and 3 hikes, respectively, that Goldman forecasts (spoiler alert: the total number of rate hikes will be far less once stocks crash).

And this is where Goldman enters the bullish spin cycle, because the bank makes much more money when its clients buy (only to sell in the future), than selling now. So to ease client concerns that the bottom is about to fall off the market, Kostin writes that “historically” (because clearly we have had many “historical examples” when the Fed’s balance sheet was 45% of US GDP), the S&P 500 index has been resilient around the start of Fed hiking cycles, noting that “although the index has returned -6% on average during the three months following the first hike of recent cycles, the weakness has been short-lived as returns average +5% during the six months following the first hike.” Moreover, as Goldman shows in exhibit 3, the S&P 500 P/E is typically flat during the 12 months around the first hike.

Drilling down into segments, Goldman notes that cyclical sectors and Value stocks outperform around the first Fed hike. The reason: the start of Fed hiking cycles (usually) tends to coincide with a strong economy, which can help to lift cyclical sectors (Materials, Industrials, Energy). However, this time around it is starting as the economy is rapidly slowing yet inflation remains stubborn due to supply-chain blockages, and as such anything Goldman suggests you should do, please ignore it.

Which is probably also true for factors. According to Kostin, at the factor level, Value stocks tend to outperform in the months before and after the first hike: “High quality factors (e.g., high margins, strong balance sheets) underperform in the strong economic environment preceding hikes and outperform in the months following the initial rate increase. Growth is the worst performing factor in the 6 months around the first hike.” Here too, we would flip this 180 degrees because the Fed is now hiking to effectively start a recession (or as the US is already en route to one), so what one should be selling is value while buying growth ahead of the next rate cuts/QE which are now just a matter of time.

Next, Kostin brings out the heavy artillery and urges his skittish clients to consider that “surprisingly” equities have historically performed well alongside rising expectations for Fed hikes. Here, the bank examines the six-month periods since 2004 when OIS pricing of the 5-year-ahead fed funds rate increased by 25 bps, excluding episodes when the Fed was cutting rates.

During these episodes, nominal 10Y yields typically rose by 52 bps with roughly even contributions from real yields and breakevens. Despite this, the S&P 500 returned 9% (vs. its unconditional 6-month average of 5%). Higher earnings expectations drove these rallies as increases in fed funds pricing usually coincided with improving expectations for economic growth. However, as we have repeatedly warned and as even Kostin concedes, “the current inflation-led hiking cycle may prove more challenging for equities.” We are not sure this will boost the confidence level of Goldman clients who are on the fence to just BTFD…

After the initial stage, when markets price more eventual rate hikes, cyclical sectors typically outperform while bond proxies lagged according to Goldman. Industrials, Consumer Discretionary, and Materials outperform the S&P 500 on average during these episodes, with financials especially sensitive to the long-term interest rate outlook and also outperforming. Meanwhile, bond proxy sectors such as Utilities and Consumer Staples underperformed sharply.

As noted above, value has typically outperformed alongside rising market expectations for Fed hiking, but only in cases when the the hiking cycle was led by growth expectations, not to crush inflation, so this time one can argue that everything will be flipped. And while traditionally, small-caps also outperformed, as “quality” factors underperformed, the recent weakness in small-caps confirms that this is anything but an ordinary rate hike cycle.

Curiously, even in his bullish pitch to clients, Kostin – perhaps hoping to preserve some credibility- admits that this is not a typical rate hike cycle, and the recent hawkish pivot has been driven not by “improving growth expectations but by inflation risks” yet even so Goldman’s economists expect growth to remain above-trend in 2022 because, of course, what else can they do: start sounding like Zero Hedge and admit that the Fed is hiking into a recession.

And indeed, Kostin admits that “fading expectations for fiscal stimulus and the hit from Omicron have led our economists to downgrade their growth outlook in recent weeks” however – perhaps unwilling to piss off Biden too much – they still forecast 3.4% GDP growth this year, a stepdown from the 5-6% pace in 2021 but still above their 1.75% estimate of trend growth. Translation: the US will be in a recession by the midterms, courtesy of the Fed.

So after all that, if Goldman clients aren’t running for the hills, maybe the will BTFD after all, and for them, Kostin writes that investors “should balance their exposures to Growth and Value” as Goldman’s rates strategists expect yields will continue to rise, a dynamic that should support Value over Growth, unless of course we enter stagflation at which point all is lost (incidentally, as noted last week, Goldman expects nominal 10-year yield to hit 2.0% by year-end 2022 (with real rates rising to -0.70% almost where they are now) and 2.3% by the end of 2023).

From a growth perspective, Goldman economists expect the waning of the Omicron wave to lift GDP growth from 2% in 1Q to 3% in 2Q, supporting Value stocks. But they expect growth will slow to a 2% pace by 4Q 2022, the type of environment that generally supports Growth stocks. Translation: yes, growth stocks are getting crushed now, but as soon as the current whisper of a recession/stagflation becomes a chorus, watch as “growth stocks” (i.e., the bubble/bitcoin baskets) explode higher and surpass their previous all-time highs.

In short, Goldman’s current recommended sector overweights reflect a barbell of Growth and Value:

  • Info Tech remains the bank’s long-standing overweight due to its secular growth and strong profit margins.
  • Financials should benefit from rising interest rates
  • Health Care combines secular growth qualities with a deep relative valuation discount.

Finally, from a thematic perspective, Goldman continues to recommend investors own highly profitable growth stocks relative to growth stocks with low or no profitability. To this, all we can add is that with low growth stocks having been absolutely nuked by now, the highest convexity when the recessionary turn comes, will be precisely in the no profitability growth sector, which will double in no time once the coming recession/easing cycle becomes the dominant narrative.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 01/15/2022 – 19:00

Author: Tyler Durden

Continue Reading