When Do Higher Interest Rates Become Harmful To The Stock Market?

On Friday, the jobs report came out and it was a strong report. The consensus was expecting 180,000 new jobs in January and the actual number released on Friday ended up being 200,000. So why did the markets drop? The answer: wage growth. The jobs report not only contains how many new employees were hired but it also includes the amount that wages for the current workforce either increased or decreased on a year over year basis. The report on Friday indicated that wages went up by 2.9% year over year. That is the strongest wage growth number since 2009.

Double Edged Sword

Wage growth is a double edged sword. On the positive side, when wages are going up, people have more money in their paychecks which allows them to spend more and consumer spending makes up 70% of our GDP in the United States. I'm actually surprised the market did not see this coming. The whole premise behind tax reform was "if we give U.S. corporations a tax break, they will use that money to hire more employees and increase wages." The big question people had with the tax reform was "would the trickle down of the dollars saved by the corporations eventually make it to the employees pockets?" Many corporations in January, as a result of tax reform, announced employee bonuses and increases to the minimum wage paid within their organizations. The wage growth number on Friday would seem to imply that this is happening. So again, I'm actually surprised that the market was not ready for this and while the market reacted negatively I see this more as a positive long term trend, instead of a negative one. If instead the U.S. corporations decided not to give the bonuses or increase wages for employees and just use the money from the tax reform savings to increase dividends or share buybacks, then you probably would have seen only a moderate increase in the wage growth number. But that also would imply that there would be no "trickle down" effect to the middle class.

The Downside

This all sounds really positive but what is the downside to wage growth? While wage growth is good for employees, it's bad for corporate earnings. If I was paying Employee A $50,000 in 2017 but now I'm paying them $55,000 per year in 2018, assuming the output of that employee did not change, the expenses to the company just went up by $5,000 per year. Now multiply that over thousands of employees. It's a simple fact that higher expenses without higher output equals lower profits.

Wage Growth = Inflation

There is another downside to wage growth. Wage growth is the single largest contributor to inflation. Inflation is what we use to measure the increase in the price of goods and services in the U.S.. Why are these two measurements so closely related? If your salary just increased by $300 per month, when you go to the grocery store to buy milk, you may not notice that the price of milk went up by $0.15 over last week because you are making more in your paycheck. That is inflation. The price of everything starts going up because, in general, consumers have more take home pay and it gives the sellers of goods and services more pricing power. Visa versa, when the economy is in a recession, people are losing their jobs, and wages are decreasing. If you sell cars and you decided to raise the price of the cars that you sell, that may cause the consumer to not buy from you and look for a lower priced alternative. Companies have less pricing power when the economy is contracting and you typically have "deflation" not inflation.

When Does Inflation Become Harmful?

Some inflation is good. It means the economy is doing well. A rapid increase in inflation is bad because it forces the Fed to use monetary policy to slow down the economy so it does not over heat. The Fed uses the Federal Funds Rate as their primary tool to keep inflation in check. When inflation starts heating up, the Fed will often raise the Fed Funds Rate to increase the cost of lending which in turn reduces the demand for lending. It’s like tapping the brakes in your car to make sure you do not accelerate too quickly and then go flying off the road.

If some inflation is good but too much inflation is bad, the question is at what point do higher interest rates really jeopardize economic growth? The chart below provides us with guidance as to what has happened in the past when interest rates were on the rise.

correlation between interest rates and stocks

The chart compares every 2 year period in the stock market versus the level of the 10-Year Treasury yield between 1963 – 2017. For example, one dot would represent the time period 1963 – 1964. Another dot would represent 1964 – 1965 and so on. If the dot is above the “0.0” line, that means that there was a “positive correlation” between stock prices going up and the interest rate on the 10-Year Treasury yield going up during that same time period. Worded another way, when the dot is above the line that means the stock market was going up while interest rates were also increasing. In general, the dots above the line are good, when they are below the line, that’s bad.

Right now the 10-Year Treasury Bond is at 2.85% which is the red line on the chart. What we can conclude from this is going all the way back to 1963, at this data point, there has never been a two year period where interest rates were rising and stock prices were falling. Could it be different this time? It could, but it’s a low probability if we use historical data as our guide. History would suggest that we do not run into trouble until the yield on the 10-Year Treasury Bond gets above 4%. Once the yield on our 10-Year Treasury Bond reaches that level and interest rates are rising, historically the correlation between rising interest rates and stock prices turns negative. Meaning interest rates are going up but stock prices are going down.

It makes sense. Even though interest rates are moving up right now, they are still at historically low levels. So lending is still “cheap” by historical standards which will continue to fuel growth in the economy.

A Gradual Rise In Interest Rates

Most fixed income managers that we speak with are expecting a gradual rise in interest rates throughout 2018. While we expect interest rates to move higher throughout the year due to an increase in wage growth as a result of a tighter labor market, in our opinion, it’s a stretch to make the case that the yield on the 10-year Treasury will be at 4% by the end of the year.

If the U.S. was the only country in the world, I would feel differently. Our economy is continuing to grow, wages are increasing, the labor markets are tight which requires companies to pay more for good employees, and all of these factors would warrant a dramatic increase in the rate of inflation. But we are not the only country in the world and the interest rate environment in the U.S. is impacted by global rates.

The chart below illustrates the yield on a 10 year government bonds for the U.S., Japan, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, and total “Global Ex-U.S.”.

global interest rates

On December 31, 2017 the yield on a 10-Year Government Bond in the U.S. was 2.71%. The yield on a 10-Year government bond in Germany was only 0.46%. So, if you bought a 10-Year Government Bond from Germany, they are going to hand you back a measly 0.46% in interest each year for the next 10 years.

Why is this important? The argument can be made that while the changes in the Fed Funds Rate may have a meaningful impact on short-term rates, it may have less of an impact on intermediate to longer term interest rates. When the U.S. government needs more money to spend they conduct “treasury auctions”. The government announces that on a specified date that they are going to be selling “30 million worth of 10-year treasury bonds at a 2.8% rate”. As long as there is enough demand to sell all of the bonds at the 2.8% rate, the auction is a success. If there is not enough demand, then they may have to increase the interest rate from 2.8% to 3% to sell all $30 million worth of the bonds. While the U.S. 10-Year Treasury Bond only had a yield of 2.71%, it’s a lot higher than the other trusted government lenders around the world. As you can see in the chart above, the average 10-year government bond yield excluding the U.S. is 1.03%. This keeps the demand for U.S. debt high without the need to dramatically increase the interest rate on new government debt issuance to attract buyers of the debt.

As for the trend in global interest rates, you will see in the chart that from September 30, 2017 to December 31, 2017, global 10-year government bond yields ex-U.S. decreased from 1.05% to 1.03%. While we are in the monetary tightening cycle in the U.S., there is still monetary easing happening around the world as a whole which should prevent our 10-year treasury yields from spiking over the next 12 months.

Impact on Investment Portfolios

The media will continue to pounce on this story about “the risk of rising interest rates and inflation” throughout 2018 but it’s important to keep it in context. If tax reform works the way that it’s supposed to, wage growth should continue but we may not see the positive impact of increased consumer spending due to the wage growth until corporate earnings are released for the first and second quarter of 2018. We just have to wait to see how the strength of consumer spending nets out against the pressure on corporate earnings from higher wages.

However, investors should be looking at the fixed income portion of their portfolio to make sure there is the right mix of bonds if inflation is expected to rise throughout the year. Bond duration and credit quality will play an important role in your fixed income portfolio in 2018.

About Michael.........

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.

How Much Will The Value Of Your House Drop Under The New Tax Law?

It's not a secret to anyone at this point that the new tax bill is going to inflict some pain on the U.S. housing market in 2018. The questions that most homeowners and real estate investors are asking is: "How much are home prices likely to decrease within the next year due to the tax changes?" The new $10,000 limitation on SALT deductions, the lower deduction cap mortgages interest, and the higher standard deduction are all lining up to take a bite out of real estate prices. The size of the bite will largely depend on where you live and the value of your house.

3 Bites That Will Hurt

The Trump tax reform made three significant changes to the tax laws that will impact housing prices:

• Capped state and local tax ("SALT") deductions at $10,000 (includes property taxes)

• Lowered the deduction cap on the first $750,000 of a mortgage

• Doubled the standard deduction

The New Standard Deduction

There is a reason why I'm starting this analysis with the doubling of the standard deduction in 2018. For many households in the U.S., the doubling of the standard deduction will make the cap on the SALT deductions irrelevant. Let me explain. Below is a comparison of the standard deduction limits in 2017 versus 2018:

new standard deduction

In 2018, a married couple filing a joint tax return would need over $24,000 in itemized deductions to justify not taking the standard deduction and calling it a day. For a married couple, both W-2 employees, $7,000 in property taxes, $9,000 in state income taxes, if those are their only itemized deductions, then it will most likely makes sense for them to take the $24,000 standard deduction. So the $10,000 cap on property taxes and state income taxes becomes irrelevant because it’s an itemized deduction. This will be a big change for many U.S. households. In 2017, that same family may have itemized because their property and state taxes exceeded the $12,700 standard deduction threshold.

For taxpayers age 65 and older, the new tax law kept the additional standard deduction amounts: $1,250 for single filers and $2,500 for married filing joint which are over and above the normal limits.

$10,000 Cap On State & Local Taxes

Starting in 2018, taxpayers are limited to a $10,000 deduction for a combination of their property taxes, school taxes, and state & local income tax. For states that have both high property taxes and high income taxes like New York, New Jersey, and California, homeowners will most likely be looking at a larger decrease in the value of their homes versus states like Florida that have lower property taxes and no state income taxes. The houses with the higher dollar value may experience a larger drop in price.

If you live in a $200,000 house, the property / school taxes are $5,000, and you decided to sell your house, the family looking to buy your house may already be planning on taking the $24,000 standard deduction at that income level, so the new tax cap would not really decrease the “value” of the house to the potential buyer.

On the flip side, if you own a $600,000 house, your property/school taxes are $18,000, and you are looking to sell your house, the new $10,000 cap will most likely have a negative impact on the value of your house.  As you might assume, the individuals and families with the higher incomes that could afford to purchase a $600,000 house will naturally be the homeowners that will continue to itemize their deduction in 2018. So owning that $600K house in 2018 comes at an additional annual cost to the buyer because they lose $8,000 in property tax deductions. For individuals and families in the top federal tax bracket (37%), the cost to live in that house just went up by $3,120 per year. I have personally already had two clients call me that just purchased a house in 2017 with property taxes above the $10,000 cap and they said “I might not have purchased this big of a house if I knew I was not going to be able to deduct all of the property taxes”.

$750,000 Deduction Cap On Mortgages

Prior to 2018, taxpayers could only deduct interest on the first $1,000,000 of a mortgage. For all new mortgages, beginning in 2018, the cap was reduced from $1,000,000 to $750,000. The new tax law grandfathered the $1M cap for mortgages that were already in existence prior to December 31, 2017. Obviously this change will only impact very high income earning individuals and families living in houses valued at $1M+ but it still may have a negative impact on the prices of those big houses. I say "may" because if you can afford a $3M condo in Manhattan, you may not care that you lost a $7,500 tax deduction.

It Depends Where You Live

Given these changes to tax law, it seems likely that the states with higher property taxes and higher home values will be the most vulnerable to price adjustments. Below is a map, from Zillow and Credit Suisse, showing the median home price by state:

median home price

Let's also locate the states that have a high concentration of mortgages over $500,000. As mentioned above, this may put price pressure on homeowners trying to sell houses above the new $750,000 mortgage interest deduction threshold:

states with high mortgages

And the "Non-Winners" are New York, California, and New Jersey. Moody's published a list of the 25 counties that are expect to lose the largest percentage of value. Note, that only six of those counties are located outside of New York or New Jersey:

tax reform impact on housing prices

To bring it all together, Moody's and FHFA published the illustration below showing the percentage change in the Federal Housing Finance Agency – House Price Index as a result of the new tax bill:

house price decline

It's safe to assume that geographically, the negative impact that the new tax rules will have on the U.S. house market will occur in concentrated pockets as opposed to a widespread reduction in housing prices across the country.

Do Not Move To Alaska Just Yet!!

Before you show the chart above to your family at dinner tonight with a “Go Alaska” hat on, I urge you to read on. (Disclosure, I have nothing against Alaska. I was born in Fairbanks, Alaska) If you live in one of the “red spots” on the heat map above or in one of the counties in the list of “where home prices could stall after tax reform”, the charts above do not necessarily mean that at the end of 2018 your house is going to be worth 5% less than it was at the beginning of 2018. Moody’s has done the comparison of the tax bill passing versus no tax bill. If prior to the tax bill being passed it was estimated in 2018 that homes in your area were going to increase in value by 5% and the heat map above shows a 4% drop as a result of tax reform, then that means instead the value of your home growing by 5% it may only grow by 1%.

As with any forecast, it’s anyone’s guess at this point how the math will actually work itself out but in general I think it will be more positive than the consensus expects.

House Values Under $250,000 – Status Quo

Given the changes to the tax law, if you live in a house that is valued under $250,000, regardless of where you live, the downward pressure on the price of your house as a result of tax reform should be minimal. Why? Most buyers in this range will most likely be electing the standard deduction anyways so the new $10,000 cap on SALT deductions should have little to no impact. This should even be true for states that have high property taxes because the homeowners would need over $24,000 in itemized deductions before the $10,000 cap would potentially hurt them tax wise.

The Sandwich: House Values $250,000 - $750,000

The homeowners at the highest risk of a reduction in the value of their house are located in what I call “The Sandwich”. They have a house that is valued somewhere between $250,000 – $750,000 and they live in a high property tax state. While Congress touts that the doubling of the standard deduction is a “fix all” for all of the tax deductions that have been taken away, it’s unfortunately not. There are a number of individuals and families that are in the income range customarily associated with buying a $250K – $750K house that may actually pay more in taxes under the new rules.

Taxpayers in this group are also moving from their “starter house” in their first “big house”. Unlike the super wealthy that may care less about paying an extra $5,000 in taxes per year, for an upper middle class family that has kids, that is saving for college, and contributing to 401(k) plans, the loss of that tax benefit may mean they can’t take a family vacation if they buy that bigger house. Less buyers in the market for houses in this “Sandwich” range translates to lower prices.

How much lower? Probably nothing dramatic in the short term because the U.S. economy is doing so well. When the economy is growing, people feel secure in their jobs, wages are going up, workers are getting bonuses, and that provides them with the additional income needed to make that larger mortgage payment and pay a little more in taxes.

My concern would be for someone that is planning to purchase a house and then sell within the next 5 years. If the economy goes into a recession, people start losing their jobs, and the U.S. consumer starts look for more ways to stretch their dollars, the homeowners that stretched themselves to buy the bigger house based on the big bonus that they received when the economy was humming are at a big risk of losing their house. In addition, there may be fewer buyers in the market because families may not want to waste money on property taxes that they can’t deduct.

The Millionaire Club: House Values $750,000+

It would seem that houses in the $750,000+ range have the most lose to for two reasons. First, homeowners in this category pay the highest property taxes and they are typically not electing the standard deduction at this income level. Second, home buyers at this price point would also be negatively impacted by the lower $750,000 cap on the mortgage interest deduction.

But I doubt this will be the case. Why? There is only so much lake front property. If you make over $5M per year and you fall in love with a lake house in upstate New York that has a $1.5M price tag, while you could try to find a similar lake house in a more tax friendly state, if you make $5M per year, what’s another $15,000 in expenses for buy your first choice.

About Michael.........

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.