Whatever the Alaska game was, the odds didn’t move

To get John Authers' newsletter delivered directly to your inbox, sign up here. Half-Baked Alaska — after the summit, peace in Ukraine still
View in browser
Bloomberg

To get John Authers' newsletter delivered directly to your inbox, sign up here.

Today's Points:

Half-Baked Alaska

What games are Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump playing? The cliché that one of them (presumably Putin) is playing chess while the other plays checkers doesn't quite work. Trump seems to be playing some game based on a coin flip as the summit saw him A) insist that a ceasefire in Ukraine must come first (while threatening consequences if not), B) fail to get it, and C) decide that he agreed with Putin all along. Either he is simplistic and agrees with whoever spoke to him most recently. Or he is playing a sophisticated version of poker to keep counterparts on edge.

Either way, Europeans in general and Ukraine in particular don't like it; there should be more clarity after they converge Monday in the White House. And markets still seem able to deal with the uncertainty without difficulty.

As the talks made no great breakthrough, and neither combatant seems disposed to desist, the odds are that the war grinds on. This is how Polymarket bettors view it: 

Andrew Bishop of Signum Advisors puts the odds at 25% that Ukraine accepts a territory swap, and 40% that Russia would follow through on accepting it: 

Ukraine may have a hard time trusting the promise of Western security guarantees — thereby reducing their value in the grand bargain. Even with the US having (long) abandoned its pre-requirement for a ceasefire ahead of any peace talks, sequencing will likely continue to be an impediment to progress.

Ukraine would need a Russian goodwill gesture first, while Russia would likely do this only once it had Ukrainian approval in principle for ceding territory. Macquarie's Viktor Shvets, who is Ukrainian, argues that the summit avoided the worst possible outcome of total US disengagement. Beyond that:

What Russia wants Ukraine cannot accept, and what Ukraine wants Russia cannot willingly concede. Only if one or both parties collapse could there be a chance for ceasefires, followed by a precarious peace.

Shvets argues that progress needs "a unified US-EU axis and sanctions that
entangle India and China." As it stands, he sees continued instability: "Watch volatility of gold, energy and sanctioned assets as indicators of any major breakthroughs."

For the euro, the initial buildup and invasion caused a swoon as the price of natural gas went through the roof. Since the war settled into a stalemate, and Europeans dealt with the gas problem, the market has been able to live with it:

Its clearest impact is on defense spending. Since 2000, arms makers have tended to outperform as the "peace dividend" of the 1990s proved less durable than hoped. They rallied further after Russia seized Crimea in 2014. Post-pandemic, Germany's determination since March to rearm has restored the sector to its highs:

If continuing stalemate continues to be the base case after the leaders meet in the Oval Office, European demand for arms will only increase. Away from the bloodshed in Ukraine, everything else will stay as it was. 

Emerging Carry Gains

Carry traders have put last fall's bruising losses behind them and are jumping back in. The struggling dollar has had its worst first-half performance in over 50 years. That means gains in emerging markets, where carry traders are swooping in to cash in on the arbitrage. That is clearest in the traditional carry trade, which borrows in yen and parks in the higher-interest-rate economies of Latin America, led by Brazil and Mexico:

Optimism for rate cuts, which seemed a done deal before Thursday's producer price data suddenly reintroduced doubts, continues to fuel the trade. 

Investors poured about $1.7 billion into global funds dedicated to developing world debt in the week ended Aug. 6, Bank of America said, citing EPFR data. 

The Institute of International Finance shows that inflows into EM portfolios accelerated in July, climbing to $55.5 billion from $42.8 billion in June. Bloomberg's carry trade index — tracking returns from long positions in eight emerging market currencies financed by short positions in the dollar — has climbed 11% so far this year: 

Gavekal Research's Udith Sikand argues that this winning streak could continue, and investors playing the trade won't get carried out just yet. The factors boosting EM's appeal, according to IIF's Jonathan Fortun, include resilient macro fundamentals, elevated real yields, and a benign global rates backdrop — which the drama over the Federal Reserve could make even gentler. This has extended a Goldilocks moment for EM. How long it lasts will depend on the Fed:

A weaker US growth outlook is ultimately negative for EM, as it can weigh on exports, corporate earnings, and investor sentiment. The key question is how EMs will weather such a slowdown, and this time the challenge is greater given the policy shock from tariffs, the reconfiguration of global supply chains, and the latent geopolitical risk that continues to hang over markets. 

Fortun suggests that current risk appetite rests on the belief that an easing Fed will partially offset softer global demand. That would keep flows alive even as the US economy slows later this year. The potential of tariffs to refuel an inflationary rebound in the US is the greatest risk to this scenario.

Still, Sikand observes that despite the tariff uncertainty, exchange rate volatility — the biggest enemy of carry traders — has been relatively subdued. Apart from a brief surge in early April, the fall in emerging currencies has been consistent, as this chart shows:

How does that translate into support for the EM carry trade? Sikand explains that this decline in volatility partly reflects the palliative effect that dollar weakness has had on emerging-market financial conditions:

Perhaps surprisingly, the effect has proved durable; the reduction in emerging-market currency volatility has persisted even as interest rate differentials have narrowed as central banks in India, Mexico, Turkey, and others have cut while the Federal Reserve has remained on hold.


After last summer's implosion, it's legitimate to question the latest momentum. But Oxford Economics' Ryan Field argues the risk of another unwind is contained as cross-border leverage in the global financial system appears lower than in recent years. The policy landscape remains fluid. US trade policy, adjustments in key EMs, and constantly shifting geopolitical risks could all disrupt this. For now, expectations of continuing strong flows into the EM carry trade make sense; but as we learned last year, they remain vulnerable to any change in the global macro narrative.

Richard Abbey

Political Bias Is for Everyone

Political bias in economic perceptions and data tops the agenda, now that the administration believes that the problem is so serious as to require replacing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics with an ideological firebrand who has proposed suspending monthly employment numbers. It's undeniable that rising polarization and politicization affects the economy. And there's a growing problem with the accuracy of economic data. It's not clear that it works the way the administration believes. 

Among consumers, the University of Michigan's sentiment survey has charted  widening partisanship. This is clearest when they're asked about current conditions, an objective question where policy opinions should have no impact. Yet Republicans think things suddenly improved when Trump arrived, while Democrats believe they collapsed. Neither lines up with the evidence, and are more about perception than reality:

Independents are the "tell" that should worry the administration. They've tracked between the partisans for much of the last decade. Now, they're in line with Democrats, believe conditions worsened this year, and likely expect damage from tariffs.

One-year inflation predictions were absurdly partisan earlier this year, with Republicans expecting it to disappear altogether, and Democrats braced for a return to double-digits. The current gap is more plausible, but still suggests a big chunk of the population is convinced that tariffs will raise inflation. If they bring purchases forward because of this, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy:

Partisan flames are understandable in the population. What's perhaps more surprising is that there is also Partisan Bias in Professional Macroeconomic Forecasts, to borrow the title of a study by Benjamin Kay of the Fed, Aeimit Lakdawala of Wake Forest University, and Jane Ryngaert of the University of Notre Dame. Academics as a whole skew to the left politically, but very few US economics professors oppose capitalism or free markets. Their key finding:

When Republicans control the White House, Republican-affiliated forecasters predict significantly higher GDP growth than their Democratic colleagues, roughly 10% to 15% of average GDP growth. But when Democrats are in power, both groups make similar predictions. 

Why is this? According to Lakdawala, GDP data is harder to forecast than the other variables, and this uncertainty leads forecasters to place more weight on their pre-existing political beliefs when forming GDP projections. Republicans generally cut taxes, and conservative economists believe accurately that tax cuts increase economic growth — but they also tend to get too enthused. It's just possible that the impact of the corporate tax cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act have held growth projections too high. And all of us must somehow try to control our priors in an exceptionally polarized environment. 

Survival Tips

The latest US culture war kerfuffle involves ads for American Eagle jeans by Sydney Sweeney. Voices on the left suggest this was eugenic (the tag line is "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans"), the right piled on to that, and it's rather overdone. The tagline is a play on Sweeney's most famous assets, which she's joked about before, notably with the Rolling Stones and on Saturday Night Live. And using beautiful people to advertise jeans has a long and wonderful history. 

Witness the latest Beyonce ad for Levi's, a remake of a British Levi's ad featuring the late singer and actor Nick Kamen from 1985. Neither Kamen nor Beyonce look much like Sweeney. Beyond Marvin Gaye and Sam Cooke, that era's Levi's great ads revived the Clash, the Steve Miller Band, Shaggy, and T-Rex, while launching brief careers for Babylon Zoo and Stiltskin. Rather than fight a culture war, best to recognize that beautiful people always help sell jeans. Have a great week everyone.

More From Bloomberg Opinion

  • Marc Champion: Trump and Putin's Alaska Theatrics Imperil Ukraine — and Europe
  • James Stavridis: Ten Ways to Force Putin Back to the Bargaining Table
  • Adrian Wooldridge: What Harvard Can Learn from the University of Florida

Want more Bloomberg Opinion? OPIN. Or you can subscribe to our daily newsletter.

Like Bloomberg's Points of Return? Subscribe for unlimited access to trusted, data-based journalism in 120 countries around the world and gain expert analysis from exclusive daily newsletters like Markets Daily or Odd Lots.

Like getting this newsletter? Subscribe to Bloomberg.com for unlimited access to trusted, data-driven journalism and subscriber-only insights.

Want to sponsor this newsletter? Get in touch here.

You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Points of Return newsletter. If a friend forwarded you this message, sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Unsubscribe
Bloomberg.com
Contact Us
Bloomberg L.P.
731 Lexington Avenue,
New York, NY 10022
Ads Powered By Liveintent Ad Choices

No comments

Powered by Blogger.