It's Time … For a Fed Pivot

The Federal Reserve has 12 districts around the country, but only one mission: to keep investors guessing. It's that time of the cycle to switch from pause mode to cutting mode, with consensus gelling around a 25 basis points cut at the September Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting in mid-September, while there are adherents to the 50 basis points view. Much of our ink has been spilled on the history of Fed cycles and their impact on markets; but until this report, we've focused on the hiking and pause segments of historical cycles. Now it's time for us to ease into the next phase.

As we get into this topic, a shoutout is warranted to our great friends at Ned Davis Research for their enviable historical database on the subject; as is often the case, making our job in this case just a little easier (and more robust). An important starting point in assessing rate cuts' impact on stocks necessitates the distinction between "fast" and "slow" cutting cycles. Fast easing cycles were ones during which the Fed cut rates at least five times per year, while slow easing cycles had less than five cuts. "Non-cycles" were cases of only one rate cut, not followed by more.

Slow vs. fast

The chart below covers the post-WWII period of Fed cutting cycles; dividing them into fast, slow and non-cycles. It covers the one-year period leading into the initial rate cut in each cycle, as well as the one- and two-years following the initial cut. As shown—and as further detailed in the imbedded table—there has been a distinct difference in the path of the stock market (via the S&P 500) in the aftermath of different types of cutting cycles. Slow cutting cycles have been much more rewarding for equities (especially within the first year after the initial rate cut) than either fast or non-cycles. This should be intuitive: if the Fed is cutting aggressively, it's likely because they're combatting a recession or financial crisis (or the combination thereof). It's why our mantra of late has been "be careful what you wish for" if you're hoping for an aggressive (fast-moving) Fed this time.

Go lower slower

1954-8/30/2024. The chart and table shows S&P 500 Index performance around the start of Fed easing cycles. Y-axis is indexed to 100 at start of first rate cut. An index number is a figure reflecting price or quantity compared with a base value. The base value always has an index number of 100. The index number is then expressed as 100 times the ratio to the base value. A fast cycle (orange line) is one in which the Fed cuts rates at least five times a year. A slow cycle (blue line) has less than five cuts within a year while a non-cycle (green line) is case with just one cut. Black line represents all first cuts. Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur management fees, costs and expenses and cannot be invested in directly. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

We put some individual and finer points on this analysis in the table below, which is color-coded in keeping with the NDR chart above. We homed in on the differential in maximum drawdowns for the S&P 500 depending on the type of cutting cycle. As shown at the bottom of the table, within the first six months following the initial rate cut, the average maximum drawdown was about twice as large during fast cycles relative to slow cycles. The spread was even wider within the first year following the initial rate cut; with the average maximum drawdown 2.8 times larger in fast cycles relative to slow cycles.

Cyclicals vs. defensives

Sector trends are also of note in terms of the history of fast vs. slow cutting cycles. As shown below, slow cutting cycles have been to the decided benefit of cyclical sectors (Energy, Materials, Industrials, Consumer Discretionary, Financials, Technology and Communication Services) relative to defensive sectors (Consumer Staples, Health Care, Utilities and Telecom Services). [As an aside, there is no longer a Telecom Services sector within the S&P 500. S&P did their GICS restructuring in 2018, during which many Telecom Services stocks were merged into the then-new Communication Services sector. NDR's historical analysis is apples-to-apples, hence the inclusion of Telecom Services.]

Cyclicals like it slow

The chart and embedded tables show broad cyclical relative to defensive sector performance around the start of Fed easing cycles. Y-axis is indexed to 100 at start of first rate cut. An index number is a figure reflecting price or quantity compared with a base value. The base value always has an index number of 100. The index number is then expressed as 100 times the ratio to the base value. A fast easing cycle (orange line) is one in which the Fed cuts rates at least five times a year. A slow easing cycle (black line) has less than five cuts within a year. Blue line represents all first cuts. Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur management fees, costs and expenses and cannot be invested in directly. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Sector leadership is about more than just the speed of the rate cutting cycle; but also about trends in longer-term Treasury yields. Traditional dividend-oriented sectors, like Utilities and Consumer Staples, are generally inversely correlated with Treasury yields—helping to explain those sectors' underperformance when the 10-year Treasury yield surged from 3.9% in January, to 4.7% in April, but also their stronger performance so far in the third quarter, given the roundtrip in yields since the April peak. In fact, the strongest breadth improvement since the overall market pullback into early August has been among the most interest-sensitive sectors: REITs, Utilities and Financials all have at least 90% of their stocks trading above their 50-day and 200-day moving averages. For the latest on our Sector Views, see Monthly Stock Sector Outlook (2024) | Charles Schwab.

Labor now winning the mandate duel

Fed Chair Powell's speech at the annual Jackson Hole summit underscored a shift in emphasis from inflation to the labor market. It's not as if inflation no longer matters, but members of the Fed have recognized that disinflationary pressures are still quite strong, combined with the fact that the labor picture has continued to soften. As such, risk management has changed in the eyes of the Fed.

As shown in the chart below, it's quite common to see the year-over-year trend in both the headline and core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Indexes ease into the first cut of the cycle. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the recession cases (shown via the blue and red lines), inflation tended to fall rather sharply after the Fed started cutting. Absent a recession (shown via the green and yellow lines), inflation tended to continue to ease and then reaccelerated a touch nearly six months after the start of the cutting cycle.

As is the case with rate cuts, inflation's decline is also a case of "be careful what you wish for." While the large increase in price levels over the past few years has been difficult for consumers, wishing for a swift decline in inflation or price levels would likely be consistent with a recession (and more significant weakness in the labor market).

Recessions are an inflation killer

Y-axis is indexed to 100 at start of first rate cut. An index number is a figure reflecting price or quantity compared with a base value. The base value always has an index number of 100. The index number is then expressed as 100 times the ratio to the base value.

Shifting focus to the Fed's labor market mandate, there is a clear difference in payrolls' trends when it comes to recessionary vs. non-recessionary cutting cycles. As shown in the chart below, in cycles when a recession followed within a year after the first rate cut, payrolls tended to peak (on average) a handful of months before the first cut—then declined further throughout the following year. In non-recessionary cycles, payrolls tended to keep rising.

Payrolls' short "head up"

Y-axis is indexed to 100 at start of first rate cut. An index number is a figure reflecting price or quantity compared with a base value. The base value always has an index number of 100. The index number is then expressed as 100 times the ratio to the base value.

Applying those trends to the current cycle, the upside is that in this cycle the economy has added jobs for 43 consecutive months. The downside is that the slowing trend has been, to use Chair Powell's own word, unmistakable. That warrants—with each jobs report moving forward—a continued, close look at some of the cracks that have been widening under the surface.

What say you, small caps?

Wrapping this report up on one more market point, we'll highlight a great study NDR did when it comes to large- vs. small-cap performance after the start of a cutting cycle. As shown in the chart below, when a recession followed in the year after the first cut, small caps (proxied by the Russell 2000) outperformed large caps (proxied by the Russell 1000) significantly over the following year. Perhaps against conventional wisdom, non-recessionary cutting cycles were not consistent with strong relative performance for small caps. On average, the Russell 2000 went on to underperform the Russell 1000 in the year following the first rate cut. That might seem odd, but small caps tend to outperform as the economy is rebounding aggressively after a recession has ended—a dynamic that doesn't exist in a soft-landing scenario.

Soft landings not small-cap friendly

Y-axis is indexed to 100 at start of first rate cut. An index number is a figure reflecting price or quantity compared with a base value. The base value always has an index number of 100. The index number is then expressed as 100 times the ratio to the base value. Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur management fees, costs and expenses and cannot be invested in directly. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

That is among the reasons we believe that if investors are inclined to move down the cap spectrum, it should be done with a focus on quality. Over the past year, the profitable members in the Russell 2000 are (on average) outperforming the non-profitable members by a significant degree. We don't think that's a coincidence, given the slow rebound in small-cap earnings expectations and continued softening in the broader economy.

In sum

The Fed has been transparent in its telegraphing of the start of rate cuts at this month's FOMC meeting. The beneficial impact of rate cuts tends to be both amplified and nearer-term when the cutting cycle is not accompanied by a recession; with slow cutting cycles more rewarding to equities than fast cutting cycles. It's been said that the Fed often takes the escalator up (when hiking rates) and the elevator down (when cutting rates). Clearly, this cycle was turned on its head during the Fed's hiking campaign, when they decidedly took the elevator up. Equity investors should hope the Fed is eyeing the escalator on the way down.

About the Authors

Liz Ann Sonders, Managing Director, Chief Investment Strategist

Liz Ann Sonders has a range of investment strategy responsibilities, from market and economic analysis to investor education, all focused on the individual investor.

A keynote speaker at numerous company and industry conferences, Liz Ann is regularly quoted in financial publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Barron's, and the Financial Times, and she appears as a regular guest on CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, CBS News, Yahoo! Finance, and Fox Business News programs. Liz Ann has been named "Best Market Strategist" by Kiplinger's Personal Finance and one of SmartMoney magazine's "Power 30." Barron's has named her to its "100 Most Influential Women in Finance" every year since the list's inception, and Investment Advisor has included her on the "IA 25," its list of the 25 most important people in and around the financial advisory profession. Liz Ann has also been named to Forbes' 50 Over 50.

In 1999, Liz Ann joined U.S. Trust—which was acquired by Schwab in 2000—as a managing director and member of its Investment Policy Committee. Previously, Liz Ann was a managing director and senior portfolio manager at Avatar Associates, an original division of the Zweig/Avatar Group. She holds an MBA in Finance from the Gabelli School of Business at Fordham University and a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the University of Delaware.

Kevin Gordon, Director, Senior Investment Strategist

Kevin Gordon serves as the research associate for Schwab's Chief Investment Strategist Liz Ann Sonders. In addition to providing analysis on the U.S. economy and stock market for Schwab's clients, he helps develop deep-dive projects as well as content for Schwab's public website, internal business partners, and social media outlets. Kevin is a frequent guest on CNBC, Yahoo! Finance, Bloomberg TV, and CBS News, and has been quoted in The New York Times, Forbes, MarketWatch, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg.

Prior to joining Schwab in 2019, Kevin gained experience in asset allocation research at an investment advisory firm, and worked for a U.S. senator in Washington, D.C. He graduated magna cum laude from Pepperdine University, where he co-managed a student-run investment fund and co-authored academic publications on politics and the economy. Kevin is currently an MBA candidate at New York University's Stern School of Business. He holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from Pepperdine University.

Kevin is a member of the President’s Advisory Council for Almost Home Kids affiliated with Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago.

The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered an individualized recommendation or personalized investment advice. The investment strategies mentioned here may not be suitable for everyone. Each investor needs to review an investment strategy for his or her own particular situation before making any investment decision.

All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions. Data contained herein from third-party providers is obtained from what are considered reliable sources. However, its accuracy, completeness or reliability cannot be guaranteed. Examples provided are for illustrative purposes only and not intended to be reflective of results you can expect to achieve.

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

Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Fixed income securities are subject to increased loss of principal during periods of rising interest rates. Fixed income investments are subject to various other risks including changes in credit quality, market valuations, liquidity, prepayments, early redemption, corporate events, tax ramifications, and other factors.

Schwab does not recommend the use of technical analysis as a sole means of investment research.

The policy analysis provided by the Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., does not constitute and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any political party.

Performance may be affected by risks associated with non-diversification, including investments in specific countries or sectors. Additional risks may also include, but are not limited to, investments in foreign securities, especially emerging markets, real estate investment trusts (REITs), fixed income, municipal securities including state specific municipal securities, small capitalization securities and commodities. Each individual investor should consider these risks carefully before investing in a particular security or strategy.

All corporate names and market data shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not a recommendation, offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Supporting documentation for any claims or statistical information is available upon request.

Diversification strategies do not ensure a profit and do not protect against losses in declining markets.

Commodity-related products carry a high level of risk and are not suitable for all investors. Commodity-related products may be extremely volatile, may be illiquid, and can be significantly affected by underlying commodity prices, world events, import controls, worldwide competition, government regulations, and economic conditions.

Small-cap stocks are subject to greater volatility than those in other asset categories.

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)- Risks of the REITs are similar to those associated with direct ownership of real estate, such as changes in real estate values and property taxes, interest rates, cash flow of underlying real estate assets, supply and demand, and the management skill and creditworthiness of the issuer. Investing in REITs may pose additional risks such as real estate industry risk, interest rate risk, risks related to the uncertainty of and compliance with certain tax regime rules, and liquidity risk.

The information and content provided herein is general in nature and is for informational purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as a specific recommendation, individualized tax, legal, or investment advice. Tax laws are subject to change, either prospectively or retroactively. Where specific advice is necessary or appropriate, individuals should contact their own professional tax and investment advisors or other professionals (CPA, Financial Planner, Investment Manager) to help answer questions about specific situations or needs prior to taking any action based upon this information.

Source: Bloomberg Index Services Limited. BLOOMBERG^® is a trademark and service mark of Bloomberg Finance L.P. and its affiliates (collectively "Bloomberg"). Bloomberg or Bloomberg's licensors own all proprietary rights in the Bloomberg Indices. Neither Bloomberg nor Bloomberg's licensors approves or endorses this material or guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information herein, or makes any warranty, express or implied, as to the results to be obtained therefrom and, to the maximum extent allowed by law, neither shall have any liability or responsibility for injury or damages arising in connection therewith.

Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur management fees, costs, and expenses, and cannot be invested in directly. For additional information, please see schwab.com/indexdefinitions.

0924-PCWA

A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: To learn more about this and other topics, check out some of our videos.