Ugens vigtigste analyser fra finanshusene

Økonomisk Ugebrev bringer løbende uddrag fra en lang række danske og udenlandske finanshuses analyser af de finansielle markeder, makroøkonomi og temanalyser.

På denne side giver vi et kort resume af de vigtigste analyser fra den forgangne uge. Økonomisk Ugebrevs analysearkiv, som kan findes her, giver direkte adgang til analyser og opdateringer fra ca. 50 danske og udenlandske finanshuse, opdelt på en stribe forskellige kategorier, bl.a. makro, fixed income, kort rente og status fra centralbankerne, FX, temaanalyser og direkte adgang til originalkilde for en stribe centrale økonomiske nøgletal. De løbende analyser bringes på ugebrev.dk.

Hvordan vil markederne reagere på en effektiv vaccine? (Morgan Stanley). “For markets, a vaccine may be the most significant sign the world may return to a more normal future. But what are markets pricing in currently? We could see results from those phase three trials, potentially, in the second half of November. At the risk of stating the obvious, this is a really big deal.

A vaccine is so important because the other option to potentially stop the virus, so-called herd immunity, is riddled with problems. For markets, a vaccine is therefore our single best marker for getting back to a more normalized future; and that really matters. There are lots of market relationships that are effectively an expression of how normal, or abnormal, investors expect the future to be.

And most notably, despite the recent progress in a vaccine, there are plenty of expectations that abnormality will continue.” Link til analyse.

Hvem skal betale Bidens klimaplan? CO2 afgifter? (Goldman). “In a note from Goldman’s Jan Hatzius titled “Mitigating Climate Change via Taxes and Subsidies”, the bank’s chief economist writes that “the European Union, China, and the Biden campaign have recently announced ambitious targets for net carbon neutrality around the middle of the century.”

However, as the targets have grown more ambitious, Hatzius notes that it has become less clear how to achieve them, in other words: “who will pay?” To that point, Hatzius writes that “many commentators believe that a high carbon tax—the favorite climate change policy tool of many economists—would be too regressive in its distributional impact, while a low carbon tax would have little impact on emissions.”

Here the Goldman strategist disagrees, arguing that “this view is too pessimistic” and speaking the two words that will melt Democrat hearts, Hatzius says that the massive wealth redistribution resulting from the “clean energy revolution”, will actually be “highly progressive.” He explains: first, carbon taxes do not have to be regressive.  Although low and middle income households spend a relatively larger share of their income on energy, the carbon intensity of the overall consumption basket does not vary much across the income distribution. 

And if revenues are rebated to households through lump-sum transfers, carbon taxes can actually be highly progressive.” Link til analyse.

VP Debate = Slight Net-Positive to Reps… (Saxo Bank). “VP Debate – Overall Conclusion:

*That was an actual debate. Who would have thought!

* Both VPs are way more presidential than their bosses.

*Both sides had good & generally well-articulated points, yet also generally did a good enough job of rebutting or diluting the jabs of one another – there were no killing blows landed.

*Was surprised at how much Pence dominated the discussion, talking over his allocated times for the vast majority of the debate, interrupting Harris, ignoring the moderator, etc…

*If you watch the entire debate this is a clear negative, yet you have to take a step back & think most people are not going to watch the entire debate, so there is a greater chance of folks catching Pence having more air-time being assertive, than Harris, who was also strong & assertive.” Link til analyse.

How to end the pandemic this year. (ING). “While the world waits a COVID-19 vaccine, a government-led industrial and coordination strategy to achieve universal testing could bring the crisis to an end in a matter of months, writes Mariana Mazzucato, Reda Cherif and Fuad Hasanov.

Tests could be made available free of charge at local pharmacies Implementing universal testing will require contributions from a sprawling network of actors and institutions. To be truly effective, any such program must be designed to generate systemic resilience and public value.

As has been demonstrated by the Nobel laureate economist Paul Romer, the epidemiologist Michael Mina, a recent IMF working paper, and many others, a properly designed universal testing program could bring the pandemic to an end within just a few months.” Link til analyse.

MWL