Friday, August 3, 2018

Fed seen keeping interest rates on hold Wednesday, but there's a hot debate about where it will end


The Fed is expected to hold interest rates steady Wednesday, but this week's meeting could be livelier than it seems because of the hot debate within the Fed about when it will reach the natural end point of its rate hiking cycle.

That discussion is likely to be a focus at the Fed's meeting and could come to light in the release of meeting minutes later in August. Some Fed watchers say the Fed is nearing a point where it may suggest it's getting close to neutral for fed funds, or the level where interest rates neither speed up nor slow down the economy.

Many Fed watchers do not expect the Fed to acknowledge any changes publicly Wednesday, but it is definitely expected to be part of the closed door discussion.

"We have virtually a 95 percent chance we have a rate hike in September, and the Fed will signal that and be very clear they have a tailwind in growth and a warming trend in inflation. They're where they want to be," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Grant Thornton. She said Fed officials are unlikely to reveal anything new on when they could see an end to their rate hiking policy, and one wild card they have to consider is whether trade conflicts will ultimately hurt the economy.

"It certainly is a possibility that there is not complete consensus on what is the tipping point between the accommodation and tightening policy. There are many members including [New York Fed President] John Williams who believe that when they hit the fourth hike this year, they'll be moving into neutral territory," she said.

The Fed said in the minutes from its June meeting that it could reach neutral "sometime next year." The Fed also said in those minutes that it could ultimately alter the language in its statement that says "the stance of monetary policy remains accommodative."

"If they did that, that [now it] would be a market mover. The curve would probably steepen on that, and the stock market would go up a lot," said Jim Caron, fixed income portfolio manager at Morgan Stanley Investment Management. Caron said such a move would be construed as dovish, and he doesn't see the Fed moving away from that language for now.

He expects the neutral rate to be reached when the Fed rate hikes reach the 3 percent level next year, after another four hikes. It is now holding fed funds futures between 1.75 and 2.00 percent,

The Fed's discussions Tuesday and Wednesday also come against a backdrop of debate in the markets, where there continues to be disagreement over how many more rate hikes the Fed will be able to carry through.

Some economists doubt the Fed will be able to hike the two more times it has forecast for this year because of the flattening of the yield curve, or the narrowing of the gap between short term Treasury yields and longer term yields, a potential sign of economic trouble.

"I think the debate is out there which is why removing 'accommodative' wouldn't be that crazy," said Tom Simons, money market economist at Jefferies. Simons said the Fed actually could suggest it's moving closer to the end of its rate hike cycle Wednesday, not by removing the language about being accommodative, but by adding the words "for now."

Mark Cabana, head of U.S. short rate strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch said he does not expect the Fed to change the language until it hikes rates again in September at the soonest. He said another topic up for discussion this week but not likely to be mentioned in the statement is what the Fed intends to do with its balance sheet, which it has gradually been shrinking.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell mentioned the balance sheet during recent congressional testimony. "Powell's language around that suggests it's being teed up for discussion here," Cabana said. "He said they're going to be returning to their monetary policy framework discussion in a serious way in the relatively near future."

Cabana said the Fed could mention the balance sheet in its minutes, to be released Aug. 22, and that could also be a focus at its annual Jackson Hole, Wyo. symposium on Aug. 23. The Fed is intentionally shrinking its balance sheet, inflated by quantitative easing bond purchases, by allowing maturing securities to roll off its balance sheet without replacing them.

"The subject of that symposium is changing market structure and implications for monetary policy," Cabana said. He said the Fed could send a message to markets from its Jackson Hole meeting.

"Powell's talking about the framework...that leads me to believe they're going to be shifting focus on this, especially since they raised rates they only increased the interest rate on reserves by 20 basis points, instead to 25 basis points," he said.

Thursday, August 2, 2018

Better Buy: Johnson & Johnson vs. Pfizer

Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and Pfizer (NYSE:PFE) rank as the biggest of big pharma companies in the United States. Both companies trace their roots back to the 19th century. Both generate enormous amounts of cash flow and pay solid dividends.

Over the past 12 months, Pfizer has been the clear winner between these two blue-chip pharma stocks. But which is the better pick for investors now? Here's how J&J and Pfizer compare.

Man facing wall with arrows pointing left and right

Image source: Getty Images.

The case for Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson's solid Q2 performance highlights several reasons to like the stock. First, the company is diversified into several areas of healthcare. J&J isn't just a big pharma company. It also ranks as a leader in consumer healthcare and medical devices. These two segments combined generate more revenue for J&J than its pharmaceuticals business does.�

Another thing Johnson & Johnson's second-quarter results show is the company's ability to make acquisitions that move the needle. For example, last year's acquisition of Swiss drugmaker Actelion contributed an additional $665 million in revenue in Q2 that J&J wouldn't have had otherwise.

But Johnson & Johnson also claims several blockbuster drugs that continue to enjoy strong momentum. Immunology drugs Stelara and Simponi are big winners for the company and are more than offsetting�declines for Remicade, which faces competition from biosimilars. J&J's Invega neuroscience franchise is also performing well.�The company is exceptionally strong in oncology, with soaring sales for Darzalex, Imbruvica, and Zytiga.�

What about Johnson & Johnson's pipeline? The company claims more than 40 late-stage programs. J&J awaits European approval of Erleada, a promising prostate cancer drug that won FDA approval earlier this year. It expects to submit several more oncology drugs for approval over the next three years, including niraparib�for treating prostate cancer and CAR-T therapy JNJ-4528 for treating multiple myeloma.

J&J's dividend is another big plus for the stock. Its yield currently stands at 2.86%. The company has increased its quarterly dividend for 56 consecutive years.

The case for Pfizer

Pfizer isn't as diversified as J&J and could become even less so as it contemplates the possibility of spinning off its consumer health business. However, there's a lot to like about Pfizer's core pharmaceuticals business.

The drugmaker claims three tremendously successful drugs that should continue to generate growth well into the future. Market research firm EvaluatePharma thinks that Eliquis, which Pfizer co-markets with Bristol-Myers Squibb, will be the No. 5 best-selling drug in the world within a few years. Breast cancer drug Ibrance and immunology drug Xeljanz also enjoy strong sales momentum.

We could soon add more drugs to this list. Pfizer and partner Merck�won FDA approval for Steglatro, Steglujan, and Segluromet in treating type 2 diabetes in December 2017. These drugs could together be another blockbuster franchise for Pfizer.

Pfizer's pipeline also includes over 30 programs in late-stage development or awaiting approval. Three oncology drugs that look especially promising are�dacomitinib, lorlatinib, and talazoparib. Pfizer also hopes to step up its rare-disease game, with tafamidis meglumine awaiting FDA approval as a treatment for transthyretin familial amyloid polyneuropathy and sickle cell disease candidate rivipansel in phase 3 testing.�

You won't find many big pharma dividends better than Pfizer's. Its dividend currently yields 3.66%. Over the past five years, Pfizer has increased its dividend by nearly 42% -- higher than J&J's dividend increases of 36% during the period.

Better buy

Both Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer face some challenges. Without its acquisitions and help from currency fluctuations, J&J's revenue growth has been modest. Pfizer continues to be held back by declining sales for drugs that have lost exclusivity and continued product shortages with its sterile injectables business.

However, I like both of these stocks despite the headwinds they face. Over the long run, my view is that both J&J and Pfizer will deliver solid total returns to investors.

Which is the better pick right now? I think the nod goes to Pfizer -- mainly because of the company's higher dividend yield. My hunch is that both companies will generate earnings growth at similar levels over the next few years. But Pfizer's better dividend should allow the stock to produce greater total returns than J&J will.

It's a close call, though. I don't think long-term investors can go wrong with buying either of these stocks.