Memo to:Oaktree Clients

From:

Howard Marks

Re:

Latest Thinking

L.
P.

Travel to clients abroad and preoccupation with my coming book on cycles (final draft submitted just theother day) have combined to keep me from writing a memo since September, but fortunately not fromthinking. Thus I have ideas to set down on two significant subjects: the market environment and the new
tax law. Further, I’m highly motivated to do so, since if I skip a few months, people start writing in, “Areyou sick?”

T,

More on the Markets

K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN

As I wrote in September (“Yet Again?”), some readers of my July memo, “There They Go Again . . .
Again,” perceived my stance as ultra-bearish. This was epitomized by the TV commentator who reported,“Howard Marks says it’s time to get out.” As I said in September, there are two things I would never say(since they require far more certainty than I consider attainable): “get out” and “it’s time.” It’s rare forthe market pendulum to reach such an extreme that views can properly be black-or-white. Most markets
are far too uncertain and nuanced to permit such unequivocal, sweeping statements.
In September I observed that the cautionary July memo hadn’t said much with respect to what people
actually should do about the markets, and I tried to remedy that. Now I want to provide a more complete
discussion regarding today’s markets, covering the pros as well as the cons.

O

The U.S. economy is chugging along, and the recovery that started in 2009 has become oneof the longest in history (103 months old at this point). The rest of the world’s economies
are joining in for that rare thing, worldwide growth. Most economies seem to be gaining
rather than losing steam, and they don’t appear likely to run out of it anytime soon.
Since the economic recovery hasn’t been marked by excesses to the upside, when a recession
eventually does occur, it doesn’t have to be extreme. In short, no boom, no bust.
One of the reasons for the sluggish recovery during the Obama administration was the low levelof capital investment (a frequent site of excesses during recoveries). I think that was due tocorporate concern over the president’s seeming indifference to business and his tendency toregulate. No one wants to make long-term investments in an inhospitable environment forbusiness. In contrast, it’s very clear that President Trump is committed to being a probusiness president and a deregulator. This change has led to a rise in optimism, confidence
and “animal spirits” among corporate executives, things that have great potential to be selfreinforcing. Thus, for example, in the first three quarters of 2017, capital spending rose at anannualized rate of 6.2%.
The recent tax law will put money into the pockets of corporations that pay U.S. taxes byreducing their tax rate, and it will result in the repatriation of large amounts of foreign profits that






©

20

18



A

Positives – Whereas in my last two memos I talked primarily about reasons to be cautious, I want to makeit clear here that I do recognize the positives in the current situation. Most of them have to do with
fundamentals – primarily the healthy macro-economic outlook and thus the potential for increasing EPS.

© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:







K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN



T,

L.
P.



U.S. companies have been holding abroad. The results will generally be very positive forcorporate profits, cash flows and perhaps capital investment (see below).
The unemployment rate is down to 4.1%, nearly the lowest level in 60 years, meaning we’renearing “full employment” (albeit with an unusually low percentage of adults participating in theworkforce). With so little employment slack remaining, it seems reasonable to think near-term
GDP growth will translate into wage gains, and thus back into further increases in demand.
Although low, today’s prospective returns are described as being reasonable in the context of low
interest rates.
The low levels of inflation worldwide mean central bankers needn’t rush to raise interest rates torestrain it. There’s no obvious reason to predict hyperinflation.
Thus the near-term rise in interest rates – while probable – can be expected to be gradualand limited in scope.
Except in pockets, investor psychology can’t be described as euphoric and imprudent (although it
has been strengthening of late). For years the markets have been “climbing a wall of worry,”an old-fashioned phrase used to describe a healthy ascent that’s occurring not because of
euphoria and risk-obliviousness, but rather despite a catalog of perceived ills.
The known catalysts for a market downturn – recession, ballooning inflation, much-higher
interest rates, major central bank missteps, a governmental breakdown in Washington, and war –can’t be assigned probabilities that are more than modest.

Negatives – As opposed to the positives listed above, most of the negatives surround either (a) positive
fundamental factors that have the potential to deteriorate or (b) the high prices being paid for thosemacro-positives, and the investor behavior creating those prices.

A

©

20



O



While the outlook isn’t dire, a number of subjects do represent genuine uncertainties and provide
basis for concern: the possibility of slow long-term economic growth, the potential for risinginterest rates and inflation, the impact of reversing stimulative monetary policy and the Fed
switching to being a net seller of securities, the implications for employment as automation
increases, the world’s dependence on China’s growth, and political and geopolitical tail risks. As
the markets have risen, talk of all these things seems to have gone quiet.
We know interest rates are likely to rise (creating competition for most asset classes and arguingfor lower asset prices). We just don’t know by how much.
Some of the elements characterizing the macro-economic environment can be described as “longin the tooth” or “unusually elevated.” For example, the current recovery is one of the longest
ever; the GDP growth rate is at the top of the range for the last decade; and profit margins arewell above average. Things like these can continue or even get better, but the odds are against it.
It feels as if we may get through the next 18 months without a recession, but if we do, that’ll
make this the longest recovery since the 1850s. Certainly not impossible, but against the odds.
Most valuation parameters are either the richest ever (Buffett ratio of stock market
capitalization to GDP, price-to-sales ratio, the VIX, bond yields, private equity transaction
multiples, real estate capitalization ratios) or among the highest in history (p/e ratios, Shiller
cycle-adjusted p/e ratio). In the past, levels like these were followed by downturns. Thus adecision to invest today has to rely on the belief that “it’s different this time.”
Prospective returns in the vast majority of asset classes are some of the lowest in history.
The need of investors to wring out good returns in this “low-return world” is causing themto engage in what I call pro-risk behavior. They’re paying high prices for assets and accepting
risky and poorly structured propositions. In such a climate, it’s hard for “prudent” investors to
insist on traditional levels of safety. Investors who don’t want to sign on for risk (that is, who“refuse to dance”) can be constrained to the sidelines.

18








2
© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:



K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN



L.
P.



As a result, we see a lot of the reaction that greeted my July memo: “the market’s expensive, but I
think it has further to go.” How healthy can it be when investors think an asset or market is rich
but they’re holding anyway because they think it might go up some more? Fear of missing out(or “FOMO”) is one of the more powerful reasons for investor aggressiveness, and also one of themost dangerous.
Market behavior implies a level of equanimity on investors’ part that could prove unrealistic (andthus subject to reversal). For example, 2017 was the first year in history in which the S&P 500
didn’t decline from high to low by more than 3% at least once. Likewise, in a six-month period
late in the year, the VIX (an indicator of the level of volatility implied by investors’ pricing of
S&P 500 options) closed below a reading of ten more than 40 days; never before had it done somore than six times in a six-month period (The New York Times, January 14).
It appears many investment decisions are being made today on the basis of relative return,the unacceptability of the returns on cash and Treasurys, the belief that the overpriced
market may have further to go, and FOMO. That is, they’re not being based on absolute
returns or the fairness of price relative to intrinsic value. Thus, as my colleague Julio Herrera
said the other day, “valuation is a lost art; today it’s all about momentum.”The potential catalysts for decline that we have to worry about most may be the unknown ones.
And although I read recently that bull markets don’t die of old age or collapse of their own
weight, I think sometimes they do (a dollar for anyone who can identify the catalyst for thecollapse of the bull market and tech bubble in 2000 – it’s not easy).

T,The bottom line of the above is that some people are excited about the fundamentals, and others arewary of asset prices. Both positions have merit, but as is often the case, the hard part is figuring out
which one to weight more heavily.

A

As I wrote in September, most people (and certainly the media) want definite answers: in or out? buy or
sell? risk-on or risk-off? But it’s rare for answers that simple to be correct. There’s a wide range ofpossible stances that investors might adopt. At one end of the spectrum there’s maximum aggressiveness(100% invested in high-beta, high-risk assets, or maybe more than 100% through the use of leverage), andat the other there’s maximum defensiveness (100% cash, or perhaps being net short). Most investors arenever either of those.

©

20

18

O

And I certainly wouldn’t be either of them today; I’d be someplace in between. That’s easy to say. But
where? Closer to the bullish end of the spectrum or the bearish end? Or balancing the two equally? Myanswer today, as readers know, is that I would favor the defensive or cautious part of the spectrum.
In my view, the macro uncertainties, high valuations and risky investor behavior rule out aggressivenessand render defensiveness more sensible.
For one thing, I’m convinced the easy money has been made. For example, the S&P 500 has roughly
quadrupled, including income, from its low in 2009. It was certainly easier for the p/e ratio to go from thelow teens in 2011-12 to 25 today than it would be for it to double again from here. Thus the one thing we
can say for sure is that the current prospects for making money in U.S. equities aren’t what they were halfa dozen years ago. And if that’s the case, isn’t it appropriate to take less risk in equities than one took six
years ago?
Prospective returns are well below normal for virtually every asset class. Thus I don’t see a reason
to be aggressive. Some investors may adopt an aggressive stance to be in the riskiest (and thus hopefully
the highest-returning) assets; to squeeze out the last drop of return as the markets continue to rise (under
the assumption they’ll be able to get out at the top, something that’s present in every strongly risingmarket); or to achieve a high return in this low-return world. I don’t view any of those as good ideas.
3© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:

For years my description of the factors characterizing the markets has been essentially unchanged:

a large number of big-picture uncertainties,
sub-par prospective returns,
above average valuations, andpro-risk investor behavior.

For as long as I have been discussing this view, no one has ever taken issue with any of theseobservations. Do you? That’s the key question. And if not, what will you do about it?

L.
P.

You could have made the above four points a year ago, and two years ago, and three years ago, etc.
And in general I did. Thus it was possible to argue for raising some cash at a variety of times over thelast few years. However, going meaningfully to cash would have been a big mistake – certainly based on
how markets performed, but also on the merits – and I think it still would be wrong today.




K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN

T,

When I came up with the mantra that has governed at Oaktree over the last several years – “moveforward, but with caution” – I described my position as follows:
the outlook is not so bad, and prices are not so high, that it’s time for maximum defensiveness(and if you turn to maximum defense today, your return will be near zero, something most people
can’t stomach), but
the outlook is not so good, and prices are not so low, that it’s right to be aggressive. In fact, theonly thing I was sure of was that there was no place for aggressiveness.

O

A

So I didn’t say, “Get out now,” and I still wouldn’t. But I think this continues to be a time to incorporate
a good helping of defensiveness in portfolio management. Being fully invested in a cautious portfolio has
been an appropriate stance over the last few years. It gave Oaktree performance that in general was
respectable or better. Aggressiveness would have produced higher returns, of course, but I don’t
think it could have been justified a priori. (Is an incorrect decision one that didn’t work out well, or
one that was wrong at the time it was made? I insist it’s the latter, as you know.)the economy is strengthening, not slowing, and Washington is supporting its progress,
prices are even higher and valuation metrics have moved up,
and, as I said, the easy money has been made.

©





20

18

And today? What has changed? To the four descriptors of the investment environment listed above, I
would add three more:Thus the current environment is still mixed – better fundamentally and worse price-wise. The
positive near-term economic outlook, lowness of interest rates, need of most investors for returnand moderate psychology all seem to suggest it would be a mistake to get out. On the other hand,the extremely high asset prices, macro-fragility and risky behavior going on all around us argue forconsiderable caution.
At times when the economy does well, risk doesn’t rear its head, risk-takers prosper and the returns on
low-risk alternatives are unattractive, investors tend to drop their prudence and conclude that high prices
aren’t a problem in and of themselves. This usually turns out to be a mistake, but it can take years.
For authority, I’ll cite a passage that seconds that view:4© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:

The market seems extremely comfortable with the proposition that as long as the macroenvironment remains benign, stocks prices can continue to appreciate at rates that far
outstrip the growth of their issuers’ profits, and thus the growth of their intrinsic value.
Few market participants seem concerned about appropriate valuation levels – therelationship between assets and their prices – and this is a condition that we think must
eventually have negative consequences. . . .
Today’s combination of a stable economy, low interest rates, enormous cash flows andstrong investor optimism has created a climate in which capital is available for both goodinvestments and bad, and in which risk is rarely seen as something to be shunned.

L.
P.

I wrote that in 1997, in a clients-only memo entitled “Are You an Investor or a Speculator?” I was
cautionary then, like I am now. And it took almost three years for that to turn out to be correct. That
doesn’t mean it wasn’t correct when it was written . . . just early.

K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN

T,

Today there’s beginning to be talk of a possible late-bull-market melt-up, making investors more money
but perhaps fulfilling the requirements for a full-fledged bubble. (This may be part of the usual pattern ofcapitulation that occurs when those who haven’t fully participated lose the will to keep abstaining after
years of market gains.) The basic themes supporting the “melt-up” theory include (a) the existence of thefundamental positives listed above and (b) the arrival of euphoric psychology, which has been absent todate.
For me the key points regarding the general market outlook are as follows:OThe absence of widespread euphoria certainly is an important flaw in any near-term bearish view.
Thus there’s no reason for confidence in the existence of a soon-to-burst bubble.
Investor psychology continues to grow more confident, however.
Asset prices are already unusually high.
Future events remain unpredictable, but today’s high prices mean the odds are against asignificant long-term upward move from here.
No one can say what’s going to happen in the short term.

A







©

20

18

Asset prices and valuation metrics are certainly worrisome, but psychology and its implications – aswell as timing – are unpredictable. I think that’s about all we can know.
Thus Oaktree will continue to invest on the basis of value and its relationship to price, and torefrain from trying to time markets based on predictions regarding economies, markets or
psychology. The “melt-up” school says securities that already are highly priced may become more
so. We’d never bet on whether they will or won’t.
Our post-2011 mantra remains in force: we’re investing when we find reasonable propositions, albeit withcaution. We’re investing, and with the exception of the distressed debt fund specifically raised to await
an upsurge in opportunities, we aren’t intentionally uninvested. If we find things with decent return
prospects, structure and risk, we don’t pass them by because we think they’ll be cheaper a year from now.
And we’re making our views clear to clients so that, especially in our open-end strategies, they can maketheir own choice between aggressiveness and defensiveness. We would be happy to continue this
discussion with clients off-line.

5© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:

Reactions to the New Tax Law
The Republicans in Congress have passed and the president has signed a bill they hailed as “sweeping tax
reform.” It’s worthy of comment. Everything going on in Washington is more politicized and lessbipartisan than ever, but I’ll attempt here to remain objective and not partisan while making what I think
are the important observations.
First, with respect to the taxation of individuals, it’s not much of a reform. It doesn’t fundamentallychange what income is taxed, how it is taxed, or the structure of the tax process. It reduces or eliminates
some write-offs or loopholes, but not a great many. And I doubt it shortens the tax code.



O

A



It doesn’t make sense to try to artificially prolong an already-long recovery. Economies goup and down, and growth rates rise and fall. Governments (and central banks) should accept thisrather than attempt to bring about rapid growth forever, which increases the risk of overheating.
In the last twenty years we’ve had painful first-hand experience with the results of efforts toprevent the economy from slowing. GDP growth can be enhanced temporarily through a shot of
fiscal adrenaline (like a tax cut), but that can’t raise it permanently.
And doesn’t it seem odd that the government is implementing a stimulative tax cut just as
the Fed is raising interest rates and reversing its purchases of securities? The Fed isconcerned that a continuation and possible strengthening of the recovery will cause inflation toaccelerate; thus it’s acting to “remove the punchbowl.” That makes sense. Why is thegovernment taking fiscal actions in the opposite direction?
The unanimous willingness of former “deficit hawks” to pass a bill that adds more than $1 trillion
to deficits and debt is indicative of what I’ve seen described as “ideological pliability.” Those
who voted for it must have concluded that giving out goodies garners the most votes. Thatbodes ill for fiscal discipline in the future.

K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN



T,

L.
P.

I think what matters most is that it’s primarily a tax cut for the majority of Americans, and tax
cuts are stimulative. As I said before, the current U.S. economic recovery is one of the longest in
history. The economy is doing well; it seems to be gaining strength; and it feels like the recovery can goon longer. With the unemployment rate nearing full employment, GDP growth may well go into a more
dynamic period. So why stimulate?









©

20

18

The centerpiece of the tax law is the reduction of the stated tax rate on corporate profits from 35% to21%. What are its merits?
Our corporate tax rate shouldn’t be higher than the rates in other countries, as it has been to date.
A higher rate gives companies an incentive to increase capacity abroad rather than in the U.S.;
encourages U.S. companies to merge into foreign companies or relocate overseas; and gives
foreign companies superior profitability.
Lower rates will be good for our companies, and now our tax rate on corporate profits is one of
the lowest in the developed world. Those of us who attribute much of the U.S.’s leading positionin the world to capitalism think that’s a good idea. I’m a strong believer that, within limits,“What’s good for General Motors is good for America.”
Because of our previous corporate tax system, U.S. companies have $2.8 trillion of cash fromforeign profits stranded overseas. Now that will be brought back at tax rates as low as 8%.
There’s every reason to believe the rate cut and repatriation will put money in corporate
coffers, enhance credit ratings, fatten dividend payments and finance stock buybacks.
But none of the above was the basis on which the corporate tax cut was sold to the public.
Instead, it was billed as a job-creator. With unemployment already below average, many CEOs
6
© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:tell me they’re hamstrung by a scarcity of qualified workers. So who will fill the new jobs if
corporations expand in the U.S.? And if workers aren’t available, will new plants (and jobs)
really be created?
In the last days of the effort to pass the tax bill, I heard a talk-show guest say corporations andtheir owners would share its benefits with employees and consumers. We’ve seen a number ofcompanies give raises or bonuses following the enactment of the tax law, but I doubt it was doneout of generosity. Corporations may increase compensation if needed to attract, retain andmotivate workers, and they may cut prices for competitive reasons, but the motivation will be to
maximize profits – as always. I doubt the tax law will fundamentally alter their behavior.

So call it a gift to the corporate sector if you want, but I think it’s unlikely to be much of a job-creator or
long-term boon for the American middle class.

T,

L.
P.

There will be pluses from the law, and there will be minuses. For me, the bottom line was captured bestin a January 11 speech by William Dudley, the long-term and highly respected president of the New York
Fed:

K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN

While the recently passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 likely will provide additional
support to growth over the near term, it will come at a cost. After all, there is no suchthing as a free lunch. The legislation will increase the nation’s longer-term fiscal burden,
which is already facing other pressures, such as higher debt service costs and entitlement
spending as the baby-boom generation retires. While this does not seem to be a great
concern to market participants today, the current fiscal path is unsustainable. In the longrun, ignoring the budget math risks driving up longer-term interest rates, crowding out
private sector investment and diminishing the country’s creditworthiness. These
dynamics could counteract any favorable direct effects the tax package might have on
capital spending and potential output.

20

18

O

A

Of all the possibilities, I find myself agreeing with Dudley’s take on the likely consequences. All else
equal, the tax law is likely to result over time in higher deficits, higher national debt, higher
economic growth, higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher federal debt service requirements,
and thus still-higher deficits and debt. These things tend to go together, and together they
constitute the fiscal path Dudley describes as unsustainable. The outlook was troubling before; thetax cuts will make it worse.

©

The reward from the tax law is pretty clear: it’s likely that in the short run the economy will strengthen,corporate profits will increase and take-home pay will rise for most Americans. But the long-term
benefits are less certain, and meaningful hidden risks exist.

*

*

*

Next I want to spend some time on SALT. It wasn’t long ago that most of us thought of this as theacronym for “strategic arms-limitation talks,” but all of a sudden (in just the last few months, as far as Iknow), it has come to stand instead for “state and local taxes.”
People who live in states with low or no income taxes may not have paid particular attention to the
aspects of the new law relating to SALT, but it’s a big topic in New York, where I live, and very much
worth discussing. Up until now, to limit the impact of double taxation, itemizers have been able to deduct
7© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:

all state and local taxes paid from the income that was taxed at the federal level, the principle being thatone should pay federal income tax only on what’s left after state and local taxes have taken their cut(including income, property and sales taxes).
The proposed House bill eliminated this deduction completely, but the final law permitted deductibility
up to $10,000. This avoided harming people with incomes below $100,000 or so, but those who earnmore will feel it directly.
To simplify my calculations, I’m going to ignore tax rates on lower-bracket income, as well as the effectof exclusions and credits, and talk about the impact of this change on the higher earner’s marginal dollar
of income. I’m also going to round the figures and ignore Social Security and Medicare taxes.

L.
P.

T,



Before the new tax law, a top-bracket earner in New York City, for example, took home about$53 from $100 of marginal earnings (after federal income tax at 40% and state/city income taxes
at 12%, less the benefit from recouping 40% of that 12% on the federal return because of its
deductibility).
Under the new law, take-home pay from $100 of incremental earnings will be about $51 (after
federal tax at 37% and state/city tax at 12%).

K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN



Thus take-home pay per incremental dollar of earnings will decline by about 4%. The impact under theHouse bill would have been worse, but it was eased by a reduction from 39.3% to 37.0% of the tax rateapplied to top earners. Still, 4% of take-home pay is a painful loss for most people.
Is the elimination of SALT deductibility unfair? The debate is complex, and like many things it depends
on your point of view.

©

20

18

O



On one hand, some states choose to give their citizens a lot of services (or have populations that
require a lot of services, which has the same effect), and to pay for those services, they impose
high income taxes. Why, some say, should the federal government (and through it, residentsof the low-tax and no-tax states) subsidize the high-tax states by absorbing some of theirresidents’ tax burden?
On the other hand, according to estimates from WalletHub, the residents in fourteen “donor
states” pay more to the federal government than they get back. They generally include states withhigh per capita incomes, such as New York, California, New Jersey and Illinois, and exclude
states with the most people depending on federal largesse for their incomes. Thus high-tax,
high-business states subsidize the rest.

A

One thing is not debatable: high-tax states are hurt in the absolute by this tax law, and hurt very much
relative to low- and no-tax states. Because the deductibility of state and local income taxes is limited to$10,000, the impact will fall primarily on people in states with higher per capita incomes. There’s aparallel treatment of property taxes, with deductibility also capped at $10,000. (The $10,000 is anaggregate limit for any combination of income, property and sales taxes.) And, relatedly, the law lowers
the limit on the size of the mortgage on which interest is deductible. Not surprisingly, high incomes arecorrelated with high property values (and large mortgages), so people in some states are likely to be hit by
all these limitations, and people in other states by none of them.
Is it a coincidence that most of the negative effect falls on states that are primarily Democratic or “blue”?
Did President Trump mind reducing upper-bracket take-home pay in states that gave Hillary Clinton
overwhelming pluralities a year ago? No one can say for sure, but there’s no doubt about where the8© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:impact falls. As conservative economist and CNBC commentator Larry Kudlow put it, “It’s a blue-statetax.”
What are the important conclusions?







©

20

18

O

A



K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN

T,



The reduction in take-home pay increases the penalty for living in high-tax states. (Forexample, in 2015, 34% of California taxpayers itemized deductions, and on average they
deducted $18,500 of state income tax. On average those taxpayers will lose an $8,500 deduction
and thus pay roughly $3,000 more in federal income tax.)
Especially when added to high property taxes, this can give top-bracket earners asignificant incentive to move to no-tax states such as Florida, Texas, Nevada andWashington. As I wrote in “Economic Reality” in May 2016, states can raise their income tax
rates (and the loss of federal deductibility is the equivalent of an increase in tax rates), but they
can’t prevent taxpayers from moving away.
It’s true the top federal income tax rate was reduced in the final law, perhaps halving the pain on
taxpayers in high-tax states. But residents of no-tax states also get the tax rate reduction without
having lost any deductions. I estimate for someone with a given large income, marginal takehome pay will be about 20% higher in a no-tax state than it is in New York, and that’s a lot.
The bottom line is that the incentives for high earners to move in order to avoid SALT,
always substantial, have increased. I expect this to have a strong impact on the economies of
the high-tax states. What CEO will move his company to New York or California in the future?
Won’t future company relocations and formations tend to favor the low-tax and no-tax states?
I know a Republican congressman from New York who voted in favor of the tax bill. How could
he? Won’t his constituents turn against him and vote him out? He may figure that since herepresents a low-income district, his voters won’t be hurt by the loss of SALT deductibility. And
that may be true as far as direct effects go. But the second-order consequences could easily see
employers move away, taking their companies and the jobs of the congressman’s constituentswith them. High-income people may move to chase lower state income tax rates, but folkswith low incomes generally are much less able to do so.
The other day a friend told me the top 1% of New York taxpayers pay 50% of the state income
taxes. If and when their emigration accelerates, states like New York may get into a
negative spiral: a few big earners leave; the state has to raise tax rates to make up for the lost
revenues; that increases the differential and causes more big earners to leave; which requires
further tax-rate hikes, and so forth. High-tax cities and states may be greatly affected. New York
City residents may feel there are attractions that justify the high rates, but neighboring “bedroom
communities” lacking those attractions may be affected even more.

L.
P.



For me the bottom line on the new tax law is as follows:

Our tax system is not fundamentally reformed. Such changes will be feasible only in the unlikely
event that bipartisan cooperation returns to Washington.
The net income of corporations that pay U.S. taxes will be enhanced, but the impact of thecorporate tax reduction on other segments of the economy will be limited.
The outlook is enhanced for no-tax and low-tax states and impaired for high-tax states.
Overall, the tax law is likely a short-term positive and a long-term negative in a variety of ways.

*

*

*

9
© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:

The forthcoming book I mentioned earlier, due out in October, is about cycles. Why do cycles occur?
Why doesn’t the U.S. economy just grow at the average rate of 2-3% every year? And since the average
return on the S&P 500 is in the range of 9-11%, why isn’t the return between 9% and 11% every year
(and, in fact, why does the yearly return fall between 9% and 11% so infrequently)?
The simple explanation is that because of the involvement of people, economies and markets – as well asother cyclical phenomena – tend first to overshoot in one direction (and given how people are wired,usually to the upside) and then they are bound to correct in the opposite direction.
I think that description is highly relevant to the two topics discussed above.

K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN

T,



When markets do too well for a while – that is, when equity returns far exceed the growth rate ofcompanies’ profits, and when bonds return more than their promised yield to maturity – itusually means they’ve become overpriced and will correct sooner or later.
And when an economy expands faster than the potential growth rate determined by its population
growth and increases in productivity – usually because companies or consumers borrow, investor spend to excess – it’s likely to contract eventually. This happens either because the excesses
are unsustainable in and of themselves or because central bankers take steps to cool things off inorder to avert hyperinflation.

L.
P.



That’s the common thread here: markets that may have been doing too well, and an economy that
may be in the process of being overstimulated. Both feel good right now, but each has potential
negative consequences.

*

*

*

©

January 23, 2018

20

18

O

A

I’ve been able to devote four pages to the new tax law primarily because so little has changed in themarkets. Investors are still pursuing high returns in a low-return world. This entails a decline in risk
aversion and produces risky behavior, rising asset prices, diminished prospective returns and increased
risk. It’s impossible to say the negatives will win the tug-of-war anytime soon, but that doesn’tmean caution should be discarded . . . especially now.

10
© 2018 Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

All Rights Reserved
Follow us:Legal Information and Disclosures
This memorandum expresses the views of the author as of the date indicated and such views are subject tochange without notice. Oaktree has no duty or obligation to update the information contained herein.
Further, Oaktree makes no representation, and it should not be assumed, that past investment
performance is an indication of future results. Moreover, wherever there is the potential for profit there
is also the possibility of loss.

K
TR
A E
LL E
R CA
IG P
H IT
TS AL
R M
ES A
ER NA
V GE
ED M
.
EN

T,

L.
P.

This memorandum is being made available for educational purposes only and should not be used for any
other purpose. The information contained herein does not constitute and should not be construed as anoffering of advisory services or an offer to sell or solicitation to buy any securities or related financial
instruments in any jurisdiction. Certain information contained herein concerning economic trends andperformance is based on or derived from information provided by independent third-party sources.
Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. (“Oaktree”) believes that the sources from which such information
has been obtained are reliable; however, it cannot guarantee the accuracy of such information and has
not independently verified the accuracy or completeness of such information or the assumptions on whichsuch information is based.

©

20

18

O

A

This memorandum, including the information contained herein, may not be copied, reproduced,
republished, or posted in whole or in part, in any form without the prior written consent of Oaktree.