Our last note on the upcoming German election cautioned that the margin of error was very small and the outcome could deliver a surprise jolt to markets. Since then, although polling has become more stable, the uncertainty has continued to persist. This note identifies that the most likely policy ramification in any outcome is higher public spending and details the investment implications of such an outcome.
‘Ampel’ Coalition the Current Favorite
Based on our current view of polls, the ‘Ampel’ (Traffic Light) coalition looks the most promising (Figure 1). The Christian Democratic Union/the Christian Social Union alliance (CDU/CSU) has failed to recover in opinion polls, even though there are sufficient number of undecided voters who could potentially turn it around on election night. Assuming that the recovery of CDU/CSU fails to materialize, any coalition between the CDU/CSU and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) would mean the former would be a junior partner.
Figure 1: Coalition Options, Odds and Key Characteristics
Since the founding of post-war Germany in 1949, the CDU/CSU has never taken a junior role in the federal government. And since German reunification, the junior party has lost an average of 4.2% in the subsequent election. For these reasons, we believe the CDU/CSU would reject any junior coalition role and take on the mantle of the opposition. By definition, this would eliminate the ‘Kenya’, ‘Deutschland’ and ‘Grand Coalition’ options.
But even the ‘Jamaica’ option would be hard to construct, given that the three parties would struggle to legitimize a government without the largest party (and the ostensible election winner) in parliament. The ‘Left Bloc’ option may also garner sufficient votes, but we remain skeptical that the SPD and the Greens would really have the appetite to break the precedent of not including the Left in federal governments. This leaves the ‘Ampel’ coalition as the most probable outcome.
Policy Shifts That Could Be Expected
An ‘Ampel’ coalition would take time to assemble as there are considerable policy gaps between the three parties and especially between the center-right Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the other two. Thus, a government formation could take several months and many policy areas could be condemned to status quo. However, the one glaring area of consensus is the need to raise public investment.
The Greens advocate raising public spending by €50 bn annually, whereas the FDP suggests targeting a level of public investment at 25% of GDP, which is roughly similar in terms of new spending required. Both parties agree on retooling Germany’s energy production, improving infrastructure as well as investing in digitalization. Germany lags in public investment compared to its peers and has only just begun to catch up. Consequently, a significant increase in German public investment is likely in the coming years (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Germany Lags Peers in Net Fixed Capital Formation
The other area of agreement is in climate policy. While the FDP would favor more market-based solutions, the Greens and the SPD would prefer to use government spending, guarantees or tax incentives to accelerate the transition. The result will likely be additional fiscal support beyond the explicit boost to public investment. While the de jure constitutional debt brake will remain in place, we do not expect it to constrain the widening of the net fiscal stance by at least 1% of GDP annually for the duration of the next government1.
This softer fiscal policy will have potent signaling power for the rest of the eurozone. Germany’s ability to rapidly balance its fiscal account after the 2009 crisis was one reason for the imposition of austerity across the eurozone. That policy mistake led to a deeper contraction, a slower recovery and an increased reliance on unconventional monetary policy across Europe until the COVID-19 pandemic.
The simple point here is that Germany’s easing fiscal policy may mean other eurozone members will follow suit. In addition, there are institutional angles as well.
First, the eurozone’s fiscal rules are due to be reformed in 2022, so some softening of the rules is to be expected under an ‘Ampel’ coalition. Second, such a German government is likely to support the institutionalization of the European Union (EU) recovery fund. While this was originally a crisis-fighting tool, it could morph into giving EU bodies more fiscal control, function as a high-grade borrower and facilitate fiscal transfers in the monetary union. Third, an SPD-led coalition is more receptive to progress on the banking union, which should strengthen the banking sector in economically weaker countries.
For all of these reasons, it is reasonable to expect a structurally wider fiscal stance across Europe, with many of the peripheral countries standing to benefit directly from more domestic spending as well as indirectly through stronger German import demand and lower risk premia.
More public spending will require larger public borrowing, which should apply to the EU as well as other countries in Europe. Consequently, the supply of high-grade sovereign bonds (both German bunds and EU bonds) is likely to increase significantly at a time when the European Central Bank should be stabilizing and gradually reducing its asset purchases. The combination should work to lift long-term yields across the euro area.
The availability of more safe assets and slightly higher yields should also make life a bit easier for European investors, who could be disincentivized to seek substitutes outside Europe. This means, there would be fewer capital outflows from the eurozone, possibly augmented by official reserve holders adding to their euro exposure.
This is all a net positive for the trade-weighted euro’s exchange rate. Sovereign spreads across Europe should remain range-bound in such a scenario, aided by the slight pickup in growth prospects. The latter is probably too little to factor meaningfully into equity prices. But the presence of the FDP in the German government should remove worries about future tax increases on German corporates, so there is little room for downside policy risks either.
A surprise comeback for the CDU/CSU and an alternative government coalition would diminish the effects described here but would probably not change the direction of travel. In contrast, a ‘Left Bloc’ coalition would amplify the effects, but German equities could be penalized given increased tax and regulatory costs.
1A 2009 constitutional amendment designates that the German government’s structural deficit be limited to 0.35% during times of economic expansion.
The whole or any part of this work may not be reproduced, copied or transmitted or any of its contents disclosed to third parties without State Street Global Advisors’ express written consent.
The views expressed in this material are the views of Elliot Hentov through 09/22/2021 and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This document contains certain statements that may be deemed forward looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
The information provided does not constitute investment advice and it should not be relied on as such. It should not be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell a security. It does not take into account any investor's particular investment objectives, strategies, tax status or investment horizon. You should consult your tax and financial advisor.
All information is from State Street Global Advisors unless otherwise noted and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Investing involves risk including the risk of loss of principal.
The trademarks and service marks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners. Third party data providers make no warranties or representations of any kind relating to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the data and have no liability for damages of any kind relating to the use of such data.
For EMEA Distribution: The information contained in this communication is not a research recommendation or ‘investment research’ and is classified as a ‘Marketing Communication’ in accordance with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (2014/65/EU) or applicable Swiss regulation. This means that this marketing communication (a) has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research (b) is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of investment research.
Equity securities may fluctuate in value in response to the activities of individual companies and general market and economic conditions.
Investing in foreign domiciled securities may involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuation in currency values, withholding taxes, from differences in generally accepted accounting principles or from economic or political instability in other nations. Investments in emerging or developing markets may be more volatile and less liquid than investing in developed markets and may involve exposure to economic structures that are generally less diverse and mature and to political systems which have less stability than those of more developed countries.
Bonds generally present less short-term risk and volatility than stocks, but contain interest rate risk (as interest rates raise, bond prices usually fall); issuer default risk; issuer credit risk; liquidity risk; and inflation risk. These effects are usually pronounced for longer-term securities. Any fixed income security sold or redeemed prior to maturity may be subject to a substantial gain or loss.
International government bonds and corporate bonds generally have more moderate short-term price fluctuations than stocks, but provide lower potential long-term returns.
This information is for informational purposes only, not to be construed as investment advice or a recommendation or offer to buy or sell any security. Investors should always obtain and read an up-to-date investment services description or prospectus before deciding whether to appoint an investment manager or to invest in a fund. Any views expressed herein are those of the author(s), are based on available information, and are subject to change without notice. Individual portfolio management teams may hold different views and may make different investment decisions for different clients. There are no guarantees regarding the achievement of investment objectives, target returns, portfolio construction, allocations or measurements such as alpha, tracking error, stock weightings and other information ratios. The views and strategies described may not be suitable for all investors. SSGA does not provide tax or legal advice. Prospective investors should consult with a tax or legal advisor before making any investment decision. Investing entails risks and there can be no assurance that SSGA will achieve profits or avoid incurring losses.
Performance quoted represents past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value will fluctuate, so you may have a gain or loss when shares are sold. Current performance may be higher or lower than that quoted.