Economy

Executive Summary Onshore Equity Market Outflow Pressures Remain, At Least In The Near Term China’s foreign exchange (FX) reserves fell in the first three months of 2022. The reduction was the largest quarterly fall since 2016, but it is minor in absolute terms given China’s massive FX reserves.  However, the underlying drivers of the decline in the FX reserves are cause for concern. The current drawdown in FX reserves reflects losses in China’s official FX asset portfolio and increased capital outflows, which differs from in 2H20 when Chinese banks increased their FX purchases to slow the pace of the RMB appreciation. Onshore equity market net outflows will likely continue in the near term. Even though Beijing has stepped up stimulus measures, private sector sentiment and domestic demand remain subdued. The country’s zero-tolerance COVID policy will also continue to weigh down the effectiveness of the stimulus. Pressure on the bond market’s outflow will be sustained in the next 6 to 12 months as policy cycles between the US and China continue to diverge. The RMB will modestly devalue relative to the USD in the next few month. In the longer term, the RMB should be underpinned by fundamentals such as a current account surplus, positive real interest rates and a valuation cushion. Bottom Line: The drop in the first quarter FX reserves reflects losses in China’s official FX asset portfolio and increased capital outflows. Feature Chart 1The Quarterly Drop In China's FX Reserves This Year Was Largest Since 2016 Newly released data shows that China’s FX reserves dropped by US$25.8 billion to US$3.188 trillion in March. This represented a US$62 billion decrease from December 2021 and it was the largest quarterly drop since 2016 (Chart 1). The RMB also weakened slightly in March from February. The reduction in China’s FX reserves in Q1 is due to several factors, including fluctuations in the dollar versus other major currencies and the drop in market prices of foreign asset holdings. The country’s current account surplus also narrowed in the first three months of the year compared with Q4 last year. Notably, foreign holdings of Chinese local currency bonds posted a record decline in Q1 and onshore equity market outflows also accelerated. The illicit movement of capital via import over-invoicing has also picked up. We expect that the bond market outflow pressure will continue for the year and perhaps beyond as economic, inflation and monetary policy cycles in China and the US continue to diverge. Equity outflow pressures will also be sustained, at least through the next few months, while China’s COVID-induced lockdown measures in major cities significantly weaken the economic outlook. Furthermore, the country’s zero-tolerance toward COVID will continue restraining mobility in 2H22. Anticipated lockdowns will severely disrupt the local economy and weigh down the effectiveness of Chinese stimulus, which policymakers had pledged to boost. As such, we maintain our neutral position on Chinese onshore stocks and an underweight stance on Chinese investable stocks in a global portfolio. A Drawdown In FX Reserves Chart 2The Size Of Capital Outflows In Q1 Is Comparable To That In 2H20 Capital outflows intensified in Q1, with the magnitude similar to 2H20 (Chart 2). However, the underlying drivers of the depletion have changed. In 2H20, China’s state-owned banks strategically accumulated FX assets to slow the pace of a rising RMB, whereas the Q1 loss this year was mainly driven by fluctuations in global financial markets and weak domestic economic fundamentals. The reduction in China’s official FX reserves in the past three months was partly due to a stronger dollar versus other major currencies and price declines in China’s holdings of foreign currency assets. China's official FX reserves are marked-to-market and converted into US dollars.  The value of China’s official reserves has been significantly impacted by two factors: the dollar’s increase of more than 4% in trade-weighted terms since its trough in May last year and the simultaneous decline in prices of both global stocks and bonds in Q1 2022 (Chart 3). In addition, China’s trade surplus narrowed in the first two months of the year from Q4 2021 and has likely dipped further in March (data has not yet been released) (Chart 4).  Slower growth in China’s exports, coupled with rising global commodity prices that boosted China’s commodity import costs, has probably contributed to a smaller current account surplus, which was insufficient to offset the increased capital outflows. Chart 3The Dollar Exchange Rate And The Value Of China's Official FX Reserves Chart 4China's Trade Surplus Narrowed In Q1 This Year Meanwhile, the acceleration in capital outflows does not seem to be driven by an increase in China’s domestic banks and companies’ foreign currency holdings. It does not appear that banks have been buying foreign currencies to slow down the pace of the RMB appreciation against other currencies. As noted in a previous report since 2018 net FX purchases by China’s banks have been more tightly correlated with the spread between the CNY/USD exchange rate and the CFETS index (Chart 5, top panel). When the RMB falls relative to the USD, but not by enough to slow its increase against other trading partners, China’s banks would ramp up their FX purchases to push down the CNY/USD exchange rate and/or raise the value of other currencies in the CFETS basket (Chart 5, bottom panel). This occurred in 2H20 but does not seem to be the case this year. Chart 5No Sign Of Chinese Banks' Ramping Up FX Purchases This Year Chart 6FX Settlement Has Been Net Positive... Chinese companies have not increased their demands for USD either. Chart 6 shows a positive net FX settlement rate by banks on behalf of clients. This means more non-financial enterprises (such as exporters and investors) sold their foreign exchange holdings to banks than bought foreign exchange from banks.  Moreover, Chart 7 highlights that the level of Chinese firms’ short-term foreign obligations (outstanding foreign currency loans, trade credit and liquid deposits) has remained steady. This implies that domestic firms have not been rushing to buy FX to pay back their dollar-denominated debts. Chart 7…And Chinese Firms Are Not Rushing To Pay Off External Debt Bottom Line: Q1’s capital outflows were not driven by Chinese banks’ strategic accumulation of FX reserves to slow the pace of the RMB’s appreciation, nor by the demand for USD by Chinese companies. Accelerated Portfolio Outflows China's recent capital drain may be grouped into two categories: reduced foreign portfolio inflows (and accelerated outflows) and the illicit seepage of capital. China’s bond market contributed largely to the acceleration in Q1’s portfolio outflows. Foreign holding of Chinese bonds posted a record depletion of US$30 billion in February and March this year and the trend likely continued through April (Chart 8). As the Fed enters its hiking cycle following the March lift-off, the US-China nominal interest rate has narrowed meaningfully (Chart 9). Despite a widening inflation gap between the US and China, China’s bond market has become less attractive to global investors compared with last year (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 8A Record Bond Market Outflow In Q1 This Year Chart 9Rate Differentials Between China and The US Have Narrowed Substantially, In Both Nominal And Real Terms   Outflows from onshore equity market also accelerated in Q1, in part because of China’s disappointing domestic economic data, rising geopolitical tensions and risk-off sentiment among global investors. Losses of Northbound net flows reached US$7.6 billion in March, comparable to the amount in early 2020 when China was hit hard by the pandemic (Chart 10). Importantly, while service trade deficits from outbound tourism continued to narrow due to international travel restrictions, our estimate of the illicit capital seepage through import over-invoicing has gathered speed since 2H21 (Chart 11).  The sharp rise in our illicit capital outflow indicator suggests that the private sector and Chinese residents may be moving capitals offshore. Chart 10Chinese Onshore Equity Market Also Saw Substantial Investment Outflows In Q1 Chart 11Illicit Capital Outflows Picked Up   Bottom Line: The drain of capital escalated in Q1 through accelerated foreign portfolio outflows and perhaps illicit capital streaming out of the country. Investment Conclusions Chart 12Onshore Equity Market Outflow Pressures Remain, At Least In The Near Term Equity market net outflows will likely continue, at least for the next couple months while China struggles to contain the ongoing COVID flareups in major cities. We maintain our recommended neutral allocation to Chinese onshore stocks and an underweight stance on Chinese offshore stocks in a global equity portfolio (Chart 12). While China’s stimulus should be able to stabilize the economy over a cyclical time horizon (the next 6 to 12 months), the nation’s zero-tolerance COVID position poses significant downside risks to the effectiveness of policy easing. It will be harder for China to contain infections as the virus mutates and variants become more contagious. There may be more frequent and larger-scale lockdowns affecting the economy than there have been in the past two years. Meanwhile, outflow pressures on China’s bond market may carry on through the next 6 to 12 months while the economic, inflation and monetary policy cycles in the US and China continue to diverge. Although the RMB has not moved into outright expensive territory, reduced foreign portfolio flows into RMB assets and a smaller current account surplus will pose near-term downward stress on the RMB against the USD. A depreciation in the RMB would be a boon to China’s domestic economy since it will help the export sector pricing power. Beyond the near term and in the next 12 to 18 months, however, fundamentals, such as China’s current account surplus, positive real interest rates and a valuation cushion, will underpin strength in the RMB (Chart 13A & 13B). Chart 13AOnshore Equity Market Outflow Pressures Remain, At Least In The Near Term Chart 13B...But Is Cheap Based On Relative Prices   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Special Report

Executive Summary Spreads Near 2017-19 Average The main indicators that determine corporate bond performance are valuation, the cyclical/monetary environment and corporate balance sheet health. US corporate bond valuation is quite expensive. Spreads are off their post-COVID lows, but consistent with the 2017-19 average. The flat 2-year/10-year Treasury curve indicates that the cyclical/monetary backdrop is relatively poor. What’s more, the yield curve could easily invert within the next few months as the Fed tightens. This would send an even more negative signal for corporate bond returns.  Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but their health will deteriorate within the next 12 months as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. Relative valuation favors high-yield over investment grade corporates, and high-yield has a track record of outperformance during periods of restrictive monetary conditions and strong corporate balance sheets. Bottom Line: Investors should cyclically reduce exposure to US corporate bonds while retaining a preference for high-yield over investment grade. We recommend downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5). Feature Chart 1A Rapid Recovery US corporate bonds have had a very good run since the March 2020 peak in spreads. Investment grade corporates outperformed a duration-matched position in US Treasuries by 23% during the first 12 months of the recovery, the best 12-month excess return since 2010 (Chart 1). That same period also saw an extremely rapid re-normalization of credit spreads. It took just 11 months for the investment grade corporate index option-adjusted spread (OAS) to reach 90 bps following its March 2020 peak, and the index delivered an annualized excess return of 26% during that period. In contrast, it took 109 months for the index OAS to reach 90 bps following the 2008 recession and corporates only beat duration-matched Treasuries by an annualized 4% during that time (Table 1). Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Bond Returns From Spread Peak Until 90 BPs The outlook for US corporate bond returns looks much different today. Spreads are tighter and the Fed is rapidly removing policy accommodation. Against this backdrop, we decided last week to cyclically reduce our corporate bond exposure.1  Specifically, we recommended downgrading investment grade corporates from neutral (3 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5) and high-yield corporates from overweight (4 out of 5) to neutral (3 out of 5) within US bond portfolios. This Special Report discusses the rationale for our recent decision. First, we examine trends in the main indicators that determine corporate bond performance. These indicators fall into three categories: (i) valuation, (ii) cyclical/monetary indicators and (iii) balance sheet health. We then discuss the outlook for the relative performance of high-yield versus investment grade corporates. Valuation Starting with a simple examination of the average investment grade index OAS, we see that the spread has widened somewhat off its pre- and post-pandemic lows, but remains close to the average level seen between 2017 and 2019 (Chart 2). The index OAS is a reasonable gauge of value relative to recent history, but for a longer historical perspective we should adjust the index to account for its changing average credit rating and duration. To do this, we first re-weight the index to maintain a constant distribution between the different credit rating buckets. Next, we control for the index’s changing duration by calculating a 12-month breakeven spread. The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening that must occur during the next 12 months for the corporate index to perform in line with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. It can be approximated by dividing the index OAS by average index duration. Finally, Chart 3 presents the 12-month breakeven spread as a percentile rank since 1995. It shows that, after controlling for credit rating and duration, the investment grade corporate index has only been more expensive than current levels 24% of the time since 1995. Notice that the spread bounced off the 0% line in late-2021, indicating that it had reached all-time expensive levels. Chart 2Spreads Near 2017-19 Average Chart 3Investment Grade Valuation All in all, we can conclude that investment grade corporate bonds are quite expensive. Spreads aren’t so low that they would justify an underweight allocation in a supportive cyclical/monetary environment. But they are tight enough that it makes sense to proceed cautiously in a neutral or negative cyclical/monetary environment, like the one we are in today.   Cyclical/Monetary Indicators The slope of the yield curve is the key variable we use to assess the current state of the cyclical/monetary environment. A very flat or inverted yield curve signals a relatively restrictive monetary policy backdrop, and we have shown that such a backdrop tends to coincide with poor excess corporate bond returns. Conversely, we have found that corporate bonds perform best early in the economic recovery when the yield curve is very steep. This steep yield curve signals that monetary conditions are highly accommodative, and thus supportive of credit spread tightening. Today, the yield curve is sending a somewhat confusing message. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope briefly inverted last week, and it remains flat at 22 bps. Meanwhile, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope is very steep, up above 200 bps (Chart 4)! Chart 4Conflicting Signals From The Yield Curve We discussed how to interpret the signals from different yield curve segments in a recent Special Report.2 We found that the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope sends the most useful signal for corporate bond excess returns, and we therefore view current cyclical/monetary conditions as negative for corporate bonds. In Table 2 we split each of the past six economic cycles into phases based on the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope. We define Phase 1 of the cycle as the period from the end of the prior recession until the 2-year/10-year slope breaks below 50 bps. Phase 2 of the cycle encompasses the time when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 of the cycle spans from when the yield curve inverts until the start of the next recession. Table 2US Corporate Bond Performance In Different Phases Of The Cycle The table shows annualized excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds in each of the three phases, and those returns exhibit a clear pattern. Returns are best in Phase 1 when the yield curve is steep. They take a step down in Phase 2 when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, though they usually stay positive. Negative returns are most likely in Phase 3, after the yield curve inverts. Chart 5Limited Room For Curve Steepening With the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope at 22 bps, we are firmly in Phase 2 of the cycle. However, we could easily see the 2-year/10-year slope invert within the next few months while a breakout above 50 bps seems less likely. In fact, there are only two ways in which the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope can steepen further from current levels. First, the market could bid up its expectation of the long-run neutral fed funds rate, pushing long-dated bond yields higher. Second, expectations for the pace of near-term Fed tightening could diminish, pulling short-dated yields down. At the long-end, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield is already above survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 5). At the front-end, the market is discounting a rapid pace of 272 bps of tightening during the next 12 months (Chart 5, bottom panel), but that pace has limited room to fall given current extremely high inflation readings. Turning back to a comparison of the signals from the 2-year/10-year slope and 3-month/10-year slope, it is worth pointing out that the 3-month/10-year slope is influenced by yield movements at the very front-end of the curve. Meanwhile, the 2-year/10-year slope is purely a function of rate expectations beyond the next two years. As a result, we can view the 3-month/10-year slope as sending a timelier signal about Fed rate hikes and cuts, while the 2-year/10-year slope gives a better reading of how the market views the ultimate economic impact of Fed actions. For example, the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope inverted in 2019 just before the Fed started cutting rates (Chart 6A). The 2-year/10-year slope, however, only briefly dipped below zero. The message from the market was that the Fed would cut rates, but those cuts would be sufficient to sustain the economic recovery. As a result, corporate bonds performed well during this period, consistent with the message from the 2-year/10-year slope. Another interesting example occurred in early 2000 (Chart 6B). This time, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope inverted while the 3-month/10-year slope remained steep. In this case, the 3-month/10-year slope was telling us that Fed rate hikes would continue, while the 2-year/10-year slope was telling us that those hikes would eventually kill the economic recovery. Once again, corporate bonds took their cues from the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope and performed poorly during this period. Chart 6AStrong Performance In 2019 Chart 6BPoor Performance In 2000 Obviously, the current situation looks more like 2000 than 2019, but with the 2-year/10-year slope still positive there remains scope for positive excess corporate bond returns in the near-term. That said, with high odds of 2-year/10-year curve inversion within the next few months and spreads at relatively tight levels, it makes sense to scale back exposure today in advance of the worst phase of the cycle. Balance Sheet Health The final factor we consider is the health of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets, and in fact, this is currently the lone bright spot for corporate bond investors. Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six key balance sheet ratios, is deep in “improving health” territory (Chart 7). This positive signal is driven by exceptionally high Interest Coverage (Chart 7, panel 2) and Free Cash Flow-To-Debt that is just off its highs (Chart 7, panel 3). Return On Capital is up sharply since 2020 but has not recovered its previous peak (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 7Balance Sheets Are In Great Shape While corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape right now, their health will certainly deteriorate going forward as profit growth comes down off its highs and interest rates rise. The only question is whether this deterioration will happen slowly or quickly. Turning to history, two relevant periods stand out (Chart 8). First is the mid-1990s when investment grade corporate bond excess returns peaked in July 1997, 16 months before our CHM moved into “deteriorating health” territory. Conversely, the CHM sent a negative signal before the excess return peak in 2007. But even then, investment grade corporates only outperformed Treasuries by an annualized 0.8% between when the 2-year/10-year slope fell below 50 bps in 2005 and when the CHM moved above zero in 2006. In other words, investors didn’t sacrifice much return by heeding the yield curve’s signal even when the CHM was deep in “improving health” territory. Chart 8Cyclical Corporate Bond Performance Investment Conclusions In summary, we view corporate bond valuations as expensive, and the flat 2-year/10-year Treasury slope suggests that the economic recovery is in its mid-to-late stages. Corporate balance sheets are currently in excellent shape, but they will deteriorate going forward as profit growth slows and interest rates rise. The above three factors suggest that corporate bonds could continue to outperform duration-matched Treasuries in the near-term. However, with spreads already at tight levels, we likely aren’t sacrificing much in the way of excess returns by turning cyclically defensive today. This move also ensures that we will not be invested when the credit cycle eventually turns and corporate bond spreads move significantly wider. Retain A Preference For High-Yield Versus Investment Grade While we recommend downgrading allocations for both investment grade (from neutral to underweight) and high-yield (from overweight to neutral), we think investors should still retain a preference for high-yield corporates over investment grade. To see why, let’s return to the 2005-06 period we looked at in the previous section. The yield curve dipped below 50 bps in 2005 when the CHM was still deep in “improving health” territory, and while investment grade corporate bond returns were low during the time between the signal from the yield curve and the signal from the CHM, junk excess returns were very strong (Chart 9). This makes some sense intuitively. Higher-rated investment grade corporates responded negatively to the Federal Reserve’s removal of monetary policy accommodation, but lower-rated junk spreads stayed well bid because actual default risk was benign. It wasn’t until after the CHM rose above zero that junk bonds started to underperform. In terms of present-day valuations, much like for investment grade, junk spreads are up off their 2021 lows. However, they remain close to their pre-pandemic trough (Chart 10). We also note that the differential between high-yield and investment grade spreads was much tighter in 2006-07. Given the similarities between that period and today, we wouldn’t be surprised to see junk spreads compress further relative to investment grade. Chart 9The Bullish Case For Junk Chart 10High-Yield Valuation Another way to approach high-yield bond valuation is through the lens of our Default-Adjusted Spread. The Default-Adjusted Spread is the difference between the junk index OAS and 12-month default losses, and we have shown that it has a strong correlation with excess returns (Table 3). Specifically, a Default-Adjusted Spread above 100 bps usually coincides with positive excess junk returns versus Treasuries, and higher spreads tend to coincide with higher returns. Table 3The Default-Adjusted Spread & High-Yield Excess Returns To estimate the Default-Adjusted Spread for the next 12 months we need assumptions for the default and recovery rates (Chart 11). To do this, we model the 12-month speculative grade default rate as a function of gross nonfinancial corporate leverage – total debt over pre-tax profits – and lagged C&I lending standards. We then model the 12-month recovery rate based on the default rate itself. Chart 11Default And Recovery Rate Models Corporate pre-tax profit growth was exceptionally strong during the past 12 months, and we expect it to slow significantly going forward. Profit growth can be modeled as a function of nominal GDP growth and unit labor costs (Chart 12). If we assume that nominal GDP growth comes in at 7.3% this year (the Fed’s median 2.8% real GDP estimate plus 4.5% inflation) and that unit labor cost growth rises to 6%, then profit growth will fall to 0.5% during the next 12 months. If we assume that corporate debt growth remains close to its current level (Chart 12, bottom panel), then we calculate that gross leverage will rise to 6.5 during the next 12 months. Chart 12Profit Growth Will Slow Significantly Table 4 shows the output from our default and recovery rate models under the base case assumption described above. It also shows results for an optimistic case where leverage is 6.0 and a pessimistic case where it is 7.0. The Default-Adjusted Spread is fairly low in the base and pessimistic cases, but it is comfortably above the key 100 bps threshold in all three scenarios. This suggests that junk bonds should deliver positive excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries during the next 12 months. Table 4Default-Adjusted Spread Scenarios   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Beginning Of The End”, dated April 5, 2022. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy / US Investment Strategy / US Equity Strategy Special Report, “The Yield Curve As An Indicator”, dated March 29, 2022. Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations