Corporate
Executive Summary Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan reflects one of our emerging views in 2022: the Biden administration’s willingness to take foreign policy risks ahead of the midterm elections. Biden’s foreign policy will continue to be reactive and focused on domestic politics through the midterms. Hence global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated at least until November 8. Biden is seeing progress on his legislative agenda. Congress is passing a bill to compete with China while the Democrats are increasingly likely to pass a second reconciliation bill, both as predicted. These developments support our view that President Biden’s approval rating will stabilize and election races will tighten, keeping domestic US policy uncertainty elevated through November. These trends pose a risk to our view that Republicans will take the Senate, but the prevailing macroeconomic and geopolitical environment is still negative for the ruling Democratic Party. We expect legislative gridlock and frozen US fiscal policy in 2023-24. Close Recommendation (Tactical) Initiation Date Return Long Refinitiv Renewables Vs. S&P 500 Mar 30, 2022 25.4% Long Biotech Vs. Pharmaceuticals Jul 8, 2022 -3.3% Bottom Line: While US and global uncertainty remain high, we will stay long US dollar, long large caps over small caps, and long US Treasuries versus TIPS. But these are tactical trades and are watching closely to see if macroeconomic and geopolitical factors improve later this year. Feature President Biden’s average monthly job approval rating hit its lowest point, 38.5%, in July 2022. However, Biden’s anti-inflation campaign and midterm election tactics are starting to bear fruit: gasoline prices have fallen from a peak of $5 per gallon to $4.2 today, the Democratic Congress is securing some last-minute legislative wins, and women voters are mobilizing to preserve abortion access. These developments mean that the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects will improve marginally between now and the midterm election, causing Senate and congressional races to tighten – as we have expected. US policy uncertainty will increase. Investors will see a rising risk that Democrats will keep control of the Senate – and conceivably even the House – and hence retain unified control of the executive and legislative branches. This “Blue Sweep” risk will challenge the market consensus, which overwhelmingly (and still correctly) expects congressional gridlock in 2023-24. A continued blue sweep would mean larger tax hikes and social spending, while gridlock would neutralize fiscal policy for the next two years. Investors should fade this inflationary blue sweep risk and continue to plan for disinflationary gridlock. First, our quantitative election models still predict that Democrats will lose control of both House and Senate (Appendix). Second, Biden’s midterm tactics face very significant limitations, particularly emanating from geopolitics – the snake in this report’s title. Pelosi’s Trip To Taiwan Raises Near-Term Market Risks One of Biden’s election tactics is our third key view for 2022: reactive foreign policy. Initially we viewed this reactiveness as “risk-averse” but in May we began to argue that Biden could take risky bets given his collapsing approval ratings. Either way, Biden is using foreign policy as a means of improving his party’s domestic political fortunes. In particular, he is willing to take big risks with China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The template is the 1962 congressional election, when President John F. Kennedy largely defied the midterm election curse by taking a tough stance against Russia in the Cuban Missile Crisis (Chart 1). If Biden achieves a foreign policy victory, then Democrats will benefit. If he instigates a crisis, voters will rally around his administration out of patriotism. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei is the prominent example of this key view. The trip required full support from the US executive branch and military and was not only the swan song of a single politician. It was one element of the Biden administration’s decision to maintain the Trump administration’s hawkish China policy. Thus while Congress passes the $52 billion Chips and Science Act to enhance US competitiveness in technology and semiconductor manufacturing, Biden is also contemplating tightening export controls on computer chip equipment that China needs to upgrade its industry.1 Biden is reacting to a bipartisan and popular consensus holding that the US needs to take concrete measures to challenge China and protect American industry (Chart 2). This is different from the old norm of rhetorical China-bashing during midterms. Chart 1Biden Provokes Foreign Rivals Chart 2Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus Reactive US foreign policy will continue through November and possibly beyond – including but not limited to China. The US chose to sell long-range weapons to Ukraine and provide intelligence targeting Russian forces, prompting Russia to declare that the US is now “directly” involved in the Ukraine conflict. The US decision to eradicate Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri also reflects this foreign policy trend. Reactive foreign policy will increase the near-term risk of new negative geopolitical surprises for markets. Note that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis analogy is inverted when it comes to the Taiwan Strait. China is willing to take much greater risks than the US in its sphere of influence. The same goes for Russia in Ukraine. If US policy backfires then it may assist the Democrats in the election – but not if Biden suffers a humiliation or if the US economy suffers as a result. Chart 3US Import Prices Will Stay High From Greater China US import prices will continue to rise from Greater China (Chart 3), undermining Biden’s anti-inflation agenda. Supply kinks in the semiconductor industry will become relevant again whenever demand rebounds (Chart 4). Global energy prices will also remain high as a result of the EU’s oil embargo and Russia’s continued tightening of European natural gas supplies. Chart 4New Semiconductor Kinks Will Appear When Demand Recovers OPEC has decided only to increase oil production by 100,000 barrels per day, despite Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia cap in hand. We argued that the Saudis would give a token but would largely focus on weakening global demand rather than pumping substantially more oil to help Biden and the Democrats in the election. The Saudis know that Biden is still attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran that would free up Iranian exports. So the Saudis are not giving much relief, and if Biden fails on Iran, oil supply disruptions will increase. Bottom Line: Price pressures will intensify as a result of the US-China and US-Russia standoffs – and probably also the US-Iran standoff. Hawkish foreign policy is not conducive to reducing inflationary ills. Global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain high throughout the midterm election season, causing continued volatility for US equities. Abortion Boosts Democratic Election Odds Earlier this year we highlighted that the Supreme Court’s overturning of the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision would lead to a significant mobilization of women voters in favor of the Democratic Party ahead of the midterm election. The first major electoral test since the court’s ruling, a popular referendum in the state of Kansas, produced a surprising result on August 2 that confirms and strengthens this thesis. Kansas is a deeply religious and conservative state where President Trump defeated President Biden by a 15% margin in 2020. The referendum was held during the primary election season, when electoral turnout skews heavily toward conservatives and the elderly. Yet Kansans voted by an 18% margin (59% versus 41%) not to amend the constitution, i.e. not to empower the legislature to tighten regulations on abortion. Voter turnout is not yet reported but likely far higher than in recent non-presidential primary elections. Kansans voted in the direction of nationwide opinion polling on whether abortion should be accessible in cases where the mother’s health is endangered. They did not vote in accordance with more expansive defenses of abortion, which are less popular (Chart 5). If the red state of Kansas votes this way then other states will see an even more substantial effect, at least when abortion is on the ballot. Chart 5Abortion Will Mitigate Democrats’ Losses The question is how much of this Roe v. Wade effect will carry over to the general congressional elections. The referendum focused exclusively on abortion. Voters did not vote on party lines. Voters never like it when governments try to take away rights or privileges that have previously been granted. But in November the election will center on other topics, including inflation and the economy. And midterm elections almost always penalize the incumbent party. Our quantitative election models imply that Democrats will lose 22 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate, yielding Congress to the Republicans next year (Appendix). Still, women’s turnout presents a risk to our models. Women’s support for the Democratic Party has not improved markedly since the Supreme Court ruling, as we have shown in recent reports (Chart 6). But the polling could pick up again. Women’s turnout could be a significant tailwind in a year of headwinds for the Democrats. Bottom Line: Democrats’ electoral prospects have improved, as we anticipated earlier this year (Chart 7). This trend will continue as a result of the mobilization of women. Republicans are still highly likely to take Congress but our conviction on the Senate is much lower than it is on the House. Chart 6Biden’s And Democrats’ Approval Among Women Chart 7Democrats’ Odds Will Improve On Margin Reconciliation Bill: Still 65% Chance Of Passing Ultimately Democrats’ electoral performance will depend on inflation, the economy, and cyclical dynamics. If inflation falls over the course of the next three months, then Democrats will have a much better chance of stemming midterm losses. That is why President Biden rebranded his slimmed down “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill as the “Inflation Reduction Act.” We maintain our 65% odds that the bill will pass, as we have done all year. There is still at least a 35% chance that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona could defect from the Democrats, given that she opposed any new tax hikes and the reconciliation bill will impose a 15% minimum tax on corporations. A single absence or defection would topple the budget reconciliation process, which enables Democrats to pass the bill on a simple majority vote. We have always argued that Sinema would ultimately fall in line rather than betraying her party at the last minute before the election. This is even more likely given that moderate-in-chief, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, negotiated and now champions the bill. But some other surprise could still erase the Democrats’ single-seat majority, so we stick with 65% odds. Most notably the bill will succeed because it actually reduces the budget deficit – by an estimated $300 billion over a decade (Table 1). Deficit reduction was the original purpose of lowering the number of votes required to pass a bill under the budget reconciliation process. Now Democrats are using savings generated from new government caps on pharmaceuticals (a popular measure) to fund health and climate subsidies. Given deficit reduction, it is conceivable that a moderate Republican could even vote for the bill. Table 1Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act (Budget Reconciliation) Bottom Line: Democrats are more likely than ever to pass their fiscal 2022 reconciliation bill by the September 30 deadline. The bill will cap some drug prices and reduce the deficit marginally, so it can be packaged as an anti-inflation bill, giving Democrats a legislative win ahead of the midterm. However, its anti-inflationary impact will ultimately be negligible as $300 billion in savings hardly effects the long-term rising trajectory of US budget deficits relative to output. The bill will add to voters’ discretionary income and spur the renewable energy industry. And if it helps the Democrats retain power, then it enables further spending and tax hikes down the road, which would prove inflationary. The reconciliation bill, annual appropriations, and the China competition bill were the remaining bills that we argued would narrowly pass before the US Congress became gridlocked again. So far this view is on track. Investment Takeaways Companies that paid a high effective corporate tax rate before President Trump’s tax cuts have benefited relative to those that paid a low effective rate. They stood to suffer most if Trump’s tax cuts were repealed. But Democrats were forced to discard their attempt to raise the overall corporate tax rate last year. Instead the minimum corporate rate will rise to 15%, hitting those that paid the lowest effective rate, such as Big Tech companies, relative to high-tax rate sectors such as energy (Chart 8, top panel). Tactically energy may still underperform tech but cyclically energy could outperform and the reconciliation bill would feed into that trend. Similarly, companies that faced high foreign tax risk, because they made good income abroad but paid low foreign tax rates, stand to suffer most from the imposition of a minimum corporate tax rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). Again, Big Tech stands to suffer, although it has already priced a lot of bad news and may not perform poorly in the near term. Chart 8Market Responds To Minimum Corporate Tax Chart 9Market Responds To New Climate Subsidies Renewable energy stocks have rallied sharply on the news of the Democrats’ reconciliation bill getting back on track (Chart 9). We are booking a 25.4% gain on this tactical trade and will move to the sidelines for now, although renewable energy remains a secular investment theme. Health stocks, particularly pharmaceuticals, have taken a hit from the new legislation as we expected. However, biotech has not outperformed pharmaceuticals as we expected, so we will close this tactical trade for a loss of 3.3%. The reconciliation bill will cap drug prices for only the most popular generic drugs and does not pose as much of a threat to biotech companies (Chart 10). Biotech should perform well tactically as long bond yields decline – they are also historically undervalued, as noted by Dhaval Joshi of our Counterpoint strategy service. So we will stick to long Biotech versus the broad market. US semiconductors remain in a long bull market and will be in heavy demand once global and US economic activity stabilize. They are also likely to outperform competitors in Greater China that face a high and persistent geopolitical risk premium (Chart 11). Chart 10Market Responds To Drug Price Caps Chart 11Market Responds To China Competition Bill Tactically we prefer bonds to stocks, US equities to global equities, defensive sectors to cyclicals, large caps to small caps, and growth stocks to value stocks (Chart 12). The US is entering a technical recession, Europe is entering recession, China’s economy is weak, and geopolitical tensions are at extreme highs over Ukraine, Taiwan, and Iran. The US is facing an increasingly uncertain midterm election. These trends prevent us from adding risk in our portfolio in the short term. However, much bad news is priced and we are on the lookout for positive economic surprises and successful diplomatic initiatives to change the investment outlook for 2023. If the US and China recommit to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, if Russia moves toward ceasefire talks in Ukraine, if the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, then we will take a much more optimistic attitude. Some political and geopolitical risks could begin to recede in the fourth quarter – although that remains to be seen. And even then, geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis. Chart 12Tactically Recession And Geopolitics Will Weigh On Risk Assets Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Alexandra Alper and Karen Freifeld, “U.S. considers crackdown on memory chip makers in China,” Reuters, August 1, 2022, reuters.com. Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model Table A4House Election Model Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets
In this <i>Strategy Outlook</i>, we present the major investment themes and views we see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond.
Executive Summary An Optimal Control Policy We could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, but we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession. An optimal control approach to monetary policy tells us that the Fed should be willing to accept a significant increase in the unemployment rate to tame inflation. The implication is that the next recession may not be met with the dramatic easing of monetary policy we have become accustomed to. Short-maturity real yields remain deeply negative, but they will move into positive territory before the end of the economic cycle. Indicators of corporate balance sheet health are not flashing red, but they are moving in the wrong direction. Bottom Line: Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, maintain a defensive posture on corporate bonds and short 2-year TIPS. The Return Of Optimal Control Bonds rallied into the close last week and, as of Monday morning, their gains have only been partially unwound. The 2-year Treasury yield is down to 3.07% from its recent high of 3.45% and the 10-year yield is down to 3.16% from its recent high of 3.49% (Chart 1). The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope remains close to inversion at 9 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Increasingly, the message from the Treasury market is that the Fed is no longer playing catch-up to runaway inflation. Rather, the dominant market narrative is that the Fed may have to moderate its hiking pace to avoid an economic recession. With the unemployment rate at 3.6% and nonfarm payroll growth averaging +408k during the past three months, the US economy is clearly not in a recession today. That said, leading indicators are pointing to increased risk of a downturn within the next 12 months. For example, the S&P Global Manufacturing PMI fell sharply last week from 57.0 to 52.4 (Chart 2). The more widely tracked ISM Manufacturing PMI remains elevated at 56.1, but regional Fed surveys and trends in financial conditions suggest that the ISM could dip into contractionary territory during the next few months (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Treasury Yields Chart 2Recession Risk Is Rising This is obviously a tricky situation for the Fed as there is a risk that its two mandates of price stability and maximum employment could come into conflict. Not surprisingly, the Fed has a playbook for these sorts of situations, one that was described by Janet Yellen as “optimal control” in a 2012 speech.1 Under an optimal control approach to policymaking the Fed specifies a loss function that is based on deviations of inflation from its 2% target and of the unemployment rate from its estimated full employment level. Understanding that it will be impossible to perfectly achieve both of its objectives, the Fed attempts to set policy so that the output of the loss function is minimized. One example of a simple loss function was given by St. Louis Fed President James Bullard in a speech from 2014.2 That function is as follows: Distance From Goals = (π – π*)2 + (μ - μ*)2 Where: π = inflation π* = The Fed’s target inflation rate μ = the unemployment rate μ* = The Fed’s estimate of the unemployment rate consistent with full employment Chart 3An Optimal Control Policy Let’s apply Bullard’s loss function to the present-day economic situation. The top panel of Chart 3 shows the square root of the function’s output. The Fed’s goal, of course, is to get that line as close to zero as possible. First, let’s see what happens if we input the median FOMC member’s forecast for core PCE inflation and the unemployment rate. That forecast has core PCE inflation falling to 4.3% by the end of this year and it has the unemployment rate edging up to 3.7%. Not surprisingly, this scenario leads to a modest improvement in Bullard’s loss function. Now let’s examine an alternative scenario where core PCE inflation falls to 4% by the end of the year but we set the loss function to remain at its current level. That outcome can be achieved even with the unemployment rate rising to 6.68%. This scenario is instructive. It tells us that, from an optimal control perspective, the Fed would be willing to tolerate an increase in the unemployment rate all the way up to 6.68% if it meant that inflation would fall back down to 4%. Why is this example important? It’s important because it gives us some perspective on what sort of labor market pain the Fed may be willing to tolerate to tame inflation. More specifically, there is a growing sense among some market participants that the US economy will soon fall into recession and that recessions are usually accompanied by Fed rate cuts. However, the magnitude of the increase in the unemployment rate that is shown in our alternative scenario would almost certainly be classified as a recession, but an optimal control perspective tells us that the Fed shouldn’t back away from tightening if that were to occur. The bottom line is that while we could see some modest near-term downside in Treasury yields as inflation rolls over during the next few months, we caution against turning overly bullish on bonds even if you anticipate a recession within the next 6-12 months. Given where inflation is today, there are strong odds that the Fed would respond to a rising unemployment rate by simply tempering its pace of rate hikes or perhaps temporarily pausing. Optimal control tells us that we would need to see an extremely large employment shock for the Fed to consider reversing course and cutting rates. Investors should stick with ‘at benchmark’ portfolio duration for the time being. A Quick Note On Real Yields Chart 4Short 2-Year TIPS The 2-year real yield has risen to -0.70% from a 2021 low of -3.05%, but we have high conviction that it has further to run (Chart 4). At the press conference following the June FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Powell hinted that he viewed positive real yields across the entire Treasury curve as a reasonable intermediate-term goal. He then made similar claims when testifying before the Senate last week: It’s really only the very short end of the curve where our rates are still in negative territory from a real perspective. If you look further out, real rates are positive right across the curve and that’s really what you’re trying to achieve in a situation like this where we have 40 year highs in inflation.3 One way or another, we think it is highly likely that the Fed will achieve its goal of positive real yields across the entire curve. This could happen in a benign scenario where falling inflation expectations push short-maturity real yields higher. Or, it could happen in a more dramatic fashion where inflation expectations remain elevated but that only quickens the pace of Fed tightening. In that scenario, rising short-maturity nominal yields would drag real yields with them. Either way, investors should continue to hold outright short positions in 2-year TIPS. Corporate Health Check-Up In prior reports we noted the extremely good condition of corporate balance sheets, while also suggesting that balance sheet health would deteriorate going forward.4 An updated read on the status of corporate balance sheets suggests that conditions are still favorable, but much less so than even a few months ago. We begin with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), a composite indicator of six financial ratios calculated from the US National Accounts data for the nonfinancial corporate sector. This indicator was deep in “improving health” territory at the end of 2021, but it moved close to neutral in 2022 Q1 (Chart 5). Ratings trends, meanwhile, send a similar message. Through the end of May, upgrades continued to dramatically outpace downgrades in the investment grade space (Chart 5, panel 2), but the rate of net upgrades slowed somewhat in high-yield (Chart 5, bottom panel). Digging deeper, we find that the main culprit behind the CHM’s recent jump is a large drop in the ratio of Free Cash Flow to Total Debt (Chart 6). This drop occurred because after-tax cash flows held roughly flat in Q1 but capital expenditures surged, causing free cash flow to dip (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 5Corporate Health Monitor Chart 6Capex Surged In Q1 This trend is confirmed by another important indicator of corporate balance sheet health, the financing gap. The financing gap is the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings. A positive financing gap means that retained earnings are insufficient to cover capital expenditures and firms therefore have an incentive to tap debt markets. We see that the financing gap jumped sharply in Q1, from deeply negative into positive territory (Chart 7). Chart 7The Financing Gap Is Positive A positive financing gap on its own does not send a negative signal for corporate defaults. However, when a positive financing gap coincides with tightening lending standards, then an increase in the default rate becomes likely. For now, lending standards are close to unchanged (Chart 7, bottom panel), but there is a strong chance that continued Fed hiking will push them into ‘net tightening’ territory in the months ahead. Investment Implications Chart 8Attractive Value In HY Corporate balance sheet health isn’t quite flashing red, but it is certainly trending in the wrong direction. With continued Fed tightening likely to weigh on lending standards and interest coverage going forward, a defensive posture toward corporate bonds is warranted. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation (2 out of 5) to investment grade corporate bonds in US fixed income portfolios. We maintain a somewhat higher neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield bonds for the time being. This is because high-yield valuation is quite attractive, and we see potential for some near-term spread tightening as inflation rolls over (Chart 8). That said, the sector’s long-term return prospects are not good, and we will consider turning more defensive should the average high-yield spread narrow to its 2017-19 average or should core inflation move closer to our 4% target. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120606a.htm 2 https://www.stlouisfed.org/from-the-president/-/media/project/frbstl/stlouisfed/files/pdfs/bullard/remarks/bullardowensborokychamberofcommerce17july2014final.pdf 3 https://www.c-span.org/video/?521106-1/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-testifies-inflation-economy 4 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Turning Defensive On US Corporate Bonds”, dated April 12, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns
Executive Summary The recent pullback was all about a multiples contraction while strong earnings growth helped absorb the blow. With the multiple contraction phase complete, the S&P 500 performance is now all about earnings. Consensus still expects earnings to grow at 10% over the next 12 months, despite negative corporate guidance and a whole constellation of factors that present challenges to corporate profitability. We need to see downgrades or earnings will disappoint. Our brand-new model predicts that earnings growth will trend towards zero over the next three months. Earnings growth is a tug of war between rising input costs and corporate pricing power. There is a high likelihood of an earnings recession, even if an economic recession is unlikely over the next 12 months. Because growth is slowing not only in the US but also abroad. If an earnings recession does materialize, equities may have another leg down, perhaps another 5-8%. Earnings Growth Is A Tug Of War Between Rising Costs And Pricing Power Bottom Line: We forecast that earnings growth will undershoot consensus expectations and an earnings recession is likely. Since the multiples contraction phase of the bear market is likely over, equities performance will be dictated by earnings growth. In the short run, we expect equities to be range-bound, with rallies and pullbacks alternating. In case of an earnings recession, equities may fall another 5-8%. Feature Related Report US Equity StrategyMarginally Worse Ever since the Fed started hiking interest rates back in March, investors started worrying about the recession. The BCA house view is that a recession is unlikely over the next 12 months. However, to us, of even greater concern is the likelihood of an earnings disappointment or even an outright earnings recession. We believe that earnings growth will slow dramatically. We wrote back in October 2021 report, “Marginally Worse”, that margins will contract at the beginning of the year – indeed, this prediction materialized during the Q1-2022 earnings season (Chart 1). Shrinking profit margins are likely to translate into flat to negative real earnings growth over the next 12 months. However, economic and earnings growth expectations remain elevated. As our readers may recall from the “Have We Hit Rock Bottom?” and “Fat and Flat” reports, we believe that for the markets to begin to heal, growth expectations need to come down and a negative outlook needs to get priced in. Chart 1Margins Are Contracting In this week’s report, we take a close look at the S&P 500 earnings growth expectations and provide our own estimate based on a simple regression model. We will also discuss implications for the US equity market. Sneak Preview: We estimate that earnings growth will trend towards zero over the next three to six months, consistent with current trends in US economic growth, inflation, corporate pricing power, monetary conditions, and the strength of the USD. Sell-off Driven By Multiples Contraction, Not Earnings Growth This year’s sell-off has been triggered by fears of an aggressive Fed, tighter monetary policy, and rising rates. However, decomposition of the total return demonstrates that the pullback was all about multiples contraction, while strong earnings growth helped absorb the blow (Chart 2). A pertinent question is what happens to the market when earnings growth softens? One may wonder whether the bad news has already been priced in, as multiples tend to front-run growth. A case in point is strong market performance in 2020 on the back of multiples expansion in anticipation of a post-pandemic rebound in earnings growth (Chart 3). Chart 2Sell-off Was Driven By A Multiples Contraction Chart 3Multiples Lead Earnings With multiples down from 23x to 17x over the past two years, and the S&P 500 down by 19% from its January 2022 peak, arguably much of the upcoming earnings growth slowdown/contraction is priced in. Much but not all. The next chapter of the bear market will be driven by earnings growth. Earnings Growth Headwinds As we have pointed out on multiple occasions, it is confounding that, despite negative corporate guidance and a whole constellation of factors that present challenges to corporate profitability, earnings estimates for 2022 have been revised up (Chart 4) and stand at about 10% (Chart 5). However, at long last, upgrades are starting to moderate (Chart 6). We need to see downgrades. Chart 42022 Earnings Estimates Are Still Trending Up Chart 5Earnings Are Expected To Grow At 10% Chart 6Analysts Are No Longer Upgrading Chart 7Slowing Global Growth Has An Adverse Effect On The US Earnings Growth Since the beginning of 2022, there have been quite a few developments that will weigh on earnings growth: Slowing growth in the US and globally means sales growth is decelerating. This week, the World Bank downgraded global GDP growth from 4.1% to 2.9%. Global manufacturing PMI is also trending towards 50 (Chart 7). Consumer demand is weakening: Negative real wage growth saps consumers’ confidence and cuts into their purchasing power. Moreover, demand for goods is returning to the pre-pandemic trend, and retail sales, especially in real terms, are flagging (Chart 8). Demand for services remains strong, but the S&P 500 index is dominated by goods producers. Corporate pricing power is still strong but is showing signs of waning as many US consumers, distraught by the negative wage growth, are strapped for cash (Chart 9). Chart 8Retail Sales Are Contracting In Real Terms Chart 9Corporate Pricing Power Is Waning Prices of raw materials have soared and supply disruptions are exacerbated by lockdowns in China and the war in Ukraine. Companies’ COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) bills are skyrocketing. Nominal wage growth is 6% and is on the rise, affecting companies’ bottom lines. The dollar is strong: it has gained 15% since January 2021. This makes US goods more expensive and reduces companies’ earnings via the currency translation effect. These are the reasons why it is increasingly hard for companies to preserve margins and grow earnings – a commentary that we have heard repeatedly during earnings calls. According to Refinitiv, for Q2-2022, there have been 73 negative EPS preannouncements issued by S&P 500 corporations, compared to 42 positive EPS preannouncements (N/P=73/42=1.7). A year ago, in Q2-2021, the N/P ratio was 0.8, with more companies offering positive guidance. All of this points to weakening profitability. Refinitiv also estimates the earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 for Q2-2022 at 5.3%. If the energy sector is excluded, the growth rate declines to -1.9%. We believe growth will come to a halt or contract into the end of the year. We expect slower top-line growth and shrinking profit margins to translate into flat to negative real earnings growth over the next 12 months. Earnings Recessions Often Happen When The Economy Is Still Growing One may wonder if an earnings recession is even possible without an economic recession. In fact, that happened quite a lot in the past. Out of 27 earnings recessions since 1927, 11 did not coincide with economic recessions (Chart 10). Chart 10Earnings Recessions And Economic Recession Often Don't Coincide The S&P 500 does not mirror the US economy, with the former dominated by larger companies, many of which are multinationals and more exposed to global demand and the USD than the broad economy. Also, services and consumer spending constitute roughly 70% of the US economy, while the index overrepresents manufacturing, technology, and goods-producing companies. With the S&P 500 being global in nature, quite a few earnings recessions were triggered by events abroad: The 2016 earnings recession was caused by the devaluation of the Chinese yuan; in 2012, one was triggered by a post-GFC double-dip recession in Europe; and the 1998 one was triggered by an Asian financial crisis. It is also often the case that a profit recession is a harbinger of economic recession. Both the 2000 dot-com crash and GFC economic recessions were preceded by earnings recessions, one starting in December 2000, and the other in August 2007. The 2019 earnings recession was brief and came hand in hand with widespread fears of the end of the business cycle. Hence, we believe that a confluence of factors both at home and abroad, as discussed above, makes an earning recession a high probability event. There is a high likelihood of an earnings recession, even if an economic recession is unlikely over the next 12 months, because of slowing growth not only in the US but also abroad. Modeling Earnings Growth Since we are distrustful of the consensus of 10% expected eps growth, we have built our own simple earnings growth forecast model to gauge what earnings growth rate we may expect over the next quarter. The model has five factors, each of which has fundamental relevance to earnings growth (Table 1): Table 1EPS Growth Forecast Model ISM PMI is a gauge of US economic growth and a proxy for top-line growth. PPI stands for the change in input costs. Pricing Power is a BCA proprietary indicator and captures companies’ ability to pass costs onto their customers. HY Spreads indicate costs of borrowing and also the state of the economy (spreads tend to shoot up in a slowing economy). USD represents the ability of US multinationals to sell goods abroad. Roughly 35% of S&P 500 sales are outside the US. Each factor is calculated on a year-on-year percentage change basis, with a three-month lag to allow the effects of macroeconomic developments to get priced in. Adjusted R2 is 65%, which is a strong fit. All factors are statistically significant at the 1% level. The model forecasts that earnings growth will come down from 6% MoM as of April 2021 to 1.3% as of August 2022 (Chart 11). While this does not map directly to the “next 12 months” of eps growth, it does indicate that earnings growth is trending towards zero in nominal terms and will be outright negative in real terms. Further, while we are unable to predict earnings growth more than three months ahead, we do expect that it will reach zero and then shift into contraction territory into the balance of the year. Chart 11Model Predicts That Earnings Growth Will Be Flat Looking closer at the key drivers of growth (Chart 12), we observe that there is a tug of war between pricing power and rising costs (PPI), with earnings growth falling as pricing power starts to give away ground. The other factors that have an adverse effect on earnings growth are slowing growth (ISM PMI), an appreciating dollar, and rising borrowing costs (HY spreads). Chart 12Earnings Growth Is A Tug Of War Between Rising Costs And Pricing Power The model indicates that earnings growth is trending towards zero over the next three months. Price Target What does all of this mean for US equities? If the multiple contraction phase is complete, the S&P 500 performance is now all about earnings. If we expect earnings to grow only 0-3% in nominal terms, with the forward earnings multiple unchanged at roughly 18x, then the S&P 500 is likely to come down another couple of percentage points. If earnings contract 5%, the index may be down as much as 8%. If multiples contract another point to 17x and earnings contract by 5%, the market may be down as much as 15% (Table 2). Table 2The S&P 500 Target Scenario Analysis For now, we are sticking with our “fat and flat” thesis expecting the S&P 500 performance to continue to trend down as rallies and pullbacks alternate. Earnings growth slowdown/shallow contraction is likely to result in another leg down of roughly 5-8%. Investment Implications Street forward earnings growth expectations are too high at 10% and need to be downgraded. There are multiple reasons why earnings growth will be underwhelming, ranging from slowing growth abroad to weaker demand for goods and rising wages at home. We anticipate that earnings growth will be flat to negative into the balance of the year. The multiple contraction phase of the bear market is over, and now equities performance will be dictated by earnings growth. If an earnings recession does materialize, equities may have another leg down, perhaps another 5-8%. Bottom Line We forecast that earnings growth will undershoot consensus expectations and that an earnings recession is likely. Since the multiple contraction phase of the bear market is likely over, equity performance will be dictated by earnings growth. In the short run, we expect equities to trend down, with rallies and pullbacks alternating. In the case of an earnings recession, equities may fall another 5-8%. Irene Tunkel Chief Strategist, US Equity Strategy irene.tunkel@bcaresearch.com Recommended Allocation Recommended Allocation: Addendum
Executive Summary Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Bond yields in the developed world have ticked higher recently, due to a renewed increase in oil prices and the spillover effect from more hawkish policy expectations out of Europe. The competing forces of slowing global growth momentum and geopolitical uncertainty on one side, and high inflation with tightening monetary policies on the other, will keep global government bond yields rangebound over the next several months. UK investment grade corporate bonds now offer an intriguing combination of higher yields, attractive spread valuations and strong financial health. By maturity, shorter-maturity corporates offer the best value. At the industry level, spreads look most attractive for Financials. A hawkish Bank of England, both through rate hikes and upcoming outright sales of corporate debt the central bank has purchased via quantitative easing, remains a major headwind to UK corporate bond returns. Sectors most at risk to central bank sales are Water, Consumer Cyclicals and Consumer Non-Cyclicals. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. Maintain a neutral stance on UK corporates, favoring shorter-maturity bonds and Financial names, but look to upgrade once UK inflation peaks and the Bank of England pauses on tightening. Trendless, Friendless Bond Markets Chart 1Recovering From The Ukraine War Shock... Although it may not feel like it given the ferocity of some daily price swings, many important financial markets have not moved all that much, cumulatively, since the first major shock of 2022 – the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24. For example, the S&P 500 is only down around -2% from the pre-invasion level, while the VIX index of equity option volatility is at 24, seven points below the closing level on February 23 (Chart 1). The Bloomberg US investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 12bps above its pre-invasion level, down 20bps from the peak seen in mid-May. More recently, even US bond yields have shown signs of stabilization. The 10-year US Treasury yield has traded in a 2.70-3.15% range since the start of April, while the MOVE index of US Treasury option volatility has fallen by one-quarter since its most recent peak in early May. Not all markets, however, have seen this kind of relative stability. Global oil prices are trading close to post-invasion highs, as are government bond yields in Germany and the UK. High-yield credit spreads in the US and Europe are both still around 50bps above where they were pre-invasion. The DXY US dollar index is 6% above the pre-invasion level, led by the USD/JPY currency pair that has appreciated to levels last seen in 2002. Given the mix of slowing global growth momentum and ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, but with persistent high inflation and tightening global monetary policy, it is unsurprising that financial markets are having a difficult time formulating a consistent message. This is especially true for global government bond yields. Chart 2Competing Forces On Global Bond Yields Even as market-based inflation expectations have eased a bit in recent weeks, bond yields across the developed world have been unable to decline because markets continue to discount more rate hikes (Chart 2). Yet with such a significant amount of monetary tightening now priced in across all countries, global bond yields are more likely to stay rangebound over the next 3-6 months than begin a new trend. Chart 3DM Bond Yields Discounting Tight Monetary Policy 10-year government bond yields and 2-year-ahead interest rate expectations in overnight index swap (OIS) curves are trading in lockstep in the US, Europe, UK, Canada and Australia (Chart 3). This correlation indicates that longer-term bond yields have become a pure play on future policy rate expectations, rather than a reflection of rising inflation expectations as was the case in 2021. However, both yields and rate expectations are now trading close to, or even well above, plausible estimates of neutral nominal policy rates in all regions - including estimates provided by central bankers themselves. For example, in Australia, where the RBA just delivered a 50bp rate hike this week, markets are pricing in a peak Cash Rate between 3.5-4%, even with RBA Governor Philip Lowe stating that the neutral rate is likely in the 2-3% range – a view that we agree with. The situation is even more extreme in the euro area, with the euro area OIS curve now pricing in a peak policy rate between 1.5-2%, with most of that increase coming over the next 12 months. While we expect the ECB to fully exit the negative (deposit) rate era by September, rate hikes beyond that are far less likely given slowing euro area growth momentum and still-moderate euro area inflation beyond the spillover effects from energy costs. Only in the US are markets potentially underestimating the potential peak in the fed funds rate for this tightening cycle. Estimates of the longer-run (neutral) funds rate from the latest set of FOMC projections back in March ranged from 2.0-3.0%. Thus, the current level of 10-year bond yields, and 2-year-ahead rates discounted in the US OIS curve, are only at the top end of that range. It is possible that the Fed will have to raise rates to restrictive levels (i.e. above 3%) given the size of the current US inflation overshoot. More importantly, the US neutral rate is likely higher than the Fed thinks it is, possibly as high as 4% according to BCA Research’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin. We continue to see the US as the one major government bond market where there is a risk that markets are underestimating the neutral policy rate. For that reason, we remain underweight US Treasuries in the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio. Don’t Dismiss The QT Effect One other factor that has likely kept global bond yields elevated, even as global growth has softened, has been the shift away from central bank asset purchases towards quantitative tightening (QT). As policymakers have moved to slow, or even stop, the buying of government bonds, the term premium component of longer-term bond yields has risen. The moves have been quite large. Using our own in-house estimates, the term premium on 10-year government bond yields have jumped by about 100bps on average in the US, UK, Canada, Australia and Europe since the lows seen during the 2020 COVID global recession (Chart 4). The jump in term premiums is occurring at the same time as markets have moved to price in more rate hikes and a higher path for real interest rates (bottom panel). Chart 4Yields Repricing As QE Moves To QT Chart 5Stay Neutral Global Duration Exposure That combined effect of the upward repricing of term premiums – especially as more price-sensitive private investors replace the demand for bonds from price-insensitive central banks - but with less upward movement in already elevated interest rate expectations will keep longer-term bond yields in trading ranges during the “Global QT Phase” over at least the next six months and likely longer. That message is reinforced by our Global Duration Indicator, which is heralding a peak in global bond yield momentum over the latter half of 2022 (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Stay neutral on overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios, with yields in the major developed markets likely to stay rangebound over the next few months. Assessing The Value In UK Investment Grade Corporates Chart 6A Big Jump In UK Investment Grade Corporate Yields Global credit markets have had a rough time in 2022, and UK corporate debt is no exception. The Bloomberg UK Corporate index of investment grade corporate debt has delivered a year-to-date total return of -11%, as the index yield-to-maturity rose 174bps to 4% - the highest level since 2014 (Chart 6). Relative to UK Gilts, the results have also been grim as corporate credit spreads have widened, with the Bloomberg UK corporate index realizing an excess return of -3% since the start of the year. We have maintained a neutral stance on UK corporate bond exposure in our global model bond portfolio during the selloff. This was the result of a relative value opinion, as we have concentrated our more defensive view on global investment grade corporate debt with an underweight to US corporates. However, after the significant repricing of UK investment grade credit, it is now a good time to reassess our opinion on the asset class. Spread Valuation From a pure spread valuation perspective, UK investment grade now looks more attractive. Our preferred valuation metric – 12-month breakeven spreads - shows that the UK investment grade corporate index spread, on a duration-adjusted basis, is now in the 75th percentile of its history over the past 25 years (Chart 7). Chart 7UK Corporate Spreads Now Offer Some Value We find 12-month breakevens to a useful spread valuation measure, as they show how much spreads would need to widen to make the expected one-year-ahead return on a credit product equal to that of a duration-matched position in government bonds. In other words, breakevens measure the spread “cushion” against excess return losses from spread widening. What makes the current attractive reading on UK investment grade spread valuation so interesting is that the absolute level of spreads is still relatively low. The Bloomberg UK investment grade corporate index spread is currently 170bps, but during previous episodes where the 12-month breakeven as near the top quartile ranking – as is currently the case – the index spread ranged from 200-350bps. The reason for that relates to the index duration which, at 7.3 years, is down 1.5 years from the 2020 peak and at the lowest level since 2011. Some of that lower duration is related to the convexity effect from higher corporate bond yields. But there has also been a reduction in the average maturity of the UK investment grade corporate bond universe, with the index average maturity now at 10.4 years, down a full year lower over the past 12 months and the lowest average maturity since 1999. UK companies appear to have shortened up the maturity profile of their bond issuance, which helped reduce the riskiness (duration) of corporate bond returns to rising yields. Thus, the message from the 12-month breakevens is correct – UK investment grade corporate bond yields are attractive from a historical perspective, on a duration-adjusted basis. Chart 8UK Credit Curves Are Relatively Flat When looking within the UK investment grade universe, the messages on valuation are a bit more mixed. The UK credit curve is not particularly steep, when looking at the spread differences by credit rating within the benchmark index universe (Chart 8). There is a similar message when looking at 12-month breakevens broken down by credit rating, where there is little difference between the percentile rankings (Chart 9). However, the 12-month breakeven percentile rankings broken down by maturity buckets show that shorter-maturity bonds have noticeably higher percentile rankings than longer-maturity UK corporates (top panel). From a cross-country perspective, UK corporate breakeven percentile rankings are much higher than equivalent rankings for US corporates, but are lower than those of the euro area. Chart 9Shorter-Maturity UK Spreads Are More Attractive Corporate Financial Health Our top-down UK Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) - which uses data on non-financial corporate sector revenues, expenses and balance sheets taken from GDP accounts – has shown a very strong improvement in UK corporate financial health over the past few years (Chart 10). The biggest improvements are in the categories related to debt service, with interest coverage at the highest level since 2002 and debt coverage is at the highest level since 1999. Chart 10UK Corporates Can Withstand Higher Borrowing Rates Chart 11Stay Neutral UK Corporates Until The BoE Is Done The message from our top-down UK CHM is similar to the conclusions from an October 2021 BoE report that analyzed the UK corporate sector from a financial stability perspective. In that report, the BoE used a bottom-up sample of 500 UK companies and concluded that corporate borrowing rates could rise as much as 400bps before the share of companies with a “distressed” interest coverage ratio below 2.5 would rise to the past historical peak. Within our top-down UK CHM, relatively wide corporate profit margins are also contributing to the strong reading on UK corporate health. Like the interest/debt coverage ratios, those margins provide some cushion to profits in the current environment of high inflation and elevated input costs for businesses. The all-in message from our UK CHM is that financial health is a fundamental tailwind for UK corporate bond performance. Monetary Policy Attractive spread valuations and strong financial health metrics would normally justify an overweight stance on any corporate bond market. However, the monetary policy cycle is also an important factor that drives corporate bond performance. Currently, with the BoE not only hiking rates but also moving to QT on asset purchases, monetary policy is a severe headwind to UK corporate bond returns. Related Report Global Fixed Income StrategyIt’s Time To Flip The Script - Upgrade UK Gilts The annual growth rate of the BoE’s balance sheet has proven to be a reliable leading indicator of UK corporate bond annual excess returns. With the growth in the balance sheet set to turn negative in the latter half of 2022 (Chart 11), it will prove difficult for UK credit spreads to narrow in a way that will boost excess returns. The BoE’s aggressive (by its standards) rate hiking cycle, in response to UK inflation that is nearing 10% alongside a very tight labor market, remains a threat to UK economic growth that is already losing some momentum. As we discussed in a recent Special Report, the UK neutral interest rate is likely no more than 1.5-2%. If the BoE were to follow current market pricing and push Bank Rate toward 2.5%, this would be a restrictive policy stance that would likely result in a sharp growth slowdown if not a full-blown recession. Importantly, our UK Central Bank Monitor is showing signs of peaking (bottom panel), due to signs of slower economic growth and tightening financial conditions. A peak in UK inflation would help reduce the Monitor even further, and would likely correspond to a pause on BoE rate hikes – a necessary condition before we would upgrade our recommended stance on UK investment grade corporates to overweight. Some Final Thoughts On Industry Sector Valuation Our UK investment grade corporate sector valuation model is a cross-sectional analysis of individual industry/sector corporate credit spreads, after controlling for differences in duration, convexity and credit rating. The model is currently signaling that there are few compelling valuation stories with positive “risk-adjusted” spreads (Chart 12). Only Financials look cheap, while Consumer Cyclicals, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Capital Goods are all trading at expensive risk-adjusted spreads. Chart 12Not Many Compelling Values Within UK Corporates By Industry An additional risk to UK corporate bond performance relates to the BoE’s decision to unwind its corporate bond portfolio. The BoE has announced that there will be outright sales from the corporate holdings accumulated over the past couple of years, with a goal of having the stock of debt fully unwound by the end of 2023. This is important for much of the UK investment grade corporate bond universe, where the BoE holds between 8-10%, on average, of outstanding debt (Chart 13).1 Chart 13The BoE Has Become An Important Corporate Bondholder When we compare our risk-adjusted spreads versus the BoE ownership share by sector, we conclude that Consumer Cyclicals, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Other Utilities offer the most unattractive combination of expensive spreads and high BoE concentration (Chart 14). We recommended underweight allocations to those sectors within an overall neutral allocation to UK corporates. Chart 14BoE Asset Sales Are A Major Risk For Some UK Corporate Sectors Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral stance on UK corporates, given the mix of attractive valuations but tighter monetary policy. Favoring shorter-maturity bonds and Financial names, but look to upgrade once UK inflation peaks and the Bank of England pauses on tightening. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In Chart 13, we use the market capitalization of each sector from the Bloomberg UK corporate bond index in the numerator of all ratios shown, as a proxy for outstanding debt. GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
Listen to a short summary of this report. Executive Summary Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap The Chinese economy faces a trifecta of economic woes: 1) The threat of renewed Covid lockdowns; 2) Cooling export demand; 3) A floundering housing market. Trying to reflate the Chinese housing bubble would only damage the long-term prospects of China’s economy. A much better option would be to adopt measures that boost disposable income. Not only would this help offset the drag from slowing export growth and a negative housing wealth effect, but it would also take some of the sting out of China’s zero-Covid policy. With the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash will only intensify. Chinese equities are trading at only 10-times forward earnings and about 1-times sales. A significant upward rating for equity valuations is likely if the government adopts broad-based income-support measures. Go long the iShares MSCI China ETF ($MCHI) as a tactical trade. Bottom Line: China faces a number of economic woes, but these are fully discounted by the market. What has not been discounted is a broad-based stimulus program focused on income-support measures. Dear Client, I will be visiting clients in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi next week. No doubt, the outlook for oil prices will feature heavily in my discussions. I will brief you on any insights I learn in my report on June 17. In the meantime, I am pleased to announce that Matt Gertken, BCA’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, will be the guest author of next week’s Global Investment Strategy report. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Triple Threat The Chinese economy faces a trifecta of economic woes: 1) The threat of renewed Covid lockdowns; 2) Cooling export demand; 3) A floundering housing market. Let us discuss each problem in turn. Problem #1: China’s Zero-Covid Policy in the Age of Omicron Chart 1China’s Lockdown Index Remains Elevated China was able to successfully suppress the virus in the first two years of the pandemic. However, the emergence of the Omicron strain is challenging the government’s commitment to its zero-Covid policy. The BA.2 subvariant of Omicron is 50% more contagious than the original Omicron strain and about 4-times more contagious than the Delta strain. While 89% of China’s population has been fully vaccinated, the number drops off to 82% for those above the age of 60. And those who are vaccinated have been inoculated with vaccines that appear to be largely ineffective against Omicron. Keeping a virus as contagious as measles at bay in a population with little natural or artificial immunity is exceedingly difficult. While the authorities are starting to relax restrictions in Shanghai, China’s Effective Lockdown Index remains at elevated levels (Chart 1). A number of domestically designed mRNA vaccines are in phase 3 trials. However, it is not clear how effective they will be. Shanghai-based Fosun Pharma has inked a deal to distribute 100 million doses of Pfizer’s vaccine, but so far neither it nor Moderna’s vaccine have been approved for use. Our working assumption is that China will authorize the distribution of western-made mRNA vaccines later this year if its own offerings prove ineffectual. The Chinese government has already signed a deal to manufacture a generic version of Pfizer’s Paxlovid, which has been shown to cut the risk of hospitalization by 90% if taken within five days of the onset of symptoms. In the meantime, the authorities will continue to play whack-a-mole with Covid. Investors should expect more lockdowns during the remainder of the year. Problem #2: Weaker Export Growth China’s export growth slowed sharply in April, with manufacturing production contracting at the fastest rate since data collection began. Activity appears to have rebounded somewhat in May, but the new export orders components of both the official and private-sector manufacturing PMIs still remain below 50 (Chart 2). Part of the export slowdown is attributable to lockdown restrictions. However, weaker external demand is also a culprit, as evidenced by the fact that Korean export growth — a bellwether for global trade — has decelerated (Chart 3). Chart 2China’s Export Growth Has Rolled Over Chart 3Softer Export Growth Is Not A China-Specific Phenomenon Spending in developed economies is shifting from manufactured goods to services. Retail inventories in the US are now well above their pre-pandemic trend, suggesting that the demand for Chinese-made goods will remain subdued over the coming months (Chart 4). The surge in commodity prices is only adding to Chinese manufacturer woes. Input prices rose 10% faster than manufacturing output prices over the past 12 months. This is squeezing profit margins (Chart 5). Chart 4Well-Stocked Shelves In The US Bode Poorly For Chinese Export Demand Chart 5Surging Input Costs Are Weighing On The Profits Of Chinese Commodity Users A modest depreciation in the currency would help the Chinese export sector. However, after weakening from 6.37 in April to 6.79 in mid-May, USD/CNY has moved back to 6.66 on the back of the recent selloff in the US dollar. Chart 6The RMB Tends To Weaken When EUR/USD Is Rising We expect the dollar to weaken further over the next 12 months as the Fed tempers its hawkish rhetoric in response to falling inflation. Chart 6 shows that the trade-weighted RMB typically strengthens when EUR/USD is rising. Chester Ntonifor, BCA’s Chief Currency Strategist, expects EUR/USD to reach 1.16 by the end of the year. Problem #3: Flagging Property Market Chinese housing sales, starts, and completions all contracted in April (Chart 7). New home prices dipped 0.2% on a month-over-month basis, and are up just 0.7% from a year earlier, the smallest gain since 2015. The percentage of households planning to buy a home is near record lows (Chart 8). Chart 7The Chinese Property Market Has Been Cooling Chart 8Intentions To Buy A House Have Declined China’s property developers are in dire straits. Corporate bonds for the sector are, on average, trading at 48 cents on the dollar (Chart 9). Goldman Sachs estimates that the default rate for property developers will reach 32% in 2022, up from their earlier estimate of 19%. The government is trying to prop up housing demand. The PBoC lowered the 5-year loan prime rate by 15 bps on May 20th, the largest such cut since 2019. The authorities have dropped the floor mortgage rate to a 14-year low of 4.25%. They have also taken steps to make it easier for property developers to issue domestic bonds. BCA’s China strategists believe these measures will foster a modest rebound in the property market in the second half of this year. However, they do not anticipate a robust recovery – of the sort experienced following the initial wave of the pandemic – due to the government’s continued adherence to the “three red lines” policy.1 China is building too many homes. While residential investment as a share GDP has been trending lower, it is still very high in relation to other countries. China’s working-age population is now shrinking, which suggests that housing demand will contract over the coming years (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Property Developer Bonds Are Trading At Distressed Levels Chart 10Shrinking Working-Age Population Implies Less Demand For Housing Chinese real estate prices are amongst the highest anywhere. The five biggest cities in the world with the lowest rental yields are all in China (Chart 11). The entire Chinese housing stock is worth nearly $100 trillion, making it the largest asset class in the world. As such, a decline in Chinese home prices would generate a sizable negative wealth effect. Chart 11Chinese Real Estate Is Expensive A Silver Bullet? Trying to reflate the Chinese housing bubble would only damage the long-term prospects of China’s economy. Luckily, one does not need to fill a leaky bucket through the same hole the water escaped. As long as there is enough demand throughout the economy, workers who lose their jobs in declining sectors will eventually find new jobs in other sectors. China needs to reorient its economy away from its historic reliance on investment and exports towards consumption. The easiest way to do that is to adopt measures that boost disposable income, which has slowed of late (Chart 12). Not only would this help offset the drag from slowing export growth and a negative housing wealth effect, but it would also take some of the sting out of China’s zero-Covid policy. The authorities have not talked much about pursuing large-scale income-support measures of the kind adopted by many developed economies during the pandemic. As a result, market participants have largely dismissed this possibility. Yet, with the Twentieth Party Congress slated for later this year, the political incentive to shower the economy with cash will only intensify. Chinese equities are trading at only 10-times forward earnings and about 1-times sales (Chart 13). A significant upward rating for equity valuations is likely if the government adopts broad-based income-support measures. As we saw in the US and elsewhere, stimulus cash has a habit of flowing into the stock market; and with real estate in the doldrums, equities may become the asset class of choice for many Chinese investors. With that in mind, we are going long the iShares MSCI China ETF ($MCHI) as a tactical trade. Chart 12Disposable Income Growth Has Been Trending Lower Chart 13Chinese Stocks Are Relatively Cheap At a global level, a floundering Chinese property market would have been a cause for grave concern in the past, as it would have represented a major deflationary shock. Times have changed, however. The problem now is too much inflation, rather than too little. To the extent that reduced Chinese investment injects more savings into the global economy and knocks down commodity prices, this would be welcomed by most investors. China’s economy may be heading for a “beautiful slowdown.” Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn Twitter Footnotes 1 The People’s Bank of China and the housing ministry issued a deleveraging framework for property developers in August 2020, consisting of a 70% ceiling on liabilities-to-assets, a net debt-to-equity ratio capped at 100%, and a limit on short-term borrowing that cannot exceed cash reserves. Developers breaching these “red lines” run the risk of being cut off from access to new loans from banks, while those who respect them can only increase their interest-bearing borrowing by 15% at most. View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Executive Summary First IG, Then HY Corporate bonds are following the 2018 roadmap. Investment grade underperformed Treasuries as interest rate expectations rose from low levels, then junk joined the selloff once rate expectations moved above estimates of neutral. Inflation is too high for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle, as it did in 2018/19, but the Fed will move more slowly than what is priced in the curve for 2022. Underlying economic growth is stronger than it was in 2018 and corporate balance sheets are in better shape. That being the case, even a modest dovish surprise from the Fed will be sufficient for corporate bond returns to form a bottom. Municipal bonds are attractively priced versus both Treasuries and credit, and state & local government balance sheets are in excellent condition. Stay overweight. Bottom Line: We maintain our cautious stance on corporate bonds for the time being, but are now on upgrade watch. Signs of peaking inflation and/or dovish signals from the Fed could cause us to increase exposure in the relatively near term. Stay tuned. Feature The similarities between recent market action and what occurred in 2018 are striking. Back in 2018, the Fed was in the process of lifting the policy rate back toward estimates of neutral. The yield curve flattened as a result, and investment grade corporate bonds responded to the removal of policy accommodation by underperforming duration-matched Treasuries (Chart 1). Chart 1The 2018 Experience Despite the Fed’s actions, high-yield initially performed well in 2018. That is, until the market started to believe that the Fed would over-tighten. Recession fears increased in late 2018 as near-term rate expectations surpassed estimates of neutral and high-yield sold off sharply, giving back all of its gains from earlier in the year and then some. Now let’s turn to the present day (Chart 2). Once again, investment grade corporates underperformed Treasuries as near-term rate expectations moved higher and the yield curve flattened. For its part, high-yield performed well during the early stages of the interest rate adjustment but returns plunged once 12-month forward rate expectations moved above survey estimates of neutral. Chart 2First IG, Then HY What’s Different This Time? While we think the 2018 roadmap is a good one, it’s important to consider the differences between 2018 and today before drawing any firm conclusions about future credit market performance. The first obvious difference is that the Fed had already been lifting rates for some time in 2018. In fact, the fed funds rate was above 2%. Today, the Fed is still in the early stages of its tightening cycle and the fed funds rate is only 0.83%. We think this difference is less significant than it initially appears because the level of the fed funds rate itself is less important than the perceived restrictiveness of monetary policy. Today, the market is priced for the fed funds rate to hit 3.18% in 12 months, higher than at any point in 2018 (Chart 3). We also see that the Treasury slope beyond the 2-year maturity point is about as flat today as it was in 2018 (Chart 3, bottom panel). This strongly suggests that the market perceives monetary policy as about as restrictive today as it was in late 2018. The second difference we identify is that inflation is much higher today than it was in 2018 (Chart 4). This is potentially bad news for future credit market performance. High inflation gives the Fed a strong incentive to keep lifting rates even if risky assets sell off. In 2018, the Fed reversed course on its tightening cycle once broad financial conditions tightened into restrictive territory. That’s an easy decision to make when inflation is close to 2%. It’s much more difficult to do with inflation where it is now. Chart 3Monetary Conditions Are Similar Chart 4Inflation Is Much Higher … High inflation makes it unlikely that the Fed will pull a 180 on its tightening cycle. But on the flipside, today’s strong underlying economic growth means that a complete reversal on rate hikes is probably not necessary to avoid a recession. Just look at the labor market. Labor market utilization, as measured by both the unemployment rate and the prime-age employment-to-population ratio, is in a similar place today as it was in 2018 (Chart 5). However, despite a tight labor market, job growth is running at a much stronger pace this year. Nonfarm payroll gains have averaged 523 thousand during the past three months. In 2018, in a similarly tight labor market, monthly job growth averaged just 191 thousand. Now turn to housing, arguably the most important channel through which interest rates impact the economy. In a prior report we identified that the 12-month moving average of housing starts dipping below the 24-month moving average is a good indicator for the end of a Fed rate hike cycle.1 In 2018, our housing starts indicator was barely positive. Today, it is extremely elevated (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5… But Growth Is Much Stronger The key point is that with employment growth and housing starts trending at much better levels than in 2018, we can conclude that the Fed has a fair amount of scope to tighten policy before threatening to push the economy into recession. The upshot for corporate bond markets is that the threshold for Fed capitulation is also different. While a full backtracking away from rate hikes was necessary to avoid a recession and spur corporate bond outperformance in 2018, both the economy and financial markets likely require less of a Fed reversal today. The final difference we identify between 2018 and today relates to the health of corporate balance sheets (Chart 6). Compared to 2018, nonfinancial corporations are carrying much less debt as a percentage of net worth, have significantly higher interest coverage and are benefiting from net ratings upgrades. Much like with the labor market and housing indicators, there’s every reason to believe that corporations are better equipped to handle higher interest rates today than they were in 2018. Chart 6Balance Sheets Are Healthier The Way Forward If we look back at Chart 1, we see that the 2018 roadmap is for the Fed to abandon its tightening cycle, leading to a sharp drop in near-term rate expectations and a V-shaped bottom in excess corporate bond returns. We won’t get such a swift Fed reversal this year, but there are strong odds that the Fed will lift rates by less than what is currently discounted in the market between now and the end of 2022. As we noted in last week’s Webcast, we expect the Fed to deliver two more 50 basis point rate hikes (in June and July) before shifting to 25 bps per meeting increments in September once it’s clear that inflation is trending down (Chart 7).2 We also see potential for relief at the long-end of the yield curve, where 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yields have room to fall back toward survey estimates of the long-run neutral rate (Chart 8). Chart 7Rate Expectations Chart 8Yields Above Fair Value It’s also worth noting that corporate bond valuations have improved markedly during the past few weeks. The 12-month breakeven spread for investment grade corporates is back above its historical median, and the junk index is priced for a 6.3% default rate during the next 12 months (Chart 9). Investment grade and high-yield index spreads are also now well above their respective 2017-19 averages, as is the spread differential between high-yield and investment grade (Chart 10). Chart 9Corporate Bond Valuation Chart 10Favor HY Over IG The bottom line is that we are slowly turning more positive on corporate bonds. Falling inflation will cause the Fed to tighten by less than what is expected this year, and it will soon become apparent that – as was the case in 2018 – the US economy is not close to tipping into recession. Spreads also present an increasingly attractive opportunity. That said, with the Fed still poised to deliver 100 bps of tightening within the next two months, we are not yet ready to abandon our relatively cautious corporate bond allocation. We maintain our underweight (2 out of 5) allocation to investment grade corporate bonds and our neutral (3 out of 5) allocation to high-yield, but we are now firmly on upgrade watch. Signs of peaking inflation and/or signals that the Fed will pivot to a hiking pace of 25 bps per meeting could cause us to increase our recommended corporate bond exposure in the relatively near term. Stay tuned. Seek Refuge In Municipal Bonds While we wait for clearer signs of a bottom in corporate credit, investors can more confidently deploy capital in the municipal bond market. Municipal / Treasury yield ratios have jumped in recent weeks, and they are now back above post-2010 averages across the entire yield curve (Chart 11). Long-maturity municipal bonds are even trading at a before-tax premium relative to US Treasuries (Chart 11, top 2 panels). Municipal bonds are also trading at above-average yields relative to credit rating and duration-matched corporate bonds (Chart 12). This is despite the recent back-up we’ve witnessed in corporate bond spreads. Chart 11Muni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 12Munis Cheap Versus Credit Not only are munis attractively priced versus both Treasuries and corporates, but state & local government balance sheet indicators show that municipal credit quality is sky high (Chart 13). Tax revenues have accelerated since the pandemic, but state & local governments have remained cautious about spending their windfalls. Despite being flush with cash, state & local governments have re-hired only a small fraction of the employees that were let go during the pandemic (Chart 13, panel 2). The result of this lack of spending is that state & local government net savings are the highest they’ve been in years (Chart 13, panel 3). Chart 13State & Local Government Health Bottom Line: Municipal bonds are attractively valued versus both Treasuries and investment grade corporates, and state & local government balance sheets are in superb condition. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Bond Market Implications Of A 5% Mortgage Rate”, dated April 26, 2022. 2 https://www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/detail/537 Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns