Correlations
Highlights Subdued long-term inflation expectations and central bank bond purchases have suppressed the term premium. This is set to change, as quantitative easing turns into quantitative tightening and shrinking output gaps around the world start to push up inflation. The neutral rate in the U.S. is likely higher than the Federal Reserve realizes, which could leave the Fed behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. A spike in the term premium is unlikely this year, given the prospect of a stronger dollar and ongoing stresses in emerging markets. Next year may be a different story, however. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. Asset allocators should keep equity and credit exposure at neutral. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over cyclicals. Feature The Mystery Of The Falling Term Premium The yield on a bond can be decomposed into the expected path of short-term rates and a term premium. Historically, the term premium has been positive, meaning that investors could expect to earn a higher return by purchasing a bond rather than by rolling over a short-term bill.1 More recently, the term premium has turned negative in many economies (Chart 1). Not only are investors willing to forego the extra return for taking on duration risk, but they are actually willing to sacrifice return when buying long-term bonds. Chart 1Term Premia Across Developed Markets Are Low There are two main reasons why the term premium has fallen: Long-term inflation expectations have been very subdued, which has made bonds a hedge against bad economic outcomes. Central bank purchases have depressed yields, while forward guidance has dampened interest-rate volatility. Bonds And Risk Some commentators like to describe the riskiness of a security by how volatile its price is, or if they want to get a bit more sophisticated, the skew of its returns. But this is not really the right way to think about risk. As Harry Markowitz first discussed in 1952 in his seminal paper "Portfolio Selection," investors ultimately care about their overall level of wealth. If the price of a certain security goes up when the prices of all others go down, investors should prefer to hold this particular security even if it offers a subpar expected return. Bonds today play the role of this safe security. Chart 2 shows the rolling correlation between monthly changes in the 10-year Treasury bond yield and the S&P 500. The correlation was generally negative between the late-1960s and late-1990s: Bond yields back then tended to rise whenever the S&P 500 was falling. This made bonds a bad hedge against lower equity prices. Chart 2Bond Yields Now Tend To Rise When Equity Prices Go Up Over the past two decades, however, bond yields have generally declined whenever the stock market has swooned. Since a lower bond yield implies a higher bond price, bonds have been a good hedge against equity risk in particular, and a weaker economy in general. As a consequence, investors are now willing to pay a premium to hold long-term bonds. This has bid up the price of bonds, so much so that the term premium has dipped into negative territory. Receding Inflation Fears Have Made Bonds Safer Why did the correlation between bond yields and stock market returns change? The answer has a lot to do with what happened to inflation. Bond yields can go up because of expectations of stronger growth or because of the anticipation of higher inflation. The former is good for equities, while the latter is typically bad for equities because it heralds additional monetary tightening. As inflation expectations became increasingly unhinged in the second half of the 1960s, inflationary shocks became the dominant driver of bond yields. When bond yields went up during that period, stock prices usually fell. That changed in the 1990s, as inflation stabilized at low levels and growth became the primary driver of yields once again (Chart 3). Chart 3Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have ##br##Remained Subdued For Over Two Decades Following the financial crisis, inflationary concerns were supplanted by worries about deflation. Falling inflation is generally good for bond investors. If inflation declines, the real purchasing power of a bond's interest and principal payments will go up. For investors who have to mark-to-market their portfolios, the benefits of lower inflation are especially clear. A decline in inflation will take the pressure off central banks to hike rates. This will cause the price of existing bonds to rise, delivering an immediate capital gain to their holders. Moreover, to the extent that falling inflation expectations typically accompany rising worries about the growth outlook, investors will benefit from a decline in the expected path of real interest rates. QE And The Term Premium While falling inflation expectations have been the most important driver of the decline in the term premium, central bank asset purchases have also lent a helping hand. In standard macroeconomic models, bond yields are determined at the margin by the willingness of private investors to hold the existing stock of debt. If a central bank buys bonds, this reduces the volume of bonds that the private sector can hold. To induce private investors to hold fewer bonds, bond yields must decline. There is no consensus about how much quantitative easing has depressed bond yields. A Fed study published in April of last year estimated that QE had depressed the 10-year yield by 100 basis points at the time of writing, a number that the authors expected to decline to 85 basis points by the end of 2017.2 Other studies found that the peak impact on yields has ranged from 90-to-200 basis points. One thing that is empirically undeniable is that there is a large international component to bond yields. The steep decline in the U.S. term premium in 2014 was mainly driven by the expectation - ultimately proven correct - that the ECB would launch its own QE program. Asset purchases by the Bank of Japan, along with its yield curve control policy, also contributed to lower bond yields in the rest of the world. Things are beginning to change, however (Chart 4). The Fed is now letting its balance sheet shrink by about $40 billion per month, a number that will rise to $50 billion in October. The Bank of England has kept its holdings of gilts and corporate bonds constant for over a year, while the ECB intends to start tapering asset purchases later this year. The Bank of Japan continues to buy assets, but even there, the pace of annual purchases has fallen from about 80 trillion yen in 2015-16 to 35 trillion at present. Meanwhile, the use of forward guidance - which was arguably even more instrumental in suppressing interest rate volatility and pushing down the term premium than QE - is likely to be scaled back, at least in the United States. Fed Chair Powell said on May 25: "I think [forward guidance] will have a significantly smaller role going forward." Incoming New York Fed President John Williams echoed this sentiment, noting in a Bloomberg interview that "I think this forward guidance, at some point, will be past its shelf life."3 Opening The Fiscal Spigots Just as central banks are purchasing fewer bonds in the open market, bond issuance is set to rise. Usually the U.S. budget deficit narrows whenever the unemployment rate declines, as strong economic growth draws in more tax revenue and spending on social programs drops (Chart 5). Things are different this time around. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects the U.S. budget deficit to increase from 2.4% of GDP in 2015 to 4.6% of GDP in 2019. Chart 4From Quantitative Easing To ##br##Quantitative Tightening Chart 5Unlike In The Past, The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even ##br##If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The Trump tax cuts have imperiled the long-term fiscal outlook. Up until last year, the U.S. fiscal picture appeared much better than it once did. In 2009, the amount of federal debt held by the public was projected to exceed 250% of GDP in 2046. By 2016, that forecast had been reduced to 113% of GDP, thanks mainly to the economic recovery and slower projected spending growth on health care following the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (Chart 6). The Trump tax cuts have blown those forecasts out of the water. We estimate that government debt held by the public will increase to almost 190% of GDP in 2046 if current policies are maintained. Chart 6Trump Tax Cuts Have Put Debt Trajectory ##br##Back On An Unsustainable Path While the stock of debt, rather than the flow, determines bond yields in the standard bond pricing model, flows can still matter if they provide a reliable signal as to how large the stock of debt will be in the future. Given that changes in fiscal policy are often hard to reverse, the deterioration in the fiscal outlook suggests that the stock of government debt will be much larger than investors had expected a few years ago. This justifies a higher term premium today. Broken Accelerator? Subdued inflation expectations have kept the term premium in check, but the prospect of ill-timed fiscal stimulus raises doubts about whether this state of affairs will persist. What would happen to inflation if the economy found itself in an overheated state for a prolonged period of time? The truth is that no one really knows the answer to that question. Some prominent economists have contended that nothing terrible would transpire. They argue that the entire concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is passé. In their view, the magnitude of economic slack determines the level of inflation, not the rate of change in inflation. Recent data provides some support to their views. Shrinking output gaps in much of the world during the past eight years have failed to raise inflation by very much, let alone cause inflation to accelerate to the upside (Chart 7). If an overheated economy simply results in modestly higher inflation, rather than increasing inflation, central banks have little to fear. A bit more inflation would allow central bankers to target a higher nominal interest rate, thus giving them greater scope to cut rates in the event of an economic downturn. Higher inflation could also improve labor market flexibility by permitting real wages to fall in the presence of nominal wage rigidities.4 In addition, as we have argued in the past, modestly higher inflation could make the financial system less susceptible to asset bubbles.5 Unfortunately, the case for letting the economy overheat is not so straightforward. For one thing, the relationship between inflation and unemployment tends to be non-linear. As Chart 8 illustrates, an economy's aggregate supply curve is likely to be quite shallow when there is a lot of excess capacity but rather steep when most of the slack has been absorbed. We may simply have not yet reached the steep side of the aggregate supply curve. Chart 7Developed Markets: Inflation Has Remained ##br##Low Despite Shrinking Output Gaps Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed The experience of the late 1960s illustrates this point. Core inflation was remarkably stable during the first half of the decade, even as the unemployment rate continued to drift lower. In economic parlance, the Phillips curve was very flat. However, once the unemployment rate fell below 4%, core inflation took off, rising from 1.5% in early 1966 to nearly 4% in 1967 (Chart 9). Inflation ultimately made its way to 6% in 1970, three years before the first oil shock struck. Anchors Away The upward trend in inflation observed during the 1970s underscores another point, which is that there is no unique mapping between the unemployment rate and inflation. To use a bit of economic jargon, not only does the slope of the Phillips curve vary depending on what the unemployment rate is, but the intercept of the curve could potentially move up or down in response to changes in long-term inflation expectations (Chart 10). Chart 9Inflation In The 1960s Took Off Once ##br##The Economy Began To Overheat Chart 10An Increase In Inflation Expectations Can ##br##Cause The Phillips Curve To Shift Upwards Chart 11Market Expectations Versus The Fed Dots This is a point that Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps made more than fifty years ago. Friedman and Phelps argued that central banks could only stimulate the economy if they delivered more inflation than people were anticipating. Higher-than-expected inflation would push down real interest rates, leading to more spending. As the two economists correctly noted, however, such an outcome would only occur if people systematically underestimated what inflation would end up being. If people made inflation forecasts in a fairly rational manner, the apparent trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment would evaporate: Inflation would rise, but output would not be any greater than before. One of the errors that central banks made in the 1970s is that they kept interest rates too low for too long in the mistaken belief that slower growth was the result of inadequate demand rather than a decline in the growth rate in the economy's productive capacity and a higher equilibrium rate of unemployment. Today, the error may be in thinking that the neutral rate of interest is lower than it really is. As we argued several weeks ago, cyclical factors have probably pushed up the neutral rate quite a bit over the past few years.6 Neither the Fed dots nor market pricing are adequately discounting this possibility (Chart 11). Inflation is a notoriously lagging indicator. It typically does not peak until after a recession has begun and does not bottom until the recovery is well underway (Chart 12). By the time the Fed realizes it is behind the curve, inflation could already be substantially higher. The fact that the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge - which leads core CPI inflation by about 18 months - has risen to over 3% provides some evidence in support of this view (Chart 13). Chart 12Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 13Upside Risks To U.S. Inflation Investment Conclusions A sudden increase in the term premium could set in motion a vicious circle where bond yields rise and the stock market falls at the same. In such a setting, bonds would lose much of their appeal as a hedge against equity drawdowns. This could put even more upward pressure on the term premium, leading to even lower stock prices. Chart 14 shows that the MOVE index, a measure of implied volatility for the Treasury market, remains near historically low levels. Just as investors were too complacent about the possibility of an equity volatility spike earlier this year, they are too complacent about the possibility of an increase in bond volatility. Chart 14Investors Are Too Complacent Getting the timing of any change in the term premium is critical, of course. It often takes a while for an overheated economy to generate inflation. The unemployment rate fell nearly two percentage points below its full employment level in the 1960s before inflation took off. The U.S. economy is only now starting to boil over. Moreover, if the dollar continues to strengthen over the coming months, as we expect, this could put downward pressure on commodity prices. Thus, we do not foresee a major inflation-induced spike in the term premium this year. Next year may be a very different story. If inflation ratchets higher in 2019, the term premium could jump. The resulting tightening in financial conditions could pave the way for a recession in 2020. Fixed-income investors with a 12-to-18 month horizon should maintain duration risk at below-benchmark levels. We downgraded global equities and credit exposure to neutral last month. Within the equity space, investors should favor developed market equities over their EM peers and defensive sectors over deep cyclicals such as industrials and materials. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Note that the term premium and the slope of the yield curve are different concepts. The slope of the yield curve measures the difference in yields between two maturities at any given point in time. In contrast, the term premium measures the difference between the return on a long-term bond and the return an investor would receive by rolling over a short-term bill over the life of that bond. Unlike the slope of the yield curve, which can be observed directly, the term premium has to be estimated using market expectations of the future path of short-term rates. 2 Please see Brian Bonis, Ihrig, Jane, and Wei, Min, "The Effect of the Federal Reserve's Securities Holdings on Longer-term Interest Rates," FEDS Notes, Federal Reserve (April 20, 2017); Edison Yu, "Did Quantitative Easing Work?" Economic Insight, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Research Department (First quarter 2016); and "Unconventional Monetary Policies -- Recent Experience And Prospects," IMF (April 18, 2013). 3 Jeanna Smialek, "Powell Sees Significantly Smaller Role for Fed Forward Guidance," Bloomberg (May 25, 2018); and Jeanna Smialek, "The Incoming New York Fed Chief Talks About Inflation and the Yield Curve," Bloomberg (May 16 2018). 4 A low-inflation environment can have adverse economic consequences during economic downturns due to the presence of downward rigidity of nominal wages. Firms typically try to reduce costs when demand for their products and services declines, but employers tend to be unwilling or unable to cut nominal wages. In this context, higher inflation provides a potential way to overcome nominal wage rigidity as it helps real wages to adjust to negative shocks. When inflation is low, real wages become less flexible, making it more likely that firms will opt for job cuts as a means to decrease overall costs. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tinbergen's Ghost," dated May 11, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again," dated July 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Please note that we are also publishing a Special Report on Mexico. Highlights The selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Federal Reserve's resolve to tighten is aggravating the situation but is not the main cause of the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal in ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but rather a bottom in the global trade cycle and China's growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore believe there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. Feature In our trip to Asia last week, the majority of investors we met attributed the current emerging market (EM) selloff to Federal Reserve tightening and trade wars. While we are not suggesting that the Fed tightening or trade war rhetoric have not impacted EM risk assets, we do contend that these reasons are inadequate to explain the selloff. In our opinion, the EM selloff has as much been driven by a slowdown in global trade as by expectations of higher U.S. interest rates and other factors. Diagnosing the underlying bases of a market move correctly is instrumental in gauging its sustainability and an eventual reversal. If one believes that the EM selloff has been due to the Fed, it would require the Fed turning dovish for the selloff to halt and reverse. If, however, the EM carnage has been driven by slowing global trade, the necessary condition for a reversal would be a bottom in the global trade cycle. In such a case, a dovish turn by the Fed or a drop in U.S. bond yields in and of themselves are unlikely to be sufficient. While EM risk assets could rebound for a couple of weeks on lower interest rate expectations in the U.S., any rebound will prove to be short-lived, and EM will resume their downtrend. Assessing the dynamics of both financial markets and the business cycle has led us to conclude that the EM selloff has been not only due to Fed tightening and the U.S.-China trade confrontation, but even more so due to a slowdown in global trade. The latter has transpired even though U.S. economic growth remains very robust. Chart I-1 illustrates that EM currencies and sovereign spreads correlate well with global trade growth. Since the beginning of this year, global trade and EM manufacturing have been decelerating, despite ongoing strength in U.S. demand. This, in our opinion, has been the main reason for the selloff in EM risk assets. In fact, EM manufacturing PMI and EM non-financials' corporate profit growth have rolled over since early this year, explaining widening in EM credit spreads (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade##br## Has Begun Slowing Down Chart I-2Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits ##br##Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads In turn, Chart I-3 demonstrates that the correlation between EM corporate spreads and share prices on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other is rather loose. Notably, U.S. bond yields are at the same level they were in early April when the EM-centred selloff began. Meanwhile, EM equity and credit markets have diverged from their U.S. peers since early April (Chart I-4). Chart I-3EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: ##br##Loose Correlation Chart I-4The Recent Divergence##br## Between EM And U.S. In this context, an important question is as follows: Why are EM economies and financial markets more vulnerable to rising U.S. borrowing costs than the U.S. itself? In reality, the American economy, stock market and corporate credit should be more exposed to Fed tightening than EM economies and financial markets. Yet the U.S. economy, stocks and corporate credit market have so far weathered rising borrowing costs quite well. Most interest rate-sensitive segments such as mortgages for home purchases and the junk corporate credit market have remained resilient. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the Fed funds rate has been mixed - albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-5). On this chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks rallied despite rising Fed funds rate. Chart I-5EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles The episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet, it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals - elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Chart I-6The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-'98. These late 1990 EM crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields (Chart I-6). In contrast, EM stocks, credit markets and currencies did well during a period of rising Fed funds rate in 1988-89, 1999-2000, and 2017 as illustrated in Chart I-5. Altogether, we conclude that rising U.S. interest rates in and of themselves are not a sufficient condition for EM to sell off. Only in combination with poor EM fundamentals and a weakening global business cycle are rising U.S. borrowing costs negative for EM financial markets. EM fundamentals have been and remain indigent since early this decade. The 2016-'17 rally in EM was due to improving global growth. Yet the global business cycle has rolled over since early this year. This, in combination with lingering weak fundamentals throughout EM and the Fed's tightening, has produced the current EM selloff. All in all, the ongoing selloff in EM risk assets has been mainly due to the slowdown in global trade/business cycle. When global trade expands, weak parts of the chain do well. Conversely, when global trade growth dwindles, these same weak links are the first to break. As we have argued repeatedly, EM fundamentals have remained destitute in spite of 2016-17 rally. Indeed as soon as global trade began decelerating, the weakest parts of the global chain cracked. Specifically, China's import volumes for many raw materials and commodities have decelerated significantly (Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B). Imports of consumer goods, machinery, and transport equipment remain strong (Chart 7A, bottom panel). We believe it is a matter of time before the ongoing slowdown in credit and capital spending brings about weaker imports of industrial goods and machinery. Chart I-7AChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Chart I-7BChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Even though consumer spending in China remains robust, it has had a limited impact on the global economy in general and the rest of EM in particular. Most consumer goods and services that Chinese households buy are produced and sold domestically by mainland companies. In short, China's impact on EM and the rest of the world are primarily via its imports of commodities/raw materials and industrial goods, which are very vulnerable. On-shore listed Chinese stocks are also signaling that a pronounced growth deceleration is underway. Even though the MSCI China investable equity indexes remain elevated, their onshore peers have plunged. Chart I-8A and 8B demonstrate that China's onshore listed stock prices - large cap, small cap and many sectors - have plunged to or below their early 2016 lows. Chart I-8AChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chart I-8BChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chart I-9New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance This downbeat message from Chinese onshore equity prices along with the recent sharp depreciation of the RMB corroborate that the mainland growth slowdown is gaining speed, which in turn argues for a bearish outlook for EM financial markets. Bottom Line: Our diagnosis is that the selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade and China's growth deceleration amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Fed's resolve in tightening is aggravating the situation, but it is not the main cause behind the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal of the ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but a bottom in the global trade cycle and Chinese growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore posit there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. EM relative equity performance versus DM has broken to new cycle lows for the small-cap and equal-weighted indexes (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). The market cap-weighted overall index will likely be heading to new lows for this cycle too (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Investors should stay short/underweight EM risk assets. Our recommended country allocation is presented below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
While copper prices remain comfortably within the $2.90 to $3.30/lb range they've occupied this year, the rising threat of a Sino - U.S. trade war spilling into the global trading system, along with slowing credit and monetary stimulus in China, will continue to roil copper markets. Refined copper prices - like most commodities - are highly sensitive to the level of world copper demand and EM imports, particularly out of Asia, which are closely tied to income. EM income growth is expected to remain strong; however, a global trade war, or a significant slowing in trade that reduces investment in EM markets and stymies income growth will be bearish for copper prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Going into tomorrow's OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia apparently were divided on how much crude oil production needed to be restored to the market. Increases of as little as 300k to 600k b/d and as much as 1.5mm b/d are flying around the market in the lead-up to the meeting.1 Meanwhile, China threatened to impose tariffs on oil imports from the U.S. if President Trump goes ahead with additional tariffs. The increased Sino - American acrimony on trade issues raises the likelihood China will significantly increase oil imports from Iran, in our estimation, which will exacerbate tensions even further. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) soared at the end of last week following the closure of India's largest smelter. The Metal Bulletin TC/RC index went to an average of $85/MT at the end of last week, up from $82.25/MT. The pricing service also reported China's primary copper-smelting capacity is lower in June due to environmental constraints. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices dropped below $1,300/oz following the FOMC meeting last week, as Fed officials - e.g., Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan - nodded toward a fourth rate hike this year, even though his base case remained at three. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains and beans are down as much as 10% in the past week, on the back of additional tariffs announced by the Trump administration - 10% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. The new tariffs were a retaliatory move by the administration, and represent an escalation of tit-for-tat measures by both sides. Feature Chart of the WeekMajor Drivers of Copper Prices Still Supportive Rising EM incomes and expanding world trade volumes, particularly EM imports, have supported base metals prices for the past two years. This was partly aided by expansionary fiscal and monetary policy in China, the world's largest base-metals market, in 2016, which reversed overly restrictive monetary and fiscal policy in the two years prior. For the most part, these supportive underpinnings are still in place for EM commodity growth over the next two years (Chart of the Week). However, their stability increasingly is being threatened by rising Sino - American trade tensions, and the limited room for credit and fiscal expansion in China.2 Global Copper Demand And Trade In its most recent update of global growth, the World Bank is expecting the rate of growth globally to level off this year and next. However, the Bank expects income growth in EM and developing economies - the growth engines of commodity demand - to go from 4.3% last year to 4.5% this year, and 4.7% next year. EM growth will be dominated by South Asia (Chart 2).3 EM GDP growth is of particular importance to commodity markets, since this constitutes the bulk of commodity demand growth generally, particularly in base metals and oil. For the largest EM economies, the income elasticity of demand for copper is 0.70, meaning a 1% increase in income leads to a 0.70% increase in copper consumption. The Bank notes, "The seven largest emerging markets (EM7) accounted for almost all the increase in global consumption of metals, and two-thirds of the increase in energy consumption" over the past 20 years.4 In what the Bank refers to as Low Income Countries (LICs) - a grouping of smaller economies loaded with commodity producers - GDP is expected to grow 6% p.a. on average over the 2018 - 2020 period. Chart 2World Bank Expects Solid EM Growth EM GDP growth fuels copper demand. Since 2000, a 1% increase in global copper consumption ex-China translates into an almost 2% increase in high-grade refined copper prices, based on results of our modeling. When we replace ex-China demand with China, we see a 1% increase in China's consumption translates into a 0.75% increase in high-grade copper prices over the 2000 - 2018 interval. China's growth is expected to slow going forward, in the wake of a managed slowdown, and due to the fact that, as its economy evolves, more of its growth will come from services and consumer demand, which are less commodity intensive. GDP growth also fuels trade, and vice versa. The Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. In our modeling, we've found a 1% increase in EM trade volumes translates into a 1.3% increase in high-grade copper prices, an elasticity in line with post-GFC trade growth. The other key variable in our modeling is the broad trade-weighted USD, which remains a highly important variable for copper prices. In both our global copper-demand and EM import volume models for copper prices, the level of the USD is an important explanatory variable - a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWIB translates into ~ 3% decrease (increase) in copper prices since 2000 in our estimates.5 Tight Credit Conditions In China Can Weigh On Copper ... We've been expecting China's managed slowdown in 2H18 to be offset by strong global demand, which, all else equal, would keep copper demand fairly stable.6 While we still do not expect a hard landing in China, the slowdown we've been expecting is showing up in weaker industrial production prints, disappointing retail sales in May, and most significantly, regulatory and liquidity tightening weighing on money and credit. Chinese demand makes up ~ 50% of global metal consumption, these markets would be especially vulnerable in the case of a significant slowdown. The fear of a more serious slump is founded on tighter financial conditions restricting capital spending, and GDP growth. Granger causality tests to determine the direction of causation between Chinese monetary variables and copper prices point to causality running from de-trended levels of all four measures of money and credit to copper prices (Table 1).7 Table 1Chinese Credit And Copper Prices: Evidence Of Causality Furthermore, y/y changes in copper prices are more highly correlated with monetary variables expressed in terms of de-trended levels, than with those same variables expressed as y/y growth rates, or impulses (Chart 3). Across the four credit and money measures, this expression yields an average correlation coefficient of 0.56, compared with 0.38 and 0.37 when expressed as y/y growth rates and impulses as a percent of GDP, respectively. Our modeling also indicates that it generally takes two to three quarters for the full effect of a change in China's credit conditions to be transmitted to copper markets. When we restrict the sample size to the period from 2010 to now we get similar results to our longer intervals (Chart 4). However monetary variables are more highly correlated with copper prices in the shorter sample. Chart 3Chinese Credit Leads Copper Prices By 3 Quarters... Chart 4...A Slightly Longer Lead Time Since 2010 Correlations in the period since 2010 average 0.61, 0.57, and 0.45 for the de-trended levels, y/y growth rates, and impulses, respectively. This can be put down to the fact that China's role as a demand market for copper has been steadily growing over this period. Given that between 2000 and 2017, China's share of global copper demand swelled from 12% to 50%, it is only natural that the impact of its domestic economy on global copper prices also increased (Chart 5). Furthermore, the time lag between Chinese monetary variables and copper markets in the more recent sample increased slightly, with money and credit variables leading prices by 9-10 months, compared to 6-8 months in the full sample. Chart 5China's Growing Role In Copper Markets Bottom Line: De-trended Chinese money and credit variables statistically cause, and are correlated with, y/y changes in copper prices. While these relationships have generally strengthened with China's growing role in the demand side of global copper markets, rolling correlations highlight that there are also extended periods of weak correlations, suggesting fundamental factors can overwhelm the impact of China's credit environment on global copper markets, as has been the case for the past two years. ...But Other Factors Can Take Over In estimating the effect of China's money and credit conditions on copper markets, we find that the relationship can be dominated by supply - demand fundamentals, and overall global macro conditions. More specifically, we find that in periods where DM equity markets outperform EM equity markets, the coefficients in our models with y/y copper prices as the dependent variable are on average 13% lower than the full sample period (Chart 6). Similarly, in periods where EM outperforms DM, the models' credit coefficients are on average 15% higher than the full sample period.8 Our modeling indicates the pre-2005 period as well as the post-2015 intervals as periods during which strong copper demand from growing DM economies weakened the long-term relationship between Chinese money and credit variables and copper prices. Given our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, this will, to some extent, offset the negative implications of the deteriorating credit environment in China on copper demand and prices. Similarly, in periods characterized by backwardated copper markets, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese money and credit variables on copper prices is on average 35% lower than the full sample (Chart 7). On the other hand, when the copper market is in contango, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese financial variables is on average 13% higher than the full sample period. This highlights the importance of physical fundamentals, and the fact that in cases where they deviate from the direction of the Chinese credit environment - such as during a supply shock - the physical fundamentals weaken historical correlation relationships. Chart 6Credit-Copper Relationship Weakens When DM Outperforms EM ... Chart 7... And When Markets Are Backwardated To rank the top explanatory financial variables in terms of their effect on the evolution of copper prices, we estimated regression models with monetary variables, along with the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar, and world excluding China copper demand as independent variables (Table 2). Table 2USD Usually Dominates Copper's Evolution The results, which can be interpreted as the y/y percentage point (pp) change in copper prices from a one y/y pp increase in each of the three explanatory variables, indicate that Chinese credit has a similar effect as a one y/y pp increase in world excluding China copper demand, a not-unexpected result, given the rest of the world accounts for 50% of demand. On the other hand, the USD has an outsized effect on the copper market. In our modeling, we've found that, in general, a one pp increase (decrease) in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a one pp change in copper prices, using y/y models.9 Will Copper Vs. USD Correlations Return To Equilibrium? Our House view calls for a stronger USD going forward. Despite our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, absent supply-side shocks, a stronger USD along with deteriorating credit conditions in China will weigh on copper prices.10 Ongoing trade disputes will only further bear down on the copper market. Stronger EM GDP growth and the associated increase in copper consumption and trade volumes will offset the strong-USD effects, but a trade war would undermine this support. A caveat to this conclusion is that while credit growth has been generally restrained, the Chinese government - fearful that its policy measures to date are spiraling out of control - may partially reverse its efforts and attempt some easing.11 Bottom Line: The impact of Chinese credit conditions on copper prices is weakened in periods where DM stock prices outperform EM, and when the copper forward curve is backwardated. In terms of the relative magnitude of the effect of China's credit conditions, we find that it has a similar sized effect as the rest of the world's copper demand on the red metal's price, while the USD has a relatively larger effect. This implies that a stronger USD, coupled with tighter financial conditions in China, will compete with expanding EM GDPs and trade growth going forward. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we've coined for the oil producer coalition lead by KSA and Russia. In November 2016, the coalition agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of production. We estimate actual production cuts amount to 1.2mm b/d, while as much a 1.5mm b/d of production has been lost to depletion and a lack of maintenance drilling (e.g., infill and other forms of enhanced oil recovery). 2 Our colleague Peter Berezin, writing in this week's Global Investment Strategy, noting slowing industrial production, retail sales and fixed-asset investment, observes, China's "policy response has been fairly muted." Further, unlike 2015, when China stimulated its economy and lifted EM generally, this go-round, there is less room to maneuver owing to high debt levels and overcapacity. Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global risk Assets To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand" in the Bank's Global Economic Prospects, June 2018, beginning on p. 61. 4 The Bank's EM7 are Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. They account for ~ 25% of global GDP, and some 60% of global metals consumption. The income elasticities of aluminum and zinc demand for this group are 0.80 and 0.30, respectively. Please see Table SF1.1 on p. 70 of the Bank's June report. 5 The R2 statistic measuring the goodness of fit between actual copper prices and the modeled prices is 94% for the copper-consumption model, and 96% for the EM trade model over the 2000 - 2018 interval. The USD TWIB was used as an explanatory variable in both models. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Given that in levels, the money and credit variables display a deterministic upward trend, we removed the trend from the data in order to isolate the fluctuations around this trend. This de-trended series is what is significant to copper demand, and thus the evolution of copper prices. 8 We use a threshold OLS model to estimate the y/y model coefficients. The average change in the value of the coefficient is based on the coefficients in the models' outputs of the four money and credit measures. 9 The R2 statistics measuring the goodness of fit between actual y/y changes and those estimated in our models were ~63% in all four models. 10 We discussed this at length last week in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Correlations Vs. USD Weaken," dated June 14, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11 Some preliminary signs of potential easing include (1) the PBOC's most recent monetary policy decision in which it did not follow the US Fed's interest rate decision by hiking rates, as it generally does, and (2) a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in
Highlights As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020. The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment, wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment, while prices rise only gradually. Gold and Treasuries were the big winners and the dollar was the big loser in previous trade spats. Feature The dollar rose 1%, but gold, the S&P 500, and U.S. Treasury yields sunk last week amid a busy calendar of U.S. economic data and the Fed's new forecasts. The stats and the FOMC projections confirmed that the U.S. economy is already at full employment and that the market is underpricing the number of Fed hikes planned for this year. Meanwhile, U.S. President Trump's meeting with North Korea leader Kim Jong Un provided some relief on the geopolitical front, but there is still uncertainty on trade over impending tariffs on China. Chart 1Watch The 2.3% To 2.5% Level##BR##On TIPS Breakevens BCA's base case remains that U.S. equities will not be subject to an over-aggressive Fed until mid-2019 and that increasing bond yields are not a threat. That said, the timing is uncertain and depends importantly on how inflation and inflation expectations shift in the coming months. Inflation is only gradually moving higher at the moment and the Fed is willing to tolerate an overshoot of the 2% target. However, some inflation hawks at the Fed are worried given that the economy is already at full employment and expected to accelerate this year. The uptrend in inflation could suddenly become steeper in this macro environment. Alarm bells will ring when inflation hits 2.5% and the central bank will switch from normalizing policy to targeting slower growth, putting risk assets under pressure. We are also on the watch for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will become more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate (Chart 1). That would be an important signal to trim exposure to risk assets. Although Trump's meeting with Kim lowered geopolitical risk, BCA's strategists note that the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization"1 are more relevant subjects than what happens on the Korean peninsula. While North Korea may still stir up concern, we recommend that investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. Moreover, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects that trade-related uncertainty will persist at least until the U.S. mid-term elections in November.2 Two More In '18 As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020 (Chart 2). Chart 2FOMC And Market Mostly##BR##Aligned On Economy And Rates Instead of three, the Fed now expects to deliver a total of four rate hikes in 2018. For 2019, the Fed continues to project a further three rate hikes. And for 2020, the Fed now believes only one rate hike will be warranted, down from two hikes in its previous forecast. What this means is that the Fed has simply brought forward one rate hike from 2020 to 2018. It left its median projection for the level of the Fed funds rate in 2020 unchanged at 3.375%. Moreover, the Fed kept its estimate of the neutral rate unchanged at 2.875%. In other words, the Fed is forecasting a marginally faster pace to rate hikes, but it has not changed its outlook for the full extent of the tightening cycle. This minor change to the policy outlook should not disrupt financial markets. Prior to last week's FOMC meeting, Fed funds futures were already pricing a 50% probability of a fourth rate hike this year. The bigger question is whether more upward adjustments to the interest rate outlook lie ahead. On this front, there are inconsistencies in the Fed's economic projections. In terms of the long-run steady state, the Fed believes the potential growth rate of the economy is 1.8% and NAIRU is 4.5%. Yet the Fed is forecasting real GDP growth of 2.4% and 2.0% (i.e. above-trend) for 2019 and 2020, respectively, but expects both the jobless rate and core inflation to remain steady at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Above-trend growth should imply a further decline in the unemployment rate. And a jobless rate that's well below NAIRU should imply an acceleration in inflation. In turn, this should mean a higher path for interest rates. But rather than higher interest rates, the inconsistency in the Fed's economic forecasts can also be resolved in other ways. First, the Fed could simply be too optimistic on growth. If growth is weaker, then unemployment and inflation forecasts could be proven right. Second, the Fed's estimates of trend growth and NAIRU may be incorrect. If trend growth is higher and NAIRU is lower, the pressures on resource utilization and inflation will be less. Bottom Line: The tweaks to the Fed's interest rate projections are too small to have a material impact on financial market pricing. However, there is a risk that the inconsistencies in the Fed's economic forecasts will be resolved with more hawkishness in 2019. This could then prove problematic for global risk assets, depending on the evolution of inflation. Are We There Yet? The U.S. economy reached full employment in Q1 2017. The unemployment rate crossed below the Fed's measure of NAIRU in March 2017, a whopping 93 months after the start of the current expansion. Chart 3 shows that in the long expansions3 in the 1980s and 1990s, the economy reached full employment sooner; 54 months in the 1980s and 72 months in the 1990s expansion. After the economy attained full employment in the 1980s and 1990s, an average of another 27 months passed before the unemployment rate troughed. This means that the trough will occur in mid-2019 and our view is that the rate will bottom at around 3.5% in mid-2019.4 Moreover, the 1980s' economic recovery lasted another 34 months once the economy hit full employment and another 47 months once full employment was breached in the 1990s. If this historical pattern holds, then the next recession will begin in late 2020. This date is consistent with our prior work5 on the start date of the next downturn. Chart 3The Economy At Full Employment In Long Cycles The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment. Initial claims for unemployment insurance, as a share of the labor force, move lower for another two years, on average, after labor market slack disappears (Chart 4, panel 2). The monthly non-farm payrolls job count follows a similar pattern and it does not turn negative for another four years (panel 3). The Conference Board's jobs easy/hard to get shows that the labor market is hotter than in the previous long expansions (panel 4). The conclusion is that the labor market will continue to tighten for another year or so, consistent with our outlook. Wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment. Chart 5 shows increases in the average hourly earnings (AHE), the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and compensation per hour after the unemployment rate fell below NAIRU in the 1980s and 1990s. However, unit labor costs (ULCs) did not accelerate in those years until well after the economy hit full employment. Many of these measures of wage inflation are also on the upswing today. However, none of the indicators are rising as quickly as they did in the 1980s and 1990s (See Appendix Table 1 for more details on performance of labor market, wage and inflation metrics after the economy reaches full employment). Inflation initially remained tame even after labor market slack was taken up in the previous two long expansions. Chart 6 shows that neither headline nor core CPI accelerated sharply after the economy arrived at full employment in the '80s and '90s. However, headline CPI inflation began rising not long after full employment was reached. It took a little longer for core inflation to perk up. Moreover, inflation tends to peak as the unemployment rate troughs. This occurs, on average, about three years after the unemployment rate crosses below NAIRU. Chart 4The Labor Market When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 5Wages And Compensation When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 6Inflation When The Economy##BR##Is At Full Employment Bottom Line: The U.S. economy has been at full employment since early 2017, but investors should be patient if they expect a marked acceleration in inflation. Inflation is already at the Fed's target and BCA expects two more rate hikes this year and at least three more increases in 2019 as inflation moves closer to 2.5%. Stay underweight duration. The labor market is as tight as it was at this point of the previous two long expansions. Moreover, the trends in inflation and wages are similar, although from a lower level. That said, while inflation is more muted today, interest rates are much, much lower, and the Fed does not want a major overshoot. If we follow the same path as the previous two long expansions, then inflation will rise only gradually, and the next recession is a ways off. But watch for an acceleration in ULC, because in the average of the last two long expansions, an acceleration in ULC coincided with an acceleration in core CPI inflation. That would cause the Fed to become more aggressive. Trump's Focus On China The U.S. is an old hand at trade wars and economic conflicts, with an endgame of dollar depreciation and compromises on trade.6 Since 1970 there have been seven major trade disputes involving tariffs, including the one that began in March of this year. Some were brief and several of those periods overlapped. Moreover, many other factors affected investment returns, including recessions, wars, major terrorist attacks, and financial crises. As a result, these periodic trade tiffs make it difficult to discern the implications for the financial markets. During episodes of trade-related uncertainty, stocks underperform Treasuries, the dollar falls both pre- and post-dispute, and gold performs much better both during and after. Treasuries are the most consistent performer, and this asset class beat stocks during five of the six periods. Meanwhile, the dollar fell during 5 of the 6 trade spats (Table 1). Chart 7 shows the performance of a wider set of U.S. financial assets before, during, and after trade tensions erupt. Table 1U.S. Stocks, Treasuries, The Dollar, Gold And Trade Disputes Chart 7U.S. Financial Assets And Trade Spats We begin our discussion of trade spats and their implication for financial markets in the early 1970s. In August 1971, with the dollar steeply overvalued, President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard and imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable imports. The purpose of the tariff was to force the U.S. allies to appreciate their currencies against the dollar. Some appreciation occurred as a result of the Smithsonian Agreement, but the effects were short-lived. The U.S. could not afford to alienate its allies amid the Cold War and removed the restrictions four months later. Table 1 shows that S&P 500 increased by nearly 40% in the year prior to the 1971 trade spat, but the economy was recovering from the 1969-70 recession. Equities easily beat Treasuries (+17%), the dollar declined by 3%, and gold jumped by 22%. However, during late 1971, the S&P 500 underperformed Treasuries, the dollar dropped by 5%, and gold was little changed. In the 12 months after the trade issue was resolved, U.S. stocks beat bonds, the dollar continued to move lower, and gold surged. This occurred as inflation ramped up. In a trade dispute episode during the 1980s, then President Reagan and a Democrat-leaning Congress became concerned with trade deficits and a sharply rising dollar. The Plaza Accord in 1985 consisted of a German and Japanese promise, once again, to appreciate their currencies. From 1985-89, a U.S.-Japan trade war was waged over Japan's growing share of the U.S. market and certain unfair trade practices affecting goods such as cars, semiconductors, and electronics (Chart 8). The combination of yen appreciation, voluntary export restraints and tariffs, resulted in compromises, and in the early 1990s the U.S. removed Japan from its list of targets. Chart 8The U.S.-Japan Trade Spat In The 1980s During the 1985-89 dispute, the U.S. stock market crashed, economic growth surged, inflationary pressures mounted, and the Fed hiked rates. Nevertheless, stocks crushed bonds as the dollar tumbled by 40% and gold soared by 30% (Table 1). Note that gold fell in the year before the trade dispute began and in the year after it ended. In the late 1990s, a series of trade disputes erupted between the U.S. and the European Union, most significantly on a tax device that allowed companies reduced taxes on profits derived from export sales. The EU won its case against the U.S. at the WTO and the U.S. eventually repealed the offending provisions in its tax code. At the same time, from 1999-2001, the U.S. contested EU policies on banana imports. Then in March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs affecting Europe, but these were subsequently reversed in December 2003 in the face of retaliatory threats. Trade tension in the late 1990s and early 2000s developed alongside the tech boom, the 2001 recession and recovery, and the first Gulf War. The 10-year Treasury outperformed the S&P 500 as Bush's steel tariffs were in effect, but the early part of this period coincided with the accounting scandals that buffeted U.S. equity markets. The U.S. dollar dropped nearly 25%, although the Fed cut rates in 2002 and 2003. Gold climbed 34% in this period, outpacing both stocks and bonds. President Trump's trade positions are reminiscent of both Nixon's and Reagan's policies and his trade team includes a notable veteran of the U.S.-Japan trade war, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The focus, however, is not entirely the same. True, there is still a fixation on privileged manufacturing industries like steel and autos, both in the Section 232 actions on steel and aluminum and in the NAFTA renegotiation. But there is today a heightened focus on China's abuses of the international trade system, in particular its technology theft and intellectual property violations (the Section 301 actions). For investors, the critical issue is to separate the two areas of focus. The U.S. grievances with Europe, NAFTA, and Japan will cause more volatility this year and beyond, but are ultimately more manageable than those with China. U.S.-China trade tensions are caught up in a Great Power rivalry that will likely persist throughout this century, making trade tensions a permanent feature of the relationship going forward.7 China's rapid military growth and technological acquisition threaten U.S. global dominance. China will view any imposition of tariffs by the U.S., or demands for dramatic RMB appreciation, as a strategic attempt to derail China's rise. Moreover, while Congress will not attack President Trump for retreating from the trade war with the allies, it will attack President Trump for compromising on China. Recent U.S. elections have swung on Rust Belt Midwestern states that resent America's deindustrialization. In 2020, Democrats will attempt to reclaim their credibility as defenders of American workers and "fair trade," especially against China. President Trump stole their thunder with his protectionist platform. There is unlikely to be a "trade dove," and especially not a "China dove," in the White House from 2020-24. Bottom Line: The U.S. has historically used punitive trade measures to force its allied trading partners to appreciate their currencies versus the dollar. It has also sought to protect politically sensitive industries. Today, however, the trade war with China is inextricably tied to a strategic conflict that will play out over decades. Trump will likely impose Section 301 tariffs on China after June 15 and any deal to avoid confrontation will merely delay the decision on tariffs until after November's mid-term elections. Investors should recall that bonds beat stocks, the dollar fell, and gold rose during previous periods of trade tension. We also note that shifts in correlations between key U.S. asset classes tend to occur as trade spats begin and end, especially in the past 30 years (Chart 9). Moreover, gold usually continues to climb and the dollar falters even after these disputes are resolved. Chart 9U.S. Asset Class Correlations During Trade Disputes John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," published April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tightening Up", published May 14, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000," published March 30 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," published April 12, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," published March 14, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1Key Labor Market And Inflation Indicators At Full Employment
Highlights Major and drawn-out financial market downturns usually occur in phases and often resemble a domino effect. There have been a number of noteworthy divergences in the EM space of late. They are probably part of a domino effect - some tiles have begun to drop, but other tiles down the chain still remain standing. The selloff in EM risk assets will broaden and intensify. A defensive positioning is warranted. India's relative equity performance has by and large been undermined by rising oil prices. A potential roll-over in crude prices will aid the Indian bourse's relative performance versus its EM peers. The South African rand remains on shaky foundation; stay short. Feature There have been a number of noteworthy divergences in financial markets of late, in particular between emerging markets (EM) and commodities, as well as between Chinese investable stocks trading outside the mainland and equity prices listed domestically. In our view, these divergences are part of a domino effect - some tiles have begun to drop, but other tiles down the chain still remain standing. In dominos, tiles do not all fall simultaneously. They fall one by one, and there is a time lag between the first domino and the last-standing domino to drop. Also, unlike in natural sciences, time lags and speed in economics and finance vary with each experiment - because they are contingent on complex human psychology and behavior, not on well defined natural phenomena such as gravity or motions of objects. Hence, they are impossible to forecast with much precision. A Message From Our Risky Versus Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Although U.S. share prices have lately been firm, EM stocks have broken below their 200-day moving average (Chart I-1, top panel). So has our risky versus safe-haven currencies ratio 1 (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Indeed, while having held up at its 200-day moving average several times in the past two years, the ratio has recently decisively broken below this technical support line. This indicator correlates extremely well with EM share prices, and its message is presently unambiguous: The rally in EM is over, and a bear market has likely commenced. Crucially, this ratio measures commodities currencies versus the average of the Japanese yen and Swiss franc - two defensive currencies - not against the U.S. dollar. Hence, it is not impacted by the greenback's trend. Given that all six risky currencies used in the numerator of this ratio - AUD, CAD, NZD, BRL, ZAR and CLP - are commodity currencies, it is not surprising that the ratio also correlates with commodities prices. In this context, it currently suggests the outlook for both industrial metals and oil is troublesome (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Beware Of These Breakdowns Chart I-2A Red Flag For Commodities Prices The common denominator that links all these financial variables is global growth. The risky versus safe-haven currencies ratio typically leads world trade cycles by several months, and it currently points to a notable slowdown in global export volumes (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Export Growth Is Set To Slow Further, commodities prices have exhibited a rare decoupling from the U.S. dollar. It is very unlikely that this divergence can be sustained for much longer. Our bias is that global trade will slow as China/EM demand weakens despite robust U.S. growth. Growth dynamics shifting in favor of the U.S. entails that the greenback will continue to appreciate. Consistently, EM/China growth disappointments and U.S. dollar's persisting strength suggest that commodities will reverse their current trend sooner rather than later. A relapse in commodities prices will reinforce EM currency depreciation, triggering more outflows from EM equities and fixed-income markets. Decoupling Or A Time Lag? Chart I-4Domino Effect In 2007-08 Major and drawn-out financial market downturns usually occur in phases and often resemble a domino effect. The EM crises in 1997-98 did not occur simultaneously across all EM countries. It began in July 1997 with Thailand, then it spread to Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia and finally, to the rest of Asia. In August 1998, Russian financial markets collapsed triggering the LTCM debacle. The last leg of this crisis appeared in Brazil and culminated in the real's devaluation in January 1999. Similarly, the U.S. financial/credit crisis commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Following that, corporate spreads began widening and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. In the meantime, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked on October 9 and 29, 2007, respectively. Despite all of these developments, commodities prices and EM currencies continued rallying until summer of 2008 and then quickly collapsed in the second half of that year (Chart I-4). Finally the Lehman crash took place on September 29 of 2008. That marked the apogee of the crisis, causing a complete unravelling of financial markets and the global economy, and lasting until March of 2009. It seems some sort of domino effect is now taking hold of the EM universe. Initially, it started with Turkey and Argentina. Then, it spread to Indonesia, India and Brazil. The currency weakness across the wider EM universe has already led to EM credit spread widening. Yet, there are a few EM financial markets, particularly Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese, that are still holding up relatively well. Moreover, U.S. share prices and high-yield credit spreads have done quite well too. How should investors interpret these divergences? Our view has been, and remains, that EM risk assets will do poorly regardless of the direction of the S&P 500. In fact, an escalation in EM turmoil and a slowdown in developing economies are among the main risks to American share prices themselves. The primary link from EM financial markets to the S&P 500 is via the exchange rate - a strong dollar along with an EM/China growth slump will weigh on American multinationals' profits. The following three questions are presently vital for investors: 1. Can EM and U.S. risk assets de-couple from each other, and has a sustainable divergence happened in the past? Although short-term moves in U.S. and EM equity indexes often appear correlated, from a big-picture perspective there have been considerable divergences. The overall EM stock index is now at the same level it was in 2007 (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, the S&P 500 index is a hair below its all-time high. Chart I-5EM Share Prices And The S&P 500: A Long-Term Perspective The same is true for many EM currencies and the S&P 500. A substantial decoupling did occur in the not-so-distant past: EM currencies depreciated from 2011 to early 2016, while U.S. share prices rallied strongly from late 2011 until 2015 (Chart I-6). With respect to U.S. credit spreads, Chart I-7 illustrates that EM and U.S. credit spreads have had a much higher correlation than their respective equity indexes. During the 1997-'98 EM crises and the 2014 -'15 EM turmoil, U.S. high-yield corporate spreads widened. In brief, there has historically been little decoupling between U.S. and EM credit markets. Hence, the U.S. high-yield credit market's latest resilience in the face of widening in EM credit spreads is historically exceptional. Chart I-6EM Currencies And The S&P 500 Chart I-7EM Sovereign And U.S. Corporate Credit Spreads: A Long-Term Perspective As EM currencies continue to depreciate versus the U.S. dollar, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen. Given their past high correlation with U.S. credit markets, odds point to widening corporate credit spreads in the U.S. On the whole, if EM risk assets continue to sell off, which is our baseline scenario, the S&P 500 and U.S. credit markets could defy gravity for a while, but not forever. At some point, risks stemming from EM turbulence will cause a selloff in American stocks and corporate bonds. It is impossible to know when and by how much U.S. stocks will suffer. Our bias is that a U.S. equity selloff will likely be on par with the 2015-'16 episode. 2. Can North Asian equity markets such as China, Korea and Taiwan remain relatively resilient if the turbulence in other EM countries continues? Based on history, they can, but only for a short period of time. There have been a few episodes when emerging Asian and Latin American stocks de-coupled: In 1997-'98, the home-grown Asian crisis devastated regional markets, but Latin American stocks continued to rally until mid-1998 - at which point they began plummeting (Chart I-8, top panel). In 2007-'08, emerging Asian equities started tumbling along with the S&P 500 in late 2007, but Latin American bourses fared well until the middle of 2008 due to surging commodities prices (Chart I-8, middle panel). Finally, the bottom panel of Chart I-8 illustrates that in early 2015, Asian stocks performed well, supported by the inflating Chinese equity bubble. Meanwhile, Latin American stocks plunged. In all of these episodes, the de-coupling between Asia and Latin America proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside. Regarding Asia's business cycle conditions, the slowdown is already taking place and will likely intensify. Leading indicators of exports and manufacturing such as Korea's manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio and Taiwan's semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio herald further deceleration in their respective export sectors (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Asian And Latin American Equities: ##br##Unsustainable Divergences Chart I-9Asia's Export Slowdown Is In Making 3. Is there any other notable financial market decoupling that investors should be aware of? Chart I-10China: A Decoupling In Various Equity Segments Since early this year, there has been substantial decoupling between Chinese investable stocks and the onshore A-share market. First, the overall A-share index has dropped since early this year, but the MSCI Investable Chinese stock index has so far been resilient (Chart I-10). Second, while it might be tempting to explain this decoupling by discrepancies in the sectors' weights in these indexes, this has not been the case this time around. The fact remains that there has been considerable divergence between share prices of the same sectors. For example, onshore and offshore equity prices have diverged for the following sectors: real estate stocks, materials, industrials, technology, utilities and consumer discretionary (Chart I-11A and Chart I-11B). Only defensive sectors such as consumer staples and health care have done well in both universes. Share prices of financials and telecoms have dropped in both the onshore and offshore markets. Chart I-11AChinese Equity Sectors: Puzzling Decoupling Chart I-11BChinese Equity Sectors: Puzzling Decoupling Finally, a similar performance gap has appeared between Chinese small cap stocks trading onshore and in Hong Kong (Chart I-12). Chart I-12China's Small-Cap Stocks: A Perplexing Gap How do we explain these divergences? Our bias is that local investors in China are much more concerned about the mainland growth outlook than foreign investors. This is the opposite of what occurred in 2015. Back then, international investors were somewhat cautious on China - commodities prices and other China-related global financial market plays were in a bear market. Meanwhile, local investors were caught up in a full-fledged equity mania that ended with a crash. Given our downbeat outlook on China's capital spending and related plays in financial markets, we reckon that domestic investors in China will be proven right in the months ahead, while the international investment community will be left flat-footed. Importantly, there has been an unexplainable mismatch between monetary/credit tightening in China and complacency among international investors about the outlook for the mainland economy. Specifically, the cost of borrowing has gone up, and credit standards have tightened. Chart I-13 illustrates that both onshore and offshore corporate bond yields have risen to new cycle highs, Chinese banks' lending rates are rising, while banks' loan approvals are dropping. Consistently, money and credit growth have plunged. Importantly, this is occurring in an economy with immense credit excesses. Nevertheless, commodities prices have so far defied such a pronounced deceleration in money and credit aggregates in China (Chart I-14). Chart I-13China: Ongoing Credit Tightening Chart I-14China's Money/Credit And Commodities Prices All in all, we interpret these divergences by varying lead and lags rather than as a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between money/credit and the real economy. We continue to expect tightening liquidity and credit to escalate the growth slowdown in China. As a result, there continues to be considerable downside risks for Chinese investable stocks and commodities prices. Bottom Line: The dominos have begun to fall. We continue to recommend a defensive strategy and an underweight position in EM equities, credit and currencies versus their U.S./DM peers. High-yield local currency bonds that are a de-facto bet on the underlying currencies are vulnerable too. For investors willing to go short, it is not too late to short EM stocks and currencies. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Average of cad, aud, nzd, brl, clp & zar total return (including carry) indices relative to average of jpy & chf total returns. India's Equity Underperformance: Blame It On Oil Indian stocks have been underperforming their EM counterparts. Rising oil prices have created a toxic macro mix for India, triggering the equity underperformance (Chart II-1): Rising crude prices have led to widening current account and trade deficits. Oil price swings are often instrumental to trends in India's current account balance (Chart II-2). The deterioration in the nation's external accounts has been behind the rupee's poor performance. Chart II-1Higher Crude Oil Prices Hurt Indian Stocks Chart II-2Crude Oil And Current Account Deficit Given that India is a major oil importer, falling commodities prices - especially crude oil - will benefit India's stock market. The recent surge in oil prices has also reinforced inflation dynamics in India (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Higher Crude Oil Boosts Inflation The basis for the high correlation between core consumer price inflation (excluding energy and food) and oil prices is due to the fact that core inflation includes components that are heavily influenced by fluctuations in oil prices. For instance, the transportation and communication component of inflation is very sensitive to changes in oil prices. This component accounts for 18% of core consumer price index. Further, the personal care and effects component also correlates with crude oil. Personal care goods use petroleum products as an important input in their production process. This component accounts for 8% of core consumer price index. Together these components account for a non-trivial 26% of core consumer price index, and will likely subside as oil prices fall. On the inflation front, we highlighted in our April 19 Weekly Report that risks to inflation are tilted to the upside due to strong consumer and government spending in an otherwise under-invested economy.1 Domestic demand has been accelerating, providing tailwinds for higher inflation (Chart II-4). Higher inflation and currency weakness has led to a considerable rise in both government and corporates local currency bond yields (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Domestic Economy Is Strong Chart II-5Rising Borrowing Rates Given the very high equity valuations, share prices in India are especially sensitive to rising local borrowing costs. All in all, India's relative equity performance has by and large been undermined by rising oil prices. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team believes the risk-reward for oil prices is skewed to the downside due to the expected deterioration in EM/China oil demand, investors' extremely high net long positions in crude and appreciating dollar.2 That is why we are still reluctant to downgrade Indian stocks within the EM equity universe. It is vital to emphasize, however, that our overweight call is relevant to dedicated EM equity portfolios. We have been, and remain, negative on Indian share prices in absolute U.S. dollar terms. Bottom Line: Odds are that commodities prices will drop meaningfully in the months ahead and that will support India's relative equity performance versus the EM benchmark. EM dedicated investors should keep an overweight stance on Indian equities for now. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Country Perspectives: India And Turkey," dated April 19, 2018, link available on page 21. 2 The Emerging Markets Strategy team's view on oil differs from BCA's house view which remains bullish. The South African Rand Remains On Shaky Foundations Although the rand has not been among the worse hit EM currencies, investors should remain cautious on it. The currency presently finds itself resting on very shaky foundations, raising odds of substantial depreciation for the remainder of the year: First, South Africa's external funding has solely been driven by portfolio inflows, leaving the exchange rate highly exposed to potential portfolio outflows. As illustrated in Chart III-1, net portfolio inflows reached all-time highs while net FDIs reached all-time lows at the end of 2017 (the latest available statistics). Meanwhile, foreign ownership of domestic bonds has reached new highs (Chart III-2). The total return in dollar terms on South Africa's local currency bond index1 has failed to break above its previous highs and has relapsed (Chart III-3). It seems this asset class has entered a new bear market. Further decline in the total return of bonds will spur more selling or hedging of currency risks by international bond investors. Chart III-1South Africa: Highly Exposed To Portfolio Flows Chart III-2Foreign Holdings Of South African Local Bonds Is Elevated Chart III-3South African Bonds Were Unable To Break Out Second, the country's trade balance is set to deteriorate. Despite continued episodes of currency weakness throughout last decade, there has been little to no import substitution in South Africa. Consequently, a reviving domestic demand will prompt higher imports. That, and a potential relapse in export (raw materials) prices, will lead to a widening trade balance. Chart III-4The Rand Is Not Cheap Finally, the rand is not cheap; its valuation is neutral (Chart III-4). When an exchange rate is close to its fair value, it can either appreciate or depreciate. In short, the rand's valuation is not extreme enough to be a major factor in driving the market right now. Bottom Line: Currency traders should stay short the ZAR versus both the USD and the MXN. Relative trade balance dynamics and valuations continue to play in favor of the Mexican peso relative to the South African rand. Predicated by our negative view on the rand, we recommend EM dedicated equity and fixed-income investors to maintain an underweight allocation to South Africa. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 JP Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified Emerging Markets Government Bond Index for South Africa. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations