Economy
Highlights There is little evidence of a major "credit bubble" in China. Rising debt is largely the consequence of the country's high saving rate. This has mixed implications for global bonds: On the one hand, an exaggerated fear of a hard landing in China has kept global bond yields below where they would otherwise be; on the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to weigh on real long-term yields. The real trade-weighted RMB will depreciate by a further 3%-to-5% over the next 12 months, with the bulk of the decline coming against the U.S. dollar. Chinese shares are still attractive at current valuation levels. Go long the H-share market versus the MSCI EM index. We are booking a loss of 10% on our NASDAQ hedge. Feature Indefatigable The global economy remains in recovery mode. As we discussed last week, leading indicators point to strong global growth and accelerating earnings over the next six months.1 This justifies a cyclically overweight tilt towards global equities. Still, we worry that equity markets have gotten ahead of themselves. We thought that the backup in yields late last year, along with Trump's protectionist rhetoric, would cause stocks to correct to the downside, at least temporarily. Instead, they ripped higher, causing our short NASDAQ hedge trade to briefly go through its 10% stop loss on Wednesday. Our technical indicators continue to point to heightened risks of a correction. Whether such a correction proves to be the proverbial "buying opportunity" - our baseline view - or morphs into something more ominous will depend on the durability of the economic backdrop. We discussed some of the risks around Europe and the U.S. last week. This week we turn to China. The China Question Recent Chinese economic data have been fairly solid and our China analysts expect that growth momentum will be sustained over the coming months.2 Nevertheless, there are plenty of clouds on the horizon. Direct fiscal spending has slowed sharply over the past 12 months. In addition, a crackdown on property speculation last year has led to a deceleration in home price inflation, which could adversely affect household spending and construction later this year. Then, of course, there is all that debt. There is no shortage of commentators who argue that China is experiencing a full-blown credit bubble. Others contend that rising debt in China is largely a manifestation of a chronic excess of domestic savings. Knowing which side is correct is critical for investors. If China is in the midst of a massive credit bubble, then it is natural to fear that this bubble will burst fairly soon. This could prove to be devastating to global financial markets. In contrast, if rising debt in China mainly reflects an overabundance of savings, then it is possible that debt will continue rising until those savings dissipate - something that may not happen for many years. We won't beat around the bush. Our view is that rising debt in China has largely been the result of excess savings. This implies that a financial crisis in China is unlikely anytime soon. That does not mean that China will cease being a source of occasional investor angst. But if another major global recession is coming, it will not be because of China. The Debt-Savings Tango Endless ink has been spilled on the question of whether savings create bank credit or bank credit creates savings. In reality, the answer is "both": Just like income can create spending and spending can create income, savings can create debt and vice versa. If an economy is operating at less than full employment, the decision by banks to extend new credit is likely to boost aggregate demand, leading to more hiring. This will raise household disposable income and potentially lift aggregate savings.3 On the flipside, if households decide to save a bit more, this will push down real interest rates. That, in turn, could entice firms to increase how much they borrow and invest. Debt creates savings, and savings create debt; it's a two-way street. Admittedly, thinking through the specific forces underlying the relationship between debt and savings is one of those things that can make your head spin. Thus, it is worthwhile to go through a few simple examples in order to elucidate the principles at work. With this knowledge in hand, we will be able to debunk many of the fallacies that investors routinely succumb to. Cuckoo For Coconuts: How To Think About Debt And Savings Imagine a small island economy consisting of 100 people, each of whom toils away producing 100 coconuts every year, resulting in annual GDP of 10,000 coconuts. Consider the following five examples, summarized in Table 1: Table 1Cuckoo For Coconuts: Debt Creates Savings, Savings Create Debt Example #1: Each person consumes 100 coconuts. As a result, a total of 10,000 coconuts are consumed. Total savings is zero, as is total investment. No debt is created. Example #2: Each person consumes only 75 coconuts, selling the other 25 coconuts to a nearby plantation. The plantation buys these coconuts with the help of a bank loan and plants them, resulting in 2,500 new coconut trees. Total consumption falls to 7,500. Savings and investment equals 2,500 coconuts. 2,500 coconuts worth of bank loans are created. Notice that higher savings have led to more debt. Example #3: Same as Example 2, but now instead of selling the excess coconuts to a nearby plantation, they are exported abroad. Savings equal 2,500 coconuts, investment is zero, and the current account surplus is 2,500. The island accumulates 2,500 coconuts worth of foreign assets. The lesson here is that if a country can export some of its excess savings abroad, debt may not need to rise by as much as if the savings had to be intermediated by the domestic financial system. Note also that this example reveals the famous economic identity: S-I=CA. Example #4: Each person consumes 125 coconuts, made possible by importing 25 coconuts per person. Consumption now equals 12,500 coconuts. Savings equal -2,500 coconuts, investment is zero, and the current account deficit is 2,500. The island takes on 2,500 coconuts worth of external debt. Example #5: Half the island's residents consume 75 coconuts each, while the other half consumes 125 coconuts each. Those who consume 75 coconuts sell their surplus nuts on the open market, placing the proceeds in a bank. The bank lends out these savings to the other half of the population. Net savings and investment is zero. However, 1,250 coconuts worth of new bank loans are created. Debt Puzzles The key idea stemming from these examples is that debt is often formed when there is a persistent divergence between spending and income.4 This is true for the economy as a whole, as well as for its individual constituents (households, firms, and the government). Understanding this point helps resolve a number of seeming puzzles. For instance, it is sometimes alleged that China's debt buildup cannot be the result of the country's high saving rate because U.S. debt also rose rapidly in the years leading up to the financial crisis, an era during which the U.S. national saving rate was very low. Our simple examples demonstrate why this is a misleading argument. Examples 2, 4, and 5 show that debt levels will rise regardless of whether income exceeds spending or spending exceeds income. It is the absolute difference between the two that matters, not whether the residual is positive or negative. In Example 2, which is applicable to China today, households spend less than they earn. The resulting savings are intermediated by the financial system and transformed into investment, creating new debt along the way. In Example 4, which is applicable to the U.S. before the financial crisis, households spend more than they earn, leading them to take on new debt in order to finance imports. The increase in debt may get amplified, as in Example 5, if some households save while others dissave. As discussed in Box 1, Example 5 also helps explain why inequality and debt levels tend to rise and fall together over time. The Future Of Chinese Household Savings Chinese household savings now stand at nearly 40% of disposable income, notably higher than in other major developed and emerging economies. The increase in China's household savings, along with a widening gap between rich and poor, have been important drivers of faster debt growth (Chart 1). As time goes by, China's household saving rate will begin to decline due to the aging of its population, the expansion of household credit, and the emergence of a stronger "consumer culture." Yet, that shift is likely to be a gradual one. Progress in building out a social safety net has been painfully slow. This has forced households to maintain high levels of precautionary savings. The share of China's population in its 'prime savings years' (between the ages of 30-and-59) will also continue to increase over the next 15 years, which should support an elevated saving rate (Chart 2). Chart 1China: Higher Saving Rate And ##br##Inequality Went Hand In Hand With Debt Growth Chart 2China: Share Of Population In Its High ##br##Saving Years Has Not Yet Peaked In addition, sky-high property prices have forced young people to save a large fraction of their incomes in order to have any hope of owning a home. This is particularly true for men. Brides are in short supply in China. The saving rate among single-child households with one son is about four percentage points higher in rural areas and two percentage points higher in urban areas, compared to single-child households with one daughter. One academic study concluded that about half of the increase in China's household saving rate since the late-1970s could be attributed to this factor.5 Unfortunately, this problem is not going to go away anytime soon. The ratio of men between the ages of 25-and-39 and women between the ages of 20-and-34 - a proxy for gender imbalances in the marriage market - will surge from 1.06 at present to 1.35 by the middle of the next decade (Chart 3). What do countries with surplus savings and surplus men tend to do? Historically, the answer is that they have sent them off to fight. China's military spending has grown by leaps and bounds over the past decade (Chart 4). This trend is bound to continue, making East Asia an increasingly likely setting for future military conflicts.6 Chart 3A Shortage Of Chinese Brides Chart 4China: A Lot Of Dry Powder Understanding Chinese Corporate Debt Dynamics Chart 5China: State-Owned Companies Are ##br##Not The Only Ones With Access To Cheap Financing Many companies around the world rely heavily on retained earnings and equity sales to finance new investment projects. When this happens, investment can take place without the need for the creation of new debt. China has its fair share of consistently profitable companies that fund capital expenditures using internally generated funds, while tapping the equity markets as necessary to finance larger projects. However, the country is also awash with companies that are in constant need of debt financing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the former tend to be private firms while the latter are often state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Pundits like to assert that the secret to boosting growth in China is to wean these money-losing public companies off cheap credit, forcing them to cut back on production and capital spending. This will allow scarce economic resources to migrate to better-managed firms that will use them more wisely. But is this really a sensible assumption? What exactly is the evidence that China's well-run private companies have been starved of credit because most of it is flowing to money-losing companies? The data does not fit this "crowding out" story at all (Chart 5). The Japan Analogy A more sensible narrative is that the Chinese government has been prodding state-owned banks into lending money to state-owned companies and local governments in order to support aggregate demand and keep unemployment from rising. The experience of Japan is instructive here. Starting in the early 1990s, Japan entered an extended era where the private sector was trying to spend less than it earned (Chart 6). In order to keep unemployment from rising, the Japanese government was forced to try to export these excess savings abroad via a current account surplus or, failing that, absorb them with dissavings from the public sector. While Japan was able to lift its current account surplus from 1.4% of GDP in 1990 to 3% of GDP in 1998, this was not enough to fully offset the surge in desired private-sector savings. This necessitated the government to run large budget deficits. The same sort of fiscal trap now stalks China. Up until the Great Recession, China was able to export much of its excess savings. The current account surplus hit a record high of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. In effect, China was doing what the islanders in Example 3 were able to do. The subsequent appreciation of the RMB undermined this strategy, forcing the government to take steps to boost domestic demand. It is no surprise that China's debt stock began to grow rapidly just as its current account surplus started to dwindle (Chart 7). Chart 6Japan Relied On Fiscal Largess And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 7China: Debt Increased When Current ##br##Account Surplus Began Its Descent Keep in mind that fiscal policy in China entails much more than adjustments to government spending and taxes. Central government spending accounts for a fairly small share of GDP. The vast majority of fiscal stimulus is done via the banking system. This makes Chinese fiscal policy nearly indistinguishable from credit policy. Chart 8Chinese Private Firms: Liabilities-To-Assets Trending##br## Lower For A Decade From this perspective, China's so-called "debt mountain" is not much different from Japan's debt mountain once we acknowledge that the bulk of China's corporate debt in China is, in fact, quasi-fiscal debt. As evidence, note that in sharp contrast to the SOE sector, the ratio of liabilities-to-assets among private Chinese companies has actually been trending lower over the past decade (Chart 8). Yes, many of the investment projects undertaken by SOEs and local governments are of questionable economic merit. But that's beside the point. China's money-losing SOEs are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere." From the Chinese government's point of view, an SOE that is producing something is still preferable to one that is producing nothing. The ever-rising debt burden that these state-owned firms must carry to cover operating losses and finance new investment is just the price the government must pay to keep the economy afloat. Little Evidence Of A Genuine Credit Bubble Genuine credit bubbles tend to happen during periods of euphoria. U.S., Spanish, and Irish banks all traded at lofty multiples to book value on the eve of the financial crisis, having massively outperformed their respective indices in the preceding years. That's obviously not the case for Chinese banks today, which remain one of the most loathed sectors of the global equity market (Chart 9). The U.S., Spanish, and Irish housing booms also occurred alongside ballooning current account deficits, something that doesn't apply to China (Chart 10). One can debate whether China is in the midst of a property bubble, but even if it is, it looks a lot more like the one Hong Kong experienced in the late 1990s. When that bubble burst, property prices plummeted by 70%. Yet, Hong Kong banks were barely affected (Chart 11). Chart 9Chinese Banks: Unloved And Unwanted Chart 10Recent Credit Bubbles Developed ##br##Amid Widening Current Account Deficits Chart 11Hong Kong Is The Correct Analogy There is a lot of debt in China. However, most of it has not been centered on the property market (Chart 12). Rather, just as in Japan, debt has served a fiscal purpose - it has been used to absorb the excess savings of the private sector, so as to keep unemployment from rising. Chart 13 shows that national saving rates and debt-to-GDP ratios are positively correlated across emerging economies. China sits close to the trend line, suggesting that its debt stock is roughly what you would expect it to be. Chart 12Chinese Debt: Not Predominately ##br##Tied To The Property Market Chart 13Positive Correlation Between National Savings And Indebtedness Investment Conclusions Where does this leave investors? For global bonds, the implications of our analysis are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, the high probability that the Chinese government can maintain the status quo of continued credit expansion for the foreseeable future means that a hard landing for the economy - and the associated drop in safe-haven developed economy government bond yields that this would trigger - is unlikely to occur. On the other hand, high levels of Chinese savings will continue to fuel the global savings glut, keeping real long-term bond yields lower than they would otherwise be. On balance, investors should maintain a modest underweight allocation toward global bonds. Our analysis does not warrant either a very bearish or very bullish stance towards the RMB. Granted, a banking crisis could prompt Chinese savers to look for ways to move more of their money overseas, leading to further capital flight and a tumbling currency. As noted, however, such an outcome is not in the cards. On the flipside, a chronic shortfall of domestic demand will keep the pressure on the government to try to export excess production abroad by running a larger current account surplus. As we foretold in our March 2015 report "A Weaker RMB Ahead," this will push the authorities to weaken the currency.7 We expect the real trade-weighted RMB to depreciate by a further 3%-to-5% over the next 12 months, with the bulk of the decline coming against the U.S. dollar. If China averts a debt crisis, that's good news for global equities. In the developed market universe, Europe and Japan stand to benefit the most, given the cyclical bent of their stock markets. We are overweight both regions (currency hedged). Despite a weak start to the year, both markets have outperformed the U.S. in local-currency terms since bottoming last summer, a trend we expect will resume over the coming months (Chart 14). What about Chinese shares specifically? Clearly, there are many risks facing the Chinese economy that transcend debt worries, a possible trade war with the U.S. being the prominent example. Yet, considering that Chinese stocks trade at fairly cheap valuation levels, our sense is that these risks have been more than fully priced in by investors. With this in mind, we are going long Chinese H-shares relative to the overall EM basket.8 Chart 15 shows that H-shares now trade at a substantial discount to the EM index. Chart 14Euro Area And Japan: Rebound Will Continue Chart 15Chinese Investable Stocks Are Cheap Finally, one housekeeping note: Since we already have exposure to the H-share market via our strategic recommendation to be long China/Europe/Japan versus the U.S., we are closing that trade and opening a new one that is simply long Europe and Japan versus the U.S. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Box 1: Debt And Inequality Chart 16U.S.: Positive Correlation Between ##br##Income Inequality And Debt-To-GDP Income inequality and the ratio of private debt-to-GDP have been positively correlated in the U.S. over the past century (Chart 16). The existence of this relationship is not merely due to a third factor: economic growth. Growth was strong in the 1920 and 1980s/90s - two periods of rapidly increasingly inequality - but it was also strong during the 1960s, a decade when inequality was falling. Our analysis helps shed light on this relationship. Return to Example 5, but this time assume that each resident consumes 100 coconuts, with half the population producing 75 coconuts and the other half producing 125 coconuts. 10,000 coconuts are still produced and consumed in aggregate, resulting in no net savings. But because half the population is borrowing money to acquire coconuts from the other half, debt levels still rise. Higher inequality leads to more debt. To be sure, the correlation between inequality and debt runs in both directions. Rising debt has historically led to an expansion of the financial sector. This has helped enrich Wall Street elites. In this way, rising debt can exacerbate inequality. On the flipside, rising income inequality entails a shift of income from poorer households - with high marginal propensities to consume - to richer ones - who generally save a large fraction of their income. This tends to reduce aggregate demand. Lower aggregate demand, in turn, leads to lower real rates, making it easier for poorer households to load up on debt and live beyond their means. 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Reflation Trade Rumbles On," dated February 17, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy, "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening," dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 A few technical caveats are in order. Think of a simple closed-economy "Keynesian" model where aggregate demand determines income and where savings (S), by definition, are equal to investment (I). In this model, investment is usually treated as exogenous. Thus, if increased bank credit is used to finance new investment projects, this will also translate into higher savings (i.e., if "I" goes up, "S" must also rise). In contrast, if the credit ends up flowing into consumption, savings will remain unchanged. More plausibly, one can imagine that investment is subject to an "accelerator effect," so that increased aggregate demand prompts firms to increase capital spending. In that case, even if the credit flows into consumption, investment will still rise - and since savings is equal to investment, this means that savings will also go up. Intuitively, this happens because the increase in income derived from higher employment more than offsets the increase in consumption. This leads to higher aggregate savings. 4 The word "persistent" is important here. To see why, suppose that in Example 5, the people who consumed 125 coconuts each had previously been thrifty, which had allowed them to build up large bank deposits. Then they could finance their additional spending by running down their accumulated savings, rather than taking on new debt. Likewise, if those who consumed 75 coconuts had previously lived beyond their means, then instead of adding to their deposits, they would be paying back existing debt. The net result would be less debt, not more. 5 Shang-Jin Wei and Xiao Zhang, "The Competitive Saving Motive: Evidence From Rising Sex Ratios And Savings Rates In China," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 119, No. 3, 2011. 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Weaker RMB Ahead," dated March 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 The exact trade is to be long China H-Shares versus the MSCI Emerging Market index, currency unhedged. The corresponding ETFs for this trade are the Hang Seng Investment Index Funds Series: H-Share Index ETF (2828 HK), and the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM US). The Hang Seng China Enterprise index comprises of China H-Shares (Chinese stocks available to international investors) currently trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Nervousness and uncertainty abound within the investment community, but greed is overwhelming fear as the U.S. equity market breaks out and other stock markets test the upside. Technical conditions are stretched and a correction is overdue, but investors can at least take some comfort that earnings are rebounding and that the economic data are surprising to the upside. Upbeat leading indicators and survey data are now being reflected in a synchronized upturn of the "hard" economic data across the major economies. History shows that the risk of recession increases when the U.S. unemployment rate falls below its full employment level. Nonetheless, for extended "slow burn" expansions like the current one, inflation pressure accumulates only slowly. These late cycle phases can last for years and can be rewarding for equity investors. Stock markets are also benefiting from an earnings recovery from last year's profit recession in some of the major economies. Importantly, it is not just an energy story and is occurring even in the U.S., where companies are dealing with a strong dollar. The U.S. Administration and Congressional Republicans are considering some radical changes to the tax code and not all of them are positive for risk assets. The probability of a watered-down border tax being passed as part of a broader tax reform package is higher than the market believes. Overall, tax reform should be positive for growth and profits in the medium term, but is likely to cause near-term turbulence in financial markets. Eurozone breakup risk has re-entered investors' radar screen. Most of the political events this year will end up being red herrings. However, we are quite concerned about Italy, where support for the euro is slipping. Our Duration Checklist supports our short-duration recommendation. The FOMC will hike three times this year, while the European Central Bank and the Bank of England will adopt a more hawkish tone later in 2017 (assuming no political hiccups). The policy divergence backdrop remains positive for the U.S. dollar. Technical and valuation concerns will be a headwind, but will not block another 5-10% appreciation. The Trump Administration is very limited in its ability to engineer a weaker dollar. The robust upturn in the economic and profit data keeps us positive on the stock-to-bond total return ratio for the near term. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to stocks versus bonds within global portfolios. The backdrop could become rockier in the second half of the year. We will be watching political trends in Italy, our leading economic indicators, and U.S. core inflation for a signal to trim risk. Feature U.S. equity markets have broken out and stock indexes in the other major markets are flirting with the top end of their respective trading ranges. Nervousness and uncertainty abound within the investment community, but greed is overwhelming fear. The latter is highlighted by the fact that our Complacency-Anxiety Indictor hit a new high for the cycle (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Complacency Indicator Signals Equity Vulnerability It is disconcerting that there has been no 15-20% equity correction for six years and that technical conditions are stretched. Nonetheless, investors can at least take some comfort that earnings are rebounding and that the economic data are surprising to the upside. As we highlight in this month's Special Report, beginning on page 22, upbeat leading indicators and survey data are now being reflected in a synchronized upturn of the "hard" economic data across the major economies. The economic and profit data are thus providing stocks with a solid tailwind at the moment. Unfortunately, the noise surrounding the Trump/GOP fiscal policy agenda is no less than it was a month ago. Investors are also dealing with another bout of euro breakup jitters ahead of upcoming elections. While most of the European pressure points will turn out to be red herrings in our view, Italy is worrisome (see below). Investors are also concerned that, even if the geopolitical risks fade and Trump's protectionist proposals get watered down, the U.S. is nearing full employment. This means that any growth acceleration this year could show up in rising U.S. wages, a more aggressive Fed and a margin squeeze. In other words, the benefits of growth could go to Main Street rather than to Wall Street. This month we research past cycles to shed some light on this concern. We remain overweight stocks versus bonds, but are watching Italy's political situation, U.S. core inflation and our leading economic indicators for signs to take profits. On a positive note, we are not concerned that the U.S. is "due" for a recession just because it has reached full employment. Late Cycle Economic And Equity Dynamics Previous economic cycles are instructive regarding the recession and margin pressure concerns. In our December 2016 issue, we presented some research in which we split U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from medium and long expansions is the speed at which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerated, and the time it took unemployment to reach a full employment level. Long expansions were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a very slow return to full employment, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession. Chart I-2 and Chart I-3 compare the current cycle to the average of two of the long cycles (the 1980s and the 1990s). We excluded the long-running 1960s expansion because the Fed delayed far too long and fell well behind the inflation curve. Chart I-2Long Expansion Comparison (I) Chart I-3Long Expansion Comparison (II) We define the 'late cycle' phase to be the time period from when the economy first reached full employment to the subsequent recession (shaded portions in Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). The average late-cycle phase for these two expansions lasted almost four years, highlighting that reaching full employment does not necessarily mean that a recession is imminent. Some studies have demonstrated that the probability of recession rises once full employment is reached. We agree with this conclusion when looking across all the post-war cycles.1 However, recessions are almost always triggered by Fed tightening into rising inflationary pressures. Such pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, allowing the Fed to proceed gradually. The Fed waited an average of 25 months to tighten policy after reaching full employment in these two long expansions, in part because core CPI inflation was roughly flat (not shown). Wage growth accelerated in both cases, but healthy productivity growth kept unit labor costs in check. The result was an extended late-cycle phase that allowed profits to continue growing. Earnings-per-share for S&P 500 companies expanded by an average of 18% in inflation-adjusted terms during the two late-cycle phases, despite the twin headwinds of narrowing profit margins and a strengthening dollar (the dollar appreciated by an average of 23% in trade-weighted terms). The stock market provided an impressive average real return of 25%. Of course, no two cycles are the same. Both the 1980s and 1990s included a financial crisis in the second half that interrupted the Fed's tightening timetable, which likely extended the expansion phases (the 1987 crash and the 1998 LTCM financial crisis). Today, unit labor costs are under control, but wage and productivity growth rates are significantly lower. The implication is that nominal GDP is expanding at a significantly slower underlying pace in this cycle, limiting the upside for top line growth in the coming years. In terms of valuation, stocks are more expensive today than they were in the second half of the 1980s. Stocks were even more expensive in the late 1990s, but that provides little comfort because the market had entered the 'tech bubble' that did not end well. We are not making the case that the current late-cycle phase will be as long or rewarding for equity holders as it was for the two previous slow-burn expansions. Indeed, fiscal stimulus this year could lead to overheating and a possible recession in late 2018 or 2019. Our point is that reaching full employment does not condemn the equity market to flat or negative returns. Indeed, the previous cycles highlight that earnings growth can be decent even with the twin headwinds of narrowing margins and a strengthening dollar. The Earnings Mini-Cycle Another factor that distinguishes the current late-cycle phase from the previous two is that the main equity markets endured an earnings recession last year that did not coincide with an economic recession. Since the mid-1980s, there have been three similar episodes (shaded periods in Chart I-4). Bottom-up analysts failed to see the profit recession coming in each case, such that actual EPS fell well short of expectations set 12 months before (the 12-month forward EPS is shown with a 12-month lag to facilitate comparison). In each case, forward EPS estimates trended sideways while actual profits contracted. Chart I-4Market Dynamics During Previous Profit Recessions (But No Economic Recession) This was followed by a recovery in profit growth that eventually closed the gap again between actual and (lagged) 12-month forward EPS. This 'catch up' phase coincided with some multiple expansion and a total return to the S&P 500 of about 8% in the late 1990s and 20% in 2013/14.2 The starting point for the forward P/E is elevated today, which means that double-digit returns may be out of reach. Nonetheless, stocks are likely to outperform bonds on a 6-12 month view. A Bird's Eye View Of The Trump Agenda The U.S. Administration and Congressional Republicans are considering some radical changes to the tax code and not all of them are positive for risk assets. We have no doubt that some sort of tax bill will be passed in 2017. The GOP faces few constraints to cutting corporate taxes and there is every reason to believe it will occur quickly. The major question is whether a broader tax reform will be passed. Trying to understand all the moving parts to tax reform is a daunting task. In order to simplify things, Table I-1 lists the main policies that are being considered, along with the economic and financial consequences of each. Some policies on their own, such as ending interest deductibility, would be negative for the economy and risk assets. However, the top three items in the table will likely be combined if a broad tax reform package is passed. Together, these three items define a destination-based cash-flow tax, which some Republicans would like to replace the existing corporate income tax. The aim is to promote domestic over foreign production, stimulate capital spending and remove a bias in the tax system that favors imports over exports. Table I-1A Bird's Eye View Of The Implications Of The Trump/GOP Fiscal Policy Agenda Table I-1A Bird's Eye View Of The Implications Of The Trump/GOP Fiscal Policy Agenda Perhaps the most controversial aspect is the border-adjustment tax (BAT), which would tax the value added of imports and rebate the tax that exporters pay. We will not get into the details of the BAT here, but interested readers should see two recent BCA reports for more details.3 The implications of the BAT for the economy and financial markets depend importantly on the dollar's response. In theory, the dollar would appreciate by enough to offset the tax paid by importers and the tax advantage gained by exporters, leaving the trade balance and the distribution of after-tax corporate profits in the economy largely unchanged. This is because a full dollar adjustment would nullify the subsidy on exports, while reducing import costs by precisely the amount necessary to restore importers' after-tax profits. A 20% border tax, for example, would require an immediate 25% jump in the dollar to level the playing field. In reality, much depends on how the Fed and other countries respond to the BAT. We believe the dollar's rise would be less than fully offsetting, but would still appreciate by a non-trivial 10% in the event of a 20% border tax. If the dollar's adjustment is only partially offsetting, then it would have the effect of boosting exports and curtailing imports, thereby adding to GDP growth and overall corporate profits. It would make it more attractive for U.S. multinational firms to produce in the U.S., rather than produce elsewhere and export to the U.S. A partial dollar adjustment would also be inflationary because import prices would rise. The smaller the dollar appreciation, the more inflationary the impact. The result would be dollar strength coinciding with higher Treasury yields, breaking the typical pattern in recent years. The impact on the U.S. equity market is trickier. To the extent that dollar strength is not fully offsetting, then the resulting economic boost will lift corporate earnings indirectly. However, the BAT will reduce after-tax profits directly. One risk is that the FOMC slams the brakes on the economy in the face of rising inflation. Another is that, with the economy already operating close to full employment, faster growth might be reflected in accelerating wage inflation that eats into profit margins. However, our sense is that the labor market is not tight enough to immediately spark cost-push inflation. As noted above, it usually takes some time for wage inflation to get a head of steam once the labor market gap is closed in a slow-burn expansion. Full employment is not a hard threshold beyond which the economy suddenly changes. Moreover, the Phillips curve has been quite flat in this recovery, suggesting that it will require significant levels of excess demand to move the dial on inflation. More likely, a slow upward creep in core PCE inflation will allow the Fed to err on the side of caution. Unintended Consequences There are a number of risks and unintended consequences associated with the border tax. One major drawback of the BAT is that, to the extent that the dollar appreciates, it reduces the dollar value of the assets that Americans hold abroad. We estimate that a 25% appreciation, for example, would impose a whopping paper loss of about 13% of GDP. Moreover, a partial dollar adjustment could devastate the profits of importers, while generating a substantial negative tax rate for exporters. It would also be disruptive to multinational supply chains and to the structure of corporate balance sheets (debt becomes more expensive relative to equity finance). Partial dollar adjustment would also be bad news for countries that rely heavily on exports to the U.S. to drive growth, especially emerging economies that have piled up a lot of dollar-denominated debt. An EM crisis cannot be ruled out. Finally, it is unclear whether or not a border tax is consistent with World Trade Organization Rules. At a minimum, it will be seen as a protectionist act by America's trading partners and could trigger a trade war. President Trump has sent conflicting views on the BAT and there has been a wave of criticism from sectors that will lose from such legislation. However, the House GOP leaders signaled a greater flexibility in drafting the law so as to win over various stakeholders. Our Geopolitical Strategy team believes that Trump will ultimately hew to the Republican Party leadership on tax reform, largely because his protectionist and mercantilist vision is fundamentally aligned with the chief aims of the BAT. Critics will be won over by the use of carve-outs and/or phased implementation for key imports like food, fuel and clothing. Interestingly, the sectors that suffer the most from the import tax also tend to pay higher effective tax rates and thus stand to benefit from the rate cuts (Chart I-5). Finally, the BAT would raise revenue that can be used to offset the corporate tax cuts, helping to sell the package to Republican deficit hawks. Chart I-5Cuts In Tax Rates Mitigate A New Import Tax Somewhat But even if the border adjustment never sees the light of day, there will certainly be tax cuts for both corporations and households, along with specific add-ons to deal with concerns like corporate inversions and un-repatriated corporate cash held overseas. An infrastructure plan and cuts to other discretionary non-defense government spending also have a high probability, although the amounts involved may be small. An outsourcing tax has a significant, though less than 50%, chance of occurring in the absence of a border tax. On its own, an outsourcing tax would be negative for growth, profits and equity returns. We place a 50/50 chance on a broad tax reform package that includes the border adjustment. We believe that a broad tax reform package will ultimately be positive for the bottom line for the corporate sector as a whole, although unintended consequences will complicate the path to higher stock prices. Eurozone: Breakup Risk Resurfaces Investors have lots to consider on the other side of the Atlantic as well. The European election timetable is packed and plenty is at stake. Could we see a wave of populism generate game-changing political turmoil in the E.U., as occurred in the U.S. and U.K.? Our geopolitical strategists believe that European risks are largely red-herrings for 2017. Investors are overestimating most of the inherent risks:4 In the Netherlands, the Euroskeptic Party for Freedom is set to capture about 30 out of 150 seats in the March election. However, that is not enough to win a majority. Dutch support for the euro is at a very high level, while voters lack confidence in the country's future outside of the EU. Support for the euro is also elevated in France, limiting the chance that Le Pen will win the upcoming presidential election. Even if she is somehow elected, it is unlikely that she would command a majority of the National Assembly. Exiting the Eurozone and EU would necessitate changing the constitution, possibly requiring a referendum that Le Pen would likely lose. That said, these constraints may not be clear to investors, sparking a market panic if Le Pen wins the election. The German public is not very Euroskeptic either and anti-euro parties are nowhere close to governing. Markets may take a Merkel loss at the hands of the SPD negatively at first. However, the new SPD Chancellor candidate, Martin Schulz, is even more supportive of the euro than Merkel and he would be less insistent on fiscal austerity in the Eurozone. A handover of power to Schulz would ultimately be positive for European stocks. The Catlan independence referendum in September could cause knee-jerk ripples as well. Nonetheless, without recognition from Spain, and no support from EU and NATO member states, Catlonia cannot win independence with a referendum alone. Greece faces a €7 billion payment in July, by which time the funding must be released or the government will run out of cash. The IMF refuses to be involved in any deal that condones Greece's unsustainable debt path. If a crisis emerges, the likely outcome would be early elections. While markets may not like the prospect of an election, the pro-euro and pro-EU New Democratic Party (NDP) is polling well above SYRIZA. The NDP would produce a stable, pro-reform government that would be positive for growth and financial markets. It is a different story in Italy, where an election will occur either in the autumn or early in 2018. Support for the common currency continues to plumb multi-decade lows, while Italian confidence in life outside the EU is perhaps the greatest on the continent (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Euroskeptic parties are gaining in popularity as well. The possibility of a referendum on the euro, were a Euroskeptic coalition to win, would obviously be very negative for risk assets in Europe and around the world. Chart I-6Italians Turning Against The Euro Chart I-7Italians Confident In Life Outside The EU The implication is that most of the risks posed by European politics should cause no more than temporary volatility. The main exception is Italy. We will be watching the Italian polls carefully in the coming months, but we believe that the widening in French/German bond spreads presents investors with a short-term opportunity to bet on narrowing.5 Bond Bear Market Is Intact These geopolitical concerns and uncertainty over President Trump's policy priorities put the cyclical bond bear market on hold early in the New Year, despite continued positive economic surprises. Even Fed Chair Yellen's hawkish tone in her recent Congressional testimony failed to move long-term Treasury yields sustainably higher, after warning that "waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise." In the money markets, expectations priced into the overnight index swap curve have returned to levels last seen on the day of the December 2016 FOMC meeting (Chart I-8). The market is priced for 53 basis points of rate increases between now and the end of the year, with a 26% chance that the next rate hike occurs in March. March is too early to expect the next FOMC rate hike. One reason is that core PCE inflation has been stuck near 1.7% and we believe it will rise only slowly in the coming months. Even though the strong January core CPI print seemed to strengthen the case for a March hike, the details of the report show that only a few components accounted for most of the gains. In fact, our CPI diffusion index fell even further below the zero line. With both our CPI and PCE diffusion indexes in negative territory, inflation may even soften temporarily in the coming months. This would take some heat off of the FOMC (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Fed Rate Expectations Shift Toward Dots Chart I-9U.S. Inflation May Soften Temporarily Second, Fed policymakers will want to see how the Trump policy agenda shakes out in the next few months before moving. We still expect three rate hikes this year, beginning in June. The stance of central bank policy is on our Duration Checklist, as set out by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service (Table I-2). We will not go through all the items on the checklist, but interested readers are encouraged to see our Special Report.6 Table I-2Stay Bearish On Bonds Naturally, leading and coincident indicators for global growth feature prominently in the Checklist. And, as we highlight in this month's Special Report, a synchronized global growth acceleration is underway that is broadly based across economies, consumer and business sectors, and manufacturing and services industries. Our indicators for private spending suggest that real GDP growth in the major countries accelerated sharply between 2016Q3 and the first quarter of 2017, to well above a trend pace. In the Euro Area, jobless rate has been declining quickly and reached 9.6% in January, the lowest level in nearly eight years. Even if economic growth is only 1½% in 2017 (i.e. below our base case), the unemployment rate could reach 9% by year-end, which would be close to full employment. Core inflation already appears to be bottoming and broad disinflationary pressures are abating. When the ECB re-evaluates its asset purchase program around the middle of this year, policymakers could be faced with rising inflation and an economy that has exhausted most of its excess slack. At that point, possibly around September, ECB members will begin to hint that the asset purchases will be tapered at the beginning of 2018. Moreover, the annual growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet will peak by around mid-year and then trend lower (Chart I-10). This inflection point, along with expectations that the ECB will taper further in 2018, will place upward pressure on both European and global bond yields. The Bank of England (BoE) may become more hawkish as well. At the February BoE meeting, policymakers re-iterated that they are willing to look through a temporary overshoot of the inflation target that is related to pass-through from the weak pound and higher oil prices. However, the BoE has its limits. The Statement warned that tighter policy may be necessary if wage growth accelerates and/or consumer spending growth does not moderate in line with the BoE's projection. In the absence of Brexit-related shocks, the BoE is unlikely to see the growth slowdown it is expecting, given healthy Eurozone economic activity and the stimulus provided by the weak pound. Investors should remain positioned for Gilt underperformance of global currency-hedged benchmarks (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Bond Strategy And ##br## The ECB Balance Sheet Chart I-11Gilts To Underperform Outside of central bank policy, a majority of items on the Duration Checklist are checked at the moment, indicating that investors with a 3-12 month view should maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. That said, technical conditions are a headwind to higher yields in the very near term. Oversold conditions and heavy short positioning suggest that yields will have a tough time rising quickly as the market continues to consolidate last year's sharp selloff. Can Trump Force Dollar Weakness? Chart I-12Trump Can't Weaken ##br## Dollar With Tweets For Long The U.S. dollar appears to have recently decoupled from shifts in both nominal and real interest rate differentials this year (Chart I-12). The dollar is expensive, but we do not believe that valuation is a barrier to an extended overshoot given the backdrop of diverging monetary policies between the U.S. and the other major central banks. The dollar's recent stickiness appears to be driven by recent comments from the new Administration that the previous 'strong dollar' policy is a relic of the past. Let us put aside for the moment the fact that expansionary fiscal policy, higher import tariffs and/or a border tax would likely push the dollar even higher. "Tweeting" that the U.S. now has a 'weak dollar' policy will have little effect beyond the near term. A lasting dollar depreciation would require changes in the underlying macro fundamentals and policies. President Trump would have to do one of the following: Force the Fed to ease policy rather than tighten. However, the impact may be short-lived because accelerating inflation would soon force the Fed to tighten aggressively. Convince the other major central banks to tighten their monetary policies at a faster pace than the Fed (principally, the People's Bank of China, the BoJ, the ECB, Banco de Mexico, and the Bank of Canada). Again, the impact on the dollar would be fleeting because premature tightening in any of these economies would undermine growth and investors would conclude that policy tightening is unsustainable. Convince these same countries to implement very expansionary fiscal policies. This has a better chance of sustainably suppressing the dollar, but foreign policy would have to be significantly more stimulative than U.S. fiscal policy. The U.S. Administration will not be able to force the Fed's hand or convince other countries to change tack. President Trump has an opportunity to stack the FOMC with doves if he wishes next year, given so many vacant positions. Nonetheless, Trump's public pronouncements on monetary policy have generally been hawkish. It will be difficult for him to make a complete U-turn on the subject, especially since Congressional Republicans would likely resist. This means that the path of least resistance for the dollar remains up. Dollar valuation is stretched and market technicals are a headwind to the rally. However, valuation signals in the currency market have a poor track record at making money on a less than 2-year horizon. The dollar is currently about 8% overvalued by our measure, which is far from the 20-25% overvaluation level that would justify short positions on valuation grounds alone (Chart I-13). What is more concerning for dollar bulls is that there is near universal unanimity on the trade. Nonetheless, both sentiment and net speculative positions are not nearly as stretched as they were at the top of the Clinton USD bull market (Chart I-14). Moreover, it took six years of elevated bullishness and long positioning to prompt the end of the bull market in 2002. We believe that the dollar will appreciate by another 5-to-10% in real trade-weighted terms by the end of the year, despite lopsided market positioning. The appreciation will be even greater if a border tax is implemented. Chart I-13Dollar is Overvalued, But Far From an Extreme Chart I-14In The 1990s, The Concensus Was Right Conclusions Many investors, including us, have been expecting an equity market correction for some time. But the longer that the market goes without a correction, the "fear of missing out" forces more investors to throw in the towel and buy. This market backdrop means that now is not the best time to commit fresh money to stocks, but we would not recommend taking profits either. On a positive note, the U.S. economy is not poised on the edge of recession just because it has reached full employment. Indeed, a synchronized growth acceleration is underway across the major countries that is broadly based across industries. Inflationary pressure is building only slowly in the U.S., which gives the Fed room to maneuver. Moreover, the Trump Administration has not labelled China a currency manipulator, and has sounded more conciliatory toward NATO and the European Union in recent days. This is all good news, but the direction of U.S. fiscal policy remains highly uncertain. Moreover, investors must navigate a host of geopolitical landmines in Europe this year, most important of which is an Italian election that may occur in the autumn. The ECB and the BoE will likely become more hawkish in tone later this year. The impressive upturn in the economic and profit data keeps us positive on the stock-to-bond total return ratio for the near term. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to stocks versus bonds within global portfolios. The backdrop could become rockier for risk assets in the second half of the year. We will be watching political trends in Italy, our leading economic indicators, and U.S. core inflation among other factors for a signal to trim risk. Our other recommendations include: Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Overweight Eurozone government bonds relative to the U.S. and U.K. in currency-hedged portfolios. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged portfolios. Be defensively positioned within equity sectors to temper the risk associated with overweighting stocks versus bonds. In U.S. equities, maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that rely heavily on imports. Overweight investment-grade corporate bonds relative to government issues, but stay underweight high-yield where value is very stretched. Within European government bond portfolios, continue to avoid the Periphery in favor of the core markets. Fade the widening in French/German spreads. Overweight the dollar relative to the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market, on expected policy changes that will disproportionately favor small companies. We are bullish on oil prices in absolute terms on a 12-month horizon, and recommend favoring this commodity relative to base metals. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst February 23, 2017 Next Report: March 30, 2017 1 Indeed, this must be true by definition. 2 The S&P 500 contracted during 1987 because of the market crash. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue for 2017," dated January 20, 2017. Also see: BCA Geopolitical Strategy "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?", dated February 8, 2017. 4 Please see Global Political Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017. 5 Please see Global Political Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds," dated February 7, 2017. 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "A Duration Checklist For U.S. Treasurys And German Bunds," dated February 15, 2017. II. Global Growth Pickup: Fact Or Fiction? Risk assets have discounted a lot of good economic news. There is concern that the growth impulse evident in surveys of business activity and confidence has been slow to show up clearly in the "hard" economic data related to final demand. If the optimism displayed in the survey data is simply reflecting "hope" for less government red tape, tax cuts and infrastructure spending in the U.S., then risk assets are highly vulnerable to policy disappointment. After a deep dive into the economic data for the major countries, we have little doubt that a tangible growth acceleration is underway. Momentum in job creation has ebbed, but retail sales, industrial production and capital spending are all showing more dynamism in the advanced economies. Evidence of improving activity is broadly-based across countries and industrial sectors (including services). Orders and production are gaining strength for goods related to both business and household final demand. Inventory rebuilding will add to growth this year, but this is not the main story. The energy revival is not the main driver either. Indeed, energy production has lagged the overall pick-up in industrial production growth. The bottom line is that investors should not dismiss the improved tone to the global economic data as mere "hope". Our models, based largely on survey data, point to a significant acceleration in G7 real GDP growth in early 2017. Our sense is that 'animal spirits' are finally beginning to stir, following many years of caution and retrenchment. A return of animal spirits could prolong a period of robust growth, even if President Trump's growth-boosting policies are delayed or largely offset by spending cuts. This economic backdrop is positive for risk assets and bearish for bonds. Admittedly, however, we cannot point to concrete evidence that this current cyclical upturn will be any more resilient and enduring than previous mini-cycles in this lackluster expansion. Much depends on U.S. policy and European politics in 2017. The so-called Trump reflation trades lost momentum in January, but the dollar and equity indexes are on the rise again as we go to press. A lot of recent volatility is related to the news flow out of Washington, as investors gauge whether President Trump will prioritize the growth-enhancing aspects of his policy agenda over the ones that will hinder economic activity. Much is at stake because it appears that risk assets have discounted a lot of good economic news. Investors have taken some comfort from the fact that leading indicators are trending up across most of the Developed Markets (DM) and Emerging Markets (EM) economies. In the major advanced economies, only the Australian leading indicator is not above the boom/bust mark and rising. Our Global Leading Economic Indicator is trending higher and it will climb further in the coming months given that its diffusion index is well above 50 (Chart II-1). The Global ZEW indicator and the BCA Boom/Bust growth indicator are also constructive on the growth outlook (although the former ticked down in February). Consumers and business leaders are feeling more upbeat as well, both inside and outside of the U.S. (Chart II-2). The improvement in sentiment began before the U.S. election. Surveys of business activity, such as the Purchasing Managers Surveys (PMI), are painting a uniformly positive picture for near-term global output in both the manufacturing and service industries. Chart II-1A Consistent, Positive ##br## Message On Growth Chart II-2Surging Confidence, ##br## Production Following Suit While this is all good news for risk assets, there is concern that a growth impulse has been slow to show up clearly in the "hard" economic data related to final demand. Could it be that the bounce in confidence is simply based on faith that U.S. fiscal policy will be the catalyst for a global growth acceleration? Could it be that, beyond this hope, there is really nothing else to support a brighter economic outlook? Is it the case that the improved tone in the survey data only reflects the end of an inventory correction and a rebound in energy production? If the answer is 'yes' to any of these questions, then equity and corporate bond markets are highly vulnerable to U.S. policy disappointment. This month we take deep dive into the economic data for the major economies. The good news is that there is more to the cyclical upturn than hope, inventories or energy production. The improved tone in the forward-looking data is now clearly showing up in measures of final demand. The caveat is that there is no evidence yet that the cyclical mini up-cycle in 2017 is any less vulnerable to negative shocks than was the case in previous upturns since the Great Recession. The Hard Data First, the bad news. There has been a worrying loss of momentum in job creation, although the data releases lag by several months in the U.K. and the Eurozone, making it difficult to get an overall read on payrolls into year-end (Charts II-3 and II-4).1 Job gains have accelerated in recent months in Japan, Canada and Australia. The payroll slowdown is mainly evident in the U.S. and U.K. This may reflect supply constraints as both economies are near full employment, but it is difficult to determine whether it is supply or demand-related. The good news is that the employment component of the global PMI has rebounded sharply following last year's dip, suggesting that the pace of job creation will soon turn up. Chart II-3Global Employment Growth Cooling Off (I) Chart II-4Global Employment Growth Cooling Off (II) On the positive side, households are opening their wallets a little wider according to the retail sales data (Chart II-5 and Chart II-6). Year-over-year growth of a weighted average of nominal retail sales for the major advanced economies (AE) has accelerated to about 3%, and the 3-month rate of change has surged to 8%. Sales growth has accelerated sharply in all the major economies except Australia. The retail picture is less impressive in volume terms given the recent pickup in headline inflation, but the consumer spending backdrop is nonetheless improving. The major exception is the U.K., where inflation-adjusted retail sales have lost momentum in recent months. Chart II-5On Your Mark, Get Set, Shop!! (I) Chart II-6On Your Mark, Get Set, Shop!! (II) Similarly, business capital spending is finally showing some signs of life following a rocky 2015 and early 2016. An aggregate of Japanese, German and U.S. capital goods orders2 is a good leading indicator for G7 real business investment (Chart II-7). Order books began to fill up in the second half of 2016 and the year-over-year growth rate appears headed for double digits in the coming months. The pickup is fairly widespread across industries in Germany and the U.S., although less so in Japan. The acceleration of imported capital goods for our 20 country aggregate corroborates the stronger new orders reports (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Recent data on industrial production show that the global manufacturing sector is clearly emerging from last year's recession. Short-term momentum in production growth has accelerated over the past 3-4 months across most of the major advanced economies (Chart II-8 and Chart II-9). Chart II-7Global Capex Cycle Turning Positive... Chart II-8...Driving A Global Manufacturing Upturn Chart II-9Global Manufacturing Upturn The fading of the negative impacts of the oil shock and last year's inventory correction are playing some role in the manufacturing rebound, but there is more to it than that. The production upturn is broadly-based across sectors in Japan and the U.K., although less so in the Eurozone and the U.S. Industrial output related to both household and capital goods is showing increasing signs of vigor in recent months (Chart II-10). Interestingly, energy-related production is not a driving force. Indeed, energy production is lagging the overall improvement in industrial output growth, even in the U.S. where the shale oil & gas sector is tooling up again (Chart II-11). Chart II-10A Broad-Based Acceleration Chart II-11Energy Is Not The Main Driver The Boost From Inventories And Energy Some inventory rebuilding will undoubtedly contribute to the rebound in industrial production and real GDP growth in 2017. The inventory contribution has been negative for 6 quarters in a row for the major advanced economies, which is long for a non-recessionary period (Chart II-12). We estimate that U.S. industrial production growth will easily grow in the 4-5% range this year given a conservative estimate of manufacturing shipments and a flattening off in the inventory/shipments ratio (which will require some inventory restocking; Chart II-13). Chart II-12Global Inventory Correction Is Over Chart II-13U.S. Manufacturing Outlook Is Bullish Nonetheless, the inventory cycle is not the main story for 2017. The swing in inventories seldom contributes to annual real GDP growth by more than a tenth of a percentage point for the major countries as a whole outside of recessions. Moreover, inventory swings generally do not lead the cycle; they only reinforce cyclical upturns and downturns in final demand. U.S. industrial production growth this year will undoubtedly exceed the 4-5% rate discussed above because that estimate does not include a resurgence of capital spending in the energy patch. BCA's Energy Sector Strategy service predicts that energy-related capex will surge by 40% in 2017, largely in the shale sector (Chart II-13, bottom panel). Even if energy capital spending outside the U.S. is roughly flat, as we expect, this would be a major improvement relative to the 15-20% contraction last year. According to Stern/NYU data, energy-related investment spending currently represents about a quarter of total U.S. capital spending.3 Thus, a 40% jump in energy capex would boost overall U.S. business investment in the national accounts by an impressive 10 percentage points. This is a significant contribution, but at the moment the upturn in manufacturing production is being driven by a broader pickup in business spending. The acceleration in production and orders related to consumer goods in the major countries suggests that household final demand is also showing increased vitality, consistent with the retail sales data. Soft Survey Data Notwithstanding the nascent upturn in the hard data, some believe that the soft data are sending an overly constructive signal in terms of near-term growth. The soft data generally comprise measures of confidence and surveys of business activity. One could discount the pop in U.S. sentiment as simply reflecting hope that election promises to cut taxes, remove red tape and boost infrastructure spending will come to fruition. Nonetheless, improved sentiment readings are widespread across the major countries, which means that it is probably not just a "Trump" effect. Moreover, there is no reason to doubt the surveys of actual business activity. Surveys such as the PMIs, the U.K. CBI Business Survey, the German IFO current conditions index and the Japanese Tankan survey all include measures of activity occurring today or in the immediate future (i.e. 3 months). There is no reason to believe that these surveys have been contaminated by "hope" and are sending a false signal on actual spending. We analyzed a wide variety of survey data and combined the ones that best lead (if only slightly) consumer and capital spending into indicators of private final demand (Chart II-14 and Chart II-15). A wide swath of confidence and survey data are rising at the moment, with few exceptions. Moreover, the improvement is observed in both the manufacturing and services sectors, and for both households and businesses. We employed these indicators in regression models for real GDP in the four major advanced economies and for the G7 as a group (Chart II-16). The models predict that G7 real GDP growth will accelerate to 2½% on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter, from 1½% in 2016 Q3. We expect growth of close to 3% in the U.S. and about 2½% in the Eurozone, although the model for the latter has been over-predicting somewhat over the past year. Japanese growth should accelerate to about 1.7% in the first quarter based on these indicators. Chart II-14Our Consumer Indicators Have Turned Up... Chart II-15...Our Capex Indicators Too Chart II-16Real Growth To Accelerate The outlook is less impressive for the U.K. While the survey data have revealed the biggest jump of the major countries in recent months, this represents a rebound from last years' Brexit-driven plunge. Nonetheless, current survey levels are consistent with continued solid growth. The implication is that the survey data are not sending a distorted message; underlying growth is accelerating even though it is only now showing up in the hard economic data. Turning for a moment to the emerging world, output is picking up on the back of an upturn in exports. However, we do not see much evidence of a domestic demand dynamic that will help to drive global growth this year. The main exception is China, where private sector capital spending growth has clearly bottomed. Infrastructure spending in the state-owned sector is slowing, but overall industrial capital spending growth has turned up because of private sector activity. An easing in monetary conditions last year is lifting growth and profitability which, in turn, is generating an incentive for the business sector to invest. There are also budding signs of recovery in housing-related investment. Stronger Chinese capital spending in 2017 will encourage imports and thereby support activity in China's trading partners, particularly in Asia. Will The Growth Impulse Have Legs? The cyclical dynamics so far appear a lot like the rebound in global growth following the 2011/12 economic soft patch and inventory correction (Chart II-17). That mini cycle was caused by a second installment of the Eurozone financial crisis. The damage to confidence and the tightening in financial conditions sparked a recession on the European continent and a loss of economic momentum globally. The financial situation in Europe began to improve in 2013. Consumer spending growth in the major advanced economies was the first to turn up, followed by capital spending, industrial production and, finally, hiring. Then, as now, the upturn in the surveys led the hard data. Unfortunately, the growth surge was short-lived because the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices undermined confidence and tightened financial conditions once again. The result was a manufacturing recession and inventory correction in 2016. There are reasons to believe that the cyclical upturn will have legs this time. It is good news that the growth impetus is observed in both the manufacturing and service sectors, and that it is widespread across the major advanced economies. Fiscal policy will likely be less restrictive this year than in 2014/15, and our sense is that some of the lingering scar tissue from the Great Recession is beginning to fade. The latter is probably most evident in the case of the U.S.; a Special Report from BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy service highlighted that the U.S. expansion has become more self-reinforcing.4 In the U.S. business sector, it appears that "animal spirits" have been stirred by the promise of less government red tape, lower taxes and protection from external competitive pressures. Regional Fed surveys herald a surge in capital spending plans in the next six months (Chart II-18). The rebound in corporate profitability also bodes well for capital spending. Chart II-17Consumers Usually Lead At Turning Points... Chart II-18...But Capex Appears To Be Leading Now Conclusions: We have little doubt that a meaningful global growth acceleration is underway. It is possible that consumer and business confidence measures are contaminated by hopes of policy stimulus in the U.S., but there is widespread verification from survey data of current spending that real final demand growth accelerated in 2016Q4 and 2017Q1. In terms of the hard data, evidence of improving manufacturing output and capital spending is broadly-based across industrial sectors and countries, suggesting that there is more going on than the end of an inventory correction and energy rebound. The bottom line is that investors should not dismiss the improved tone to the global economic data as mere "hope". Our sense is that 'animal spirits' are finally beginning to stir, following many years of caution and retrenchment. CEOs appear to have more swagger these days. Since the start of the year there have been a slew of high-profile announcements of fresh capital spending and hiring plans from companies such as Amazon, Toyota, Walmart, GM, Lockheed Martin and Kroger. A return of animal spirits could prolong a period of stronger growth, which would be positive for risk assets and the dollar, but bearish for bonds. Admittedly, however, we cannot point to concrete evidence that this cyclical upturn will be any more enduring than previous mini-cycles in this lackluster expansion. The economy may be just as vulnerable to shocks as was the case in 2014. As discussed in the Overview, there are numerous risks that could truncate the economic and profit upswing. On the U.S. policy front, tax cuts and some more infrastructure spending would be positive for risk assets on their own. However, the addition of the border tax or the implementation of other trade restrictions would disrupt international supply chains, abruptly shift relative prices and possibly generate a host of unintended consequences. And in Europe, markets have to navigate a minefield of potentially disruptive elections this year. Any resulting damage to household and business confidence could short-circuit the upturn in growth. For now, we remain overweight equities and corporate bonds relative to government bonds in the major countries, but political dynamics may force a shift in asset allocation as we move through the year. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Note that where only non-seasonally adjusted data is available, we have seasonally-adjusted the data so that we can get a sense of short-term momentum via the annualized 3-month rate of change. 2 Machinery orders used for Japan. 3 Please see http://www.stern.nyu.edu/ 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The State Of The Economy In Pictures," dated January 30, 2017. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The breakout in the S&P 500 over the past month has further stretched valuation metrics. The Shiller P/E is very elevated, and the price/sales ratio is almost back to the tech bubble peak. However, our composite valuation indicator is still slightly below the one sigma level that marks significant overvaluation. This composite indicator comprises 11 different measures of value. The monetary indicator is slightly negative, but not dangerously so for stocks. Technical momentum is positive, although several indicators suggest that the equity rally is stretched and long overdue for a correction. These include our speculation indicator, composite sentiment and the VIX. Forward earnings estimates are still rising, although it may be a warning sign that the net earnings revisions ratio has rolled over. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators continue to send a positive message for stock markets. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The WTP indicators have turned up for the Japanese, Eurozone and U.S. markets, although only the latter is sending a particularly bullish message at the moment. The U.S. WTP has risen above the 0.95 level that historically provides the strongest bullish signal for the stock-to-bond total return ratio. The WTP indicator suggests that, after loading up on bonds last year, investors still have "dry powder" available to buy stocks as risk tolerance improves. Bond valuation is roughly unchanged from last month at close to fair value, as long-term yields have been stuck in a trading range. The Treasury technical indicator suggests that oversold conditions have not yet been fully unwound, suggesting that the next leg of the bear market may take some time to develop. The dollar is extremely expensive based on the PPP measure shown in this section. However, other measures suggest that valuation is not yet at an extreme (see the Overview). Technically overbought conditions are still being unwound according to our dollar technical indictor. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br## And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br## And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China
Highlights Price inflation is paradoxically deflationary for European consumers, because there is no feedthrough from price inflation to wage inflation. Whenever price inflation has risen towards the ECB's highly-misguided 2% target, euro area real wages have gone into recession. The same is true in the U.K. Do not expect a structural sell-off in high-quality bonds. Go overweight the broad-based Eurostoxx600 versus the bank-heavy Eurostoxx50. Stay overweight the international dollar-earning FTSE100 versus the more domestic pound-earning FTSE250. Feature We have a love-hate relationship with inflation. Love, if the inflation refers to our wages. Hate, if the inflation refers to our weekly grocery bill. Put another way, inflation is good for our purchasing power when wages are going up faster than prices; it is bad when prices are going up faster than wages. Unfortunately, recent inflation has been unequivocally bad for European purchasing power. Through the past 7 years, euro area nominal wages have been growing at a remarkably steady 1-2% clip. Whereas price inflation has swung between -0.5% and 3% (Chart I-2). Therefore, whenever price inflation has stayed close to 0% (the true definition of price stability), real wages have grown very healthily. But whenever inflation has risen towards the ECB's highly-misguided 2% target, euro area real wages have gone into recession (Chart of the Week). Chart I-1The Inflation Paradox: When Price Inflation Rises to 2%, Real Wages Go Into Recession Chart I-2Nominal Wages Have Been Growing At A Remarkably Steady 1-2% The same is true in the U.K. There has been no feedthrough from price inflation to wage inflation (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). If anything, an inverse relationship has existed. Hence, whenever inflation has declined, it has boosted real wages. And whenever inflation has risen, it has choked real wages (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-3Very Little Connection... Chart I-4...Between Price Inflation And Wage Inflation Chart I-5When Price Inflation Has Declined,##br## It Has Boosted Real Wages Chart I-6When Price Inflation Has Increased,##br## It Has Choked Real Wages Households Dislike 2% Price Inflation An argument we frequently hear is that highly indebted economies need higher inflation to 'inflate away their high debts'. But this logic only works if inflation is boosting the incomes of those burdened with the high debt, such as households. The problem, as we have just seen, is that there has been very little connection between the price inflation that central banks are targeting and the wage inflation that eases households' debt burdens. To its credit, the Bank of England recognises this paradox. "Continued moderation in pay growth and higher import prices following sterling's depreciation are likely to mean materially weaker household real income growth over the coming few years" 1 Inflation is ultimately a transfer of resources from those paying the higher prices to those receiving them. In a closed economy, the winners and losers might balance out. However, Europe is a large net importer of food and energy, whose demand is inelastic and whose prices are denominated in dollars. Therefore, currency weakness transfers resources from domestic consumers to foreign producers. As the BoE goes on to say: "Over the next few years, a consequence of weaker sterling is that the higher imported costs resulting from it will boost consumer prices... and the hitherto resilient rates of household spending growth will slow as real income gains weaken." Exactly the same dynamic applies to the euro area as a consequence of the weaker euro. The difference is that sterling's Brexit-induced slump was out of the BoE's control, whereas the euro's weakness is a direct consequence of the ECB's extreme and experimental monetary easing. The ECB is keen to tell us about the benefits of its extreme monetary easing; it is less keen to tell us about the costs. However, we believe that the benefits have diminished while the costs are rapidly rising. And absent a major shock, the ECB should end its risky experiment. What's Up With Wage Growth? The intriguing question is: why has there been little connection between price inflation and wage inflation? The BoE observes that pay growth has remained persistently subdued by historical standards - strikingly so in light of the decline in the rate of unemployment to below 5%. This outcome is likely to reflect a substantial decline in the 'equilibrium unemployment rate', the point at which wage pressures start to bubble up. The explanation comes from the type of jobs created in recent years. ECB research points out that the dynamics of wages not only reflect changes in wages at the individual level, but are also influenced by changes in the composition of employment. "The structure of recent employment creation may have contributed to low wage growth in the euro area. Since the second quarter of 2013, employment creation in the euro area has been stronger in sectors associated with relatively lower wage levels and wage growth rates. This employment composition effect puts a drag on average wage growth." 2 Automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are major drivers of this composition effect. Moreover, as we argued in The Superstar Economy: Part 2,3 the effect has much further to run. "Many of the jobs that AI will destroy - like credit scoring, language translation, or managing a stock portfolio - are regarded as skilled, have limited human competition and are well-paid. Conversely, many of the jobs that AI cannot (yet) destroy - like cleaning, gardening, or cooking - are relatively unskilled and are low-paid." With well-paid jobs being displaced by low-paid jobs, job creation itself might still seem very healthy and the unemployment rate might be falling to levels associated with 'full employment' - prompting some people to warn that wage inflation is about to take off. Except it won't, for two reasons: first, the AI-displaced formerly well-paid workers are downshifting to lower-paid work; second, the added supply of labour competing for the lower-paid work keeps a lid on the wages for that lower-paid work. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco points out that: "As long as employers can keep their wage bills low by replacing or expanding staff with lower-paid workers, labour cost pressures for higher price inflation could remain muted for some time." 4 A further point is that if employment creation is in jobs with lower wages, wage growth, and job security, then it will also constrain credit growth. Lacking income growth or security, households will be unwilling to borrow and banks will be unwilling to lend. Absent strong credit growth, we subscribe to a monetarist conclusion: a generalised and sustained inflation - a wage-price spiral - cannot take hold. Some Investment Considerations For the foreseeable future, there will be little feedthrough from price inflation to wage inflation. So whenever price inflation picks up - as is now happening in the U.K. and the euro area - it will choke real wages. Therefore paradoxically, price inflation will be deflationary for European consumers. This will prevent a structural sell-off in high-quality bonds. For a U.K. equity portfolio at this juncture, it means tilting towards international exposure. Stay overweight the international dollar-earning FTSE100 versus the more domestic pound-earning FTSE250 - especially given that sterling could come under renewed pressure after the U.K. formally files for its divorce from the EU (Chart I-7). For a broader European equity portfolio, prefer non-financials over financials. A very easy way to implement this is to go overweight the broad-based Eurostoxx600 versus the bank-heavy Eurostoxx50 (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Overweight The International Dollar-Earning ##br##FTSE100 Versus The FTSE250 Chart I-8Overweight The Broad Eurostoxx600##br## Versus The Bank-Heavy Eurostoxx50 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 From the Bank of England Monetary Policy Summary and minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meeting on February 1, 2017. 2 From the ECB Economic Bulletin, Issue 3 / 2016: Recent wage trends in the euro area. 3 Published on January 19, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 From the FRBSF Economic Letter March 7, 2016: What's Up with Wage Growth? Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommendation is a commodity pair-trade: long tin / short copper. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Global manufacturing inventories are low but this does not guarantee higher share prices for global cyclical stocks. If an increase in inventories is accompanied by strengthening final demand, it will be very bullish for the global business cycle. If final demand growth falters, global cyclical plays will relapse amid rising inventories. China's inventory depletion has been due to the large fiscal and credit impulse in the past 12 months - i.e., improving final demand has been instrumental to inventory shedding. Looking forward, the mainland's aggregate credit and fiscal impulse seems to have topped out raising the odds of a reversal in EM/China plays sooner than later. The risk/reward of EM/China plays remains unattractive. Feature Global Manufacturing Inventories Global manufacturing inventories have been depleted over the past 12 months, and inventory levels are generally low (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1Global Manufacturing Inventories Are Low Chart I-2Global Manufacturing Inventories Are Low Could inventory re-stocking extend the current manufacturing cycle recovery worldwide? Will low inventories and re-stocking in China lengthen the nation's business cycle upswing? Chart I-3 demonstrates inventory cycles and manufacturing production within manufacturing-intensive economies. The correlation is not stable. Currently, this entails that low manufacturing inventories and a potential rise in inventories over the course of this year do not guarantee acceleration in industrial output growth. Having reviewed manufacturing inventory cycles and their correlation with share prices, we conclude that the key to share prices is final demand - not inventory swings. Manufacturing inventories have dropped in the past 12 months because final demand has been robust (Chart I-4). Historically, periods of re-stocking have often coincided with poor equity market performance. Indeed, Taiwanese, Korean, Japanese and German non-financial share prices have no stable correlation with their respective manufacturing inventory cycles (Chart I-5). In short, manufacturing inventories could rise in the months ahead, but this does not guarantee higher share prices in cyclical industries. Chart I-3Inventories And Production ##br##Are Not Always Correlated Chart I-4Robust Demand Has Led ##br##To Inventory Depletion Chart I-5Non-Financial Share Prices And##br## Inventories: Little Correlation By and large, the outlook for corporate profits is contingent on final demand rather than re-stocking. All of the above confirms that inventories are a residual of demand and supply. Stronger-than-expected demand is bullish for share prices, though it also often coincides with declining inventories. By contrast, rising inventories typically reflect demand falling behind output growth (one can define it as involuntary re-stocking) and these periods are not favorable for share price gains in cyclical industries. One caveat is that there could be a re-stocking cycle amid strengthening demand or, in other words, voluntary re-stocking. If this transpires in the coming months, it will be extremely bullish for share prices as it will supercharge output growth. While the latter scenario - inventory re-stocking amid strengthening final demand - could very well occur within the advanced economies this year, odds of such positive dynamics are low in EM/China. Bottom Line: Share prices in global cyclical sectors are driven by swings in final demand - not in inventories. Going forward, global manufacturing inventories will rise. If this rise is accompanied by strengthening demand, it will be very bullish for the global business cycle. Otherwise, global cyclical plays will relapse as inventories rise. What Drives China's Inventory Cycles Chart I-6 shows that China's manufacturing inventories typically deplete when the credit and fiscal impulse is rising, and vice versa. China's manufacturing inventories have been exhausted because demand has been strong in the past 12 months. In turn, demand strength has originated from the country's massive fiscal and credit stimulus push from the first half of 2016. Chart I-6China: Strong Policy Stimulus Led To Manufacturing Inventories Reduction That said, China's aggregate fiscal and credit impulse seems to have recently rolled over, pointing to a top in its manufacturing mini-cycle and commodities prices (Chart I-7). This signals a potential deceleration in final demand. On the whole, the ongoing modest tightening by the People's Bank of China and by the bank regulator (the China Banking Regulatory Commission) amid a lingering credit bubble is raising the odds of a moderate credit slowdown in the months ahead. Even modest credit growth deceleration will result in a negative credit impulse (Chart I-8, top panel). Meanwhile, the mainland's fiscal impulse has already dropped (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7China: Aggregate Credit And Fiscal##br## Stimulus Has Topped Out Chart I-8China: A Breakdown Of Credit ##br##And Fiscal Impulses On the whole, these developments are leading us to maintain our negative bias toward EM risk assets and China plays. What has gone wrong in our view/analysis on China in the past 12 months is that the nation's credit growth has stayed much stronger than we expected. In our April 13, 2016 report,1 we did a scenario analysis and argued that China's large fiscal stimulus push would be offset by a negative credit impulse if credit growth slowed from 11.5% to below 10%. In reality, credit growth has been between 11.5-12.5%, producing a positive credit impulse. Barring tightening by the central bank or bank regulators, mainland banks can continue originating loans/money at a double-digit pace, as they have been doing for many years (Chart I-9). In general, commercial banks do not need savings to create money/loans and there are few limits on Chinese banks originating loans "out of thin air," as we argued in our Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment.2 Chart I-9China's Credit/Money Growth##br## Remains Rampant Therefore, if credit growth does not slow, our negative view on China's growth will be off-the-mark again. The pressure point in such a case will be the exchange rate. Unlimited money creation/oversupply of local currency is bearish for the value of the RMB. The RMB will continue depreciating, but it is not certain if it will hurt EM risk assets. It is a major consensus view nowadays that the Chinese authorities will not allow growth to suffer ahead of the Party Congress in autumn of this year. Yet, the PBoC and bank regulators are modestly tightening to "normalize" credit growth. Some clients may wonder why we are placing so much emphasis on the rollover of credit and fiscal impulses now, while placing little emphasis on these same indicators in 2016 when they were recovering. The rationale is as follows: when there is a credit bubble - as there is in China now - we tend to downplay the importance of policy easing and put more significance on policy tightening. The opposite also holds true: when the credit/banking system is healthy, we tend to downplay the impact of moderate policy tightening and put greater emphasis on policy easing. In a credit bubble, it does not take much tightening to trigger a downtrend that unwinds excesses. Similarly, moderate tightening in a healthy credit system should not be feared. From a big picture perspective, we turned bearish on China's growth several years ago due to the formation of a credit bubble. The bubble has only gotten larger and an adjustment has not yet even started. This does not justify altering our fundamental assessment of China's growth outlook. It would have been ideal to turn positive tactically on EM/China plays a year ago. Unfortunately, we did not do that. Presently, chasing the market higher might not be the best investment idea. Based on all this and given: the sharp rally in EM/China plays and widespread investor complacency and consensus that "everything" will be fine before the end of this year; modest tightening in Chinese monetary policy amid lingering credit and asset (property and the corporate bond market) bubbles; our outlook for higher U.S. bond yields and a stronger U.S. dollar; the fact that financial markets are forward looking, and timing is impossible; We believe the risk/reward of EM/China plays remains unattractive. In regard to EM ex-China, as we documented in last week's report, domestic demand in the developing economies has not recovered at all, or is mixed at best. DM final demand strength and global manufacturing inventory rebuilding will certainly help Korea and Taiwan, but not other emerging economies. The most important variables for other EM economies including China are domestic demand and/or commodities prices. If commodities prices relapse along with China's credit and fiscal impulse (Chart I-7, bottom panel), EM financial markets will suffer regardless of the growth trends within advanced economies. In fact, strong U.S. growth could lead to higher U.S. interest rate expectations and prop up the U.S. dollar. This will also be a bad omen for EM and commodities. Bottom Line: China's inventory depletion has been due to the large fiscal and credit impulse in the past 12 months - i.e., improving final demand has been instrumental to inventory shedding. Looking forward, the mainland's aggregate credit and fiscal impulse seems to have topped out, raising the odds of a reversal in EM/China plays sooner than later. Industrial Metals Inventories And Prices There is no good data reflecting industrial metals inventories globally. London Metal Exchange and Shanghai Futures Exchange data are likely not indicative of global metals stockpiles. China accounts for close to 50% of global demand for industrial metals, and its demand is critical to prices. Given that the large spike in metals prices in the past several months has coincided with improving Chinese economic data, one would expect the mainland to be the driving force behind the rally. However, Chart I-10 demonstrates that China's imports of industrial metals actually contracted in 2016. This is puzzling, but we have to take it at face value. The top panel of Chart I-11 depicts that traders' net long positions in copper are at a six-year high. This might partially explain the rally in copper in the recent months. Chart I-10China's Import Of Base Metals##br## And Base Metals Prices Chart I-11Traders Are Long ##br##Copper And Oil Clearly, China has been depleting its stock of industrial metals, and is likely primed to increase its imports. Nevertheless, periods of metals re-stocking by the mainland have historically not entailed higher industrial metals prices (Chart I-10). On the contrary, rising Chinese imports of metals have actually coincided with falling prices. One can interpret this relationship as China buying industrial metals when prices are falling. This is consistent with China attempting to buy commodities on dips. As to metals inventories in China, the picture is as follows: Steel inventories have plummeted and are low (Chart I-12). One can safely argue that there will be an inventory re-stocking cycle in China. Nevertheless, it is highly uncertain if this will be bullish for steel prices and steel stocks. In fact, there has been a mild negative correlation between steel prices and inventories; historically, when inventories have risen, prices declined (Chart I-12, top panel). This confirms that inventory levels are a residual of demand and supply, and prices are often driven by final demand - not inventories. This is also corroborated by the bottom panel of Chart I-12, which illustrates that share prices of global steel companies are sometimes negatively correlated with China's steel inventories. Stock prices occasionally sell off when inventories rise, and rally when inventories are shrinking. In contrast to steel and steel products, iron ore inventories have risen, and it seems the re-stocking cycle is well advanced (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China: Steel Inventories And Prices Chart I-13China: Iron Ore Inventories And Prices Yet, again there is no strong correlation between inventories and prices of iron ore (Chart I-13). In our discussions with clients, investors often attribute the rally in industrial metals in general and steel prices in particular over the past 12 months to supply cutbacks in China. While supply reductions have helped in the case of certain metals, it is also evident that the rally in industrial commodities has been driven by rising demand globally and in China. First, China's aggregate credit and fiscal impulse was positive until very recently, implying strengthening demand and thereby higher metals prices. Second, if there were only production cutbacks in steel and other commodities and not demand recovery, the mainland's manufacturing PMI would not have risen (Chart I-14). Finally, steel production has risen both in China and the rest of the world (Chart I-15). Hence, world steel supplies have expanded in the past 12 months. Given this has coincided with rising steel prices, it confirms there has been notable improvement in demand for steel. Chart I-14China: Steel Prices Are Up ##br##Because Of Strong Demand Chart I-15Chinese And Global ##br##Steel Production We are not experts in the ebbs and flows of commodities supplies, but it seems the Chinese government's mandated steel capacity cutbacks have not prevented rising steel output in China. In the meantime, rising prices amid rising production and falling inventories are indicative of robust final demand for many metals. Bottom Line: Industrial metals prices have risen because demand in the real economy and among financial investors has been strong. That said, a rollover in China's fiscal and credit impulse and a strong U.S. dollar will likely create headwinds for industrial metals prices over the course of this year. A Word About Oil Inventories OECD oil product inventories have continued to rise, despite supply cuts (Chart I-16, top panel). At the same time, our proxy for change in China's oil inventories has been very elevated for a while, depicting strategic and/or commercial inventory building on the mainland (Chart I-16, bottom panel). It is true that supply curtailments have been instrumental to the rally in oil prices, but the continued inventory buildup also indicates that supply is still outpacing demand. Besides, traders' net long positions in crude have spiked close to their 2014 highs (Chart I-11, bottom panel). This corroborates that demand for crude, like for copper, has partially been financial rather than from final consumers. Finally, U.S. rig counts have recovered somewhat, which may be indicative of a continued rise in America's oil output (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Oil Inventories Keep On Rising Chart I-17U.S. Rig Counts And Oil Production Bottom Line: While we do not have expertise to follow or forecast oil supply dynamics, we are biased in believing that the risk-reward for oil prices is unattractive because of a strong U.S. dollar and potentially weak EM/China asset prices, which could trigger a reduction in net long positions in crude. Investment Conclusions Complacency reigns in the global financial markets. EM equity volatility has fallen close to its cycle lows, the U.S. VIX is depressed, U.S. equity investor sentiment is very elevated and EM corporate credit spreads have plummeted to a ten-year low (Chart I-18). While the timing of a reversal is impossible, the risk-reward profile of EM financial markets is greatly unattractive. The U.S. trade-weighted dollar has consolidated recently, and might be primed for another upleg. As the U.S. dollar resumes its uptrend, EM risk assets will likely sell off. Finally, EM share prices have failed to outperform the developed bourses much, despite the rally in commodities and amelioration in Chinese growth (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Complacency Reigns Chart I-19EM Equities Have Not Yet Outperformed Remarkably, analysts' net earnings revisions for EM stocks have so far failed to turn positive (Chart I-20). Either analysts' EPS expectations were originally still too high, or companies are failing to deliver profits. Whatever the reason, the implication is that the consensus is more bullish on EM than is suggested by the underlying fundamentals. Within an EM equity portfolio, our overweights remain Taiwan, Korea, India, China, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. We are neutral on other bourses. Finally, the EM equity benchmark is at a critical technical resistance level (Chart I-21) but odds do not favor a sustainable breakout. Chart I-20EM EPS Net Revisions Are Still Negative Chart I-21EM Stocks: A Breakout Attempt Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses", dated April 13, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment, titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses" dated October 26, 2016, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB", dated November 23, 2016 and "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?", dated January 18, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights The Fed & Yields: Positive U.S. growth and inflation momentum is maintaining the credibility of the Fed's 2017 rate hike plans. U.S. bond yields, in particular, and global yields, in general, will remain under upward pressure in this environment, despite the aggressive short positioning in the U.S. Treasury market. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. "Soft" vs. "Hard" Data: After a deep dive into the economic data for the major countries, both "hard" demand indicators and "soft" survey measures, we have little doubt that a tangible global growth acceleration is underway. This positive economic backdrop will continue to put upward pressure on government bond yields while boosting the relative return performance for corporate credit. Australia: The cyclical outlook Down Under has become murkier of late, even with the RBA starting to shift in a more hawkish direction. We are taking profits on our recommended pro-growth tilts in Australia. Feature The positive momentum on global growth continues to put upward pressure on bond yields, despite the large short positioning already in place in the government bond markets. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield returned to 2.5% at one point last week, led by a rash of better-than-expected data on U.S. retail sales and inflation, combined with hawkish comments from numerous Fed officials (Chart of the Week). Markets started to more seriously consider a March Fed rate hike, although we still see June as the more likely date for the Fed's next tightening move. As we have discussed in several recent reports, it is a surge in global economic survey data that suggests that a broad-based upturn currently underway. While this is all good news for risk assets, there is some concern among investors that a pick-up in growth has been slow to appear clearly in the "hard" economic data related to final demand. Without a boost in actual economic activity, and not just "feel good" surveys, the pro-growth momentum currently embedded in equity and bond markets may melt away as rapidly as it was built up. Mark McClellan, the Chief Strategist at BCA's flagship publication, The Bank Credit Analyst, is releasing a report this week that digs into the differences between "soft data" (i.e. surveys) and "hard data" (i.e. employment and production).1 We present some excerpts from that report in the following section. Global Growth Pickup: Fact Or Fiction? Investors have taken some comfort from the fact that leading indicators are trending up across most of the developed and emerging economies. BCA's Global Leading Economic Indicator is moving higher and will climb further in the coming months given that its diffusion index is well above 50 (Chart 2). The Global ZEW indicator and the BCA Boom/Bust growth indicator are also constructive on the growth outlook. Chart of the WeekNo Bond-Bearish Data In The U.S. Chart 2A Consistent, Positive Message On Growth Consumers and business leaders are feeling more upbeat as well, both inside and outside of the U.S. (Chart 3). Importantly, the improvement in sentiment began before the U.S. election. Surveys of business activity, such as the Purchasing Managers Indices (PMI), are painting a uniformly positive picture for near-term global output in both the manufacturing and service industries. While this is all good news for risk assets, there is concern that a growth impulse has been slow to show up clearly in the "hard" economic data related to final demand. The good news is that there is more to the cyclical upturn than hope. The improved tone in the forward-looking data is now clearly showing up in some measures of final demand. The caveat is that there is no evidence yet that the cyclical mini up-cycle in 2017 is any less vulnerable to negative shocks than was the case in previous upturns since the Great Recession. The Hard Data First, we start with some bad news. There has been a worrying loss of momentum in job creation in recent months (Chart 4). While employment gains have accelerated in Japan, Canada and Australia, the payroll slowdown is mainly evident in the U.S. and U.K. This may reflect supply constraints as both economies are near full employment, but it is difficult to determine whether it is supply or demand-related. The good news is that the employment component of the global PMI has rebounded sharply following last year's dip, suggesting that the pace of job creation will soon turn up. Chart 3Surging Confidence, Production Following Suit Chart 4Global Employment Growth Cooling Off Also on the positive side, households are opening their wallets a little wider according to the retail sales data (Chart 5), where growth has accelerated sharply in all the major economies except U.K. and Australia (NOTE: we discuss the Australian bond outlook later in this Global Fixed Income Strategy report). Similarly, business capital spending is finally showing some signs of life following a rocky 2015 and early 2016. An aggregate of Japanese, German and U.S. capital goods orders2 is a good leading indicator for G7 real business investment (Chart 6). The acceleration of imported capital goods for our 20-country global aggregate corroborates the stronger new orders reports (bottom panel). Chart 5On Your Mark, Get Set, Shop!! Chart 6Global Capex Cycle Turning Positive Recent data on industrial production show that the global manufacturing sector is clearly emerging from last year's recession. Short-term momentum in production growth has accelerated over the past 3-4 months across all of the major advanced economies (Chart 7). Production growth has been particularly robust in the Eurozone, U.K. and Japan. Industrial output related to both household and capital goods is showing increasing signs of vigor in recent months (Chart 8). Chart 7A Global Manufacturing Upturn Chart 8A Broad-Based Acceleration At the moment, the upturn in manufacturing production is being driven by a broader pickup in business spending. The acceleration in production and orders related to consumer goods in the major countries suggests that household final demand is also showing increased vitality, consistent with the retail sales data. The Soft Data Chart 9Global GDP Growth Is Accelerating Notwithstanding the nascent upturn in the hard data, some believe that the soft data are sending an overly constructive signal in terms of near-term growth. The soft data generally comprise measures of confidence and surveys of business activity. One could discount the pop in U.S. sentiment as simply reflecting hope that President Trump's election promises to cut taxes, remove red tape and boost infrastructure spending will come to fruition. Nonetheless, improved sentiment readings are widespread across the major countries, which means that it is probably not just a "Trump" effect. Moreover, there is no reason to doubt the surveys of actual business activity. Surveys such as the PMIs, the U.K. CBI Business Survey, the German IFO current conditions index and the Japanese Tankan survey are all measures of activity occurring today or in the immediate future (i.e. 3 months). There is no reason to believe that these surveys have been contaminated by "hope" and are sending a false signal on actual spending. To test the reliability of the growth message from the "soft data", we employed these indicators in regression models for real GDP in the four major advanced economies and for the G7 as a group (Chart 9). The models predict that G7 real GDP growth will accelerate to 2½% on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter of 2017. We expect growth of close to 3% in the U.S. and a little over 2½% in the Eurozone, although the model for the latter has been over-predicting somewhat over the past year. Japanese growth should accelerate to about 2% in the first quarter based on these indicators. The implication is that the survey data are not sending a distorted message; underlying growth is accelerating even though it is only now showing up in the hard economic data. Turning for a moment to the emerging world, output is picking up on the back of an upturn in exports. However, we do not see much evidence of a domestic demand dynamic that will help to drive global growth this year. The main exception is China, where private sector capital spending growth has clearly bottomed. Stronger Chinese capital spending in 2017 will boost imports and thereby support activity in China's trading partners, particularly in Asia. Conclusions We have little doubt that a meaningful global growth acceleration is underway. Our sense is that 'animal spirits' are finally beginning to stir, following many years of caution and retrenchment. American CEOs appear to have more swagger these days. Since the start of the year there have been a slew of high-profile announcements of fresh capital spending and hiring plans from companies such as Amazon, Toyota, Walmart, GM, Lockheed Martin and Kroger. A return of animal spirits could prolong a period of stronger growth, even if President Trump's growth-boosting policies are delayed or largely offset by spending cuts or trade wars. This economic backdrop is positive for risk assets and bearish for government bonds. Bottom Line: After a deep dive into the economic data for the major countries, both "hard" demand indicators and "soft" survey measures, we have little doubt that a tangible global growth acceleration is underway. This positive economic backdrop will continue to put upward pressure on government bond yields while boosting the relative return performance for corporate credit. Australia: The Equation Gets More Complicated Two weeks ago, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) unsurprisingly left its cash rate unchanged at 1.5%. The post-meeting statement by RBA Governor Philip Lowe was considered hawkish by economic analysts. Nonetheless, the market reaction has been relatively muted, with the Australian government bond yield curve steepening by only 5 bps, and the Aussie dollar remaining stable, since the meeting. Pricing in the OIS curve suggests that the RBA will probably remain on hold throughout 2017, but the implied odds of a rate hike are rising, standing now at 20%. The RBA's assessment of the current global economic backdrop was relatively constructive, pointing to above-trend growth expectations in a number of advanced economies. Domestically, the RBA foresees a boost to Australian export growth from the resource sector, an end to the decline in mining investment and a pick-up in non-mining capital spending.3 With such a tone, the central bank might have set up the market for some disappointments. The new forecast of economic growth around 3% for the next couple of years seems overly optimistic. This is higher than the median expectation of economists surveyed by Bloomberg, who foresee 2.5% and 2.8% growth for 2017 and 2018, respectively. The IMF does not expect growth to reach 3% until 2019. Granted, several parts of the economy have shown very robust performances of late. The service sector PMI has surged to pre-crisis levels. The NAB survey of business conditions also shot higher last week. Goods exports have exploded at a 40% annual growth rate, causing the December trade balance to jump to $3.5bn, nearly double the consensus $2.0bn estimate (Chart 10). Those jumps in activity are hard to ignore. From a big picture perspective, however, Australian economic data has not been surprising to the upside, unlike the trend in in the rest of the world over the past few months (Chart 11). This is intriguing, since an easy monetary policy, loose bank credit conditions, improving profit expectations and a reflationary impulse coming from China were all tailwinds that should have supported Australian growth; this was our view last year.4 Now, those favorable factors have started to reverse, raising the chances of a cyclical economic downturn. Chart 10Surging Numbers Chart 11Surprisingly Unsurprising Foremost, overall labor market conditions are uninspiring (Chart 12): Although the monthly employment change for January did positively surprise, at 13.3k versus an expected 10k, the pace of job creation remains under 1% year-over-year, which is low by historical standards. The diverging trend between plunging full-time and steady part-time job growth indicates a sub-optimal labor market. The labor force participation rate declined from 65.2 to 64.6 in 2016, suggesting an increasing amount of discouraged workers. Underemployment has not budged in the last two years and is stuck at historically high levels. As result, a rise in labor market slack poses a risk for the Australian consumer; wage growth has already been in a downtrend since 2011 (Chart 12, bottom panel). The construction sector further confirms our apprehensions on the true strength of the economy. Households believe that it is not a good time to buy a home, while building approvals for new dwelling units fell from bubbly levels at the end of last year. At the same time, speculative money, which was supposed to have been curbed by macroprudential policy measures, has returned to the housing market (Chart 13). Lower supply and increased speculation could push residential prices even higher, inflating debt burdens, and leaving households with fewer dollars to consume. Chart 12Consumption: Set To Deteriorate Chart 13The Foundations Are Shaking Externally, the Chinese reflationary mini-boom - which boosted the prices of iron ore and other commodities exported by Australia last year - will probably retreat to some extent in 2017. Although China's overall cyclical momentum remains solid, according to our GFIS China Checklist,5 government spending growth has severely relapsed, potentially signaling an end to last year's largesse (Chart 14). With that in mind, it has become difficult to envision a continuation of the positive effects from the terms of trade shock experienced by Australia in 2016. In a similar vein, but domestically-driven, Australia's credit growth has become a headwind. Between 2013 and 2015, business credit growth was expanding, creating a positive impulse for the economy. Unfortunately, this trend changed tack in 2016, with slowing credit growth now representing a negative economic force (Chart 15). With Australian banks having suffered declining profits and rising bad debt charges in the last few quarters, credit conditions could tighten going forward. This is especially worrisome since personal credit was already contracting in 2016. Chart 14China Mini-Boom Could Be Over Chart 15Negative Credit Impulse top of all this, the IMF is projecting that Australia's fiscal thrust - the change in the primary government budget balance - will be negative in each of the next five years (Chart 16). As such, this economy could run out of supporting impulses in the short to medium term. Summing it all up, we agree with the current market pricing of interest rates, given the economic uncertainties. The RBA will most likely remain on hold for the foreseeable future. The story remains the same; the central bank wants to depreciate the overvalued Aussie dollar, but excesses in the housing market prevent them from weakening the currency through interest rate cuts (Chart 17). Now, the declining cyclical outlook will only complicate the equation. Chart 16Negative Fiscal Impulse Chart 17The RBA Has Little Room To Maneuver Investment Implications Our updated and more balanced economic view of Australia leads us to neutralize our recommended pro-growth Australia bond tilts: Asset allocation. As discussed above, the previously favorable factors supporting the Australian economy are progressively reversing. This is not the case in most of the other bond markets where additional cyclical upward pressure on global yields is anticipated. To reflect this view, today we are upgrading our recommended Australian bond exposure to neutral, from below-benchmark, within global hedged bond portfolios. This underweight position produced +188bps of excess return versus the global benchmark since inception in June 2016. Duration. The 10-year Australian government bond yield, 1-year forward, is 3.04%, 25bps above the current yield of 2.79%. There is a good chance that yields will rise at a faster pace than implied by the forwards at times over the course of the year, given the improving global growth and inflation backdrop. However, these instances will be opportunities to extend duration within dedicated Australian fixed income portfolios. Current Australian government bond valuation has become very cheap and is now at a level that has been associated with the beginning of positive absolute performance in the past. Moreover, the 10-year inflation breakeven is already pricing in a fair amount of inflation increases; those expectations will be hard to surpass, especially considering the low starting point (Chart 18). Curve. In May 2016, we initiated an Australian butterfly curve trade, going long the 2-year/6-year barbell versus the 4-year bullet. At the time, the 2/4/6 part of the government bond yield curve was kinked, with the 4-year sector trading very expensive versus the 2-year and 6-year maturities, reflecting the perception of a dovish stance by the RBA. then, the market has priced out these rate cut expectations, as we expected, and this part of the curve has bear steepened (Chart 19). Today, we close this trade at a +36bps profit. The RBA's future potential actions - or, more likely, inaction - are now properly discounted in the curve and reflect our neutral stance on the RBA. Chart 18Time To Buy Australian Bonds Chart 19Taking Profits On Our 2/4/6 Butterfly Trade Credit trades. Developing economic uncertainties warrant more cautiousness towards Australian credit. In March 2016, we recommended going long Australian semi government debt versus federal government bonds as an initial way to play what was, at the time, a relatively constructive view on the Australian economy.6 Now, given the increased economic risks, we are closing this relative value trade with a +133bps profit. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President markm@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, Section II, "Global Growth Pickup: Fact Or Fiction?," dated March 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Machinery orders used for Japan 3 http://www.rba.gov.au/media-releases/2017/mr-17-02.html 4 For details, please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Last Minute Recommendations Before The Brexit Vote," dated June 21, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 For details concerning this indicator, please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Assess The "China Factor" For Global Bonds," dated November 11, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australian Credit: Time To Test The Waters," dated March 29, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Monetary Policy: Investors should fade the recent increase in expectations of a March rate hike. Still-low inflation and elevated policy uncertainty will keep the Fed on hold until June. Continue to position for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve, driven by the combination of above-trend growth and accommodative Fed policy. Economy: U.S. growth will be higher this year than in 2016, driven mainly by rebounds in residential and non-residential investment. Consumer spending should also remain firm, driven by solid income growth and a savings rate that has scope to decline in the coming months. High-Yield: High-Yield valuations are tight, but still consistent with small positive excess returns to corporate credit during the next twelve months. Feature Chat 1A Hawkish Market Reaction After having been relatively subdued in the two months since the Fed's last rate increase, rate hike expectations priced into money market curves awakened last week following Janet Yellen's semi-annual Congressional testimony. Expectations priced into the overnight index swap curve have returned close to levels last seen on the day of the December 2016 FOMC meeting (Chart 1). As of last Friday's close, the market was priced for 53 basis points of rate increases between now and the end of the year, with a 26% chance that the next rate hike occurs in March. The implied probability of a March hike peaked at 34% last Wednesday.1 In this week's report we discuss why a March rate hike is unlikely. We also consider the outlook for U.S. economic growth in 2017, which we expect will remain decidedly above trend. Above-trend growth will allow the gradual increase in core inflation to persist, reaching the Fed's target by the end of the year. As a result, the Treasury curve will bear-steepen during this timeframe. To position for this outcome, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration and favor the belly (5-year bullet) of the curve relative to the wings (2/10 barbell) in duration-matched terms.2 Yellen's Hawkish Turn? Most news reports of Janet Yellen's testimony last week perceived a hawkish tone in her remarks and focused specifically on the following sentence: As I noted on previous occasions, waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise, potentially requiring the FOMC to eventually raise rates rapidly, which could risk disrupting financial markets and pushing the economy into recession.3 However, more important than the above boilerplate is the simple fact that inflation remains below target and the Fed has an incentive to tread cautiously to support its eventual recovery. There is no pressing need to move quickly on rate hikes and we expect that the next rate increase will not occur until June. One reason is that, in the current cycle, the Fed has not lifted rates without having first guided market expectations in the months leading up to the hike. As can be seen in Chart 2, rate hike probabilities implied by fed funds futures were already well above 50% one month prior to each of the last two rate hikes. If there was a strong desire to lift rates in March, Yellen would have likely sent a more powerfully hawkish signal in her testimony last week. Instead, Yellen chose not to mention the March meeting specifically and said only that the Fed would continue to evaluate the case for further rate hikes at its upcoming "meetings". Chart 2Market-Implied Rate Hike Probabilities: March Looks Too High Second, as was alluded to above, core PCE inflation is running at 1.7% year-over-year, still below the Fed's 2% target. What's more, long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates are also below levels that are consistent with inflation being anchored near the Fed's target (Chart 3). At present, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is 2.17%. Historically, a range of 2.4% to 2.5% is consistent with inflation at the Fed's target. Further, even though a strong January core CPI print, released last week, seemed to strengthen the case for a March hike, the details of the report show that only a few components (new cars +0.9% m/m, apparel +1.4% m/m, and airline fares +2.0% m/m) accounted for most of the gains. In fact, our CPI diffusion index fell even further below the zero line. With both our CPI and PCE diffusion indexes in contractionary territory (Chart 4), it is very likely that inflation will soften in the coming months. Chart 3Inflation Still Too Low Chart 4Inflation Recovery Not Broad Based Both our own and the Fed's forecasts for continued inflation increases are contingent on the view that tight labor markets are causing wage pressures to mount, and certainly wages have accelerated during the past few years. However, wage growth in both real and nominal terms is still below where the Fed would like it to be, and there has been scant evidence of wage acceleration during the past few months. While the Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker remains strong in nominal terms, it has leveled off in real terms, and both the Employment Cost Index and Average Hourly Earnings have recently been flat (Chart 5). A final factor that will prevent the Fed from lifting rates in March is the extremely high degree of policy uncertainty. As shown in Chart 6, economic policy uncertainty traditionally correlates with financial conditions. With financial markets having already discounted a very positive fiscal policy outcome, there is a heightened risk that some disappointing news on the fiscal front will lead to a sharp tightening of financial conditions in the near term. Such an event would definitely put the Fed on hold until financial markets recovered. Chart 5Fed Needs Wage Growth To Pick Up Chart 6Policy Uncertainty Remains Elevated Bottom Line: Investors should fade the recent increase in expectations of a March rate hike. Still-low inflation and elevated policy uncertainty will keep the Fed on hold until June. Continue to position for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve, driven by the combination of above-trend growth and accommodative Fed policy. Policy Aside, U.S. Growth Is Heating Up Chart 7ISM Surveys Point To Strong Growth Most recent economic discussion has focused on when President Trump will get around to enacting some of the more stimulative parts of his policy agenda, and whether or not the impact of these policies (tax cuts, infrastructure spending) will ultimately be offset by other spending cuts. But in the meantime, leading indicators of GDP growth have been picking up steam. Both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM surveys point to an increase in GDP growth in the first quarter (Chart 7), and consistently, the New York Fed's tracking model suggests Q1 GDP will grow by 3.1%. The Atlanta Fed's GDP tracking model pegs Q1 growth slightly lower at 2.4%. Our own sense is that GDP growth will remain solidly above trend this year, in the range of 2.5% to 3%, even in the absence of major fiscal stimulus. This forecast hinges on the view that both residential and non-residential investment will rebound from the depressed levels seen last year and that consumer spending will remain strong. Residential Investment Chart 8Residential & Non-Residential Investment Residential investment was actually a drag on GDP growth for two quarters in 2016, even though leading indicators such as the months supply of new homes and homebuilder confidence remained supportive (Chart 8, panels 1 & 2). The progress made on foreclosures since the financial crisis has driven housing inventory to its lowest level since the mid-1990s,4 meaning that housing supply no longer poses a headwind to construction. Further, demographics should also help boost the housing market during the next few years. According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, over the next ten years, the aging of the Millennial generation will boost the population in their 30s. The growth in this age cohort implies an increase of 2 million new households each year on average.5 While rising mortgage rates will be a drag on housing at the margin, they will not pose a significant headwind to residential investment in 2017. At least so far, mortgage purchase applications have been resilient in the face of rising rates (Chart 8, panel 3). Non-Residential Investment Non-residential investment was a small drag on growth in 2016, but this was largely related to depressed investment in the energy sector (Chart 8, panel 4). Now that the oil price has recovered, non-residential investment should return to being a small positive contributor to growth. Our composite indicator of New Orders surveys also suggests that non-residential investment will trend higher this year (Chart 8, bottom panel). While there is some concern that the optimism displayed in these survey measures may not filter through to the "hard" economic data, a Special Report from our Bank Credit Analyst publication that will be published on Thursday concludes that a tangible growth acceleration is indeed underway throughout the G7. Consumer Spending As always, the consumer is the main driver of U.S. growth and we expect consumer spending will remain firm in 2017. Our U.S. Investment Strategy service recently undertook a detailed analysis of consumer spending,6 focusing on its two main drivers - income growth and the savings rate (Chart 9). A look at past cycles suggests that income growth can remain strong even after the economy reaches full employment as rising wages compensate for decelerating payroll growth (Chart 10). The recent spike in consumer income expectations suggests that the impact from rising wages might be particularly important in the current cycle (Chart 10, panel 1). Chart 9Consumer Spending Is Driven By Income Growth And The Savings Rate Chart 10Wages Can Drive Income Growth Another benefit of the economy reaching full employment is that increased job security can translate into greater consumer confidence and a lower savings rate (Chart 9, bottom panel). Confidence trends suggest that the savings rate has scope to decline during the next few months. One possible headwind to consumer spending is the recent tightening of consumer lending standards. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the fourth quarter of 2016 shows that lending standards on auto loans have tightened for three consecutive quarters and that credit card lending standards also recently spiked into "net tightening" territory. In other words, more banks are now tightening lending standards on consumer loans than easing them. Prior to the financial crisis, consumer lending standards were strongly correlated with the savings rate (Chart 11). More stringent lending standards slowed the pace of consumer credit growth and led to reduced consumer spending. But this relationship broke down following the financial crisis. After the housing bust, households were no longer eager to supplement their consumption with as much credit as possible. Their chief concern became repairing their own balance sheets. As such, the supply of credit is no longer the most important driver of the savings rate. In the data, we observe that the savings rate did not fall by as much as would have been predicted by easing lending standards in the early years of the recovery. As a result, we do not think that modestly tighter lending standards will have much of an impact either. The Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey also showed that demand for consumer credit declined sharply in 2016 Q4. This is potentially more worrisome for the savings rate since lower credit demand may still suggest a reduced appetite for spending, even in the wake of the Great Recession. However, a look back at prior cycles shows that loan demand from the Senior Loan Officer Survey tends to decline several years prior to the next recession, but the savings rate has tended to stay low until the next recession actually hits (Chart 11, bottom panel). We would not be surprised to see the same dynamic play out again. Bottom Line: U.S. growth will be higher this year than in 2016, driven mainly by rebounds in residential and non-residential investment. Consumer spending should also remain firm, driven by solid income growth and a savings rate that has scope to decline in the coming months. Chart 11Lending Standards Less Of A Risk Chart 12Default-Adjusted Spread A High-Yield Valuation Update With the release of the Moody's default report for January we are able to update our forecast for High-Yield default losses during the next 12 months, and also our High-Yield default-adjusted spread. The default-adjusted spread is our preferred valuation indicator for both High-Yield and Investment Grade corporate bonds. It is calculated by taking the option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index and subtracting an estimate of expected default losses during the next twelve months (Chart 12). Default loss expectations are calculated using the Moody's baseline forecast for the 12-month High-Yield default rate and our own forecast of the recovery rate based on its historical relationship with the default rate (Chart 12, bottom two panels). The current reading from our default-adjusted spread is 152 basis points. Most of the time, a reading of 152 bps on the default-adjusted spread is consistent with small positive excess returns for both High-Yield and Investment Grade corporate bonds (Chart 13 & Chart 14). This is also consistent with the excess returns we expect from corporate credit this year. Chart 1312-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. Ex-Ante ##br##Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Chart 1412-Month Excess Investment Grade Returns Vs. Ex-Ante High-Yield##br## Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) In fact, when the default-adjusted spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps, 12-month excess returns to High-Yield have been positive in 65% of cases, with a 90% confidence interval placing 12-month excess returns in a range between -5.0% and +1.7%. Given the favorable economic back-drop of strong economic growth and accommodative Fed policy, we would expect High-Yield excess returns to be positive during the next 12 months. But given the tight starting valuation, probably not above +1.7%. Bottom Line: High-Yield valuations are tight, but still consistent with small positive excess returns to corporate credit during the next twelve months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our internal calculations of rate hike probabilities implied by fed funds futures are lower than those shown on Bloomberg terminals. Our measure differs because we use the actual data for the effective fed funds rate and also adjust for the well-known fact that the effective fed funds rate tends to fall by approximately 10 basis points on the last day of the month. 2 For further details on our recommended yield curve trade please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20170214a.htm 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see "The State Of The Nation's Housing 2016", Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 6 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Consumer: The Comeback Kid", dated January 16, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Add the S&P asset manager & custody banks index to the high-conviction overweight list. Prospects for higher interest rates bode well for a catch up phase with the rest of the financials sector. Initiate a long S&P consumer staples/short S&P technology pair trade, a truly out of consensus call. Housing-related equities are likely to gain ground as housing activity should stay resilient amidst rising borrowing costs. Recent Changes S&P Asset Managers & Custody Banks - Added to our high-conviction overweight list on February 16th. Long S&P Consumer Staples/Short S&P Technology - Initiate this pair trade today. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Momentum continues to drive the broad market trend. The drag from a reduction in global liquidity courtesy of depleting foreign exchange reserves continues to be overwhelmed by economic optimism. The latter is fueling a major rotation from bonds to stocks, which is the dominant market force. Valuations have taken a backseat, emblematic of blow-off phases. Two weeks ago we introduced our Complacency-Anxiety Indicator, which hit a new high. Another way to measure greed overwhelming fear is the relentless rise of the forward P/E over the VIX. The spread between these two measures can also gauge complacency. This Indicator has also soared to an all-time high (Chart 1). Chart 2 applies this methodology for the broad S&P sectors, using forward P/E and implied equity volatility, and then standardizes the result to remove biases from perennially low and high P/E sectors. A low reading suggests lower risk, and vice versa. Chart 1Buy At Your Own Risk Chart 2Sector Vulnerabilities And Opportunities At the moment, financials, telecom, utilities, REITs and health care have the lowest implicit vulnerability, while cyclical sectors carry the most risk. How long can this overshoot phase last? There are obviously no easy answers. However, from a purely technical perspective and in the absence of any major monetary, economic and/or geopolitical shocks, an examination of our Composite Technical Indicator (CTI) suggests some running room remains. Our CTI is driven primarily by momentum components. Overbought conditions are signaled once it hits one standard deviation above the mean. Currently, the TI remains slightly below this threshold (Chart 3). Even then, it can cross decisively into the danger zone before the S&P 500 eventually sells off in a meaningful fashion. Chart 3Overbought Conditions Can Persist Importantly, when the CTI swings quickly from deeply oversold to overbought levels, there can be a multi month lead before the broad market crests or suffers a sustained setback (Chart 3), and the bulk of those moves are associated with economic recessions and/or growth disappointments. The implication is that even though extended broad market valuations virtually guarantee paltry long-term returns and economic expectations are now sky-high, technical conditions suggest that momentum may continue to carry the day for a while longer. That does not mean investors should abandon a largely defensive portfolio structure, given that this is where the reward/risk tradeoff is most attractive and timing corrections is inherently difficult. Two weeks ago we recommended buying both gold and packaging stocks. As part of our ongoing rebalancing, this week we are further tweaking our portfolio. We recommend a pair trade to position for the inevitable sub-surface mean reversion heralded by our Indicators in the coming 3-6 months. Asset Managers: Shifting To High-Conviction Status The interest rate and market-sensitive S&P asset managers & custody banks index (AMCB) has lagged most other financials sub-indexes at a time when macro forces are lining up bullishly, particularly in view of the sector's attractive ranking on a forward P/E to volatility basis. While the capital markets and banks groups are seen as having higher torque to these positive forces, these three groups tend to move together. Lately, a divergence has opened, but a number of factors point to an imminent AMCB catch up phase (Chart 4), especially given that AMCB is not levered to overall credit growth, which has dried up. Fed Chair Yellen's testimony last week was interpreted to be slightly more on the hawkish side. That, coupled with the recent upside surprise in core inflation, raises the possibility of more 2017 tightening than currently discounted. That would provide further relief for custody banks, as ultra-low interest rates have been an anchor on this group's profitability as fees earned on funds held in trust have been minimal. The increase in short-term Treasury yields heralds a share price rally (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Catch Up Ahead Chart 5Time To Rally Moreover, the boost in economic expectations signals scope for an increase in fee generating activity, such as M&A, stock issuance and even stock lending. BCA's Global Economic Sentiment Index also indicates that the share price ratio has undershot (Chart 5). Most importantly, the asset preference shift from bonds to stocks reverses another major drag on profitability (Chart 5, third panel). Fixed income products carry lower margins than equity products, so as equity assets under management grow, profit margins should expand. If so, then we would anticipate a relative valuation re-rating, especially if the pace and scale of financial sector deregulation disappoints. The latter has been a key factor propelling capital markets and banks, and any disappointment could cause a capital rotation into the lagging AMCB index. Bottom Line: We are already overweight the S&P asset management & custody banks index, and added it to our high-conviction list in a daily Sector Insight on February 16th. New Pair Trade This week we are recommending what can be considered a highly contrarian pair trade: long the S&P consumer staples sector and short the S&P technology sector. It may be difficult to swallow executing such a non-consensus position while the broad market is going gangbusters. However, the objective message from our Indicators and increasing odds of a vicious, un-telegraphed correction, argue that the reward/risk trade-off is too attractive to ignore. As outlined in last week's Cyclical Indicator Update, the technology sector's relative earnings profile has deteriorated, because the corporate sector is not spending much yet and tech companies have suffered a serious loss of pricing power. Conversely, the consumer staples sector has a better chance of earnings outperformance, according to our model (Chart 6). Both sectors appear to have discounted the opposite outcome. Moreover, from a technical perspective, tech stocks are overbought and consumer staples are extremely oversold (Chart 6). Even a simple technical/momentum renormalization would imply a sharp jump in the share price ratio. Both sectors lose competitiveness when the U.S. dollar rise, but given that the technology sector's share of foreign sales (58%) is much higher than that of consumer staples (28%), the pain is disproportional. Importantly, consumer staples exports are accelerating, whereas tech exports are shrinking (Chart 7). Chart 6Contrasting Profiles Chart 7The Strong Dollar Is Worse For Tech Non-durable consumer goods are less sensitive to emerging market prospects, and thus when their currencies weaken, momentum in the consumer staples/tech share price ratio tends to accelerate (EM currencies shown inverted and advanced, bottom panel, Chart 7). Moreover, a strong U.S. dollar tends to reduce input costs for many consumer staples vendors, both through lower commodity prices and a reduced cost of imported goods sold. We have shown that tech stocks fare poorly toward the latter stages of a U.S. dollar bull market, when consumer staples start to shine. This dynamic reflects the economic fallout abroad from a strong U.S. dollar, particularly on developing economies, as well as the drag on U.S. corporate profits, and by extension, capital spending. While the U.S. dollar and stocks have risen in tandem in recent months, that cannot continue indefinitely, and when the correlation breaks down, the defensive consumer staples sector should outperform. In terms of economic dynamics, this share price ratio tends to accelerate when consumer spending outperforms capital spending. Consumer confidence is outpacing business confidence (Chart 8, top panel), signaling such an environment ahead. That sentiment mismatch has already translated into faster consumption than business investment on tech goods (Chart 8, second panel). Unless the gap between the return on and cost of capital reverses course and widens anew, then this trend is likely to persist. As a result, the surge in consumer staples vs. technology pricing power will continue, ultimately flattering the share price ratio through relative profit performance (Chart 8, bottom panel). The message is that consumer staples profits can have the upper hand over tech even when overall GDP growth is positive, provided the underlying driver is consumption rather than capital spending. From an external standpoint, it is notable that consumer staples have a better track record than tech stocks during inflationary periods. Chart 9 shows that the uptrend in long-term inflation expectations and increase in actual inflation both forecast a revival in this pair trade. Chart 8Unsustainable Divergences Chart 9Inflation Pressures? Buy This Ratio Rising inflation ultimately heralds tighter monetary policy, which is a precursor to elevated broad market volatility and a rise in the discount rate, to the detriment of long duration sectors. History shows that the high priced tech sector is more vulnerable than the safe haven staples sector in such an environment. In sum, the time is ripe for a contrary pair trade favoring consumer staples vs. technology. Notable risks to this trade are that the U.S. dollar weakens meaningfully and/or global capital spending re-accelerates decisively, relative to consumer spending. Bottom Line: We recommend a market neutral long consumer staples/short technology pair trade. The time horizon for this trade is 3-6 months. Will Housing Stocks Go Through The Roof? Housing-related stocks have delivered positive earnings surprises, but anxiety about rising mortgage rates challenges the outlook. While the latter is a risk, cheap valuations and consumers' underappreciated ability to absorb rising borrowing costs offset these concerns. Sensitivity analysis shows that even a 200 basis point (bps) spike in interest rates from current levels would fail to push housing affordability back to the long-term average (Chart 10). Moreover, mortgage payments as a percentage of incomes and effective borrowing costs would also remain below their respective historic means even with such a spike. Importantly, housing market fundamentals are improving. Lumber prices are on fire. Lumber has been the best performing commodity year-to-date. This is a real time indicator of housing demand (Chart 11). Similarly, railroad carloads of lumber are also firming, signaling that the price rise is demand-driven rather than a speculative bet in the trading pits. Sustained house price inflation, solid housing turnover and the acceleration in building permits reinforce that housing activity remains robust (Chart 11). Chart 10Higher Rates Are Not A Show Stopper Chart 11Lumber Strength Is Housing Bullish The credit tap to sustain strong activity is still open. According to the latest Fed Senior Bank Loan Officer Survey, banks are willing and able to extend residential mortgage credit (bottom panel, Chart 11). This contrasts with many other credit categories, where banks are tightening the screws and credit demand is faltering: C&I loans have shrunk over the past three months, as has total bank credit. First time home buyers are also reappearing and anecdotes of increased house flipping activity signal a vibrant market with unobstructed access to credit. All of this should continue to support earnings-led outperformance from both homebuilders and home improvement retailers (HIR). The bullish outlook for the S&P homebuilding index rests on four pillars. The latest National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) survey revealed that sales expectations remain over 20 points above the boom/bust line and just shy of recent cyclical highs (Chart 12). Homebuilders are clearly still seeing strong traffic. New home prices are still expanding at a healthy clip (Chart 12). Sales growth and new home price inflation are tightly linked. The mortgage application purchase index has picked up steam despite the mortgage rate increase, confirming that first time homebuyers are entering the market after a long hiatus as the financial motivation to buy vs. rent has improved. This optimism is causing an aggressive re-rating in earnings estimates from chronically bearish levels (Chart 12), a harbinger of further gains in relative share prices. The S&P HIR index also has a concrete foundation. Higher lumber prices flow straight to the bottom line, because HIR companies typically earn a set margin on lumber-related sales. Moreover, higher housing turnover is a boon for industry sales volumes (Chart 13). Historically, home sales momentum has been an excellent leading indicator of renovation activity. Chart 12Buy Homebuilders... Chart 13... And Building Supply Retailers Encouragingly, the NAHB remodeling survey is still in expansion territory, and tends to follow the trend in home sales, underscoring that home renovation activity is set to improve (Chart 13). Our HIR model encapsulates many of these key drivers, and has climbed anew (Chart 13). The message is that profits, and share prices, are on track to outperform. Adding it all up, the housing backdrop remains attractive, and even a steady increase in borrowing costs should not disrupt momentum. The time to become concerned will be if inflation becomes a serious risk, causing the Fed to get 'tight' and credit availability to dry up. The next few interest rate hikes won't move the monetary settings to that phase yet. Until then, we recommend erring on the bullish side. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight in the S&P home improvement retail index (HD, LOW) and continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation in the S&P homebuilding index (PHM, DHI, LEN). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).
Highlights Recent economic and inflation data can be characterized as Goldilocks: strong enough to keep recession fears at bay, yet not hot enough to warrant Fed tightening. Historical precedent suggests that the current period of positive economic surprises could persist for at least another month or two, fueling ever-more lopsided positioning into equities. Despite a lot of good news already discounted, we retain a cyclical bias toward small caps. Currently, the main driver of style performance is sector weightings. Value stocks are likely to perform slightly better than Growth by virtue of a smaller weighting in technology and larger weighting to financials. Higher conviction in Value stocks outperformance awaits better credit growth trends. Feature The term Goldilocks is used to describe an economy that is growing, but is not quite hot enough to create serious inflation risks, and not so cold that it fosters recession fears. Last week's major data reports fit this view of the world and helped U.S. equity prices soar to a new all-time high (Chart 1): NFIB Small Business Survey: Since small businesses have long been considered the job engine of the U.S. economy, monitoring the sentiment of small businesses owners, their likelihood to undertake expansion plans, and raise/cut prices, can often give a good glimpse into the likelihood of financial market trends to be sustained on a cyclical basis. In January, the NFIB small business sentiment indexes surged and to our surprise, the positive sentiment did not correct in February (Chart 2). The expectations component actually rose even further! Chart 1Rotation Into Stocks Chart 2Will Hopes Be Dashed? We continue to believe the survey reflects a lot of hope and is likely to reverse substantially. According to the survey, business conditions are the best in thirty years, save for a brief period in the early 2000s. Even the most ardent of Trump supporters will find it difficult to explain how a handful of executive orders and memoranda have so significantly altered the business landscape in such a short space of time! This radical shift in sentiment makes risk asset prices vulnerable: the pace of economic expansion has only gradually improved, but investors and other economic agents have drastically revised upward their expectations. Retail Sales: A number of cyclical tailwinds are beginning to finally align for consumers, as discussed in January 16 Weekly Report, and consumers appear to be in slightly better shopping moods in 2017. January retail sales beat expectations and prior months were revised higher. Spending improved across categories and these broad-based gains reinforce our view that the consumer can lead a gradual, self-reinforcing economic recovery (Chart 3). Inflation: We do not worry that cyclical inflation trends will be strong enough to force the Fed to raise rates faster than the FOMC's current expectations (three rate hikes by end-2017). True, both headline and core CPI were stronger than consensus expectations in January, and producer prices are in a noticeable uptrend. But this should not be viewed as the beginning of a new, more dangerous inflation problem. As Chart 4 shows, producer prices - at all stages of production - have been rising for the past few months. But only a fraction of any price rise at the producer level is likely to be passed on to consumers. Chart 5 shows that core goods prices have decoupled with finished goods producer prices (i.e. the last stage of production) since 2000. This speaks to the massive deflationary impulse at the end of the supply chain: a combination of deflation via imported goods, major technological advances in supply chain management and logistics, and changing consumer behavior in an e-commerce age means that consumers are not price takers. These factors imply that any budding inflation pressures will stay "trapped" at the earlier stages of the supply chain and it should not be a foregone conclusion that PPI can drive CPI prices higher. Chart 3Consumer Supports Are In Place Chart 4Producer Prices Turning Higher... Chart 5...But PPI Barely Leaks Into CPI Similarly, the rise in the headline inflation rate - for the first time since 2013 above core CPI - should not be viewed as an omen for what lies ahead for broader inflation trends. As Chart 6 shows, the relationship between energy prices and core CPI broke down during the early 1980s: a rise in energy prices does not correlate with non-energy consumer prices. Chart 6Energy Prices Uncorrelated With Core CPI Since The 1980s Finally, we note that despite general optimism about business conditions in the NFIB survey, the pricing backdrop remains a glaring exception. In the most recent survey, the number of businesses expecting to raise prices actually fell. With respect to last week's core CPI print, the monthly increase of 0.3% is unlikely to be sustained. A few components were behind the upside surprise. For example, new car prices increased 0.9% m/m, apparel prices rose 1.4% m/m and airline fares spiked 2.0% m/m. The usual suspects behind outsized price gains were actually quite tame in January. Homeowners' equivalent rents increased by 0.2% m/m versus several months of 0.3% gains. Similarly, medical care was up 0.2% m/m. Our CPI diffusion index fell further below the zero line, confirming that inflation pressures are not broad based. Perhaps the only negative development last week was that positive data surprises, combined with a slightly hawkish interpretation of Janet Yellen's testimony, have pushed forward the bond market's expectations of the next Fed interest rate hike. We expect the most likely outcome will be that the next rate hike will be in June. If that forecast proves correct, then any upward pressure on bond yields should be modest in the next few months. We do not expect a resumption of the cyclical bond bear market to be a headwind for stocks until later this year at the earliest. How long can the Goldilocks backdrop persist? As Chart 7 shows, positive economic surprises have been propping up financial markets alongside optimism about a Trump-led Republican government. Importantly, for the first time since 2011, positive economic surprises are occurring in the first quarter of the calendar year. During past episodes, this level (i.e. above 40) in the Economic Surprise Index has persisted for upwards of three months. The implication is that economic surprises may continue to help fuel the momentum in equity prices for another month or even longer. Chart 7Economic Surprises Could Persist A While Longer This corroborates our review two weeks ago of technical indicators, which showed that apart from extreme sentiment and despite the persistent run-up in equity prices, most short-term indicators are not yet flashing warning signs. In sum, recent data prints show that the U.S. economy is on sturdier footings. The absence of a meaningful inflation threat implies that a prolonged economic cycle can feed positive gains in the stock/bond ratio over a cyclical horizon. But these positive underpinnings cannot explain the speed and magnitude of the recent financial market adjustments. Although the bulk of our indicators suggest that positioning may become more lopsided in the short term, the current phase of the rally is high-risk. Size And Style Guide Several clients have asked about size and style investing in recent weeks. We remain overweight small caps relative to large, and are only slightly more optimistic about Value versus Growth. In the case of Value versus Growth, we echo the advice of our Global ETF strategy:1 the Value/Growth decision has become, more than ever, a matter of sector preference. As Table 1 shows, there are three sectors with vastly differing weights between S&P Growth and Value Indexes. The Value index is dominated by Financials (27% of the index, versus a 4% weight in the Growth index and 15% in the S&P 500) and Energy (12% in the Value Index versus 3% and 7% in the Growth and S&P 500 Indexes, respectively). Meanwhile, technology stocks make up a whopping 34% of the Growth Index. It is no wonder then that Value stocks shot higher on the back of a post-election financial sector outperformance streak (Chart 8). Financials (as well as the energy sector) received a big boost due to the promise of drastic de-regulation of the industry under a majority-Republican government. TABLE 1Sector Composition Our U.S. Equity Strategy service is underweight the technology sector, but only neutral on financials and energy stocks. On this basis, only a slight Value bias would make sense. At present, relative sector weightings appear to be the highest conviction argument in favor of a particular style, since many indicators that have reliably gauged style performance are not convincingly tilting in one direction or another. For example, growth stocks tend to need rising long-term earnings expectations to help them outperform. But this cycle, Growth stocks outperformed long before long-term earnings expectations started to move higher. Now that EPS have adjusted upward, it is hard to see - absent a repeat of the tech bubble in the late 1990s - long-term earnings growth rising enough to drag relative share performance higher. Conversely, the conditions for a plunge in long-term earnings expectations do not exist (Chart 8). Similarly, Value stocks tend to require improving global growth conditions in order to sustain relative outperformance over Growth stocks (Chart 8, bottom panel). That condition is in place, though the strength of the trend is unclear. In an upcoming publication by our Bank Credit Analyst, BCA editors uncover that although it is clear that an upswing in global growth is occurring in both the "soft" and "hard" data, there is little concrete evidence that this cyclical upturn will be any more enduring than previous mini-cycles so far in this lackluster expansion. The bottom line is that the outperformance in Value stocks relative to Growth may endure, by virtue of Value stocks having a comparably small allocation to technology stocks and a relatively larger allocation to financials (and energy). A more compelling case for Value stocks requires a higher conviction view in a prolonged financial sector outperformance phase. The latter awaits a move from promises to watch action on financial deregulation and more importantly, a more positive outlook on credit creation. As for small caps relative to large, we expect that the cyclical outperformance trend in small caps is sustainable (Chart 9). True, in the near term, there is room for overbought conditions to be further unwound. The consensus opinion that corporate tax reform and Trump trade policy will disproportionately benefit small companies is likely already fully discounted, making small cap share prices vulnerable to political disappointment. Chart 8Growth Will Struggle ##br##To Keep Up With Value Chart 9Small Cap Outperformance##br## Is Not Constrained By Valuation Meanwhile, if the dip in the U.S. dollar becomes a more sustainable trend, then small caps will be at further risk. However, that is not our base case: we expect broad dollar strength to be supportive of small cap stocks over the next six to twelve months. The U.S. economy is on sounder footing than its global counterparts and the Fed is far out in front; both of these conditions are supportive of a stronger dollar. Fortunately, small caps earnings are far more insulated from dollar strength, by virtue of the fact that small caps revenues are much more domestically oriented than large caps. The one area that small caps earnings may come under more pressure than large caps is margins. As noted above, small businesses are not yet particularly optimistic about their ability to raise prices in order to match wage hikes. Nonetheless, we expect better domestic (and thus small-cap positive) top-line growth to outweigh a margin squeeze felt more heavily for small caps versus large. Finally, small caps are often viewed as a higher beta play on growth (although this has not always been the case). Since relative valuations are not yet problematic, then if our base case of a prolonged, albeit not necessarily overly robust, non-inflationary economic expansion pans out, then the small cap outperformance phase could also endure for a prolonged period. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global ETF Strategy/ETS Equity Trading Strategy Special Report “Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part I - Value Funds,” dated February 15, 2017, available at bcaresearch.com.