Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content
Skip to main content

Financial Markets

Special Report Highlights The U.S. presidential election is now too close to call. Hillary Clinton has a 61.6% chance of winning, according to our quant model. But Trump's real chances are approaching 50%, given momentum. Trump still trails in Virginia and Colorado, the two key swing states. A narrow Clinton win revives the fear of gridlock with a GOP-controlled House. Hedge against Trump by going long USD/SEK, long biotech stocks / short S&P 500 exporters, and long U.S. Treasurys. Feature After penning our latest missive on the U.S. election, "You've Been Trumped!" for our sister publication the Global Investment Strategy, a client complained that giving Trump 34.5% probability of winning the election was "laughable."1 To be fair to the client, our odds of a Trump victory were on average three times higher than that of other quantitative models.2 BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is not a stranger to receiving hate mail. Nor are we strangers to giving higher odds than the consensus to unexpected political events (see: Brexit).3 Since our October 21 report, Trump has narrowed Clinton's lead in the polls from 6.2% to 2.2%. Chart 1 shows that polls are retreating into their now-familiar oscillating pattern. In addition, FBI Director James Comey disclosed to Congress on October 28 that the law enforcement agency was reopening its investigation into Clinton's email practices while secretary of state. Chart 1Trump As The 'Comeback Kid' Needless to say, we are quite comfortable with the 38.4% Trump odds that our "polls-plus" model is forecasting.4 The reason it gives Trump such strong odds is because we do not only rely on the polls to make our forecast. Polls are a (poor) snapshot of reality, but predicting the future is about more than just "traveling with events." Forecasting requires a strong net assessment of structural factors through which one filters the incoming data, whether they be new polls or "October surprises." In this note, we revisit our quantitative model, review our qualitative "White Hype" model, and update our forecast. We suggest that clients hedge for a Trump victory. Quant Model: Trump Remains A Strong Candidate Our net assessment remains that this election is a much closer affair than the media narrative would have it. The FBI revelation is only important because it highlights that Hillary Clinton is a structurally weak candidate who is susceptible to "October surprises." This is best exemplified by Chart 2, which we have repeatedly published and shown to clients in meetings. It is simply difficult to take polls seriously when they are asking voters to choose between a "fire" and a "frying pan." Chart 2Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever To be clear, Secretary Clinton has several structural advantages: The Democratic party has a strong Electoral College lead over the GOP, a lead that Donald Trump has to overcome by winning a slew of large states that Mitt Romney lost in 2012; Hillary Clinton is polling well with minorities and women, both constituencies that preferred her to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary; Clinton is not a five-year-old trapped in the body of a 70-year-old. On the other hand, the "plus" in our polls-plus model reveals some structural weakness in the Clinton campaign: Two-Term Curse: It is notoriously very difficult for the incumbent party to retain the presidency after a successful multiple-turn run. Since the start of the twentieth century, this has happened only four times: William Taft (1908), Herbert Hoover (1928), Harry S. Truman (1948), and George H. W. Bush (1988). Only the last two examples are relevant in the modern context, and they happened in the wake of the monumentally popular presidencies of FDR and Ronald Reagan.5 We code for this factor in our model. Third Party: Our model also accounts for the presence of prominent third party candidates. At face value, this ought to hurt both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump equally. However, Libertarian Gary Johnson has seen a dramatic drop in support, from nearly 10% in September to roughly just 5% today. The expanding correlation between Trump and Johnson's polling breaks negative in mid-October, suggesting that some Johnson fans are jumping the Mary Jane bus and getting on the Trump bandwagon (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Stein continues to take approximately 2% of the vote away from Clinton, which could make a difference in a close election in key swing states. Obama: Finally, we also code for the incumbent president's approval rating. While Obama's 52.5% is a solid number, it is not an "out of the ballpark" figure. Bill Clinton held a 58% approval rating in October 2000 as did Dwight Eisenhower in October 1960. Both saw their anointed successors lose in extremely tight races. Our model also relies on voting patterns and economic variables to "correct" the polling numbers for political cycles. First, we use each state's previous election results, going back to 1980, to gauge voter predisposition. We also include a momentum variable which measures the change in the differential between the two previous elections. In addition to the actual election data, we constructed two dichotomous variables to account for voter polarization and the presence of a strong third party. These structural forces favor the Republican challenger. Second, we use changes in state and national economic conditions prior to the elections to capture the macroeconomic context. These include national GDP, oil prices, and state-level disposable income. Since the economy has definitely seen improvement in the last four years of Obama's presidency, the data give the edge to the Democrats. Chart 3Third-Party Voters##br## Shifting To Trump Table 1Probabilities Of Victory:##br## GPS Polls-Plus Model Our model gives 60% weight to the probabilities derived from state polling and 40% to our structural econometric model. At the moment, the model is giving Clinton a 61.6% chance of winning the election (Table 1). Chart 4 shows that Clinton has 260 electoral votes in states where she has more than a 70% chance of winning. These are strong figures for Clinton, but they still give Trump around 38.4% chance of winning the election. We think it is closer to 50% and we discuss below why. Chart 42016 U.S. Presidential Election: GPS Polls-Plus Model Full Results Bottom Line: Given our quantitative model, we give Clinton a very slight edge to win the election. But the actual election is likely too close to call at this point. As we pointed out in our latest missive, a 3% lead in the polls for Clinton would not be enough to give us any confidence in our forecast due to the potential for polls to underappreciate Trump's support. Are Polls Wrong? The risk that polls are "wrong" remains considerable. Voters could be lying about supporting Trump because of various social stigmas related to it. For that reason, we suspect that any Clinton lead of less than 3% turns this election into "too close to call" and any lead of less than 5% leaves us with only a "low conviction" view that Clinton will win. We did not pick these numbers randomly; recent U.S. elections reveal that polls can miss results by as much as 3% (Chart 5). Our concern about the quality of polling is not random. It is informed by three factors: Undecideds: At this point in the election cycle, one would expect only 6% of voters to remain undecideds. However, this year, that figure stands at 9% (Chart 6). Now, this is likely because both candidates are deeply unfavorable, as Chart 2 illustrates. However, it could be because many voters are responding to pollsters with the "undecided" answer instead of saying that they support the controversial and politically incorrect candidate Donald Trump. In other words, the large number of undecideds could be where the "shy Trump voters" are hiding and ought to worry Clinton supporters a lot. Chart 5Election Polls Usually Miss By A Few Points Chart 6More Undecided Voters This Time Around Libertarian Collapse: Our theory about the undecideds could already be playing out with the Johnson voters. As we pointed out above, Johnson's support has halved in just one month. Most of his support appears to have gone to Donald Trump, but some could be bolstering Clinton's support levels in the "Mountain West" states of Colorado and New Mexico. Johnson's support may be inflated by voters who are embarrassed to say that they support Trump yet may end up voting for him. Poll Oscillation: We modified Chart 1 into Chart 7 by adding some "chart chat" to indicate when Trump made controversial - read: stupid - comments about Hispanics, Muslims, or women, which prompted a huge outcry from the media and society in general. Each event caused Trump's support to fall by an average of 4.9% from peak to trough. What would have happened to his polls had he not made such comments? Or, in other words, what is the true Trump support trajectory ex-controversial comments? Thus Chart 7 shows our back-of-the-envelope "technical" analysis of Trump's support. The reason polls are constantly oscillating may be that, with each egregious comment, Trump's real fans become "shy fans" and decline to select him during polling. But his true level of support may be very much on par with Hillary Clinton. Chart 7Trump's Surprising Resilience Bottom Line: There is some anecdotal evidence that Trump's support is underestimated by the polls. Hillary Clinton has to carry a +3% lead in the polls on November 8 for us to have any confidence in our quantitative model's predictions that she is indeed the favorite to win. This is no longer the case. Qualitative Model: "White Hype" Is Still Not Enough Our qualitative model relies on testing Trump's electoral strategy - boosting the share of the white vote accruing to the GOP - in the real world. We concluded in March that Trump did have a path to victory, albeit a very narrow one.6 Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Investment Strategy, did so as early as September of last year.7 Our research showed that Trump's strategy is mathematically viable, at least in 2016 when the white share of the total population remains large enough. We specifically showed that Trump would only need to increase white voters' support by 1.7% and 2.9% in Florida and Ohio, respectively, to flip those states. We also pointed out that getting a 5.7% swing in Iowa could be feasible. Chart 8 shows the result of our qualitative work on the White Hype model. It illustrates that while Florida and Ohio are well within Trump's grasp, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would require a very large swing of white voters in Trump's favor: 13.9%, 7.8%, and 8.1% respectively. Chart 8Trump Needs X Percent Of White Voters To Switch To The GOP We used the figures from Chart 8 to create Trump's "ideal Electoral College map." Map 1 shows how our White Hype model grafts onto the Electoral College. Even if we give Trump Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and North Carolina (the latter because Mitt Romney won it in 2012), Trump still needs 11 Electoral College votes to win the election. Map 1Trump's Ideal Electoral College Map Where could he get those 11 votes? The answer is Virginia (13) or a combination of Colorado (9) and either Nevada (6) or New Hampshire (4). In other words, Virginia and Colorado are critical to Trump's chances of winning the election and he remains behind Clinton by 5.2% and 4% in the two respectively. In addition, while Trump has narrowed his lead on Clinton nationally, we have only noticed significant narrowing of the state polls in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. In Michigan and New Hampshire, however, Clinton's lead remains 6.3% and 5.6%. Meanwhile, the narrowing has been either minor or non-existent in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Chart 9). In each of these states, Clinton's lead is either around or above 5%. Unless the FBI investigation or some other surprise changes the dynamic, Trump's recent rally appears to be concentrated in states that are either GOP strongholds, are predicted to go to Trump by our "White Hype" model in Map 1, or are out of his reach anyway (like Michigan). Chart 9Trump's Comeback In The Swing States Bottom Line: State-by-state analysis of the polls shows that our White Hype model remains a cogent guide for this election. Trump can win both Ohio and Florida and he may still lose the election. This is because his White Hype electoral strategy works in those two critical states, but appears insufficient to overcome the Democrat advantage in white voters in the Midwest (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). Ultimately, we stick to our call from March: this election will come down to Virginia and Colorado, two states where Clinton's lead remains 5.2% and 4% respectively. That said, Trump has momentum nationally and in swing states. Investment Implications: Hedging A Trump Victory Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy pointed out in September 30 missive that volatility typically spikes in October of each U.S. presidential election.8 Charts 10 and 11, as well as Table 2, summarize the findings of his research that looked at the last seven presidential cycles going back to 1988. We agree and suspect that this year's election could see even more volatility in November given the narrowing in the polls and the ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton's email scandal. Chart 10October Surprises The Markets, 1988-96 Chart 11October Surprises The Markets, 2000-12 Table 2VIX Spikes The Month Before The U.S. Election We recommend that our clients read Anastasios research first, and then put on his volatility hedge by buying a VIX 20-25 bullish call spread for November 16th expiry (capturing the election result), and to sell a 13 strike November 16th VIX put in order to bring down the cash outflow. The total cost for this hedge is $0.80/contract with a maximum gain capped at $5/contract, as of intra-day trading at the time of writing November 1. There is downside risk with selling the put option, but Anastasios points out that the VIX is unlikely to fall below 10, thus the risk to the downside is losing the $0.80/contract plus $2.68/contract assuming the VIX collapses to the 2014 closing low. In addition, we would hedge for a Trump victory by initiating the following trades: Currencies: Mathieu Savary, Chief Strategist of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, recommends that we hedge a Trump win via a long USD/SEK trade. As our colleague Peter Berezin has posited before, the USD will rally if Trump wins due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows.9 Meanwhile, SEK would be hurt due to the realization by investors that globalization is at an end, given that Sweden is a small, highly open, economy. Trump's trade policies will be a nail in the coffin of globalization, proving our "Apex of Globalization" theme.10 Additionally, investors may want to do the obvious and short "NAFTA currencies" versus the USD. Sectors: Our favorite way to hedge a Trump victory via U.S. sectors would be to go long biotech / short S&P 500 exporters.11 Biotech would rally on the news that the risk of Clinton's regulatory action against pharmaceutical industry has dissipated. Meanwhile, major U.S. multinational exporters would be hurt by the twin effects of USD's likely appreciation and our "Apex of Globalization" theme, which would be supercharged following a Trump victory. Clients could alter this hedge by replacing biotech with financials, given that a Trump victory would allay investors' fears of further regulation against the financial industry. Fixed Income: BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy strategist, Ryan Swift, believes that a simple "buy-Treasurys" hedge is the best way to deal with the risk-off of a Trump presidency. A more long-term idea would be to underweight municipal bonds in a bond portfolio. A Trump tax-cutting administration would de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds.12 Another hedge - this one courtesy of Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy - may be to consider a 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener. If the USD were to appreciate following a Trump victory, the Fed may think twice about a December rate hike, especially if the stock market sells off at the same time. The front end of the Treasury curve would rally in that environment. Meanwhile, the long end may react to the prospect of big deficit-financed fiscal expansion that Trump has promised, thus steepening the curve. The initial risk-off move after a Trump win may push the entire yield curve lower, but the bond market may quickly begin to price in the potential medium-term fiscal ramifications of a Trump presidency. What To Watch For On November 8? There are three things investors should watch on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath: Final results: In 2012, the statistical result was projected by the news networks around 11:30pm EST Nov. 6, according to the New York Times. Romney's concession speech occurred just after midnight on November 7. In the 2008 election, the result was projected by CNN as early as 7pm EST on election day (November 4), but that was due to the fact that the Obama win over Senator John McCain was a landslide. Obviously the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. The result in Florida was announced by 8pm EST on election day in favor of Gore, but the counting in the wee hours of the morning favored Bush. Gore conceded privately to Bush, then the tally went back to Gore, who withdrew his concession, and finally Bush was given the final tally several days later. The official result was not declared until November 26; Gore did not concede until December 12. The electoral college will vote on December 19, so states will have to resolve any recounts or disputes by December 13. Congress counts and certifies the result on January 6. Margin of victory: It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. It is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives is at zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow Clinton win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. On top of the numbers, she will clearly have to deal with an unprecedented amount of investigations while in office. The chances of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining. Our "best-case scenario" of a Clinton-Paul Ryan compromise is therefore also very low. This will put in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The gridlock that will emerge from Congress under a Clinton presidency may, therefore, not be so sanguine after all. A Tie? What happens if the Electoral College vote is tied, or if by a fluke neither candidate wins a majority? There is a non-negligible probability that both Trump and Clinton could end up with 269 votes - i.e. one vote short of the 270 absolute majority required to win the White House. After all, Al Gore lost the 2000 election by only five electoral votes. How is the U.S. president chosen in that case? The House of Representatives convenes, allots one vote to each state (whose representatives must decide among themselves), and chooses the next president by a majority of the states. The presidential candidates in this case would be chosen from the top three recipients of electoral college votes.13 Here is the kicker: the vice-president would be chosen by the Senate from the top two candidates, meaning that Trump or Clinton would serve as the other's vice-president! Given the Republican majority in the House and among the states, Trump would likely prevail as president with 66% of the House vote, leaving Clinton to become vice-president. The United States would finally do what should always be done with squabbling children - force them to play on the same team! Faithless Electors: Another possibility is that an Electoral College member or "elector" could refuse to cast his or her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote in that elector's state. Electors are chosen by the political parties and are presumed to be staunch loyalists, but sometimes they deviate or make mistakes. Hardly more than half the states have passed laws to prevent or punish these so-called "faithless electors." No such elector has ever changed the outcome of a presidential race, but in an extremely tight race, abstentions, mistakes, or conscientious objection in the Electoral College could occur. The Supreme Court would have to settle any ensuing challenges, and would normally be expected to reassert the elector's independence to vote for any eligible candidate. Of course, the Supreme Court is currently undermanned at eight justices. If they were to split along ideological lines, any constitutional issues emanating from this election would remain gridlocked for a time, which would be a period of extreme uncertainty. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!" dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see FiveThirtyEight, "Who Will Win The Presidency?" dated October 31, 2016, available at fivethirtyeight.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Of the four examples, only Bush Sr. in 1988 and Truman in 1948 are really relevant today. First, the Theodore Roosevelt transition to William Taft happened more than 100 years ago. Second, Hoover took over from eight years of Republican rule when the economy was at a peak, which is hard to compare with the post-financial crisis environments after 1929 and 2008. Thus the only relevant victories for the incumbent party following a multi-term presidency occurred after the reigns of two iconic presidents: Ronald Reagan and Frank D. Roosevelt, two of the greatest American presidents. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Quarterly Review And Outlook," dated September 30, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The S&P 500 globally-exposed industry groups index is derived by BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy. 12 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle," dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 13 Technically, then, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, the likeliest third-place candidate, would be eligible to become president under the House of Representative vote. Politically, however, it would be nearly impossible to orchestrate. The deadline for the House to decide this "contingent election" would be January 20, at which point the vice-president, elected by the Senate, would serve as acting president until the House resolved the issue. If the House and Senate have not chosen a president and vice-president by January 20, a new law must be passed to decide the outcome. Oh the humanity! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election Primer: Let's Get Ready To Truuuumble," dated February 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Chile's economy is headed for recession. Facing strong external and domestic headwinds, any policy stimulus will be too late to prevent the impending contraction in economic activity. Investors should receive 3-year interest swaps and stay short CLP / long USD. South Africa's cyclical and structural outlook remains bleak. Banks have been selling foreign assets and repatriating capital which has helped the rand to appreciate. However, as this capital repatriation tapers, the rand will enter a renewed bear market. Stay short the rand versus the U.S. dollar and long MXN / short ZAR. Feature Chile: Stimulus Will Arrive Too Late To Prevent Recession Chart I-1Chile: From Stagflation To Recession? The stagflationary environment in Chile over the past two years - a combination of sluggish growth and high inflation - will give way to outright recession (Chart I-1). As economic activity downshifts further, we are doubtful that policymakers will be able to push through stimulus measures in time, and of sufficient size, to stave off recession. On the fiscal front, the government is unlikely to preemptively engage in a significant spending push. The deceleration in economic activity will soon translate into lower fiscal revenue at a time when the fiscal deficit is already quite wide, at 2.8% of GDP. Furthermore, a renewed fall in copper prices (more on this below) means mining revenue will also be weaker than currently expected, inflicting substantial damage on the government's budget. Meanwhile, monetary policy is unlikely to become stimulative in the near term. Having concluded a two-year battle to tame sticky core inflation, the central bank is unlikely cut interest rates too fast. Besides, as the current term of Central Bank President Rodrigo Vergara ends in December, chances of a new rate cut cycle before he is replaced are low. On the whole, the lack of imminent policy stimulus means economic growth is set to fall much further. Investors can profit by receiving 3-year swap rates (Chart I-2). Although the central bank will be late to cut rates, long-term interest rates will fall because Chilean growth is facing strong headwinds on several fronts: Copper prices have failed to rally amid the reflation trade of the past nine months, and are set to drop to new lows as Chinese property construction and demand for industrial metals contracts anew (Chart I-3). As a result, copper exports will continue to act as a serious drag on Chilean growth (Chart I-4). Chart I-2Receive 3-Year Interest ##br##Rate Swaps In Chile Chart I-3China's Industrial Metals ##br##Demand To Contract Chart I-4Exports Will Remain ##br##A Drag On Growth Capital expenditures will contract, partially due to very downbeat business confidence owing to the uncertain political environment created by the government's reforms agenda since 2014 (Chart I-5, top panel). As discussed in detail in our December 2014 Special Report on Chile,1 from a big-picture perspective, these reforms have shifted the structure of the economy toward higher government expenditures at the expense of the private sector. This has severely eroded business confidence. In addition, the downturn in the housing market will gain momentum, further depressing activity (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Meanwhile, employment growth has been weak and income growth has been decelerating steadily - and we foresee further downside ahead (Chart I-6). Importantly, the economy's credit impulse is now turning negative (Chart I-7). Higher delinquencies in turn will force banks to curtail lending going forward. Chart I-5Chile: Capex To Remain Weak Chart I-6Chile: Labor Market Will Weaken Further Chart I-7Negative Credit Impulse##br## Will Weigh On Growth Finally, narrow (M1) money supply growth, a very good leading indicator for economic activity, is now decelerating sharply (Chart I-8). Consistently, our marginal propensity to consume proxy points to weak spending and lower consumer price inflation (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Chile: Narrow Money Growth, ##br##Economic Activity And Inflation Chart I-9Consumption Is Set ##br##To Decelerate Further The economy has developed considerable downward momentum. Any policy stimulus is likely to come too late to prevent the economy from falling into recession. Therefore, local interest rates in Chile are headed to new lows. An economic recession and lower copper prices are clearly bearish for the Chilean peso, and we maintain that its 8.5% rally this year versus the U.S. dollar will be followed by new lows (Chart I-10). Turning to equities, lower interest rates will help only marginally as equity valuations are not cheap (Chart I-11). Moreover, as Chilean banks account for 20% of the MSCI market cap and, while they are better run and more conservative than many others in the EM, they are not immune to a decelerating credit and business cycle. Besides, this bourse's Latin American consumer plays will also likely disappoint. As such, dedicated EM investors should stay neutral on Chilean stocks relative to the EM equity benchmark (Chart I-12). Chart I-10Chilean Peso Valuation Chart I-11Chilean Equities Are At Fair Value Chart I-12Chilean Equities: Stay ##br##Neutral Relative To EM Benchmark Lastly, as highlighted in our recent in-depth Special Report on EM corporate credit,2 credit investors should stay long Chilean and Russian corporate debt versus China. Chilean corporate credit will likely outperform Chinese corporate credit, as the latter is more frothy - overbought and expensive. Bottom Line: The Chilean economy is heading into recession, and policymakers will be late with stimulus to prevent it. Fixed-income investors should receive 3-year interest rate swaps. Dedicated EM equity investors should maintain a neutral stance on the Chilean bourse versus the EM equity benchmark. Stay short CLP / long USD. Santiago E. Gomez Associate Vice President santiago@bcaresearch.com South Africa: Flows Versus Fundamentals Chart II-1Improving Trade Has Helped The ZAR The South African rand has rallied since the start of the year on the back of an improving trade balance (Chart II-1) and strong capital inflows. However, it is facing a key technical resistance level, as are many other EM assets. We expect these resistance levels to hold for EM risk assets in general and the South African rand in particular. The underlying reasons behind our outlook center around our expectations of a stronger U.S. dollar, rising U.S. and G7 bond yields and a relapse in commodities prices. This is in addition to a lack of cyclical recovery and poor structural fundamentals in South Africa. A well-known explanation as to how South Africa has been able to finance its wide current account deficit is that there have been strong foreign portfolio inflows stemming from the global search for yield. What is less known is that South African banks have in the past year been selling foreign assets and repatriating capital back into South Africa (Chart II-2). Over the past 12 months, this repatriation of capital has amounted to US$ 6.5 billion, which effectively allowed the country to fund 50% of its current account deficit. While there is no doubt that this repatriation of capital has aided the rally in the rand and domestic bonds, it remains to be seen whether these flows will continue. Our suspicion is that with South African banks' holdings of foreign bonds dropping from US$ 18 billion in December 2015 to US$ 12 billion at the end of June 2016, and G7 bond yields rising, the speed of capital repatriation will likely slow. In the meantime, fundamentals in South Africa remain weak: The household sector, which accounts for 60% of GDP, has been sluggish. Private consumption growth has been anemic and credit growth to households has been falling rapidly (Chart II-3). Chart II-2South Africa: Banks Have Been ##br##Repatriating Capital Enormously Chart II-3South African ##br##Consumption Is Anemic The corporate sector is not painting a reassuring picture either. South African firms are not investing; real gross fixed capital formation is contracting (Chart II-4, top panel) and business confidence is at an all-time low (Chart II-4, bottom panel). The ongoing dynamic of persistently high wage growth - despite negative productivity growth - only reinforces the gloomy outlook as it creates downward pressure on corporate profit margins, or upward pressure on inflation (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Contracting Capex And ##br##Record-Low Business Confidence Chart II-5Toxic Structural Dynamics: Contracting ##br##Productivity And High Wage Growth Along with renewed weakness in the rand, higher wage growth will raise interest rate expectations. The fixed-income market is currently discounting no policy rate hikes during the next 12 months making it vulnerable to potential depreciation in the rand. In addition to a poor economic backdrop, uncertainty regarding economic policy is considerable. Chart II-6South Africa's Central ##br##Bank's Liquidity Injections First, fiscal policy will not be market friendly. The poor performance of the ANC in the last municipal elections shows the ANC is clearly losing support from the population. This will lead President Zuma and ANC to adopt even more populist policies. This is bearish for both the fiscal accounts and the structural growth outlook. As such, this will cap the upside in the rand and put a floor under domestic bond yields. Second, the central bank will not defend the exchange rate if the latter comes under selling pressure anew. In fact, monetary policy remains somewhat unorthodox. Specifically, the Reserve Bank of South Africa continues to inject liquidity into the system to cap interbank rates (Chart II-6). This will facilitate ZAR depreciation. Investment Conclusions Stay short the rand versus the U.S. dollar. Three weeks ago we also initiated a long MXN / short ZAR trade, and this trade remains intact as the MXN is oversold and the ZAR is overbought. Dedicated EM equity investors should maintain a neutral allocation to South African stocks. On the back of a fragile and deteriorating consumer sector, we recommend staying short general retailer stocks. Their share prices seem to be breaking down despite the rebound in the rand and a drop in domestic bond yields (Chart II-7). Policy uncertainty and pressure for populist policies is still an overarching issue for South Africa, especially compared to Russia. As such we suggest fixed income investors continue to underweight South African sovereign credit within the EM sovereign credit universe (Chart II-8), and maintain the relative trade of being long South African CDS / short Russian CDS. Chart II-7Stay Short South ##br##African General Retailers Chart II-8Stay Underweight South ##br##African Credit And Short Rand Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy & Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled, "Chile: A New Economic Model?," dated December 3, 2014 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red," dated September 14, 2016. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights U.S. Corporates: U.S. corporate debt, both Investment Grade and High-Yield, is fully priced for an improvement in economic growth and profits. Tight valuations offer no yield cushion before the expected December Fed rate hike. Maintain a defensive up-in-quality stance on U.S. corporates, favoring Investment Grade over junk. Euro Area Corporates: Euro Area corporate bonds are not as expensive as U.S. equivalents, but are by no means cheap. The likely extension of the ECB QE program until at least the latter half of 2017 will help keep valuations at rich levels, especially for Investment Grade issuers where the ECB is directly buying bonds. Stay defensive in Euro Area corporates, favoring Investment Grade over High-Yield. Feature Better Global Growth Not Necessarily Better For Corporate Bonds Back in July of this year, BCA put its flag in the ground and called an end to the 35-year global bond bull market after government bond yields hit historic lows following the shocking U.K. Brexit vote.1 Yields have steadily crept up since we made that declaration, due to a combination of changing cyclical factors (improving global growth, modest increases in inflation), some signs of diminished political concerns (no immediate global spillovers from a more drawn-out Brexit process, the fall in the odds of victory of the "anti-status-quo" candidate in the U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump) and structural factors (worries about less accommodative monetary policies, a political shift towards greater deficit-financed government spending). While government bond yields have been rising from depressed levels, corporate bond returns on either side of the Atlantic Ocean have at the same time lost considerable momentum, both in absolute terms and relative to sovereign debt (Chart of the Week). This is a bit of a surprise given the recent improvement in global growth data that is now appearing in a broadening number of countries (Chart 2), which would suggest a potential brighter outlook for corporate earnings. However, credit valuations and the liquidity backdrop matter, and a potential cyclical improvement in profits may not benefit corporate bond performance at a time of tight spreads and greater uncertainty about future central bank policies. Chart of the WeekIs The Party Ending For Corporate Bonds? Chart 2A Broadening Pickup In Global Growth With credit spreads currently priced for a near-perfect backdrop of low volatility and highly accommodative central banks, we continue to recommend an overall defensive posture in "Trans-Atlantic" corporate bonds, favoring Investment Grade (IG) over High-Yield (HY) in both the U.S. and Euro Area. Chart 3U.S. Corps Are Now ONLY A 'Tina' Trade U.S. Corporates: Stretched Valuations, Especially For Junk Bonds U.S. corporate bonds have been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the so-called "TINA" (There Is No Alternative) trade, where investors have been forced into riskier assets out of low-yielding government bonds. The return performance for both investment grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) debt has been outstanding, with the former up 8.2% year-to-date and the latter up +15.9%. The fundamental backdrop for corporate debt, however, has shown few signs of any improvement that would justify such strong returns, according to our U.S. Corporate Bond Checklist (Chart 3): 1.Corporate balance sheets are deteriorating: Our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), an amalgamation of various bottom-up credit metrics applied to top-down corporate profit data, continues to signal that balance sheets are worsening. This trend has been ongoing for more than two years and shows no signs of slowing, with companies continuing to ramp up leverage to record highs at a time of increasing downward pressure on profit margins. 2.Bank lending standards are slowly tightening: The U.S. Federal Reserve's Senior Bank Loan Officer Survey has begun to flash that a greater number of U.S. banks are tightening lending standards on commercial & industrial loans. The net number is still low within the history of this series, and is largely the result of tightening standards on domestic energy companies suffering from the lower oil prices of the past two years. Nonetheless, the highly cyclical nature of lending standards suggests that a move back to easier standards may not happen at this advanced stage of the multi-year credit cycle. 3.Monetary conditions are tighter, but remain stimulative: Our U.S. Monetary Conditions Index (MCI), which is a weighted combination of short-term interest rates and the U.S. dollar, remains at an accommodative level, even after the 18% rise in the trade-weighted dollar since the trough in 2014 and the Fed's lone rate hike last year.2 Interest rates are far more important in our MCI calculation than the dollar (by a 10/1 ratio), however, so it would take an exceptionally large move in the dollar to push the MCI to restrictive territory after just a single 25bp rate hike. Yet with the Fed clearly in a slow hiking cycle that could deliver at least another 75bps of rate hikes by the end of 2017, the MCI will continue in a tightening direction that has historically been correlated with wider corporate bond spreads. With only an easy money backdrop supportive of narrower credit spreads, there is a growing risk that U.S. corporates could respond poorly to a December Fed rate hike that we expect - especially if that also coincides with renewed strength in the U.S. dollar. Already, the Fed's trade-weighted dollar index has risen by 3.2% during the recent Treasury market selloff, as the market-determined probability of a December hike has risen to 66%. This remains below the peaks seen in the run-up to the rate hike at the end of 2015, which coincided with a big widening of corporate credit spreads (Chart 4). One major difference from a year ago is that the Fed is not signaling the same degree of monetary tightening after the next hike. The FOMC median interest rate projections (the "dots") were indicating another 100bps of hikes following the December 2015 rate increase, and are now only signaling another 50bps of hikes after the Fed's expected next move in December. This is keeping both the 2-year Treasury yield and the dollar well below the peaks seen at the end of last year, helping prevent a breakout in market volatility and credit spreads. So if there is a fresh spike in volatility and/or the dollar, it would be striking the corporate credit markets at a time when valuations look stretched. We can see that in a number of indicators. U.S. corporate bond excess returns have far exceeded the levels suggested by domestic capacity utilization, which are relevant for corporates given their long-standing correlation to profit margins (Chart 5). Our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, have calculated that a 0.4% improvement in capacity utilization has historically coincided with a 100bps tightening in HY bond spreads over a 1-year period; thus, utilization would have to rise to 77.2% by next February (a level last seen in March 2015 when the annual growth rate of Industrial Production was 2.5 percentage points faster than the current pace) to justify HY spreads at current levels.3 In other words, junk bonds are already priced for a significant recovery in U.S. economic growth and corporate profits. Chart 4U.S. Corps Not Responding To A Rising USD...Yet Chart 5Ignoring The Signal From Capacity Utilization U.S. corporate bond excess returns over duration-matched Treasuries during the past twelve months have been strongly positive: +316bps for IG and +844bps for HY. Our past work analyzing U.S. credit cycles has shown that such a positive return performance usually occurs during the deleveraging stage of the corporate credit cycle, typically during recessions when profits are falling and growth in company debt stalls or even contracts (Charts 6 & 7). Chart 6Investment Grade Corporate Annual Excess Return* Chart 7High-Yield Annual Excess Return* Chart 8Spreads Ignoring The Usual Credit Cycle The current environment is one of declining corporate profits but with debt growth still expanding, similar to the credit spread widening backdrop around the 2000 and 2008 U.S. recessions (Chart 8). This sends a similar message to the relationship of credit returns with capacity utilization, with corporate bonds now priced for a strong rebound in profit growth that may be difficult to achieve over the next year. A similar situation exists in the equity market, where the consensus bottom-up expectation is for overall profit growth to surge to +13% in 2017 and +11% in 2018.4 That would represent a sharp rebound from the profit declines witnessed in 2015 and the first half of 2016. Chart 9A Stretched Rally In U.S. Junk Some may argue that such a significant rebound in overall corporate earnings could happen just from the impact of better outlook for profits in the Energy sector given the recent recovery in oil prices. However, it appears that U.S. corporate bond valuations already more than fully discount a higher crude price. The 2016 rally in U.S. junk bonds has been led by the massive tightening of spreads of oil-related names, with the benchmark Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield Energy index returning 33% year-to-date as spreads have collapsed. However, the current Energy index OAS is at 550bps - levels last seen during the 2015 counter-trend rally in oil prices after the 2014 plunge (Chart 9, middle panel) That rally took the Brent crude price of oil up to $67/bbl, well above the current price hovering around $50/bbl. Our Commodity strategists continue to see $60/bbl as being the ceiling for the oil price range over the next year, as prices above that would begin to draw supply back into the market from U.S. shale companies and other global oil producers with higher break-even prices. Thus, U.S. HY energy debt already discounts an oil price that is unlikely to be achieved in the medium-term. A similar situation exists when looking at non-Energy junk spreads, which are highly correlated with macro volatility measures like the VIX index and which already fully reflect the current low volatility backdrop (Chart 9, bottom panel). We are concerned about a pick-up in volatility in the near-term from either a political surprise like a Trump victory on November 8 or, more likely, market jitters when the Fed delivers on a rate hike in December. With our fundamental VIX model, which is based off the lagged impact of rising corporate leverage and tightening monetary conditions, continuing to signal that the fair value level of the VIX is around 20, credit markets are not prepared for a potential rise in volatility in the next few months. Challenging Valuations At All Levels When we look at our various valuation gauges for U.S. corporate debt, it is difficult to find many areas where credit looks cheap. With regards to IG debt, our preferred measure of valuation is the 6-month breakeven spread, which shows how much spreads would need to widen to full offset the carry advantage of owning IG debt over duration-matched U.S. Treasuries, assuming spread volatility is maintained at recent levels. That breakeven spread now sits at a mere 9bps (Chart 10, top panel), well below the long-run mean. In other words, IG excess returns can easily turn negative with only a modest widening of spreads. For HY debt, our preferred valuation metric is the default-adjusted spread, where we subtract expected default losses estimated by our default rate and recovery rate models from the current junk spread. That adjusted spread is now only 69bps - a level more than one standard deviation below the long-run mean that we consider to be overvalued (bottom panel). With spreads at such depressed levels relative to expected default losses, the historical probability of junk delivering positive excess returns over the next year is extremely low. We see a similar stretched valuation backdrop when looking at credit spreads among sectors and ratings cohorts. Within the IG universe, the OAS for Financials, Industrials and Utilities have fully converged (Chart 11, top panel), while credit spread curves are near the tranquil 2005-2007 period of historically low volatility that we do not expect to be repeated (bottom panel). Within sectors, our U.S. IG relative value model only sees attractive spreads in the debt of Banks, Energy, Metals & Mining, Building Materials, Technology and Airlines. Chart 10Expensive Valuations, Especially For Junk Chart 11Not Much Difference To Choose From Here Bottom Line: U.S. corporate debt, both Investment Grade and High-Yield, is fully priced for an improvement in economic growth and corporate profits. Tight valuations offer no yield cushion before the expected December Fed rate hike. Maintain a defensive up-in-quality stance on U.S. corporates, favoring Investment Grade over junk. Euro Area Corporates: ECB Buying Keeping IG Rich While Junk Fundamentals Worsen Turning towards Europe, a similar story of expensive corporate credit valuations exists, although not to the same magnitude as in the U.S. Of course, valuations may not matter for Euro Area IG with the European Central Bank (ECB) buying corporate debt as part of their quantitative easing (QE) asset purchase program. That surge in QE buying (both real and anticipated by investors) helped drive both yields and spreads for Euro Area IG sharply lower between March and June of this year. Since then, however, both yields and spreads have gone up moderately (Chart 12), reflecting both the rising global yield backdrop and the worsening situation for Euro Area banks whose debt dominates the IG market. Chart 12Euro Area Corporate Bond Rally Has Stalled Chart 13Euro Area Valuations Are Not That Cheap The rise in Euro Area corporate credit spreads comes at a time when investors have grown increasingly concerned about a potential tapering of the ECB's QE when the current program expires in March of next year. As we discussed in our previous Weekly Report, we expect the ECB to announce in December an extension of the government bond QE to at least September 2017, likely with some additional changes to the rules of the QE program to avoid hitting any self-imposed purchase limits.5 This could help keep spreads anchored near current levels, all else equal. Of course, all else is never equal, and the liquidity story can be trumped by expensive valuations, as we currently see in U.S. junk bonds. Using the same metrics for U.S. IG and HY credit spreads that we presented earlier shows that both the breakeven spread for Euro Area IG, and the default-adjusted spread for Euro Area HY, are below the long-run mean (Chart 13). Euro Area junk valuations are not as stretched as U.S. junk valuations on this basis, but they are hardly cheap. A similar story exists when looking at Euro Area IG corporates grouped by credit rating, with spread curves looking as flat as the U.S. curves shown earlier (Chart 14). Our Euro Area IG sector relative value model (Table 1 on Page 11) is also showing a handful of sectors with comparatively cheap spreads, ranging from commodity-focused industries (Energy, Metals & Mining) to financial groups (Insurers, Banks). However, the "cheapness" in the latter likely represents some degree of risk premium on Euro Area banks, whose poor profitability and capital adequacy issues are now well known to investors. Euro Area bank spreads may stay cheaper for longer until those problems begin to be addressed. Chart 14Euro Area Credit Spread Curves Are Flat Table 1Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Spread Valuations One final note on the relative value between Euro Area and U.S. corporates: the bottom-up Corporate Health Monitors for both regions that we introduced earlier this year continue to show gaps favoring Euro Area IG over U.S. equivalents (Chart 15), and U.S. HY over Euro Area equivalents (Chart 16). The relative balance sheet trends are showing up in the relative investment performance across the Atlantic, with Euro Area IG starting to outperform U.S. IG, and Euro Area HY lagging the returns in U.S. HY. We continue to recommend allocations based on these relative valuation trends, keeping the lightest weighting on Euro Area junk bonds that score poorly on all relative balance sheet metrics. Chart 15Favor Euro Area IG Over U.S. IG Chart 16Euro Area Junk Is Unattractive Vs. The U.S. Bottom Line: Euro Area corporate bonds are not as expensive as U.S. equivalents, but are by no means cheap. The likely extension of the ECB QE program until at least the latter half of 2017 will help keep valuations at rich levels, especially for Investment Grade issuers where the ECB is directly buying bonds. Stay up in quality in Euro Area corporates, favoring Investment Grade over High-Yield. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Note On The Long-Term Outlook For Global Bonds", dated July 27, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 A neutral reading of the MCI is the zero line is consistent with a U.S. economy without any output gap, growing at its potential rate, and with unemployment at full employment levels. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated Nov 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Source: Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated Oct 25, 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
Special Report Highlights The U.S. presidential election is now too close to call. Hillary Clinton has a 61.6% chance of winning, according to our quant model. But Trump's real chances are approaching 50%, given momentum. Trump still trails in Virginia and Colorado, the two key swing states. A narrow Clinton win revives the fear of gridlock with a GOP-controlled House. Hedge against Trump by going long USD/SEK, long biotech stocks / short S&P 500 exporters, and long U.S. Treasurys. Feature After penning our latest missive on the U.S. election, "You've Been Trumped!" for our sister publication the Global Investment Strategy, a client complained that giving Trump 34.5% probability of winning the election was "laughable."1 To be fair to the client, our odds of a Trump victory were on average three times higher than that of other quantitative models.2 BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is not a stranger to receiving hate mail. Nor are we strangers to giving higher odds than the consensus to unexpected political events (see: Brexit).3 Since our October 21 report, Trump has narrowed Clinton's lead in the polls from 6.2% to 2.2%. Chart 1 shows that polls are retreating into their now-familiar oscillating pattern. In addition, FBI Director James Comey disclosed to Congress on October 28 that the law enforcement agency was reopening its investigation into Clinton's email practices while secretary of state. Chart 1Trump As The 'Comeback Kid' Needless to say, we are quite comfortable with the 38.4% Trump odds that our "polls-plus" model is forecasting.4 The reason it gives Trump such strong odds is because we do not only rely on the polls to make our forecast. Polls are a (poor) snapshot of reality, but predicting the future is about more than just "traveling with events." Forecasting requires a strong net assessment of structural factors through which one filters the incoming data, whether they be new polls or "October surprises." In this note, we revisit our quantitative model, review our qualitative "White Hype" model, and update our forecast. We suggest that clients hedge for a Trump victory. Quant Model: Trump Remains A Strong Candidate Our net assessment remains that this election is a much closer affair than the media narrative would have it. The FBI revelation is only important because it highlights that Hillary Clinton is a structurally weak candidate who is susceptible to "October surprises." This is best exemplified by Chart 2, which we have repeatedly published and shown to clients in meetings. It is simply difficult to take polls seriously when they are asking voters to choose between a "fire" and a "frying pan." Chart 2Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever To be clear, Secretary Clinton has several structural advantages: The Democratic party has a strong Electoral College lead over the GOP, a lead that Donald Trump has to overcome by winning a slew of large states that Mitt Romney lost in 2012; Hillary Clinton is polling well with minorities and women, both constituencies that preferred her to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary; Clinton is not a five-year-old trapped in the body of a 70-year-old. On the other hand, the "plus" in our polls-plus model reveals some structural weakness in the Clinton campaign: Two-Term Curse: It is notoriously very difficult for the incumbent party to retain the presidency after a successful multiple-turn run. Since the start of the twentieth century, this has happened only four times: William Taft (1908), Herbert Hoover (1928), Harry S. Truman (1948), and George H. W. Bush (1988). Only the last two examples are relevant in the modern context, and they happened in the wake of the monumentally popular presidencies of FDR and Ronald Reagan.5 We code for this factor in our model. Third Party: Our model also accounts for the presence of prominent third party candidates. At face value, this ought to hurt both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump equally. However, Libertarian Gary Johnson has seen a dramatic drop in support, from nearly 10% in September to roughly just 5% today. The expanding correlation between Trump and Johnson's polling breaks negative in mid-October, suggesting that some Johnson fans are jumping the Mary Jane bus and getting on the Trump bandwagon (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Stein continues to take approximately 2% of the vote away from Clinton, which could make a difference in a close election in key swing states. Obama: Finally, we also code for the incumbent president's approval rating. While Obama's 52.5% is a solid number, it is not an "out of the ballpark" figure. Bill Clinton held a 58% approval rating in October 2000 as did Dwight Eisenhower in October 1960. Both saw their anointed successors lose in extremely tight races. Our model also relies on voting patterns and economic variables to "correct" the polling numbers for political cycles. First, we use each state's previous election results, going back to 1980, to gauge voter predisposition. We also include a momentum variable which measures the change in the differential between the two previous elections. In addition to the actual election data, we constructed two dichotomous variables to account for voter polarization and the presence of a strong third party. These structural forces favor the Republican challenger. Second, we use changes in state and national economic conditions prior to the elections to capture the macroeconomic context. These include national GDP, oil prices, and state-level disposable income. Since the economy has definitely seen improvement in the last four years of Obama's presidency, the data give the edge to the Democrats. Chart 3Third-Party Voters##br## Shifting To Trump Table 1Probabilities Of Victory:##br## GPS Polls-Plus Model Our model gives 60% weight to the probabilities derived from state polling and 40% to our structural econometric model. At the moment, the model is giving Clinton a 61.6% chance of winning the election (Table 1). Chart 4 shows that Clinton has 260 electoral votes in states where she has more than a 70% chance of winning. These are strong figures for Clinton, but they still give Trump around 38.4% chance of winning the election. We think it is closer to 50% and we discuss below why. Chart 42016 U.S. Presidential Election: GPS Polls-Plus Model Full Results Bottom Line: Given our quantitative model, we give Clinton a very slight edge to win the election. But the actual election is likely too close to call at this point. As we pointed out in our latest missive, a 3% lead in the polls for Clinton would not be enough to give us any confidence in our forecast due to the potential for polls to underappreciate Trump's support. Are Polls Wrong? The risk that polls are "wrong" remains considerable. Voters could be lying about supporting Trump because of various social stigmas related to it. For that reason, we suspect that any Clinton lead of less than 3% turns this election into "too close to call" and any lead of less than 5% leaves us with only a "low conviction" view that Clinton will win. We did not pick these numbers randomly; recent U.S. elections reveal that polls can miss results by as much as 3% (Chart 5). Our concern about the quality of polling is not random. It is informed by three factors: Undecideds: At this point in the election cycle, one would expect only 6% of voters to remain undecideds. However, this year, that figure stands at 9% (Chart 6). Now, this is likely because both candidates are deeply unfavorable, as Chart 2 illustrates. However, it could be because many voters are responding to pollsters with the "undecided" answer instead of saying that they support the controversial and politically incorrect candidate Donald Trump. In other words, the large number of undecideds could be where the "shy Trump voters" are hiding and ought to worry Clinton supporters a lot. Chart 5Election Polls Usually Miss By A Few Points Chart 6More Undecided Voters This Time Around Libertarian Collapse: Our theory about the undecideds could already be playing out with the Johnson voters. As we pointed out above, Johnson's support has halved in just one month. Most of his support appears to have gone to Donald Trump, but some could be bolstering Clinton's support levels in the "Mountain West" states of Colorado and New Mexico. Johnson's support may be inflated by voters who are embarrassed to say that they support Trump yet may end up voting for him. Poll Oscillation: We modified Chart 1 into Chart 7 by adding some "chart chat" to indicate when Trump made controversial - read: stupid - comments about Hispanics, Muslims, or women, which prompted a huge outcry from the media and society in general. Each event caused Trump's support to fall by an average of 4.9% from peak to trough. What would have happened to his polls had he not made such comments? Or, in other words, what is the true Trump support trajectory ex-controversial comments? Thus Chart 7 shows our back-of-the-envelope "technical" analysis of Trump's support. The reason polls are constantly oscillating may be that, with each egregious comment, Trump's real fans become "shy fans" and decline to select him during polling. But his true level of support may be very much on par with Hillary Clinton. Chart 7Trump's Surprising Resilience Bottom Line: There is some anecdotal evidence that Trump's support is underestimated by the polls. Hillary Clinton has to carry a +3% lead in the polls on November 8 for us to have any confidence in our quantitative model's predictions that she is indeed the favorite to win. This is no longer the case. Qualitative Model: "White Hype" Is Still Not Enough Our qualitative model relies on testing Trump's electoral strategy - boosting the share of the white vote accruing to the GOP - in the real world. We concluded in March that Trump did have a path to victory, albeit a very narrow one.6 Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Investment Strategy, did so as early as September of last year.7 Our research showed that Trump's strategy is mathematically viable, at least in 2016 when the white share of the total population remains large enough. We specifically showed that Trump would only need to increase white voters' support by 1.7% and 2.9% in Florida and Ohio, respectively, to flip those states. We also pointed out that getting a 5.7% swing in Iowa could be feasible. Chart 8 shows the result of our qualitative work on the White Hype model. It illustrates that while Florida and Ohio are well within Trump's grasp, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would require a very large swing of white voters in Trump's favor: 13.9%, 7.8%, and 8.1% respectively. Chart 8Trump Needs X Percent Of White Voters To Switch To The GOP We used the figures from Chart 8 to create Trump's "ideal Electoral College map." Map 1 shows how our White Hype model grafts onto the Electoral College. Even if we give Trump Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and North Carolina (the latter because Mitt Romney won it in 2012), Trump still needs 11 Electoral College votes to win the election. Map 1Trump's Ideal Electoral College Map Where could he get those 11 votes? The answer is Virginia (13) or a combination of Colorado (9) and either Nevada (6) or New Hampshire (4). In other words, Virginia and Colorado are critical to Trump's chances of winning the election and he remains behind Clinton by 5.2% and 4% in the two respectively. In addition, while Trump has narrowed his lead on Clinton nationally, we have only noticed significant narrowing of the state polls in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. In Michigan and New Hampshire, however, Clinton's lead remains 6.3% and 5.6%. Meanwhile, the narrowing has been either minor or non-existent in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Chart 9). In each of these states, Clinton's lead is either around or above 5%. Unless the FBI investigation or some other surprise changes the dynamic, Trump's recent rally appears to be concentrated in states that are either GOP strongholds, are predicted to go to Trump by our "White Hype" model in Map 1, or are out of his reach anyway (like Michigan). Chart 9Trump's Comeback In The Swing States Bottom Line: State-by-state analysis of the polls shows that our White Hype model remains a cogent guide for this election. Trump can win both Ohio and Florida and he may still lose the election. This is because his White Hype electoral strategy works in those two critical states, but appears insufficient to overcome the Democrat advantage in white voters in the Midwest (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). Ultimately, we stick to our call from March: this election will come down to Virginia and Colorado, two states where Clinton's lead remains 5.2% and 4% respectively. That said, Trump has momentum nationally and in swing states. Investment Implications: Hedging A Trump Victory Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy pointed out in September 30 missive that volatility typically spikes in October of each U.S. presidential election.8 Charts 10 and 11, as well as Table 2, summarize the findings of his research that looked at the last seven presidential cycles going back to 1988. We agree and suspect that this year's election could see even more volatility in November given the narrowing in the polls and the ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton's email scandal. Chart 10October Surprises The Markets, 1988-96 Chart 11October Surprises The Markets, 2000-12 Table 2VIX Spikes The Month Before The U.S. Election We recommend that our clients read Anastasios research first, and then put on his volatility hedge by buying a VIX 20-25 bullish call spread for November 16th expiry (capturing the election result), and to sell a 13 strike November 16th VIX put in order to bring down the cash outflow. The total cost for this hedge is $0.80/contract with a maximum gain capped at $5/contract, as of intra-day trading at the time of writing November 1. There is downside risk with selling the put option, but Anastasios points out that the VIX is unlikely to fall below 10, thus the risk to the downside is losing the $0.80/contract plus $2.68/contract assuming the VIX collapses to the 2014 closing low. In addition, we would hedge for a Trump victory by initiating the following trades: Currencies: Mathieu Savary, Chief Strategist of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, recommends that we hedge a Trump win via a long USD/SEK trade. As our colleague Peter Berezin has posited before, the USD will rally if Trump wins due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows.9 Meanwhile, SEK would be hurt due to the realization by investors that globalization is at an end, given that Sweden is a small, highly open, economy. Trump's trade policies will be a nail in the coffin of globalization, proving our "Apex of Globalization" theme.10 Additionally, investors may want to do the obvious and short "NAFTA currencies" versus the USD. Sectors: Our favorite way to hedge a Trump victory via U.S. sectors would be to go long biotech / short S&P 500 exporters.11 Biotech would rally on the news that the risk of Clinton's regulatory action against pharmaceutical industry has dissipated. Meanwhile, major U.S. multinational exporters would be hurt by the twin effects of USD's likely appreciation and our "Apex of Globalization" theme, which would be supercharged following a Trump victory. Clients could alter this hedge by replacing biotech with financials, given that a Trump victory would allay investors' fears of further regulation against the financial industry. Fixed Income: BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy strategist, Ryan Swift, believes that a simple "buy-Treasurys" hedge is the best way to deal with the risk-off of a Trump presidency. A more long-term idea would be to underweight municipal bonds in a bond portfolio. A Trump tax-cutting administration would de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds.12 Another hedge - this one courtesy of Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy - may be to consider a 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener. If the USD were to appreciate following a Trump victory, the Fed may think twice about a December rate hike, especially if the stock market sells off at the same time. The front end of the Treasury curve would rally in that environment. Meanwhile, the long end may react to the prospect of big deficit-financed fiscal expansion that Trump has promised, thus steepening the curve. The initial risk-off move after a Trump win may push the entire yield curve lower, but the bond market may quickly begin to price in the potential medium-term fiscal ramifications of a Trump presidency. What To Watch For On November 8? There are three things investors should watch on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath: Final results: In 2012, the statistical result was projected by the news networks around 11:30pm EST Nov. 6, according to the New York Times. Romney's concession speech occurred just after midnight on November 7. In the 2008 election, the result was projected by CNN as early as 7pm EST on election day (November 4), but that was due to the fact that the Obama win over Senator John McCain was a landslide. Obviously the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. The result in Florida was announced by 8pm EST on election day in favor of Gore, but the counting in the wee hours of the morning favored Bush. Gore conceded privately to Bush, then the tally went back to Gore, who withdrew his concession, and finally Bush was given the final tally several days later. The official result was not declared until November 26; Gore did not concede until December 12. The electoral college will vote on December 19, so states will have to resolve any recounts or disputes by December 13. Congress counts and certifies the result on January 6. Margin of victory: It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. It is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives is at zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow Clinton win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. On top of the numbers, she will clearly have to deal with an unprecedented amount of investigations while in office. The chances of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining. Our "best-case scenario" of a Clinton-Paul Ryan compromise is therefore also very low. This will put in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The gridlock that will emerge from Congress under a Clinton presidency may, therefore, not be so sanguine after all. A Tie? What happens if the Electoral College vote is tied, or if by a fluke neither candidate wins a majority? There is a non-negligible probability that both Trump and Clinton could end up with 269 votes - i.e. one vote short of the 270 absolute majority required to win the White House. After all, Al Gore lost the 2000 election by only five electoral votes. How is the U.S. president chosen in that case? The House of Representatives convenes, allots one vote to each state (whose representatives must decide among themselves), and chooses the next president by a majority of the states. The presidential candidates in this case would be chosen from the top three recipients of electoral college votes.13 Here is the kicker: the vice-president would be chosen by the Senate from the top two candidates, meaning that Trump or Clinton would serve as the other's vice-president! Given the Republican majority in the House and among the states, Trump would likely prevail as president with 66% of the House vote, leaving Clinton to become vice-president. The United States would finally do what should always be done with squabbling children - force them to play on the same team! Faithless Electors: Another possibility is that an Electoral College member or "elector" could refuse to cast his or her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote in that elector's state. Electors are chosen by the political parties and are presumed to be staunch loyalists, but sometimes they deviate or make mistakes. Hardly more than half the states have passed laws to prevent or punish these so-called "faithless electors." No such elector has ever changed the outcome of a presidential race, but in an extremely tight race, abstentions, mistakes, or conscientious objection in the Electoral College could occur. The Supreme Court would have to settle any ensuing challenges, and would normally be expected to reassert the elector's independence to vote for any eligible candidate. Of course, the Supreme Court is currently undermanned at eight justices. If they were to split along ideological lines, any constitutional issues emanating from this election would remain gridlocked for a time, which would be a period of extreme uncertainty. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!" dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see FiveThirtyEight, "Who Will Win The Presidency?" dated October 31, 2016, available at fivethirtyeight.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Of the four examples, only Bush Sr. in 1988 and Truman in 1948 are really relevant today. First, the Theodore Roosevelt transition to William Taft happened more than 100 years ago. Second, Hoover took over from eight years of Republican rule when the economy was at a peak, which is hard to compare with the post-financial crisis environments after 1929 and 2008. Thus the only relevant victories for the incumbent party following a multi-term presidency occurred after the reigns of two iconic presidents: Ronald Reagan and Frank D. Roosevelt, two of the greatest American presidents. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Quarterly Review And Outlook," dated September 30, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The S&P 500 globally-exposed industry groups index is derived by BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy. 12 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle," dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 13 Technically, then, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, the likeliest third-place candidate, would be eligible to become president under the House of Representative vote. Politically, however, it would be nearly impossible to orchestrate. The deadline for the House to decide this "contingent election" would be January 20, at which point the vice-president, elected by the Senate, would serve as acting president until the House resolved the issue. If the House and Senate have not chosen a president and vice-president by January 20, a new law must be passed to decide the outcome. Oh the humanity! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election Primer: Let's Get Ready To Truuuumble," dated February 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model The model significantly reduced the weight of France by six percentage points due to change in liquidity condition, the other downgrade, albeit much smaller, was the U.S. All other countries had been upgraded as a result, with Germany being the largest beneficiary. Japan and U.K. remain the two largest underweights (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 27 basis points (bps) in October, driven completely by the Level 2 model (as U.K and Australia underperformed the euro area). The Level 1 model was in line with the benchmark. Since going live, the overall model performed slightly better than its benchmark. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850 GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of October 31, 2016. The momentum component has shifted Financials from underweight to overweight. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com
Special Report Highlights Defaults: The default outlook is improving alongside a brighter forecast for economic growth. The corporate default rate will fall from 5.4% to close to 4% during the next 12 months. Valuation: The low starting point for spreads means the risk/reward trade-off in junk bonds remains poor, despite a more encouraging default outlook. Strategy: In addition to a poor longer run risk/reward trade-off, the risk of a Fed rate hike in December makes us extremely cautious on junk in the near term. Maintain a maximum underweight allocation to high-yield and await a better entry point for spreads in the New Year. Feature This year's rally in High-Yield has been nothing short of impressive. The average spread on the Barclays High-Yield index has narrowed to 467bps from a February high of 839bps, and excess junk returns have now recovered all the ground lost since the mid-2014 peak (Chart 1). Chart 1Back In The Black When considering the potential for further spread tightening we first observe that, despite this year's rally, the average junk spread remains 144bps above the cycle lows reached in June 2014. However, the credit cycle is also two years older, corporations are more highly levered and the default rate has started to increase. The dramatic sell-off and subsequent recovery in the price of oil has also had a large impact on junk bond performance since mid-2014, but now that the average spread on energy debt is within 100bps of the overall index (Chart 1, bottom panel), its influence will be much smaller going forward. In this week's report we consider the potential for further junk bond outperformance through three different analytical approaches. We conclude that: Junk spreads already discount a significant improvement in capacity utilization Junk spreads do not adequately reflect the risks from higher implied equity volatility Although the outlook for default losses has improved, current spreads do not offer adequate compensation Growth Rebound Is In The Price As we anticipated,1 last Friday's preliminary Q3 GDP print exceeded expectations. Further, we expect that a number of headwinds which have held back U.S. growth in 2016 will give way next year, generating 2.5% - 3% real GDP growth in 2017.2 This should bode well for junk bond performance, except that a relatively large growth acceleration has already been incorporated into high-yield spreads. Of all economic indicators high-yield spreads correlate most closely with capacity utilization (Chart 2), which bottomed in March of this year shortly after the peak in junk spreads. But capacity utilization has not kept pace with the tightening in junk spreads since then. Historically, a 100bps tightening in junk spreads during a 12-month period has coincided with a 0.4% improvement in capacity utilization. This would suggest that even if junk spreads remain flat, capacity utilization should reach 77.2% by next February (Chart 2, bottom panel). While industrial production will continue to improve, in large part because of rebounds in the oil price and rig count (Chart 3), it will be difficult for any rebound to surpass the expectations that have already been baked into the high yield market. Chart 2Junk Spreads & Capacity Utilization Chart 3Drag From Energy Has Dissipated The Risk From Rising Vol Is Understated Another well-known correlation is between junk spreads and the VIX. As was observed by Robert Merton in 1974,3 corporate bond investors effectively bear the risk from equity investors who own portfolio insurance against downside tail risk (see Box). In other words, an increase in the price of volatility can be thought of as a transfer of default risk from equity holders to bondholders. Unusually, junk spreads have tightened during the past three months while the price of volatility (VIX) has risen (Chart 4). Box - Merton Model Of Corporate Debt Robert Merton pointed out that holding a corporate bond is equivalent to holding a risk-free security plus a short put option on the value of the assets of the corporation. For a corporation with zero default risk, the option is worthless and the bondholder owns a risk-free security. However, the closer a corporation comes to default, the put option (which the bondholder is short and the equity holder is long) increases in value. If the value of assets of the corporation falls below the value of the debt outstanding, then the equity holders are better off defaulting on the debt than repaying it. The act of defaulting on debt is analogous to exercising the put option in that the shareholders put the assets of the corporation to the debt holders rather than repay the debt. Higher volatility increases the value of this put option, effectively reducing the value of corporate debt relative to equity. In other words, higher asset price volatility increases the risk of default. Similarly, a drop in volatility makes default less likely and so increases the value of corporate debt. Although asset volatility and equity volatility are not identical, they are closely related. Therefore, declining equity implied volatility is positive for corporate bonds since it reduces the value of the implicit short put option embedded in corporate debt. This divergence is not sustainable, and the near-term risks clearly favor a convergence via wider spreads rather than a lower VIX. A Trump victory in this month's election would obviously surprise markets and prompt a flight to safety. But the polling data suggest this is a low probability event. More likely is that the VIX rises in anticipation of a Fed rate hike in December. This process could begin as early as tomorrow afternoon, if the Fed teases a December rate hike in the statement from this week's meeting. We anticipate a December rate hike and would expect investors to bid up the price of vol between now and then. As a rate hike becomes more likely, investors will become increasingly worried about a repeat of last year when a Fed rate hike precipitated a large sell-off in risk assets. The trend in equity volatility is also biased higher in the longer run. While it is impossible to accurately forecast all of the wiggles in the VIX index, its long-run underlying trend tends to be driven by corporate health and monetary conditions (Chart 5). Chart 4Higher Vol A Near-Term Risk Chart 5Long Run Vol Drivers Easier monetary conditions tend to reduce investor risk aversion and send the VIX lower. But easy money also encourages the corporate sector to take on debt. Initially, a virtuous circle is created between a lower VIX and a re-levering corporate sector. To the extent that corporate credit growth fuels aggregate demand, risk aversion will decline even further leading to even lower volatility. Eventually, the virtuous circle is broken when either monetary conditions are tightened or leverage increases so much that investors question the sustainability of corporate balance sheets. Chart 5 suggests that the current level of the VIX does not reflect the reality of tightening monetary conditions or deteriorating corporate balance sheets. Bottom Line: A sizeable improvement in capacity utilization and persistently cheap equity volatility are required to sustain junk spreads at current levels. A Brighter Outlook For Defaults Around this time last year we called the beginning of the default cycle,4 and our view remains that we are one year into a prolonged grind higher in corporate defaults. Typically, once corporate defaults start to trend higher they do not peak until the next recession and we do not expect this cycle to be any different. This is because firms tend not to engage in voluntary de-leveraging. Rather, they tend to continue to add leverage until the economy forces retrenchment upon them. One exception to this trend is the small increase and subsequent reversal in defaults that occurred in the mid-1980s (Chart 6). In this instance it was not an improvement in corporate balance sheets that caused the uptrend in defaults to reverse. Instead, it was a dramatic easing of monetary conditions that gave banks the necessary confidence to keep the credit taps open, despite worsening corporate health. This episode can be contrasted with the mid-1990s cycle when corporate health continued to deteriorate but monetary conditions did not ease. This resulted in a persistent grind higher in defaults. Chart 6Defaults Will Moderate Next Year, But Long-Run Uptrend Is Still Intact In our view, the current cycle has the most in common with the mid-1990s. Corporate balance sheets are deteriorating and no monetary relief should be expected with the Fed in the midst of a rate hike cycle, albeit a shallow one. However, the prolonged nature of the recovery also means that the rise in corporate defaults will also be shallow and drawn out, with some fluctuations around an upward trend. Chart 7The Reason For Low Recoveries On that note, we forecast that the default rate will moderate during the next twelve months. Our default rate model is shown in the top panel of Chart 6. This model is based on industrial production growth, corporate profit growth, times-interest earned and lending standards. We forecast that both industrial production and corporate profit growth will improve next year, in large part due to the end of the drag from falling oil prices. The red line in the top panel of Chart 6 shows the Moody's baseline forecast for future defaults. This forecast calls for the default rate to be 4.09% during the next 12 months, down from 5.4% during the past 12 months. This forecast is consistent with our own base case expectation that calls for a return to modestly positive growth in both industrial production and corporate profits (on the order of 5% annualized). The thick grey line in the top panel of Chart 6 shows what the default rate would be in a pessimistic scenario where industrial production and corporate profit growth are held flat at current levels. This forecast has the default rate rising to 6.5% during the next 12 months. In order to forecast default losses we also need a forecast for the recovery rate. In the past we have modeled recoveries using the output from our default rate model. This simple observation that recoveries tend to fall when defaults rise, and vice-versa, had been sufficient to capture the major swings in recoveries, but has not performed well during the current cycle (Chart 7). In fact, recoveries have lagged well below levels that would be expected given the number of corporate defaults we have seen. The reasons for the low recovery rate are not well known, but we have collected some bottom-up data that may offer a partial explanation. The bottom two panels of Chart 7 show the Tobin's Q and net debt-to-assets ratio for the bottom decile of firms in our sample going back to 1990.5 We note that the Tobin's Q - the ratio of market value to replacement value of a firm's assets - has fallen to recessionary levels. Meantime, while net debt-to-assets is in a clear uptrend, it does not appear stretched relative to the early stages of past default cycles. This suggests that low recoveries are not the result of too much debt being supported by too few assets, but are the result of a low market value being placed on the assets in question. More fundamentally, we suspect that low recovery rates are actually explained by the divergence between the monetary and credit cycles (Chart 8). In past cycles, Fed tightening has tended to occur alongside a deterioration in corporate health. However, in this cycle corporate balance sheet re-leveraging is well advanced compared to monetary tightening. If we accept the premise that defaults themselves are caused by tighter money and tightening lending standards, while recoveries are more related to the state of corporate balance sheets at the time of default, then it makes sense that recoveries would be lower in this cycle since corporate balance sheets had been aggressively levering-up for several years before monetary conditions began to tighten and defaults started to rise. Chart 8The Diverging Credit And Monetary Cycles In both our baseline and pessimistic forecasts we assume that the recovery rate increases somewhat (from 28% to 35%), but remains low relative to where we would expect it to be based on the default rate alone. Adding it all up, our base case scenario calls for default losses of 266bps during the next 12 months. This results from a default rate of 4.09% and a recovery rate of 35%. Our pessimistic scenario calls for default losses of 423bps during the next 12 months. This results from a default rate of 6.5% and a recovery rate of 35%. The Default-Adjusted Spread & Expected Returns Individually, neither the average junk spread nor future default losses offer much explanatory power when it comes to forecasting high-yield returns. Rather, it is the combination of both - the default-adjusted spread - that explains the bulk of variation in junk returns. The top panel of Chart 9 shows 12-month high-yield returns in excess of duration-matched Treasuries alongside the average option-adjusted spread from the Barclays index, advanced by 12 months. The chart shows that there is some correlation between today's average junk spread and excess returns during the following 12 months, but the correlation is very weak. Chart 9Default-Adjusted Spread Predicts Lower Excess Returns The second panel of Chart 9 adjusts the average junk spread by realized default losses. Here we see a much stronger correlation. In fact, the starting spread on the High-Yield index less realized default losses during the next 12 months explains more than 50% of the variation in excess junk returns. This means that with knowledge of today's junk spread and an accurate forecast of future default losses, we can have a reasonably good idea about what excess junk returns will be during the next year. The bottom panel shows the results of a regression of excess junk returns versus the default-adjusted spread. It also shows what the default-adjusted spread implies in term of excess junk returns using both our base case and pessimistic default loss scenarios. In our base case scenario where the default rate improves during the next year, excess junk returns are predicted to be close to zero. In other words, the anticipated improvement in defaults is not sufficient to offset the low level of starting spreads. In our pessimistic scenario, where the default rate rises to 6.5%, excess returns during the next 12 months are predicted to be deeply negative. Bottom Line: The default outlook is improving alongside a brighter outlook for economic growth, but wider spreads are still required to make the risk/reward trade-off in junk bonds attractive. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The November 2016 Bank Credit Analyst, dated October 27, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Merton, Robert C. 1974. "On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates." Journal of Finance 29, pp. 449-470. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Rising Risk Of Corporate Default", dated October 20, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We create a sample consisting of all the firms included in either the Barclays Corporate or High-Yield index (excluding financials) for which bottom-up data are available from Bloomberg. Data are retrieved on a quarterly basis and the sample is adjusted once per year based on changes in the composition of the Barclays indexes. The lowest sample size in any quarter is 53 firms, the largest is 101. On average, the sample size is 68 firms. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights A poor fundamental backdrop for high yield is being offset by easy monetary conditions. A prolonged shallow uptrend in corporate defaults - and therefore spreads - is most likely. The relative performance of equities versus corporate credit has not been distorted by monetary policy: the high-yield debt market will remain a reliable indicator for equity market vulnerability. A December rate hike will not be problematic for the residential real estate market. Plenty of pent-up demand for housing exists, and this will provide long-term support, so long as the labor market remains robust. Feature High-yield (HY) corporate bond spreads have dramatically narrowed throughout 2016 (Chart 1). This trend should not go unnoticed, since beyond being an important asset class in its own right, we have long viewed the high-yield debt market as an early warning system for equities. The current message suggests an all-clear for stocks. Chart 1Dramatic Spread Narrowing In 2016, But... We have had a cautious stance on U.S. high yield since August 2015, based on the view that corporate balance sheet health has deteriorated to the point where defaults would continue to rise on a cyclical basis. This week, we explore whether this remains the right strategy, and also whether junk bond spreads are still a relevant leading indicator for the equity market. Our answer to both questions is: Yes. In our view, the HY comeback can be explained by three main factors. First, the recovery in energy-related junk bonds has led the rally, as rising oil prices have helped diminish the default risks among U.S. shale issuers. Second, the 2015 spike in junk bond yields - mainly due to contagion from energy-sector bankruptcy fears - created tactical value in high-yield. Throughout most of 2016, we have seen an unwinding of these previously oversold positions. And third, the high-yield market benefits from an ongoing and intense search for yield in a world of unattractive higher-quality interest rates. Looking ahead, the first two forces are unlikely to play much of a role in the outcome for junk bonds. Oil prices are likely to trade in narrow range, allowing energy-related company fundamentals to stabilize. The rally in junk bonds over the past several months has removed any perceived value in this sector. Thus, it is only the search for yield/accommodative monetary policy that still supports a narrowing in spreads. Over time, we believe junk bond performance will once again be aligned with balance sheet fundamentals, i.e. high-yield spreads will gradually widen. A Review Of Our HY Indicators Our fixed income strategists have developed three key indicators to gauge major turning points in corporate spreads (Chart 2): Corporate Health Monitor (CHM): An aggregate indicator of non-financial corporate balance sheet health. The CHM deteriorated further in the second quarter, and has reached levels that historically tend to only be seen during recessions. Of the indicator's six components, most of the weakness has occurred in measures of corporate profitability (Chart 3). One caveat is that our measure of leverage in the CHM remains low, but this understates the risks because it measures total debt as a percent of market value of equity. Leverage looks decidedly worse if measured using net debt/book value. Chart 2Key Corporate Credit Indicators Chart 3Corporate Health Monitor Components C&I bank lending standards: A Fed survey that measures how easy/difficult it is for the corporate sector to access bank loans. According to this gauge, banks have already been tightening credit conditions for the past three quarters. Deviation in monetary conditions from equilibrium: We use our Monetary Conditions Index (MCI), which incorporates movements in both the dollar and interest rates. Due to a very accommodative Fed, monetary conditions remain very easy according to this measure. At present, two of these three indicators are sending negative signals for corporate spreads. Our corporate health monitor is decidedly bearish, as are lending standards. Indeed, focusing on corporate balance sheets and fundamental credit quality metrics would almost unanimously lead investors to recognize that the credit cycle is in its late stages and to expect spreads to move wider. After all, spreads have widened in every episode of deteriorating balance sheet health since the mid-1990s. Or to put it more simply, a default cycle - leading to spread widening - has occurred each time that year-on-year profit growth has gone negative since 1984 (Chart 4). Chart 4Profit Contraction Spells Trouble For Junk Bonds Our Bank Credit Analyst service came to the same conclusion earlier this year. In a Special Report, our colleagues analyzed financial ratios for 770 companies from across the industrial and quality spectrum. Their work uncovered that the corporate re-leveraging cycle is far more advanced than is widely believed and that key financial ratios and overall corporate health look only mildly better excluding the troubled energy and materials sectors. Of course, there is an important salve this cycle at work and it is captured in our third indicator - monetary policy. As shown in Chart 2, easy monetary conditions have never persisted for this long and low rates have driven a colossal search for yield, causing high-yield bonds to become ever more divorced from fundamentals. This divergence between corporate bond spreads and balance sheet fundamentals is likely to persist for as long as monetary conditions remain supportive. Adding it up, a poor fundamental backdrop for high-yield is being offset by easy monetary conditions. This combination argues for a cautious long-term bias toward lower-quality corporate credit because a prolonged shallow uptrend in corporate defaults (and spreads) is most likely. Nimble investors may look to tactically buy junk bonds when spreads overshoot our forecast of default losses, although such an opportunity is not present at the moment (Chart 5). The equity market is suffering from the same dynamic. Chart 5No Value Here Will Junk Bond Yields Still Warn Of Stock Bear Markets? Junk bond yields have long been one of our early warning indicators for equity bear markets. Since the 1980s, junk yields (shown inverted in Chart 6) have consistently broken out to new highs 3-6 months before stock bear markets take hold. This is because in a typical cycle, junk yields tend to respond more quickly to an erosion in corporate health fundamentals and/or a credit event. Chart 6Junk Bonds Provide Early Warning For Stocks Chart 7Typical Behavior Here But, as we note above, in the current cycle, the reaction to worsening corporate health fundamentals has been far more subdued than historical relationships would have predicted, due to the salve effect of easy monetary policy. If corporate bonds are in a "bubble", does it mean that the behavior of junk bond spreads will no longer be an early predictor of stocks returns? We believe corporate bonds will still be a useful timing tool for equities. If equities are experiencing the same divorcing from fundamentals, courtesy of central bank largesse, then it stands to reason that what pops the bond bubble will also burst the equity balloon. The search for yield has affected the behavior of investors, and therefore returns, in a fairly systematic way. Due to the current extended period of ultra-low interest rates and central bank asset purchases, government bond prices have been pushed sky high (yields have sunk to rock-bottom lows). As a shortage of government bonds has taken hold, investors have sought to invest in "Treasury-like" products, first seeking out the safest corporate bonds, but eventually reaching further out on the risk spectrum to include high-yield bonds and (dividend yielding) stocks. Indeed, asset prices of all stripes have been distorted by the search for yield, which has fueled a broad inflation in all asset classes. The behavior of stocks relative to corporate bonds is telling (Chart 7). Since 2010, and until very recently, stocks outperformed junk bonds on a total return basis. Junk bonds outperformed investment-grade bonds over roughly the same period (although junk underperformed investment-grade in most of 2015 due to the collapse in energy prices and related energy company defaults). This is exactly what has occurred during every recovery phase since the 1980s. Over the past forty years, investment-grade bonds tended to outperform junk bonds and equities during economic recessions. Junk bonds beat equities during the early phases of recovery (i.e. when economic growth turns positive) and for as long as companies continue to repair balance sheets. And equity returns trump both investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds when our Corporate Health Monitor is deteriorating, i.e. in the latter half of the economic cycle, such as now. This suggests that the relative performance of equities versus corporate credit has not been distorted by monetary policy. One key takeaway is that, although very easy monetary conditions mean that corporate credit performance is becoming divorced from fundamentals, monetary policy has had a similar effect on equity prices (we have written at length in past reports about equity market performance diverging from profit indicators). As in past cycles, once the monetary cover fades, it is most likely that corporate credit markets will once again respond most quickly to balance sheet fundamentals. The bottom line is that we believe the high-yield debt market will remain a reliable indicator for equity market vulnerability. The current message is that a bear market in stocks will be averted, although as we have written in recent reports, earnings disappointments amid dollar strength represent a potential trigger for a near-term correction. Housing Outlook: Room To Expand Over the past quarter, residential real estate data has been slightly disappointing. September housing starts slipped to the bottom end of the range that has held this year and are only marginally above year-ago levels. House price inflation, as measured by the Case Shiller index, is negative on a 3-month basis. Despite this mild disappointment, we continue to believe the housing market is a relative bright light and will continue to be a significant positive contribution to GDP growth. Most indicators show that the housing market continues to recover along the typical path of the classic boom/bust real estate cycle (Chart 8). Chart 8Housing And Its History Chart 9First-Time Homebuyers Entering The Market Moreover, both supply and demand conditions are supportive of further construction activity and upward pressure on house prices over the next several quarters. On the demand side, household formation and a pick-up in interest from first-time buyers are the largest positives. Household formation: The number of households being formed is the most basic measure of marginal new demand for housing units. Household formation was suppressed during the Great Recession and early recovery years, because very poor job prospects and restricted access to credit sorely limited prospective new households from entering both the rental and ownership market. From 2007-2013, the annual household formation rate was 625,000, compared to over 1.1 million in the pre-crisis period.1 Now that the unemployment rate is at 5% and job security is improving, household formation rates are accelerating, particularly among young adults who have hitherto delayed moving out on their own. Monthly numbers are choppy, but household formation could easily run on average at 1.1 million per year for the next few years, simply to make up for muted rates post-housing crisis. First-time buyers: After years of putting off purchases, first-time buyers appear to be finally coming back to the housing market (Chart 9). According to the National Association of Realtors, the proportion of first-time homebuyers for existing home sales has reached its highest mark since July 2012 (34%). But there is still room for this share to improve, as prior to 2007, first-time homebuyers averaged about 40% of total purchases. Once again, persistent income gains and job security will be the driving factors behind first-time homebuyers' decisions. Could a Fed interest rate rise slow housing demand? We don't think so. Mortgage payments relative to income will remain well below their long-term average even if rates are increased by 200bps, an extreme case scenario. Even under this scenario, housing affordability would still be above average, conservatively assuming that income is held constant (Chart 10). Income and employment prospects will continue to trump mortgage rates for consumers making housing decisions; the current employment backdrop is positive for continued housing market activity. Chart 10December Rate Hike Won't Bother The Housing Market Chart 11Supply Is Tight From a supply perspective, conditions remain ripe for more robust construction activity. As Chart 11 shows, the supply of new homes remains low both in absolute, and in terms of months of supply. The bottom line is that we do not fear that a December rate hike will be particularly onerous for the residential real estate market. Plenty of pent-up demand for housing still exists, and this will provide long-term support, so long as the labor market remains robust, as we expect. The recent soft patch in housing will give way to stronger home building activity in the coming months, helping to boost real GDP growth in 2017. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 The State Of the Nation's Housing 2016, Joint Centre For Housing Studies of Harvard University http://jchs.harvard.edu/research/publications/state-nations-housing-2016
Recommended Allocation Central Banks Still In The Driving Seat Markets continue to obsess about every move from the three major DM central banks. With two of them (the Fed and the ECB) likely to withdraw accommodation cautiously over the coming 12 months, the upside for risk assets is limited. The Fed is signaling that it will probably hike in December and the futures market is pricing in a 70% probability of that happening (roughly the probability one month before the rate rise in December last year). Inflation expectations have picked up recently (Chart 1) and core PCE inflation ticked up to 1.7% in August, within "hailing distance", as Fed vice-chair Stanley Fischer put it, of the Fed's 2% target. There is a political angle, too: having forecast four rate rises for the year, the Fed would endanger its credibility (and risk an audit from Congress) if it failed to deliver even one. At the same time, with growth in the Eurozone running a little above trend, the ECB is likely to announce in December an extension to its asset purchase program beyond March 2017 but eventually at a slower pace (a "tapering"). Reflecting these factors, government bond yields have moved up in recent months (Chart 2), and the trade-weighted dollar has strengthened by 4% since mid-August. None of these moves are good for risk assets, which have consequently moved sideways since August. But neither do they presage a big selloff since central banks will err on the side of caution. Inflation in the U.S. is unlikely to jump: wage growth will be kept under control by a gradual rise in the participation rate, which will prevent unemployment falling much further (Chart 3). The Fed's leaders continue to sound dovish. Janet Yellen even raised the question in a recent speech of "whether it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects [from the 2007-9 Global Financial Crisis] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy'", though she emphasized this was a suggestion for further economic research not her view. More practically, the FOMC will have a more dovish tilt in 2017, as the three regional Fed presidents who voted for a hike in September rotate out. Chart 1Have Inflation Expectations Bottomed? Chart 2Bond Yields Moving Higher Chart 3Core Workers Reentering The Labor Force Meanwhile, economic data remain somewhat sluggish. The U.S. manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISMs both rebounded sharply in September, suggesting that the very weak August prints were, as we suggested, an anomaly. Q3 U.S. real GDP growth come in at 2.9%, but the New York Fed's NowCast points to a slowdown to 1.4% in Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 4) has also turned down again recently, with notable weakness in consumer spending and housebuilding. We expect this sluggish pace to continue through 2017: consumption should hold up as wage rises come through, but it is hard to forecast a strong recovery in capex, given the low capacity utilization rate (Chart 5), even if investment in the mining and energy sectors bottoms out next year. Eurozone growth could stutter too. It is driven substantially by credit growth, but historically European banks have tended to curtail lending after their share prices have fallen, as has been the case recently (Chart 6). Chinese growth has stabilized (at least in the GDP data, which seems to come in regularly at 6.7%, bang in the middle of the government's target range), thanks to the government's reflation policy from earlier this year. While the Chinese authorities have now reined back a little on stimulus, given their worries about the run-up in house prices,1 they offer an option since they would undoubtedly reflate again should growth slow. Chart 4Data Surprising Negatively Again Chart 5Hard To See More CAPEX Indeed Chart 6Share Prices Influence Lending All this suggests that returns from investment assets will be low, but positive, over the coming 12 months. With economic growth anemic but stable, bond yields prone to drift up, and equities expensive (but not as expensive as bonds), we expect risk-adjusted returns from the major asset classes to be broadly similar. We continue to recommend therefore a neutral weighting between bonds and equities, and suggest that investors look to pick up extra return through tilts to investment-grade corporate credit, inflation-linked over nominal bonds, and alternative assets such as real estate and private equity. Equities: Our preference remains for U.S. equities over European ones in USD terms. The dollar is likely to strengthen further, and the worst is not over for Eurozone banks - the time to buy into them will be at the point of maximum pain, which may come if German or Italian banks have to be bailed out by their governments. We continue to recommend a small (currency-hedged) overweight on Japan. The Bank of Japan's new policy to cap 10-year government bond yields at 0% has worked so far: the yen has weakened to JPY 104 to the dollar and equities have risen moderately. We expect further fiscal or wage-control measures from the government to give inflation an extra push. We remain wary of EM equities: earnings growth is negative, loan growth has started to slow (with the credit impulse having a high correlation with earnings and economic growth), and there is still little sign of structural reform. Some sectors in EM - notably IT and Healthcare - are attractive, however. Fixed Income: U.S. Treasury bond yields are likely to rise further - our model suggests fair value is a little below 2% (Chart 7) - and so we remain underweight duration. A moderate pickup in inflation suggests that TIPs will outperform nominal bonds (as described in detail in our recent Special Report).2 We lowered our recommendation in high-yield corporate debt to neutral last month because, at 65 BPs, the default-adjusted spread no longer offers sufficient return to justify the risk. At the start of the year it was 400 BPs (Chart 8). We continue to like investment-grade debt, where the spread over government bonds is 120 BPs in the U.S. and 100 BPs in the Eurozone, higher than at any point in 2005-2006 during the last expansion. Chart 7Treasury Yields Could Rise Further Chart 8Junk No Longer Offers Enough Return Currencies: We expect the U.S. dollar to continue to appreciate given the differential in growth and monetary conditions between the U.S. and other developed economies. The dollar looks expensive, but is nowhere near the over-bought levels it got to at the peak of previous rallies in 1985 and 2002 (Chart 9). China seems likely to allow a further weakness of the RMB against the dollar, repegging it to a trade-weighted currency basket. This could push down other emerging market currencies too particularly if, like Brazil recently, they try to cut rates to boost growth. Chart 9USD Not As Overvalued As In The Past Commodities: Oil has probably overshot in the short-term on expectations that Saudi Arabia and Russia will cap, or even cut, production. We think this talk has been overhyped and that the OPEC meeting in November could prove a disappointment. Nonetheless, we still see the equilibrium level for crude over the next two years at USD 50 a barrel, the marginal cost for U.S. shale producers. Industrial commodities are likely to fall further (they peaked in June) if we are right that the dollar appreciates. We continue to like gold as an inflation hedge, but short-term are nervous because it, too, is negatively correlated with the dollar. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010" dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "TIPS For Inflation-Linked Bonds," dated October 28, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)
Special Report "That as the only possible policy in our day for a conqueror to pursue is to leave the wealth of a territory in the complete possession of the individuals inhabiting that territory, it is a logical fallacy and an optical illusion in Europe to regard a nation as increasing its wealth when it increases its territory, because when a province or state is annexed, the population, who are the real and only owners of the wealth therein, are also annexed, and the conqueror gets nothing." 1 Norman Angell's "The Great Illusion" posited in the early 1910s that war would be futile for developed nations, especially given the rising importance of economic and financial ties. Nevertheless, the arms race from the late-1800s gained momentum and eventually led to the Great War, dealing a devastating blow to his arguments. The European armament dynamics of the late-19th century/early 20th century are eerily reminiscent of the current post-Great Recession global arms race. Back then Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy on one side, and Britain, France and Russia on the other, were fiercely trying to outpace each other in military expenditures. The crumbling Ottoman Empire along with the newly created smaller states in Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania were also eager weapons purchasers. Today, a fresh military expenditure-related development pops up almost daily. Not only are the U.S. and China boosting military spending, but also Japan, Australia, India, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, etc (Chart 1).2 The list goes on and on. The driving factor is "multipolarity," i.e. the emergence of multiple competing great powers, which BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has shown to be a key investment theme.3 Chart 1U.S. Defense Spending Is More Than The Rest Of The World Combined While we are not arguing that WWIII will erupt in the coming years, the purpose of this Special Report is to identify the winning global equity sectors from the intensifying global arms race (Chart 2): global defense stocks come atop of our list, but also global space-related equities and cyber security firms would be beneficiaries of the secular increase in military outlays. On a regional basis, the U.S. defense stocks are the only game in town, but undiscovered Chinese, and to a lesser extent Russian, defense stocks are intriguing as are Israeli defense and tech stocks (please refer to the Appendix below for ticker symbols). Chart 2Intensifying Global Arms Race Late 19th/Early 20th Century: Militarism, Globalization & Finance Back in the late-1800s, the ascendancy of Germany was challenging the hegemony of Britain, fueling a European-wide arms race. Smaller newly formed states were also on the hunt for the latest and greatest weaponry. During the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 airplanes were deployed in combat for the very first time, highlighting the importance of new technology. Behind this explosive European rearmament were a few large British companies (Vickers Sons & Maxim Ltd, Armstrong and Whitworth, and Coventry Ordnance Works). "By 1905, its capital of £7.4 million ranked Vickers sixth amongst British companies; Armstrong Whitworth, with 5.3 million pounds capital was eleventh".4 Basil Zaharoff, who acted as general representative for business abroad for Vickers,5 was reputedly one of the richest men in the world.6 Moreover, globalization was on the rise in the late 19th century, as evidenced by global imports as a percentage of GDP (Chart 3). Industrialization coupled with imperialism and the colonization of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa along with population growth and rising demand for commodities were key drivers behind the jump in 19th century globalization. Finally, all of this was made possible by cross-boarder finance. Trade finance and credit growth skyrocketed in the late-1800s and the rising interconnectedness of global financial centers was most evident in the 1907 stock market panic that originated in the U.S., but spread like wildfire to the rest of the world. Chart 3Twin Peaks Of Globalization? Chart 4Heeding The Early 1960s Parallel What About The 1960s? The idea of militarily outspending opponents was very evident in the early-1960s when U.S. defense spending surged by 20% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4), bolstering demand once again for military contractors. The mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrine of military strategy and national security policy declared overtly in the early-1960s by U.S. defense secretary Robert McNamara and the Space Race competition between the Cold War rivals also have striking similarities with today, as far as investment implications are concerned. Parallels With Today China's ascendency to a world power large enough to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. is a sea change.7 The rearmament of East Asia is reminiscent of late 19th and early 20th century Europe and involves Japan, Australia, South Korea, Vietnam and India. All of the Middle East, along with Turkey and Russia, are on a structural military spending spree. European NATO fringe states are also arming furiously (Chart 5), trying to thwart Russia's regional ambitions. In the U.S., despite the Budget Control Act of 2011 (sequestration), the CBO projects that defense spending will rise gradually from $586 billion in 2015 to $739 billion by 2026 (Chart 6). This is before any push for a fiscal spending thrust that both presidential candidates have proposed, which would include increased defense outlays. While as a percentage of GDP defense spending may drift sideways, in absolute terms it will likely rise, and thus boost demand for defense contractors. Chart 5Stealthy Rise In Defense Outlays Chart 6CBO Estimates New Defense Spending Highs Globalization has hit an apex recently (Chart 3).8 The world is still licking its wounds from the recent GFC, where U.S. financials stocks were so intertwined with their global peers that the crisis effectively brought down to its knees the global financial system and gave birth to unorthodox monetary policy that Central Banks are still currently deploying. Global Rearmament Beneficiaries If our hypothesis that a global arms race will continue to heat up in coming years pans out, then owning global defense stocks as a structural bet will pay handsome dividends. The global push away from austerity and toward more fiscal spending should also support aggregate defense demand. Thus, there are high odds that global defense stocks are primed to deliver absolute positive returns, irrespective of where the broad global equity market drifts in the next five years. Similar to Vickers and Armstrong and Whitworth making impressive stock market strides early last century, global defense stocks should continue to be high flyers. The early-1960s U.S. aerospace & defense (A&D) stocks are the only close stock market parallel we have come across in our analysis (given data constraints) and comparing this index's available metrics of that era with today is in order. A big pushback to the U.S. Equity Strategy service's constructive view on the U.S. defense index (since the late-2015 inception) has been that the valuations of these stocks are already full, leaving no valuation cushion for any mishaps (Chart 7). True, defense stocks are on the expensive side, but not if they manage to grow into their valuations, as we expect. Relative performance was up over 100% in a span of four years in the 1960s (Chart 8), as U.S. aerospace & defense industrial production (IP) swelled to a 20% per annum clip with utilization rates running at 95% (Chart 8). A&D factories were humming, racing to fulfill orders as U.S. military expenditures were thriving (Chart 4). Chart 7Buy Global Defense Stocks Chart 8In The 1960s A&D Factories Were Humming... This demand surge translated into a jump in sector sales momentum (Chart 4), and given the industry's high operating leverage, earnings and book values soared. From trough to peak, sector EPS rose more than 400%, margins expanded from sub 2% to nearly 8%, and book value doubled (Chart 9). That stellar performance justified initial valuation premiums at the time. Using that period as a guide would imply that there is ample upside left for relative performance of the global defense index (that is a pure play on global defense spending). For comparison consistency, we use U.S. A&D figures. Currently, U.S. A&D IP is contracting, with resource utilization running at 80%. U.S. A&D relative performance has risen a mere 30% since the Great Recession (Chart 10). Chart 9...Boosting The Allure Of ##br## A&D Stocks Chart 10If History At Least Rhymes, ##br## There Is Still Ample Upside... Likely, the advance is still in the early innings, and analysts have been very slow to upgrade their EPS estimates accentuating the apparent overvaluation. Importantly, 5-year forward relative EPS growth estimates are deep in negative territory which is very perplexing given the upward trajectory of industry demand (Chart 11). Given that we only have access to data for MSCI All-Country World aerospace & defense long-term EPS expectations the caveat is that some of the poor expectations and performance could be because of the waning aerospace delivery cycle. Unlike the deteriorating health of the broad corporate sector, profit margins are expanding and net debt-to-EBITDA is a comfortable 1.2x. Similarly, interest coverage ratio is near an all-time high of 8x (Chart 12), while the overall markets EBIT/interest expense ratio is half that. Chart 11...Especially ##br## Given Depressed Analysts' Expectations Chart 12Defense ##br## Wins Championships Global defense sector return on equity (ROE) is almost 30% and rising (Chart 13), whereas global non-financial corporate (NFC) ROE is hitting multi-year lows, with the U.S. NFC ROE plumbing all-time lows (Chart 14). Free cash flow is also growing briskly and the industry is making greenfield investments, with capex growing 9.5% year-over-year, the mirror image of the global NFC sector that is pruning capital outlays (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Chart 13Defense Flexing ##br## Its Muscles... Chart 14...Vs. The Atrophy In The U.S. ##br## Non-Financial Corporate Sector On the valuation front, modest overvaluation exists, as portrayed by the high relative price-to-cash flow and price-to-book multiples. However, the global defense stocks forward P/E ratio and EV/EBITDA multiple are on an even keel with the broad market (Chart 15), and if our thesis that a secular uptrend in defense-related demand looms proves accurate, then these stocks are not expensive, but on the contrary still represent a buying opportunity. Chart 15Mixed Signals On The Relative Valuation Front Chart 16Defense Is The Best Offense The Rise In Terrorism, Global Space Race And Cyber Security Threat The unfortunate structural increase in terrorist activity will also embolden governments around the world to step up defense spending (top panel, Chart 16).9 The latter tends to move in long cycles. U.S. defense industry revenues have already begun to outpace those of the overall S&P 50010, and a prolonged upturn lies ahead, based on the message from the previous upcycle. From a cyclical perspective, the defense capital goods shipments-to-inventories ratio is outpacing the overall manufacturing sector (second panel. Chart 16), reinforcing the case for ongoing earnings outperformance. The same also holds true in Europe. Western European terrorist attacks have increased, heralding further relative gains for the euro area aerospace & defense index (bottom panel, Chart 16). Beyond the disastrous spike in terrorism, the global space race is also gaining traction, with China spearheading the charge. There is a good chance that China will attain geosynchronous orbit satellites (residing more than 20,000 miles above the earth), challenging U.S. space dominance. India's space aspirations are grand and it is slowly and stealthily rising up the ranks on the space race. Moreover, as more countries aim to have manned space missions, that translates into higher space budgets and thus firming demand for space-related expenditures (Chart 17). Chart 17Space, The Final Frontier Finally, the number of cyber-attacks is also on the rise globally. Defending against attacks is a challenge. Not only does the cyber space domain definition remain elusive, but tracking hackers down is also increasingly difficult given the vastest of the internet, lack of global uniform policing methods and physical country borders. Crudely put, it is a lot easier for a Chinese or Russian hacker to deal a blow, for example, to U.S. nuclear infrastructure rather than physically deliver an attack. All of this suggests that investment in anti-hacking and counter cyber-attack capabilities is necessary around the globe in order to thwart cyber-terrorism. Risks To Our View While there is conceivably a risk that China will abruptly halt its intense militarization and make a U turn in its long-term strategy of becoming a military superpower, we assign a very low probability to such a turn of events. The global push for more fiscal spending may not materialize, which would be a risk to our sanguine global defense spending view. As Paul Volcker and Peter Peterson recently opined in a NY Times article11 - offering a different view from the always-articulate Larry Summers - prudent and fiscally responsible spending is in order given the excessive debt-to-GDP ratio that is probing war-like levels (Chart 18). This excessive debt overhang is not only a U.S. phenomenon, but also a global one spanning both advanced and emerging economies. Chart 18Excessive Debt Is A Risk To Bullish View On Global Defense Stocks One final risk is that the world will enter a prolonged peace phase and global terrorism will get quashed, with conflicts dying down in the Middle East, Russia reining in its imperialistic ambitions and China ceasing to stir the waters in the South and East China Seas. We would also assign low odds to this optimistic "no conflict phase" scenario, but it would indeed be welcome. Investment Conclusion Factors are falling into place for a structural outperformance period in the global defense index. The early-1900s and early-1960s parallels, coupled with the trifecta of terrorism, space race and cyber security all point to upbeat demand for defense-related goods and services. Expressing this buoyant view can be done from a bottom up perspective. The Appendix below highlights all the companies in the global defense index we track from Datastream and the alternative one from Bloomberg. An investable proxy is the U.S. aerospace & defense index as the U.S. dominates global A&D indexes and aerospace outfits also sport significant defense corporate segments (please see the Appendix below for relevant tickers). There are also three fairly liquid ETFs mimicking the U.S. A&D index: ITA:US, PPA:US & XAR:US. Moreover, below are a few more speculative investment ideas. Given China's dominance of global defense spending (ex-U.S.) we are confident that Chinese A&D stocks will also be eagerly sought after and deliver alpha in the coming years (please refer to the Appendix below for a list of China plays). If one has the resilience and the stomach to invest in Russian equities given high political and currency risk, then Russian A&D stocks may be a desirable vehicle. Russia remains a massive weapons exporter with a large sphere of influence. We would not underestimate the returns in local currency of some Russian A&D stocks (the Appendix below lists some Russian A&D listed firms). Finally, Israel A&D and IT companies either listed on NASDAQ or domestically in Tel Aviv offer some great opportunities for investors that can handle riskier investments. Not only Israel's geography, but also its intense IT/military focus and entrepreneurial culture imply that a number of these companies will be long-term winners (please see the Appendix below for relevant tickers). While most of the drones, space-related, and highly specialized IT companies are private, there is a drone and an anti-hacking ETF (IFLY:US & HACK:US). On the space front, we are tracking an index that comprises a number of space-related constituents that we show in the Appendix below. Nevertheless, most of these companies are categorized under A&D. Bottom Line: We are initiating a structural overweight in the global defense index with a longer-than-usual five year secular investment horizon. The re-rating phase in this index is still in the early innings. The re-rating phase in this index is still in the early innings. We also reiterate our overweight in the BCA U.S. defense index (LMT, GD, RTN, NOC, LLL). Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Angell, Norman (1911), The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to their Economic and Social Advantage, (3 ed.), New York and London: G.P. Putnam’s & Sons. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “The Great Risk Rotation,” dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “Multipolarity And Investing,” dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Angell, Warren, Kenneth (1989), Armstrongs of Elswick: Growth In Engineering And Armaments To The Merger with Vickers, London, The Macmillan Press Ltd. 5 http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/38/101038270/ 6 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Basil-Zaharoff 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here,” in Monthly Report, “Winter Is Coming,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “A Bull Market For Terror,” dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Wobbling,” dated December 7, 2015, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 11 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/opinion/ignoring-the-debt-problem.html?_r=0 Appendix Table A1BI Global Defense Primes Competitive Peers Table A2World Defense Index (DS: DEFENWD) Table A3S&P 500 Aerospace & Defense Index ##br## (S5AERO Index) Table A4China ##br## Aerospace & Defense Table A5Russia & Israel Aerospace & Defense Table A6Kensho Space Index
Special Report Highlights With inflation probably having bottomed, especially in the U.S., investors are starting to worry about inflation tail-risk and wonder whether inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are an efficient way to hedge this risk. This Special Report explains how ILBs work in different countries and analyzes their performance characteristics over time. We find that ILBs, a rapid growing asset class, can be a beneficial addition to a balanced global portfolio even though recent history does not show as strong portfolio diversification benefits as a longer history. The lower nominal duration of ILBs is a useful feature for portfolio duration management. ILBs have proven to be a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment, but they underperform nominal bonds in a disinflationary environment. As such, the balance between ILBs and nominal bonds should be managed tactically based on an investor's views on inflation dynamics and valuation. Overweight U.S. TIPS; avoid U.K. linkers. Australian TIBS are a cheap yield enhancer, but higher yielding Mexican Udibonos are a dangerous yield trap. Feature BCA's view is that the 35-year bull market in bonds is ending and that the path of least resistance for bond yields globally is up.1 Even though the level of inflation in the U.S. is still below the Fed's target of 2%, we think it's clear that U.S. inflation has bottomed for this cycle. Globally, loose monetary policy together with the likelihood of more fiscal stimulus, present the risk of higher inflation down the road. Global Asset Allocation has recommended investors to overweight U.S. TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities) relative to nominal U.S. government bonds throughout 2016. Many clients have asked for details on how TIPS work, whether there are similar securities in other countries, and how ILBs fit into a balanced global portfolio. In this Special Report, we take a detailed look at inflation-linked bond markets globally and recommend some strategies for asset allocators to use them to help navigate a world of low returns and possibly higher inflation. 1. What Are Inflation-Linked bonds (ILBs)? Inflation Protection: Inflation-linked bonds are designed to hedge inflation risk by indexing the bonds' principal to the official inflation index in the issuer country. While the methodology and what the bonds are called differ from country to country, the underlying concept is the same: the holders of ILBs will get the stated real return even in an inflationary environment since both the nominal face value and the nominal coupon payments change based on an official inflation measure. Deflation Floor: In the case of sustained deflation such that the final nominal face value falls below the initial face value, however, the repayment of principal at maturity is guaranteed in the majority of the countries, but not, for example, in the U.K., Canada, Brazil, or Mexico (Table 1). Table 1Basic Information Of Global ILB Markets Inflation Measure: ILBs are linked to actual inflation with a time lag. As shown in Table 1, the inflation measure used varies slightly by country: in the U.S. it's the non-seasonally adjusted CPI; in the U.K. it's the retail price index (RPI); while in the euro area, France and Italy both have ILBs linked to local CPI ex tobacco and EU HICP ex tobacco, with the former primarily for domestic retail investors. The time lag is three months in most countries, but can vary from one to eight months as shown in Table 1. A Rapidly Growing Asset Class: The earliest recorded ILBs were issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 17802 during the Revolutionary War. Finland introduced indexed bonds in 1945, Israel and Iceland in 1955. Brazil introduced its indexed bonds in 1964 and has become the largest ILB market in the emerging markets and the third largest globally. When the U.K. issued its first "linkers", it originally used eight months of inflation lag to make sure the next coupon payment is known at the current coupon payment date. In 1991 Canada issued its first ILBs and the "Canadian Model", which uses a three-month lag to the inflation index and calculates a daily index ratio using linear extrapolation, has been adopted widely since; even the U.K. adopted it in 2005. The largest ILB market now is the U.S. TIPS with a market cap of USD 1.2 trillion. TIPS were first issued in 1997, using the Canadian model. Chart 1 shows the evolution of the ILB markets globally. Since the Bloomberg Barclays Universal Government Inflation-linked Bond Index was constructed in July 1997, the market cap has increased to over USD 3.2 trillion from a mere USD 145 million at the end of 1997. It's worth noting that the actual amount of ILBs outstanding globally is slightly larger than this because not all debts are included in the index.3 Even though many countries have issued ILBs, and emerging markets (EM) grew very fast in the 2000s, the global market is still dominated by the top three countries (the U.S., U.K., and Brazil) with a combined share of 70% of global market cap. Chart 1ILBs: A Fast Growing Asset Class Chart 2U.S. BEI Vs. Inflation Expectations Country Differentiation: Nominal government bonds come with different features in different countries, and the same is true with ILBs. Table 2 shows that even though the U.S. accounts for 43.6% of the developed markets (DM) index in terms of market cap, it contributes only 28.8% to overall duration while the U.K. accounts for 53% of the overall duration, because the U.K. linkers have much longer duration than the U.S. TIPS. The Canadian real return bonds (RRBs) have the second longest average duration at 16 years. Table 2Key Features of the Bloomberg Barclays Government ILB Indexes* 2. How Do ILBs Compare To Nominal Bonds? Break-Even Inflation (BEI) And Inflation Expectations: The difference between the yield on a nominal bond and the yield on a comparable ILB (a comparator) is defined as the BEI, the market-based inflation rate at which an investor is indifferent between holding a real or a nominal bond. If realized inflation over an ILB's life turns out to be higher than the BEI at purchase, then holding the ILB is better than holding its nominal counterpart. BEI on its own is not an accurate gauge of inflation expectations, because it is the sum of inflation expectations, the inflation risk premium, and the liquidity premium. One of the long-term inflation expectation measures that the U.S. Fed keeps track of is the five-year forward five-year inflation calculated using the Fed's own fitted yield curves.4 Even this measure, however, contains the inflation term premium and the relative supply/demand of 10-year BEI vs 5-year BEI. Three important observations from Chart 2 for investors to pay attention to when assessing the inflation outlook are: U.S. breakeven inflation rates have been consistently below the Fed's inflation target of 2% since 2014 (panel 4); The CPI swaps markets priced in a much higher inflation rate than the TIPS market and the Fed's measure derived from fitted curves (panels 2 & 3), largely caused by the supply and demand imbalance in the inflation swaps market: there is excess demand to receive inflation, but no natural regular payer of inflation other than the U.S. Treasury via TIPS, therefore a higher fixed rate has to be paid to receive inflation; The 10-year inflation expectation from the Cleveland Fed's model5 (panel 1), exhibits very different behavior from the other measures. It has been below the 2% target since 2011. This model attempts to combine survey-based inflation expectations and that derived from the CPI swaps market. It's intended to be a "superior" measure of inflation expectations from a monetary policy perspective.6 For investors, however, it's advisable to take into account all these measures when assessing inflation dynamics. Duration and Yield Beta: Duration is measured as the bond price change in relation to the yield change. Chart 3 shows that ILBs have higher duration than their nominal counterparts. These two durations, however, are not directly comparable because ILB duration is related to "real yield" while nominal bond duration is related to "nominal yield". The conversion from one to another is not straightforward because the relationship between real and nominal yields can be complex.7 In practice, however, we can run a simple regression to get ILB's yield beta to change in nominal yield.8 Some practitioners simply assume 0.5 in the emerging market.9 Our research shows that in the developed market the relationship between real yield and nominal yield can vary over different time periods and in different countries, but the moving 3-year and 5-year yield betas are always less than 1 and mostly above 0.5, which is the full sample average.(Chart 4). This is a useful feature for duration management and curve positioning. For example, everything else being equal, 1) replacing nominal government bonds with comparable ILBs can reduce portfolio duration, and 2) replacing a short-dated nominal bond with a longer-dated ILB could maintain the same duration. Chart 3Average Government Bond Duration Chart 4ILBs' Yield Beta Total Return: By design, ILBs should do well in an inflationary environment and they should outperform their nominal bonds when realized inflation is higher than the break-even inflation rate. How have ILBs performed in the real world? Unfortunately, we do not have a long enough data history to cover different inflation cycles. Chart 5 confirms that in nominal terms ILBs outperform their nominal counterparts when inflation rate trends higher. What's interesting, however, is that it is disinflation, rather than deflation, that hurts ILBs the most. Within the available data history, only 2009 experienced a brief deflation scare globally, yet the rebound in ILBs actually led economies out of the deflationary environment. Over the long run, U.K. linkers have underperformed nominal gilts since their first issuance in 1981 when inflation was running at 12%. Since 1997 when the Bloomberg/Barclays ILB indexes were constructed, however, ILBs have performed slightly better than their nominal comparable bonds in most countries, with the exception of the euro area where ILBs have fared slightly worse (Chart 5). Risk-Adjusted Return: On a risk-adjusted basis, the available data history shows that ILBs performed slightly better in the U.S. and Australia, and also the DM aggregate on a hedged basis, but slightly worse in the euro area, the U.K. and Canada. It's worth emphasizing, however, that in either case the difference is not significant (Table 3). Chart 5ILB Performance Vs Inflation Table 3ILBs Approximately Equal To Nominal Bonds 3. What's The Role Of ILBs In A Balanced Portfolio? Bridgewater Associate showed that adding ILBs to a balanced euro zone stock/bond portfolio significantly improved the efficient frontier over the very long run, from 1926 to 2010.10 Since there were no ILBs in the early part of that history, ILB returns were calculated based on inflation. Our research, based on data from the Bloomberg/Barclays Inflation-Linked Government Bond Index with a much shorter history, however, does not yield the same results, probably because the much shorter recent history does not include any highly inflationary periods from which ILBs benefit the most. Table 4 shows the statistics of replacing a certain portion of the nominal bonds with comparable ILBs in a DM 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio. On a standalone basis, the hedged USD DM ILBs are less volatile and have the best risk-adjusted return of 1.3 in the sample period (Portfolio 8). When combined with equities, however, the nominal bonds are a slightly better diversifier than the ILBs. Why? The answer lies in the correlation. Chart 6 shows that the ILBs have much higher correlation with equities than the nominal bonds do with equities. This makes sense because equities could rise in an inflationary environment if the higher inflation were driven by stronger growth, while inflation is always bad for nominal bonds. Again, the differences in risk-adjusted returns are not significant, varying from 0.77 to 0.7 (Portfolios 2-6) in line with the findings in Section 2. Table 4Balanced Global Portfolio Statistics* Chart 6Global Stocks-Bonds Correlations 4. Inflation Has Bottomed BCA's Fixed Income Strategy team has written extensively about the outlook for U.S. and global inflation.11 We concur with their view that, even though inflation in most DM countries is still below the targets set by their central banks (Chart 7), in most countries it has probably bottomed (top three panels in Chart 7), and especially in the U.S., where all indicators point to rising wage pressures as labor market slack diminishes (Chart 8). Chart 7Inflation Still Below Target Chart 8Accelerating Wage Pressure 5. Investment Implications Overweight U.S. TIPS Over Nominal Treasuries: We have shown that ILBs outperform comparable nominal bonds in a rising inflation environment and have argued that inflation has bottomed in the U.S. These views support our recommendation to overweight U.S. TIPS relative to nominal U.S. Treasuries. In addition, our TIPS valuation models (Chart 9) show that breakeven inflation rates in the U.S. are still below fair values based on underlying economic and financial drivers. Being the largest ILB market with a market cap of over USD 1.2 trillion, TIPS are very easy to trade. Currently, only five-year TIPS have a negative yield, so there are plenty of opportunities for investors to preserve real purchasing power by holding longer maturity TIPS. Avoid U.K. Linkers: The U.K. linkers market is the second largest after the U.S., with a market cap of about USD 810 billion. Unfortunately, these linkers are among the most expensively priced real return bonds, with negative yields at all maturities (Chart 10, panel 3). For example, 10-year linkers are currently yielding -1.98%, which means that investors are guaranteed to lose 18% of real purchasing power in 10 years by holding the bonds to maturity. Granted, the U.K. linkers have always traded at a premium to U.S. TIPS and many other ILB markets due to the nature of the U.K. pension schemes which link pension liabilities to inflation (CPI or RPI). With insatiable appetite from pension funds, demand greatly exceeds what the linkers and inflation swaps markets can supply. U.K. real yields have been driven lower and lower, causing an increasing funding gap which in turns drives yield further down.12 In addition, our fair value model (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2) shows that the U.K. linkers' current breakeven rates are above fair value. The collapse in the linkers' yields after the Brexit vote is also consistent with a skyrocketing in the CPI swaps rate, indicating that the probable rise in inflation due to the collapse of the GBP has now largely been priced in (panel 4). Investors who are not constrained by U.K. pension regulations should avoid U.K. linkers. Chart 9Overweight U.S. TIPS Chart 10Avoid U.K. Linkers Yield Enhancement From Australia, Not From Mexico: The U.S. TIPS market is liquid but yields are low, albeit higher than U.K. linkers. Among the smaller markets with higher yields, we prefer Australian Treasury Indexed Bonds (TIBS) over Mexican Udibonos, even though the 10-year Udibonos have a higher yield of 2.8% compared to the 10-year TIBS yield of 0.62%. As shown in Chart 11 and Chart 12, the Australian TIBS are very cheap while the Mexican Udibonos are very expensive. The BEI in Mexico is above the central bank's target of 3% while in Australia it's still at the lower end of the target range of 2-3%. Chart 11 Australian TIBS: A Cheap Yield Enhancer Chart 12 Mexico ILBS: Too Expensive 6. ETFs Some of our clients always want to know if there are ETFs for the asset classes we cover. For ILBs, the most liquid ETF is the iShares TIPS Bond ETF with an AUM of USD 19 billion and an expense ratio (ER) of 20 bps. For non-U.S. global ILBs, the SPDR Citi International Government Inflation-Protected Bond ETF has an AUM of USD 620 million and an expense ratio of 50bps. The Appendix on page 14 gives a sample list of the exchange traded ILB funds. For more information about ETFs, please see BCA's newly launched Global ETF Strategy service. AppendixSample List Of ILB ETFs*** Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The End of the 35-year Bond Bull Market," July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Robert Shiller, "The Invention of Inflation-Linked Bonds in Early America," NBER Working Paper 10183, December 2003. 3 Barclays Index Methodology, July 17, 2014. 4 Refet S. Gurkaynak et al., "The TIPS Yield Curve and Inflation Compensation," May 2008, Federal Reserve publication. 5 Joseph G Haubrich et al., "Inflation Expectations, Real Rates, and Risk Premia: Evidence from Inflation Swaps," Working Paper 11-07, March 2011, Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland. 6 Joseph G. Haubrich And Timothy Bianco, "Inflation: Nose, Risk, and Expectations," Economic Commentary, June 28, 2010, Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland. 7 Francis E. Laatsch and Daniel P. Klein, "The nominal duration of TIPS bonds," Review of Financial Economics 14 (2005). 8 Mattheu Gocci, "Understanding the TIPS Beta," University of Pennsylvania, 2013. 9 Thor Schultz Christensena and Eva Kobeja, "Inflation-Linked Bond from emerging markets provide attractive yield opportunities," Danske Capital, May 2015. 10 Werner Kramer, "Introduction to Inflation-Linked Bonds," Lazard Asset Management, 2012.