Developed Countries
Highlights Divergence between U.S. and global economic outcomes is bullish for the U.S. dollar and bad for EM assets; Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea, but it may not with Iran, putting upside pressure on oil; An election is the only way to resolve split over Brexit and the new anti-establishment coalition in Italy is not market positive; Historic election outcome in Malaysia and the prospect of a weakened Erdogan favors Malaysian over Turkish assets; Reinitiate long Russian vs EM equities in light of higher oil price and reopen French versus German industrials as reforms continue unimpeded in France. Feature "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." - Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Henry L. Sprague, January 26, 1900. May started with a geopolitical bang. On May 4, a high-profile U.S. trade delegation to Beijing returned home after two days of failed negotiations. Instead of bridging the gap between the two superpowers, the delegation doubled it.1 On May 8, President Trump put his Maximum Pressure doctrine - honed against Pyongyang - into action against Iran, announcing that the U.S. would withdraw from the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal - also referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These geopolitical headlines were good for the U.S. dollar, bad for Treasuries, and generally miserable for emerging market (EM) assets (Chart 1).2 We have expected these very market moves since the beginning of the year, recommending that clients go long the DXY on January 31 and go short EM equities vs. DM on March 6.3 Chart 1EM Breakdown? Chart 2U.S. Dollar Rallies When Global Trade Slows Geopolitical risks, however, are merely the accelerant of an ongoing process of global growth redistribution. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the divergent ramifications of populist stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China. This political divergence in economic outcomes has reduced growth in the latter and accelerated it in the former, a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 2).4 Data is starting to support this narrative: Chart 3Global Growth On A Knife Edge Chart 4German Data... The BCA OECD LEI has stalled, but the diffusion index shows a clear deterioration (Chart 3); German trade is showing signs of weakness, as is industrial production and IFO business confidence (Chart 4); Another bellwether of global trade, South Korea, is showing a rapid deterioration in exports (Chart 5); Global economic surprise index is now in negative territory (Chart 6). Chart 5...And South Korean, Foreshadows Risks Chart 6Unexpected Slowdown In Global Growth Meanwhile, on the U.S. side of the ledger, wage pressures are rising as the number of unemployed workers and job openings converge (Chart 7). Given the additional tailwinds of fiscal stimulus, which we see no real chance of being reversed either before or after the midterm election, the U.S. economy is likely to continue to surprise to the upside relative to the rest of the world, a bullish outcome for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). In this environment of U.S. outperformance and global growth underperformance, EM assets are likely to suffer. Chart 7U.S. Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD Additionally, it does not help that geopolitical risks will weigh on confidence and will buoy demand for safe haven assets, such as the U.S. dollar. First, U.S.-China trade relations will continue to dominate the news flow this summer. President Trump's positive tweets on the smartphone giant ZTE aside, the U.S. and China have not reached a substantive agreement and upcoming deadlines on trade-related matters remain a risk (Table 1). Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Second, President Trump's application of Maximum Pressure on Iran will cause further volatility and upside pressure on the oil markets. The media was caught by surprise by the president's announcement that he is withdrawing the U.S. from the JCPOA, which is puzzling given that the May 12 expiration of the sanctions waiver was well-telegraphed (Chart 9). It is also surprising given that President Trump signaled his pivot towards an aggressive foreign policy by appointing John Bolton and Mike Pompeo - two adherents of a hawkish foreign policy - to replace more middle-of-the-road policymakers. It was these personnel changes, combined with the U.S. president's lack of constraints on foreign policy, that inspired us to include Iran as the premier geopolitical risk for 2018.5 Chart 9Iran: Nobody Was Paying Attention! Iran-U.S. Tensions: Maximum Pressure Is Real Last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast that President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine would work against North Korea. First, we noted that President Trump reestablished America's "credible threat," a crucial factor in any negotiation.6 Without credible threats, it is impossible to cajole one's rival into shifting away from the status quo. The trick with North Korea, for each administration that preceded President Trump, was that it was difficult to establish such a credible threat given Pyongyang's ability to retaliate through conventional artillery against South Korean population centers. President Trump swept this concern aside by appearing unconcerned with what were to befall South Korean civilians or the Korean-U.S. alliance. Second, we noted in a detailed military analysis that North Korean retaliation - apart from the aforementioned conventional capacity - was paltry.7 President Trump called Kim Jong-un's bluff about targeting Guam with ballistic missiles and kept up Maximum Pressure throughout a summer full of rhetorical bluster. As tensions rose, China blinked first, enforcing President Trump's demand for tighter sanctions. China did not want the U.S. to attack North Korea or to use the North Korean threat as a reason to build up its military assets in the region. The collapse of North Korean exports to China ultimately starved the regime of hard cash and, in conjunction with U.S. military and rhetorical pressure, forced Kim Jong-un to back off (Chart 10). In essence, President Trump's doctrine is a modification of President Theodore Roosevelt's maxim. Instead of "talking softly," President Trump recommends "tweeting aggressively".8 It is important to recount the North Korean experience for several reasons: Maximum Pressure worked with North Korea: It is an objective fact that President Trump was correct in using Maximum Pressure on North Korea. Our analysis last year carefully detailed why it would be a success. However, we also specifically outlined why it would work with North Korea. Particularly relevant was Pyongyang's inability to counter American economic pressure and rhetoric with material leverage. Kim Jong-un's only objective capability is to launch a massive artillery attack against civilians in Seoul. Given his preference not to engage in a full-out war against South Korea and the U.S., he balked and folded. Trump is tripling-down on what works: President Trump, as all presidents before him, is learning on the job. The North Korean experience has convinced him that his Maximum Pressure tactic works. In particular, it works because it forces third parties to enforce economic sanctions on the target nation. If China were to abandon its traditional ally North Korea and enforced painful sanctions, the logic goes, then Europeans would ditch Iran much faster. Iran is not North Korea: The danger with applying a Maximum Pressure tactic against Iran is that Tehran has multiple levers around the Middle East that it could deploy to counter U.S. pressure. President Obama did not sign the JCPOA merely because he was a dove.9 He did so because the deal resolved several regional security challenges and allowed the U.S. to pivot to Asia (Chart 11). Chart 10Maximum Pressure Worked On Pyongyang Chart 11Iran Nuclear Deal Had A Strategic Imperative To understand why Iran is not North Korea, and how the application of Maximum Pressure could induce greater uncertainty in this case, investors first have to comprehend why the U.S.-Iran nuclear deal was concluded in the first place. Maximum Pressure Applied To Iran The 2015 U.S.-Iran deal resolved a crucial security dilemma in the Middle East: what to do about Iran's growing power in the region. Ever since the U.S. toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the fulcrum of the region's disequilibrium has been the status of Iraq. Iraq is a natural geographic buffer between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional rivals. Hussein, a Sunni, ruled Iraq - 65% of which is Shia - either as an overt client of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia (1980-1988), or as a free agent largely opposed to everyone in the region (from 1990s onwards). Both options were largely acceptable to Saudi Arabia, although the former was preferable. Iran quickly seized the initiative in Iraq following the U.S. overthrow of Hussein, which created a vast vacuum of power in the country. Elite members of the country's Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the so-called Quds Force, infiltrated Iraq and supplied various Shia militias with weapons and training that fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. An overt Iranian ally, Nouri al-Maliki, assumed power in 2006. Soon the anti-U.S. insurgency evolved into sectarian violence as the Sunni population revolted and various Sunni militias, supported by Saudi Arabia, rose up against Shia-dominated Baghdad. The U.S. troops stationed in Iraq quickly became either incapable of controlling the sectarian violence or direct targets of the violence themselves. This rebellion eventually mutated into the Islamic State, which spread from Iraq to Syria in 2012 and then back to Iraq two years later. The Obama administration quickly realized that a U.S. military presence in Iraq would have to be permanent if Iranian influence in the country was to be curbed in the long term. This position was untenable, however, given U.S. military casualties in Iraq, American public opinion about the war, and lack of clarity on U.S. long-term interests in Iraq in the first place. President Obama therefore simultaneously withdrew American troops from Iraq in 2011 and began pressuring Iran on its nuclear program between 2011 and 2015.10 In addition, the U.S. demanded that Iran curb its influence in Iraq, that its anti-American/Israel rhetoric cease, and that it help defend Iraq against the attacks by the Islamic State in 2014. Tehran obliged on all three fronts, joining forces with the U.S. Air Force and Special Forces in the defense of Baghdad in the fall 2014.11 In 2014, Iran acquiesced in seeing its ally al-Maliki replaced by the far less sectarian Haider al-Abadi. These moves helped ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and led to the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. From Tehran's perspective, it has abided by all the demands made by Washington during the 2012-2015 negotiations, both those covered by the JCPOA overtly and those never explicitly put down on paper. Yes, Iran's influence in the Middle East has expanded well beyond Iraq and into Syria, where Iranian troops are overtly supporting President Bashar al-Assad. But from Iran's perspective, the U.S. abandoned Syria in 2012 - when President Obama failed to enforce his "red line" on chemical weapons use. In fact, without Iranian and Russian intervention, it is likely that the Islamic State would have gained a greater foothold in Syria. The point that its critics miss is that the 2015 nuclear deal always envisioned giving Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East. Otherwise, Tehran would not have agreed to curb its nuclear program! To force Iran to negotiate, President Obama did threaten Tehran with military force. As we have detailed in the past, President Obama established a credible threat by outsourcing it to Israel in 2011. It was this threat of a unilateral Israeli attack, which Obama did little to limit or prevent, that ultimately forced Europeans to accept the hawkish American position and impose crippling economic sanctions against Iran in early 2012. As such, it is highly unlikely that a rerun of the same strategy by the U.S., this time with Trump in charge and with potentially less global cooperation on sanctions, will produce a different, or better, deal. The recent history is important to recount because the Trump administration is convinced that it can get a better deal from Iran than the Obama administration did. This may be true, but it will require considerable amounts of pressure on Iran to achieve it. At some point, we expect that this pressure will look very much like a preparation for war against Iran, either by U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, or by the U.S. itself. First, President Trump will have to create a credible threat of force, as President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did in 2011-2012. Second, President Trump will have to be willing to sanction companies in Europe and Asia for doing business with Iran in order to curb Iran's oil exports. According to National Security Advisor John Bolton, European companies will have by the end of 2018 to curb their activities with Iran or face sanctions. The one difference this time around is Iraqi politics. Elections held on May 13 appear to have resulted in a surge of support for anti-Iranian Shia candidates, starting with the ardently anti-American and anti-Iranian Shia Ayatollah Muqtada al-Sadr. Sadr is a Shia, but also an Iraqi nationalist who campaigned on an anti-Tehran, anti-poverty, anti-corruption line. If the election signals a clear shift in Baghdad against Iran, then Iran may have one less important lever to play against the U.S. and its allies. However, we are only cautiously optimistic about Iraq. Pro-Iranian Shia forces, while in a clear minority, still maintain the support of roughly half of Iraqi Shias. And al-Sadr may not be able to govern effectively, given that his track record thus far mainly consists of waging insurgent warfare (against Americans) and whipping up populist fervor (against Iran). Any move in Baghdad, with U.S. and Saudi backing, to limit Iranian-allied Shia groups from government could lead to renewed sectarian conflict. Therein lies the key difference between North Korea and Iran. Iran has military, intelligence, and operational capabilities that North Korea does not. This is precisely why the U.S. concluded the 2015 deal in the first place, so that Iran would curb those capabilities regionally and limit its operations to the Iranian "sphere of influence." In addition, Iran is constrained against reopening negotiations with the U.S. domestically by the ongoing political contest between the moderates - such as President Hassan Rouhani - and the hawks - represented by the military and intelligence nexus. Supreme Leader Khamenei sits somewhere in the middle, but will side with the hawks if it looks like Rouhani's promise of economic benefits from the détente with the West will fall short of reality. The combination of domestic pressure and capabilities therefore makes it likely that Iran retaliates against American pressure at some point. While such retaliation could be largely investment-irrelevant - say by supporting Hezbollah rocket attacks into Israel or ramping up military operations in Syria - it could also affect oil prices if it includes activities in and around the Persian Gulf. Bottom Line: We caution clients not to believe the narrative that "Trump is all talk." As the example in North Korea suggests, Trump's rhetoric drove China to enforce sanctions in order to avert war on the Korean Peninsula. We therefore expect the U.S. administration to continue to threaten European and Asian partners and allies with sanctions, causing an eventual drop in Iranian oil exports. In addition, we expect Iran to play hardball, using its various proxies in the region to remind the Trump administration why Obama signed the 2015 deal in the first place. Could Trump ultimately be right on Iran as he was on North Korea? Absolutely. It is simply naïve to assume that Iran will negotiate without Maximum Pressure, which by definition will be market-relevant. Impact On Energy Markets BCA Energy Sector Strategy believes that the re-imposition of sanctions could result in a loss of 300,000-500,000 b/d of production by early 2019.12 This would take 2019 production back down to 3.3-3.5 MMB/d instead of growing to nearly 4.0 MMb/d as our commodity strategists have modeled in their supply-demand forecasts. In total, Iranian sanctions could tighten up the outlook for 2019 oil markets by 400,000-600,000 b/d, reversing the production that Iran has brought online since 2016 (Chart 12). Is the global energy market able to withstand this type of loss of production? First, Chart 13 shows that the enormous oversupply of crude oil and oil products held in inventories has already been cut from 450 million barrels at its peak to less than 100 million barrels today. Surplus inventories are destined to shrink to nothing by the end of the year even without geopolitical risks. In short, there is no excess inventory cushion. Chart 12Current And Future Iran Production Is At Risk Chart 13Excess Petroleum Inventories Are All But Gone Second, spare capacity within the OPEC 2.0 alliance - Saudi Arabia and Russia - is controversial. Many clients believe that OPEC 2.0 could easily restore the 1.8 MMb/d of production that they agreed to hold off the market since early 2017. However, our commodity team has always considered the full number to be an illusion that consists of 1.2 MMb/d of voluntary cuts and around 500,000 b/d of natural production declines that were counted as "cuts" so that the cartel could project an image of greater collaboration than it actually has achieved (Chart 14). In fact, some of the lesser "contributors" to the OPEC cut pledged to lower 2017 production by ~400,000 b/d, but are facing 2018 production levels that are projected to be ~700,000 b/d below their 2016 reference levels, and 2019 production levels are estimated to decline by another 200,000 b/d (Chart 15). Chart 14Primary OPEC 2.0 Members Are ##br##Producing 1.0 MMb/d Below Pre-Cut Levels Chart 15Secondary OPEC 2.0 "Contributors"##br## Can't Even Reach Their Quotas Third, renewed Iran-U.S. tensions may only be the second-most investment-relevant geopolitical risk for oil markets. Our commodity team expects Venezuelan production to fall to 1.23 MMb/d by the end of 2018 and to 1 MMb/d by the end of 2019, but these production levels could turn out to be optimistic (Chart 16). Venezuelan production declined by 450,000 b/d over the course of 21 months (December 2015 to September 2017), followed by another 450,000 b/d plunge over the past six months (September 2017 to March 2018), as the country's failing economy goes through the death spiral of its 20-year socialist experiment. The oil production supply chain is now suffering from shortages of everything, including capital. It is difficult to predict what broken link in the supply chain is most likely to impact production next, when it will happen, and what the size of the production impact will be. The combination of President Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine applied to Iran, continued deterioration in Venezuelan production, and the inability of OPEC 2.0 to surge production as fast as the market thinks is unambiguously bullish for oil prices. Oil markets are currently pricing in a just under 35% probability that oil prices will exceed $80/bbl by year-end (Chart 17).13 We believe these odds are too low and will take the other side of that bet. Indeed, we think that the odds of Brent prices ending above $90/bbl this year are much higher than the 16% chance being priced in the markets presently, even though this is up from just under 4% at the beginning of the year. Chart 16Venezuela Is A Bigger Risk Chart 17Market Continues To Underestimate High Oil Prices Bottom Line: Our colleague Bob Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist, also expects higher volatility, as news flows become noisier. The recommendation by BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy is to go long Feb/19 $80/bbl Brent calls expiring in Dec/18 vs. short Feb/19 $85/bbl calls, given our assessment that the odds of ending the year above $90/bbl are higher than the market's expectations. A key variable to watch in the ongoing saga will be President Trump's willingness to impose secondary sanctions against European and Asian companies doing business with Iran. We do not think that the White House is bluffing. The mounting probability of sanctions will create "stroke of pen" risk and raise compliance costs to doing business with Iran, leading to lower Iranian exports by the end of the year. Europe Update: Political Risks Returning Risks in Europe are rising on multiple fronts. First, we continue to believe that the domestic political situation in the U.K. regarding Brexit is untenable. Second, the coalition of populists in Italy - combining the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and the Euroskeptic Lega - appears poised to become a reality. Brexit: Start Pricing In Prime Minister Corbyn Since our Brexit update in February, the pound has taken a wild ride, but our view has remained the same.14 PM May has an untenable negotiating position. The soft-Brexit majority in Westminster is growing confident while the hard-Brexit majority in her own Tory party is growing louder. We do not know who will win, but odds of an unclear outcome are growing. The first problem is the status of Northern Ireland. The 1998 Good Friday agreement, which ended decades of paramilitary conflict on the island, established an invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Membership in the EU by both made the removal of a physical border a simple affair. But if the U.K. exits the bloc, and takes Northern Ireland with it, presumably a physical barrier would have to be reestablished, either in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. The former would jeopardize the Good Friday agreement, the latter would jeopardize the U.K.'s integrity as a state. The EU, led on by Dublin's interests, has proposed that Northern Ireland maintain some elements of the EU acquis communautaire - the accumulated body of EU's laws and obligations - in order to facilitate the effectiveness of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. For many Tories in the U.K., particularly those who consider themselves "Unionists," the arrangement smacks of a Trojan Horse by the EU to slowly but surely untie the strings that bind the U.K. together. If Northern Ireland gets an exception, then pro-EU Scotland is sure to ask for one too. The second problem is that the Tories are divided on whether to remain part of the EU customs union. PM May is in favor of a "customs partnership" with the EU, which would see unified tariffs and duties on goods and services across the EU bloc and the U.K. However, her own cabinet voted against her on the issue, mainly because a customs union with the EU would eliminate the main supposed benefit of Brexit: negotiating free trade deals independent of the EU. It is unclear how PM May intends to resolve the multiple disagreements on these issues within her party. Thus far, her strategy was to simply put the eventual deal with the EU up for a vote in Westminster. She agreed to hold such a vote, but with the caveat that a vote against the deal would break off negotiations with the EU and lead to a total Brexit. The threat of such a hard Brexit would force soft Brexiters among the Tories to accept whatever compromise she got from Brussels. Unfortunately for May's tactic, the House of Lords voted on April 30 to amend the flagship EU Withdrawal Bill to empower Westminster to send the government back to the negotiating table in case of a rejection of the final deal with the EU. The amendment will be accepted if the House of Commons agrees to it, which it may, given that a number of soft Brexit Tories are receptive. A defeat of the final negotiated settlement could prolong negotiations with the EU. Brussels is on record stating that it would prolong the transition period and give the U.K. a different Brexit date, moving the current date of March 2019. However, it is unclear why May would continue negotiating at that point, given that her own parliament would send her back to Brussels, hat in hand. The fundamental problem for May is the same that has plagued the last three Tory Prime Ministers: the U.K. Conservative Party is intractably split with itself on Brexit. The only way to resolve the split may be for PM May to call an election and give herself a mandate to negotiate with the EU once she is politically recapitalized. This realization, that the probability of a new election is non-negligible, will likely weigh on the pound going forward. Investors would likely balk at the possibility that Jeremy Corbyn will become the prime minister, although polling data suggests that his surge in popularity is over (Chart 18). Local elections in early May also ended inconclusively for Labour's chances, with no big outpouring for left-leaning candidates. Even if Labour is forced to form a coalition with the Scottish National Party (SNP), it is unlikely that the left-leaning SNP would be much of a check on Corbyn's Labour. Chart 18Corbyn's Popularity Is In Decline Bottom Line: Theresa May will either have to call a new election between now and March of next year or she will use the threat of a new election to get hard-Brexit Tories in line. Either way, markets will have to reprice the probability of a Labour-led government between now and a resolution to the Brexit crisis. Italy: Start Pricing In A Populist Government Leaders of Italy's populist parties - M5S and Lega - have come to an agreement on a coalition that will put the two anti-establishment parties in charge of the EU's third-largest economy. Markets are taking the news in stride because M5S has taken a 180-degree turn on Euroskepticism. Although Lega remains overtly Euroskeptic, its leader Matteo Salvini has said that he does not want a chaotic exit from the currency bloc. Is the market right to ignore the risks? On one hand, it is a positive development that the anti-establishment forces take over the reins in Italy. Establishment parties have failed to reform the country, while time spent in government will de-radicalize both anti-establishment parties. Furthermore, the one item on the political agenda that both parties agree on is to radically curb illegal migration into Italy, a process that is already underway (Chart 19). On the other hand, the economic pact signed by both parties is completely and utterly incompatible with reality. It combines a flat tax and a guaranteed basic income with a lowering of the retirement age. This would blow a hole in Italy's budget, barring a miraculous positive impact on GDP growth. The market is likely ignoring the coalition's economic policies as it assumes they cannot be put into action. This is not because Rome is afraid to flout Brussels' rules, but because the bond market is not going to finance Italian expenditures. Long-dated Italian bonds are already cheap relative to the country's credit rating (Chart 20), evidence that the market is asking for a premium to finance Italian expenditures. This is despite the ongoing ECB bond buying efforts. Once the ECB ends the program later this year, or in early 2019, the pressure on Rome from the bond market will grow. Chart 19European Migration Crisis Is Over Chart 20Italian Bonds Still Require A Risk Premium We suspect that both M5S and Lega are aware of their constraints. After all, neither M5S leader Luigi Di Maio nor Lega's Salvini are going to take the prime minister spot. This is extraordinary! We cannot remember the last time a leader of the winning party refused to take the top political spot following an election. Both Di Maio and Salvini are trying to pass the buck for the failure of the coalition. In one way, this is market-positive, as it suggests that the anti-establishment coalition will do nothing of note during its mandate. But it also suggests that markets will have to deal with a new Italian election relatively quickly. As such, we would warn investors to steer clear of Italian assets. Their performance in 2017, and early 2018, suggests that the market has already priced in the most market-positive outcome. Yes, Italy will not leave the Euro Area. But no, there is no "Macron of Italy" to resolve its long-term growth problems. Bottom Line: The Italian government formation is not market-positive. Italian bonds are cheap for a reason. While it is unlikely that the populist coalition will have the room to maneuver its profligate coalition deal into action, the bond market may have to discipline Italian policymakers from time to time. In the long term, none of the structural problems that Italy faces - many of which we have identified in a number of reports - will be tackled by the incoming coalition.15 This will expose Italy to an eventual resurgence in Euroskepticism at the first sight of the next recession. Emerging Markets: Elections In Malaysia And Turkey Offer Divergent Outcomes As we pointed out at the beginning of this report, an environment of rising U.S. yields, a surging dollar, and moderating global growth is negative for emerging markets. In this context, politics is unlikely to make much of a difference. The recently announced early election in Turkey is a case in point. Markets briefly cheered the announced election (Chart 21), before investors realized that there is unlikely to be a consolidation of power behind President Erdogan (Chart 22). Even if Erdogan were to somehow massively outperform expectations and consolidate political capital, it is not clear why investors would cheer such an outcome given his track record, particularly on the economy, over the past decade. Chart 21Investors Briefly Cheered Ankara's Snap Election Chart 22Is Erdogan In Trouble? Malaysia, on the other hand, could be the one EM economy that defies the negative macro context due to political events. Our most bullish long-term scenario for Malaysia - a historic victory for the opposition Pakatan Harapan coalition - came to pass with the election on May 9 (Chart 23).16 Significantly, outgoing Prime Minister Najib Razak accepted the election results as the will of the people. He did not incite violence or refuse to cede power. Rather, he congratulated incoming Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and promised to help ensure a smooth transition. This marks the first transfer of power since Malaysian independence in 1957. It was democratic and peaceful, which establishes a hugely consequential and market-friendly precedent. How did the opposition pull off this historic upset? Ethnic-majority Malays swung to the opposition; Mahathir's "charismatic authority" had an outsized effect; Barisan Nasional "safety deposits" in Sabah and Sarawak failed; Voters rejected fundamentalist Islamism. What are the implications? Better Governance - Governance has been deteriorating, especially under Najib's rule, but now voters have demanded improvements that could include term-limits for prime ministers and legislative protections for officials investigating wrongdoing by top leaders (Chart 24). Economic Stimulus - Pakatan Harapan campaigned against some of the painful pro-market structural reforms that Najib put in place. They have promised to repeal the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) and reinstate fuel subsidies. They have also proposed raising the minimum wage and harmonizing it across the country. While these pledges will be watered down,17 they are positive for nominal growth in the short term but negative for fiscal sustainability in the long term. Chart 23Comfortable Majority For Pakatan Harapan Coalition Chart 24Voters Want Governance Improvements The one understated risk comes from China. Najib's weakness had led him to court China and rely increasingly on Chinese investment as an economic strategy. Mahathir and Pakatan Harapan will seek to revise all Chinese investment (including under the Belt and Road Initiative). This review is not necessarily to cancel projects but to haggle about prices and ensure that domestic labor is employed. Mahathir will also try to assert Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. None of this means that a crisis is impending, but China has increasingly used economic sanctions to punish and reward its neighbors according to whether their electoral outcomes are favorable to China,18 and we expect tensions to increase. Investment Conclusion On the one hand, in the short run, the picture for Malaysia is mixed. Pakatan Harapan will likely pursue some stimulative economic policies, but these come amidst fundamental macro weaknesses that we have highlighted in the past - and may even exacerbate them. On the other hand, a key external factor is working in the new government's favor: oil. With oil prices likely to move higher, the Malaysian ringgit is likely to benefit (Chart 25), helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power, a key election grievance. Higher oil prices are also correlated with higher equity prices. Over the long run, we have a high-conviction view that this election is bullish for Malaysia. It sends a historic signal that the populace wants better governance. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has found that improvements in governance are crucial for long-term productivity, growth, and asset performance.19 Hence, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends clients go long Malaysian equities relative to EM. Now is a good entry point despite short-term volatility (Chart 26). We also think that going long MYR/TRY will articulate both our bullish oil story as well as our divergent views on political risks in Malaysia and Turkey (Chart 27). Chart 25Oil Outlook Favors Malaysian Assets Chart 26Long Malaysian Equities Versus EM Chart 27Higher Oil Prices Favor MYR Than TRY We are re-initiating two trades this week. First, the recently stopped out long Russian / short EM equities recommendation. We still believe that the view is on strong fundamentals, at least in the tactical and cyclical sense.20 Russian President Vladimir Putin has won another mandate and appears to be focusing on domestic economy and the constraints to Russian geopolitical adventurism have grown. The Trump administration has apparently also grown wary of further sanctions against Russia. However, our initial timing was massively off, as tensions between Russia and West did not peak in early March as we thought. We are giving this high-risk, high-reward trade another go, particularly in light of our oil price outlook. Second, we booked 10.26% gains on our recommendation to go long French industrials versus their German counterparts. We are reopening this view again as structural reforms continue in France unimpeded. Meanwhile, risk of global trade wars and a global growth slowdown should impact the high-beta German industrials more than the French. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Senior Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Washington's demand that China cut its annual trade surplus has grown from $100 billion, announced previously by President Trump, to at least $200 billion. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: A Correction Or Bear Market?" dated May 10, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "'America Is Roaring Back!' (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?),"dated January 31, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, and "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Instead of a "big stick," President Trump would likely also recommend a "big nuclear button." 9 This is an important though obvious point. We find that many liberally-oriented clients are unwilling to give President Trump credit for correctly handling the North Korean negotiations. Similarly, conservative-oriented clients refuse to accept that President Obama's dealings with Iran had a strategic logic, even though they clearly did. President Obama would not have been able to conclude the JCPOA without the full support of U.S. intelligence and military establishment. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 While there was no confirmed collaboration between Iranian ground forces in Iraq and the U.S. Air Force, we assume that it happened in 2014 in the defense of Baghdad. The U.S. A-10 Warthog was extensively used against Islamic State ground forces in that battle. The plane is most effective when it has communication from ground forces engaging enemy units. Given that Iranian troops and Iranian backed Shia militias did the majority of the fighting in the defense of Baghdad, we assume that there was tactical communication between U.S. and the Iranian military in 2014, a whole year before the U.S.-Iran nuclear détente was concluded. 12 Please see BCA Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," dated May 9, 2018, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," dated May 10, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update," dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, and "Europe's Divine Comedy Party II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Play Malaysia's Elections (And Thailand's Lack Thereof)," dated March 21, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 For instance, the proposed Sales and Services Tax (SST) is more like a rebranding of the GST than a true abolition. And while fuel subsidies will be reinstated - weighing on the fiscal deficit - they will have a quota and only certain vehicles will be eligible. It will not be a return to the old pricing regime where subsidies were unlimited and were for everyone. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ranking EM Countries Based on Structural Variables," dated August 2, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Global Volatility Vs. Inflation: Global financial markets are staging a recovery after the February volatility shock, with the U.S. showing the most resiliency. With inflation still rising in the U.S., and with inflation differentials still favoring the U.S. versus other developed markets, there is still the greatest scope for higher bond yields in the U.S. Stay below-benchmark portfolio duration and underweight U.S. Treasuries. New Zealand: New Zealand government bonds have been a star outperformer over the past year, as inflation has eased and the RBNZ has kept rates steady. With the economy set to slow in response to weaker immigration inflows, and with inflation still languishing well below the central bank's target, expect continued outperformance of New Zealand debt versus developed market peers. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Comeback Kids After a lengthy period of convalescence following the February VIX spike, some calm has been restored to financial markets. Global equities are staging a recovery from the correction seen earlier this year, with major indices like the U.S. S&P 500 and the MSCI All-Country World Index breaking out above key technical levels last week (Chart of the Week). Volatility in developed economy credit has also died down a bit, although corporate bond spreads still remain above the lows of the year in most countries. The resiliency of risk assets is even more impressive when viewed against the continuing climb of oil prices, fueled further by President Trump's announcement last week that the U.S. was pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. With the benchmark Brent oil price now within hailing distance of $80/bbl, developed market government bond yields remain under upward pressure through higher inflation expectations (bottom panel). Yet as been the case for the past several months, the greatest upward pressure on global bond yields has been seen in the U.S., where the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield is once again knocking on the door of the 3% level. Global growth has lost some momentum in the first few months of the year, but not by enough to cause any loosening of capacity pressures through rising unemployment rates. Until the latter occurs, central banks will remain focused on the slow-but-steady rise in inflation pressures. This will limit any material decline in government bond yields as markets must price in both higher inflation expectations and some degree of interest rate increases. Not every central bank will deliver on what is currently discounted in terms of rate hikes, however, which continues to create more attractive relative fixed income country allocation opportunities now than have been seen in the past few years. We continue to recommend an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, favoring corporate credit over sovereign debt. Within dedicated government bond portfolios, we favor underweight exposures in the U.S., Canada and core Europe while overweighting Australia, the U.K. and Japan. Lower U.S. Volatility Does Not Necessarily Mean Greater Global Stability The surge in market volatility earlier in the year began in the U.S. following the "wage inflation scare" in early February. The idea that dormant U.S. wage inflation could finally have awakened shook markets out of their slumber, driving the VIX index sharply higher (with some nudging from volatility-linked ETFs and other leveraged vehicles). Yet other markets saw a surge in vol, like currencies and the MOVE index of U.S. Treasury option prices (Chart 2). The latter development underscores one of our key investment themes for 2018, which is that the low market volatility environment will end through higher bond volatility.1 Faster U.S. inflation was expected to be trigger for that pickup in U.S. bond volatility, which would lead to a more aggressive path of Fed rate hikes and more uncertainty about the U.S. growth outlook beyond 2018. We did not expect that inflation-driven surge in bond volatility until the latter half of this year, but what happened in early February showed how the investing backdrop can turn ugly once inflation makes a comeback. Looking ahead, the subdued readings from the Chicago Board Options Exchange VVIX index, which measures the implied volatility of VIX options, indicate that the VIX can continue to head lower in the coming weeks (top panel). Combined with some easing of pressures seen in funding markets through the wider LIBOR-OIS spread (bottom panel), the backdrop is in place for continued recovery in U.S. equity and credit markets. It's a different story in non-U.S. markets, however. Softening global growth in the first quarter of the year, combined with steady increases in U.S. interest rate hike expectations, has resulted in the U.S. dollar staging a recovery after the pounding it took in 2017 (Chart 3). That combination of higher U.S. bond yields, a stronger dollar and weaker growth is a classic toxic brew for Emerging Market (EM) assets, which have been underperforming under the weight of investor outflows. None of those factors looks set to reverse in the near term, and we continue to recommend underweight allocations to EM fixed income (especially corporate debt). Chart 2The VIX Storm Has Blown Over Chart 3Not All Risk Assets Have Been Stabilizing Within the major developed markets, the most important factor at the moment is diverging inflation trends rather than growth. While U.S. inflation continues to drift higher, inflation in the euro area and U.K. has lost momentum (Chart 4). Surprisingly, Japanese inflation has finally started to show a bit of life - even after a period of yen appreciation - but perhaps that is because domestic inflation is finally awakening with annual wage growth hitting a 15-year high of 2.1% in March (3rd panel). Core inflation remains well below the Bank of Japan's 2% target, however. Meanwhile, last week's release of the April U.S. CPI data showed that inflation was still moving higher despite the outcome being slightly worse than expected (Chart 5). Importantly, some large and important elements of the CPI, like Shelter costs (33% of the total CPI index) and core goods prices (20%), saw a pickup in year-over-year inflation in line with our models and leading indicators. Given that U.S. real GDP growth leads core CPI inflation by about five quarters (top panel), this suggests that all of our inflation indicators are pointing to additional increases in U.S. inflation in the next 3-6 months. Chart 4Diverging Trends In Global Inflation Chart 5U.S. Inflation Momentum Still Trending Higher With U.S. inflation heading higher and non-U.S. developed market inflation languishing, there is still much more upside risk for U.S. Treasury yields than for the other government bond markets, mostly via higher U.S. inflation expectations. Stay underweight the U.S. within global hedged bond portfolios and remain long U.S. inflation protection by favoring TIPS over nominal Treasuries. Bottom Line: Global financial markets are staging a recovery after the February volatility shock, with the U.S. showing the most resiliency. With inflation still rising in the U.S., and with inflation differentials still favoring the U.S. versus other developed markets, there is still the greatest scope for higher bond yields in the U.S. Stay below-benchmark portfolio duration and underweight U.S. Treasuries. New Zealand: Outperformance To Continue Under New RBNZ Leadership Chart 6Good Timing On Our Bullish NZ Call One of the more successful trade recommendations we have made over the past year was to go long New Zealand government bonds versus U.S. Treasuries and German government debt in May 2017.2 Our call was predicated on a simple premise. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) would maintain a dovish policy bias far longer than markets were expecting because of subdued inflation, at a time when the Fed would be hiking interest rates and the markets would begin to discount an end to the ECB's asset purchase program. Since we initiated that recommendation one year ago, headline New Zealand CPI inflation has slowed from 1.9% to 1%, while the RBNZ has kept policy rates unchanged. The spread between 5-year New Zealand government debt and 5-year U.S. Treasuries has collapsed from +74bps to -56bps, while the 5-year New Zealand-Germany spread has tightened from 292bps to 234bps. The overall New Zealand government bond index has outperformed the Barclays Global Treasury index by 120bps, currency hedged into U.S. dollars (Chart 6). Looking ahead, it may prove difficult to repeat those numbers from current levels. Yet it is even more challenging to construct a bearish case for New Zealand debt - the economy still looks sluggish, inflation is languishing well below the RBNZ target, and there have been changes at the central bank that will likely keep a dovish bias to New Zealand monetary policy. A Big Shakeup At The RBNZ There are several major moves that have just taken place at the RBNZ that should ensure that the central bank will not be raising rates anytime soon. First, Adrian Orr took over as RBNZ Governor back in March, replacing Graeme Wheeler. Orr was the Chief Executive of the New Zealand government pension (superannuation) fund, but was also a former RBNZ Chief Economist and Deputy Governor. He has stated an intention to make the RBNZ a more open, communicative central bank than Wheeler, who shunned media interviews and limited the number of on-the-record speeches by RBNZ officials. This will make the central bank a more transparent entity and limit the ability of the central bank from doing unexpected policy moves, as it has done in the past. The transparency will increase next year when the RBNZ moves to a full policy committee approach, where interest rates will be decided by a vote rather than a decision solely made by the Governor. Second, the New Zealand government has altered the RBNZ's monetary policy mandate following a review after the victory by the Labour party in last year's election. The central bank must now not only target price stability, but also seek to "maximize sustainable employment" in the New Zealand economy, not unlike the dual mandates of the U.S. Federal Reserve or Reserve Bank of Australia. This marks a major shift for the RBNZ, which was the first central bank to introduce an official inflation target in 1989. This change fulfils the new Labour-led government's campaign promise to promote job creation, which also includes restricting immigration. New Zealand Finance Minister Grant Robertson did state last November that the government would only consider candidates for RBNZ Governor that would be "willing and ready to adopt the new processes" of its review of the RBNZ's policy mandate.3 Robertson also noted that the new framework might result in monetary policy staying more accommodative from time to time. This smacks of increased government pressure on the RBNZ to keep policy as loose as possible to boost economic growth. Governor Orr has already had to go on the defensive, publicly stated that the central bank had "always" been considering short-term swings in employment when making its interest rate decisions. At a minimum, the case for future interest rate increases would have to be very strong under the new policy framework, focused on inflation seriously threatening the upside of the RBNZ's 1-3% target band. Economy Looking Sluggish After last week's monetary policy meeting, where the central bank kept the Overnight Cash Rate at 1.75% and downgraded its growth projections, Orr noted that the markets had "finally seemed to listen" to the RBNZ's message that policy rates would be on hold for a long time. He pointed to the decline in the New Zealand dollar (NZD) to a six-month low following the meeting as a "good thing for a trading nation" like New Zealand.4 His blunt, yet cautious, tone fits with developments in the New Zealand economy of late. Growth slowed over the course of 2017, with real GDP expanding at a 2.9% year-over-year rate in the fourth quarter after averaging 3.5% growth since 2014. The two major drags on growth were consumer spending and residential investment, both of which decelerated from unsustainably high growth rates in the prior few years that were fueled by high rates of net immigration (Chart 7). In the May 2018 Monetary Policy Report (MPR) released last week, the RBNZ noted that it expects net immigration to fall for three reasons: a strengthening Australian labor market, tighter visa requirements and the departure of those with temporary visas.5 The RBNZ is projecting immigration levels will steadily decline over the next four years, returning to levels last seen in 2011 in 2020, which will cause consumer spending growth to slow from over 4% to 2% by the end of the projection period (middle panel). That will also act as a major drag on housing activity, with no significant growth in real residential investment expected until 2020 (bottom panel). This will come on top of other regulatory changes introduced in 2016 to cool an overheated housing market (limiting loan-to-value ratios on mortgage lending). The RBNZ now expects real GDP growth to slow to 2.8% in 2018, a pace below its estimate of potential GDP growth of 3.2%. Not only is consumer spending and housing expected to slow, but the business sector is also projected to remain sluggish. Business confidence and capacity utilization are both well off the 2017 peak, thanks mainly to the slump in the dairy sector, which remains a critical part of the New Zealand economy (Chart 8). The fall in dairy prices and milk production was reportedly caused by poor weather conditions and falling demand from China, but the declines may be bottoming out (bottom panel). Besides the agricultural sectors, manufacturing and service sectors are still in decent shape, with the PMIs for both still above 50 even after last year's declines (top panel). The softer China demand story is not just about dairy, however. Growth in overall export demand from China has slowed dramatically over the past year, from 50% year-on-year down to -4.3% in March (Chart 9, 2nd panel). Australian export demand has also decelerated, which is critical given that those two countries represent 40% of total New Zealand exports. The RBNZ export survey, which has been a reliable leading indicator for New Zealand export growth, shows that exports are likely to continue falling over the next 6-8 months (top panel). With the overall commodity price index have clearly slowed (bottom panel), it is likely that the terms of trade will remain a drag on New Zealand economic growth, and the NZD, through a deteriorating current account deficit (now -3% of GDP) in the coming months. Chart 7Immigration-Fueled Growth Set To Reverse In NZ Chart 8Dairy Still Matters For NZ Chart 9NZ Exports Getting Hit Where's The Inflation? Despite the recent cooling of growth, the New Zealand unemployment rate is well below the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU. Unlike other developed market countries with low unemployment rates, however, New Zealand's labor force participation rate is currently close to an historical high near 71% (Chart 10). While a high participation rate should mean that New Zealand is truly at full employment, wage growth remains anemic even with booming levels of job vacancies (3rd panel). The growth in average hourly pay for overall workers is still below the rate of headline CPI inflation, although this will get a bump with a 4.8% minimum wage increase being adapted last month. Overall, New Zealand's headline CPI inflation reached the RBNZ's target rate only once in Q1 2017, after several years of staying below that 2% benchmark, then started to slow down again over the rest of last year (Chart 11). Currently, headline and core CPI inflation are only 1.1% and 0.9%, respectively. This is now at the lower bound of the RBNZ's 1-3% target band, justifying the central bank's dovish bias. Chart 10Low Unemployment With No Wage Growth Chart 11No Inflation Problems For The New RBNZ Governor Within the main components of the index, non-tradables (i.e. domestically based) inflation has maintained stable growth near 2%, but tradables (i.e. globally based) prices are in outright deflation. This remains the biggest source for the undershoot of the RBNZ's inflation target over the past year - shockingly, a period when oil prices surged higher and the trade-weighted NZD softened. Yet the low levels of inflation are not filtering though into household expectations, with survey data showing that inflation is expected to stay above 2% next year, and even rise to 3% over the next five years. Policy To Stay On Hold For A Lot Longer The RBNZ is not as optimistic as households on inflation, however. The central bank is projecting that the headline CPI index will only rise by 1.1% in 2018 and will not return to the 2% target until 2021. On the back of this, the RBNZ is also projecting that the Overnight Cash Rate will remain at 1.75% until the end of 2020. Chart 12NZ Bonds Will Continue To Outperform The market is still pricing in one 25bp rate hike over the next 12 months, according to our calculations from the Overnight Index Swaps market (Chart 12). We see no reason for the RBNZ to not be taken at its word about holding rates steady, especially given the new dovish elements of the RBNZ's revised mandate. With price and wage inflation still so surprisingly low, the RBNZ can go for its maximum employment mandate and maintain highly accommodative monetary conditions. This includes both low policy rates and keeping the currency as weak as possible. We would recommend leaning against the mild increase in New Zealand bond yields, and the modest flattening of the yield curve, currently priced into the forwards (3rd and 4th panels). That suggests maintaining an above-benchmark duration stance for dedicated New Zealand fixed income investors. It also means adapting a bullish stance on New Zealand government bonds from a relative perspective to other developed markets. We are maintaining our current recommended spread trades for 5-year New Zealand bonds versus 5-year U.S. Treasuries and 5-year German debt. We have maintained the U.S. trade on a currency-hedged basis, as we typically do with all our recommendations. For the New Zealand-Germany spread trade, however, we made a rare exception and entered that trade on an unhedged basis. This was because we had a strong view that the euro would depreciate against most major currencies last year, including the NZD. That did not occur last year as the euro surged higher, which meant that our New Zealand-Germany trade took losses as NZD/EUR declined. For now, we are keeping that trade on an unhedged basis given the depressed level of NZD/EUR, but we will keep a tight stop going forward in the event of a broader breakdown in the NZD. Bottom Line: New Zealand government bonds have been a star outperformer over the past year, as inflation has eased and the RBNZ has kept rates steady. With the economy set to slow in response to weaker immigration inflows, and with inflation still languishing well below the central bank's target, expect continued outperformance of New Zealand debt versus developed market peers. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Distant Early Warning", dated May 30 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-economy-finmin/new-zealand-finance-minister-says-new-rbnz-governor-must-take-on-dual-mandate-idUSKBN1DG0EY?il=0 4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-economy-rbnz-orr/rbnz-governor-says-markets-finally-getting-the-hint-on-low-rates-idUSKBN1IC0LS 5 https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary-policy/monetary-policy-statement/mps-may-2018 Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Overweight Despite a blockbuster earnings season, banks have come under pressure recently. Worrisomely, they have not followed the 10-year Treasury yield higher and that is cause for concern, particularly since they have re-established a correlation with the yield curve. This positive correlation shift from interest rates to the yield curve slope is important as it will likely squeeze banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver (second panel). The third and bottom panels show that there is increasing empirical evidence that banks have already started making this transition away from the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve, and we are thus compelled to book profits and remove this early cyclical index from the high-conviction overweight call list. The S&P banks index is now also on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks for now, but lock in gains of 6% and remove the S&P banks index from the high-conviction overweight call list, as our confidence is not as high as in late-November. Further, we are putting this key financials sub index on downgrade alert reflecting the negative implication from our later stages of the business cycle analysis (please see our Weekly Report for our analysis of the business cycle). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Our confidence in additional significant bank relative price gains has decreased. There is budding evidence that the bank/yield curve correlation is getting re-established, as we had posited last autumn, and coupled with later cycle dynamics signal that the bank outperformance is getting long in the tooth. Recent Changes Crystalize gains of 6% in the S&P banks index and remove from the high-conviction overweight call list. Put the S&P banks index on downgrade alert. Prefer large caps to small caps (please refer to the May 10th Sector Insight). Table 1 Feature Equities staged a breakout attempt last week and the SPX reclaimed the 50-day moving average, with the energy sector leading the pack. However, the lateral move in place over the past quarter is not over yet as the market is still digesting the February 5th drawdown. Importantly, EPS euphoria cannot last forever and the inevitable profit growth deceleration post the calendar 2018 onetime tax reform fillip is weighing on the market. The 12-month forward EPS growth rate has come down to 15%, and as we move into the back half of 2018 it will continue to glide toward a still impressive 10% (or two times nominal GDP growth), which is where the calendar 2019 estimate currently stands (Chart 1). Following up from last week's 'Til Debt Do Us Part' Special Report, the overall market's (ex-financials and ex-real estate) 'Altman Z-score' is waving a mini yellow flag. Cyclical momentum in this indicator is giving way and the broad market's deteriorating creditworthiness is also, at the margin, anchoring profit growth (Chart 2). Chart 1Unsustainable EPS Euphoria Chart 2Watching Balance Sheets... Nevertheless, we remain constructive on the broad market from a cyclical 9-12 month horizon as the odds of recession are close to nil, and interpret recent market action as a sign of resiliency. The SPX refuses to give way to the bearish narrative plagued by geopolitical uncertainty/fears and slowing global growth. Chart 3 shows an extremely economically sensitive indicator, lumber, alongside the ISM manufacturing survey. Since 1969 when lumber futures first commenced trading, these two series have been tightly positively correlated. Recently, a rare and steep divergence is visible and our inclination is to expect all-time high lumber prices to arrest the ISM's fall in the coming months. True, lumber prices reflect a NAFTA-related premium and at the current juncture cannot be fully trusted that they are emitting an accurate economic signal. We, thus, resort to another - daily reported - global growth barometer, the Baltic Dry Index (BDI). The third panel of Chart 3 shows that a wide gap has opened between the ISM manufacturing index and the BDI. If our assessment is correct and this global growth soft patch is transitory, then the ISM will remain squarely clear of the 50 boom/bust line. Taken together, these two economically sensitive high frequency series comprise our Global Trade Indicator which is underscoring that global export growth will pick up in the back half of the year (bottom panel, Chart 3). Finally, on the domestic freight front,1 the composite freight index is also reaccelerating, signaling that domestic demand conditions are firing on all cylinders (fourth panel, Chart 3). Circling back to profit growth, long-term S&P 500 EPS growth expectations have vaulted to the highest level since the dotcom bubble (bottom panel, Chart 4). While in isolation, this measure signals we are in overshoot territory and such breakneck EPS growth is clearly unsustainable, the SPX PEG ratio tells a different story (we divide the 12-month forward price to earnings ratio by the long-term EPS growth rate to arrive at the current reading near 1 on the S&P 500 PEG ratio, Chart 4). Chart 3...But Economy Is Humming Chart 4Market Is Cheap According To PEG Ratio On this valuation measure the SPX appears cheap. Historically, every time the PEG ratio has sunk to one standard deviation below the mean, at least a reflex rebound ensued. Table 2 summarizes the five most recent iterations we included in the analysis since 1985. While we cannot rule out a steep undershoot, if history at least rhymes, the S&P should be higher in the subsequent 12 months (Chart 5). Chart 5SPX Cycle-On-Cycle Return Profile When The PEG Ratio Gets Depressed Table 2S&P 500 Yearly Returns* This week we are removing an early cyclical index from our high-conviction call list, locking in handsome profits, and updating a high-beta energy sub-index. Put Banks On Downgrade Watch Despite a blockbuster earnings season, banks have come under pressure recently. Worrisomely, they have not followed the 10-year Treasury yield higher and that is cause for concern. We first cautioned last October that banks would shatter their near one-to-one relationship with the 10-year UST yield and re-establish it with the yield curve likely in the back half of 2018 as the Fed would further lift the fed funds rate away from the zero lower bound.2 This positive correlation shift from interest rates to the yield curve slope is important as it will likely squeeze banks' net interest margins, a key profit driver (Chart 6). Charts 7 & 8 show that there is increasing empirical evidence that banks have already started making this transition away from the 10-year UST yield and toward the 10/2 yield curve, and we are thus compelled to book profits of 6% and remove this early cyclical index from the high-conviction overweight call list. The S&P banks index is now also on downgrade alert. Chart 6NIM Trouble? Chart 7Monitoring Shifting... Chart 8...Correlations What would cause us to change our yearlong cyclical constructive view and move to a benchmark allocation, is a lack of relative price outperformance in the next 10-year Treasury yield jump. Crudely put, if banks fail to best the market when the bond market further sells off roughly to 3.25%, as BCA's fixed income strategists expect, we will pull the trigger and downgrade to a neutral stance. Another reason we are likely to become more wary of bank relative performance in the coming quarters is the stage of the business cycle. Importantly, we wanted to test our hypothesis that in the late/later stages of the expansion early cyclicals, banks included, fare poorly. Therefore, at some point we should move away from our sanguine view on this index and not overstay our welcome as the current expansion has become the second longest on record according to the NBER designated recessions. In more detail, what we did to test this hypothesis was to document relative bank performance from when the ISM manufacturing peaked for the cycle until the recession commenced going back to the 1960s (Chart 9). Table 3 aggregates the results using monthly data. What is clear is that if the recession is a financial crisis related recession, then shy away from banks. But, in 4 out of the 7 last cycles dating back to the 1960s, banks outperformed the broad market in the later stages of the business cycle. Chart 9Banks Tend To Slump In Later Stages Of The Cycle Table 3Late Cycle Analysis Nevertheless, breaking down the results in two periods is instructive. One period recalibrates the bank relative returns from the ISM peak until the SPX peak, and the second one from the SPX peak until the recession commences (Table 3). Banks clearly underwhelm 4 out of the 7 iterations as the SPX crests, confirming our negative return hypothesis. Subsequently, as the SPX deflates when the economy heads into recession, relative bank performance significantly improves with the caveat that during financial crises, banks continue to bleed (in an upcoming Special Report we will be performing the same analysis on the GICS1 U.S. equity sectors, stay tuned). Two weeks ago we lifted our peak SPX target to 3200,3 and the implication is that banks' best days have likely passed, if history at least rhymes. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks for now, but lock in gains of 6% and remove the S&P banks index from the high-conviction overweight call list, as our confidence is not as high as in late-November.4 Further, we are putting this key financials sub index on downgrade alert reflecting the negative implication from our later stages of the business cycle analysis. We are closely monitoring the yield curve slope and interest rate correlation with bank performance, and if banks refrain from participating in the next leg up in interest rates it will serve as a catalyst to prune exposure to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB. Energy Servicers: The Phoenix Is Rising Quarter-to-date the S&P energy services index is up 12% compared with the 2% rise in the broad market. Even year-to-date, oil servicing companies have bested the market by 600bps. The steep rebound in oil prices primarily lies behind such stellar outperformance, and BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy still-upbeat crude oil view is a harbinger of even brighter days ahead for this high-beta energy sub sector (Chart 10). While we are exploring our capex upcycle theme via a high-conviction overweight in the broad S&P energy index, oil services companies are also a prime beneficiary of our synchronized global capital outlays upcycle theme. In fact, relative share price momentum does not yet fully reflect the rebound in industry investment (using national accounts) that remains in a V-shaped recovery since the Q1/2016 oil market trough (second panel, Chart 11). Importantly, OPEC 2.0 and $70/bbl oil prices have resulted in a semblance of normality in the E&P space (a key industry client) that has lifted spending budgets (bottom panel, Chart 11). The upshot is that energy services revenues will continue to expand (Chart 11). Energy related capital spending budgets are not only rising in the U.S. (primarily in shale oil), but also globally. The global rig count is breaking out, and declining OECD oil stocks suggest that drilling activity will remain robust (top and second panel, Chart 12). Chart 10Catch up Phase Chart 11Capex Upcycle... Chart 12...Beneficiary Taking the pulse of oil services industry slack is extremely important for profitability. Our global idle rig proxy is also making a breakout attempt following a massive two year plus retrenchment phase (top panel, Chart 13). Keep in mind that energy servicers have only recently exited deflation, that wreaked havoc in the sector's financial metrics. Now as a renormalization period is unfolding with higher underlying commodity prices breathing life into industry new order growth, even a modest pricing power rebound will go a long way in lifting depressed profits. In fact, new orders-to-inventories are in a reflex rebound. While such an exponential rise is unsustainable, firming oil services demand should continue to remove excess slack, a boon for industry selling prices and profits (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Sentiment toward this energy sub-index remains bombed out and there is widespread disbelief that this rebound is sustainable. Rather, the risk of a deflationary relapse has kept investors at bay pushing relative valuations deep into undervalued territory. Both our composite relative Valuation Indicator (VI) and relative price-to-book are hovering near all-time lows (bottom panel, Chart 12). Technicals are not as depressed as the VI reading, with the recent relative share price bounce lifting our relative Technical Indicator to the neutral zone (Chart 14). Chart 13Deflation Is Over Chart 14Unloved And Underowned In sum, there are more gains in store for the S&P energy services index. Firming industry demand at a time when global energy capital spending budgets are renormalizing, along with rising crude oil prices, signal that high-beta energy services equities have more running room. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P energy service index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRE -NOV, SLB, FTI, BHGE, HAL, HP. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 The freight transportation services index consists of: For-hire trucking (parcel services are not included); Freight railroad services (including rail-based intermodal shipments such as containers on flat cars); Inland waterway traffic; Pipeline movements (including principally petroleum and petroleum products and natural gas); and Air freight. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Later Cycle Dynamics," dated October 23, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Lifting SPX Target," dated April 30, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps
Highlights The labor market continues to tighten and pressure the Fed. Tightening financial conditions suggest more muted returns for U.S. dollar assets and are associated with a peak in cyclical sectors. BCA's proprietary Monetary Indicator (MI) has turned lower, indicating that liquidity is drying up. Assessing performance of financial markets and the economy as financial conditions tighten. Feature Chart 1Oil Prices And Breakevens##BR##Moving In Lock Step Oil prices rose last week, U.S. equity prices climbed and credit spreads narrowed. Energy prices surged in the wake of President Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA deal with Iran. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy team noted that the decision is unambiguously bullish for oil prices.1 Escalating geopolitical risks2 with Iran will add the potential for oil supply losses down the road and hence, add a premium to prices. Venezuelan oil production has been declining for the past two years, sitting at only 1.5 million b/d. The pace of future declines is unknown, but the potential for another steep contraction is worrisome as Venezuela's economic collapse continues and links in the oil export supply chain are breaking down. In light of these factors, BCA expects oil prices to test $90/bbl by the end of year. Importantly, inflation expectations are escalating along with oil prices (Chart 1). Continued upward pressure will have implications for monetary policy, particularly in the U.S. where inflation is approaching the Fed's target. The bottom panel of Chart 1 shows that the correlation between Brent crude and the 10-year Treasury breakeven swaps is positive and rising. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 3.28%.3 The Fed is poised to raise rates gradually this year and next as the labor market tightens further, pushing up wage inflation. Fed rate hikes will squeeze financial conditions and ultimately trigger the next recession in early 2020. Tightening financial conditions suggest more muted returns for U.S. dollar assets and are associated with a peak in cyclical sectors of the economy. Meanwhile, liquidity indicators remain generally favorable for financial assets and the U.S. economy. Nonetheless, BCA's proprietary Monetary Indicator (MI) has turned lower, indicating that liquidity is drying up. The March To 3.5% Data from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in April and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) in March support our stance that the slack in the U.S. labor market is tightening and will ultimately lead to higher wage inflation. As noted in last week's report,4 the U.S. economy created an average of 208,000 new jobs in the three months ending April and the unemployment rate fell to a new cycle low of 3.9%. Annual wage inflation moderated in April to just 2.6% from a recent high of 2.8% in January. Chart 2 shows that small business owners' compensation plans remained near all-time highs in April. This metric is closely aligned with the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and suggests further acceleration ahead for the ECI (panel 1). Job openings via the JOLTS data also hit a new zenith in March, creating an even wider gap between openings and hires (panel 2). Moreover, quits minus layoffs, another indicator of labor market slack, reached a record high (panel 3). The stout labor market has lifted the prime age (25-54 years) participation rate. BCA expects that the overall participation rate will remain flat in the next year or so. However, we concur with the Congressional Budget Office that due to demographics, the participation rate will drift lower in the next decade.5 Moreover, the robustness of the labor market is widespread. Charts 3A and 3B show the ratio of job openings to the number of unemployed in 10 sectors of the economy. The ratio is at an all-time high in 9 of the 10 sectors. The exception is the information sector, which includes industries such as newspaper and magazine publishing, broadcasting and telecommunications. Chart 2Labor Market Slack Is Disappearing Chart 3AStrength In The Labor Market... Chart 3B... Is Broad-Based Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market continued to tighten as Q2 began. BCA's stance is that the unemployment rate will fall to a 50-year low of 3.5% by mid-2019.6 The FOMC pegs the longer-term unemployment rate at 4.5%.7 The implication is that BCA and the FOMC expect the U.S. economy to continue to run below full employment this year. However, BCA's view is that the FOMC's forecast for the unemployment rate at the end of 2018 (3.8%) is too high and only marginally lower than the current 3.9%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking more quickly than the March 2018 dots forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. BCA expects the 2/10 curve to remain around 50bps until the inflation breakevens are re-anchored between 2.3% and 2.5% as upward pressure on the short end from Fed rate hikes is offset by the upward thrust of the breakevens on the long end.8 Stay underweight duration. How High Is High? Chart 4Cyclical Spending Suggests That##BR##Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative The uptrend in cyclical spending suggests that U.S. monetary policy remains accommodative for the time being. Chart 4 shows overall cyclical spending as a share of potential GDP (panel 1) and for sectors most sensitive to the business cycle and interest rates: consumer spending on durables (panel 2), capital spending (panels 3 and 4) and housing (panel 4). All of these metrics are in an uptrend, although the rate of increase has declined during the past few quarters because of slightly weaker consumer spending on durables. In last week's report, we noted that rising rates and tighter financial conditions will not impact household and business spending this year.9 Table 1 shows that since 1960 total cyclical spending as a share of potential GDP has peaked six quarters prior to the onset of a recession. Consistent with our prior research,10 housing reached a zenith several quarters before other sectors. On the other hand, business spending on commercial real estate topped out only a year before a recession. Housing also provides the earliest warning in long economic cycles,11 peaking 14 quarters before the end of an expansion. Overall, cyclical sectors in long expansions crest 10 quarters before the onset of a downturn. Bottom Line: The performance of cyclical segments of the economy suggests that monetary policy is still accommodative. A distinct peak in these sectors will signal that Fed policy has turned restrictive and that long-term rates are close to their cyclical highs. Until then, stay long stocks over bonds and underweight duration. Tightening liquidity and financial conditions are associated with peaks in the cyclical sectors of the economy. Table 1Recession Signals From Cyclical Sectors Of The Economy Liquidity And Financial Conditions While liquidity conditions are accommodative, they are not nearly as abundant as prior to the Lehman event. The October 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report on liquidity12 noted that monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the global financial crisis (GFC), is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years, according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is in the process of unwinding a massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. The gauges of liquidity have turned restrictive in recent months. Chart 5 shows M2 growth less GDP growth (top panel) along with monetary conditions and world reserves ex gold. Furthermore, the gap between nominal GDP growth and short rates has narrowed this year (Chart 6). Still, GDP growth is outpacing short rates, a sign that monetary liquidity is still present. Chart 5Monetary Liquidity Indicators (I) Chart 6Monetary Liquidity Indicators (II) Balance sheet liquidity for corporations, households and the banking sector remains supportive. The top panel of Chart 7 presents short-term assets-to-total liabilities for the corporate sector. It is a measure of readily available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on their balance sheets. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. The impact of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 may partially reverse this trend. Households are also very liquid when short-term assets are compared with income (panel 2). Liquidity is low as a share of individuals' total discretionary financial portfolios, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. In the banking sector, short-term assets as a percentage of total bank credit has climbed in the past decade as banks were forced to hold more liquid assets in the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart 8Banking Sector Liquidity Charts 9 and 10 show market liquidity in the U.S. equity and high-yield markets. For the equity market, we present the one-year moving average of trading volume divided by shares outstanding or share turnover to get a sense of relative liquidity between firms (Chart 9). This measure has improved in recent years, but remains compressed vis-a-vis pre-crisis levels. BCA's Equity Trading System favors firms with lower liquidity, since investors pay a premium for liquidity.13 Liquidity in the high-yield market has recovered in recent years, but flows into high-yield bond funds turned negative in mid-2017 (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2). Nonetheless, the default-adjusted junk spread remains below its long-term average (panel 3). BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service recommends investors overweight high-yield bonds relative to Treasuries.14 Chart 9Equity Market Liquidity Chart 10High Yield Bond Market Liquidity Funding liquidity - as measured by primary dealers' securities lending - has recovered from financial crisis lows, but has not reached pre-crisis highs (Chart 11, panel 1). Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. The uptrend in margin debt remains in place (panel 2). The steep escalation in this direct measure of funding liquidity is less impressive when compared with the S&P 500's market cap. Bank's lending standards for C&I loans are another measure of funding liquidity (Chart 12). These surveys reflect bank lending standards on loans to the household or corporate sectors. Nonetheless, a financial institution's appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is highly correlated. Lending standards eased in 2017 and in early 2018, but they are not as loose as they were earlier in this cycle or in the pre-crisis period (2005-2007). Chart 11Funding Liquidity:##BR##Securities Lending And Margin Debt Chart 12Funding Liquidity:##BR##Bank Lending Standards Perspective On Liquidity And Financial Conditions BCA expects that both monetary and financial conditions will constrict in the next year as inflation moves through the Fed's 2% target and the FOMC gradually boosts rates in the next 12 months. A stronger dollar and higher bond yields will contribute to the tightening, but higher equity prices are an offset. Chart 13, Appendix Chart 1, and Tables 2 and 3 show BCA's MI versus key U.S. financial assets and commodities, and U.S. economic variables. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Moreover, BCA's stocks-to-bonds ratio rises, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds outperform Treasuries. However, oil prices struggle in this environment (Chart 13 and Table 2). Chart 13Risk Assets When BCA's Proprietary Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero Table 2Performance Of Risk Assets When Monetary Indicator Is Above Zero Table 3Performance Of Risk Assets When Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero When MI is below zero, on the other hand, economic performance is mixed. GDP growth, cyclical spending as a share of GDP, and employment tend to peak when the MI is decelerating, but recessions rarely occur when the MI is negative (Appendix Chart 1, panels 2, 3 and 4). Core inflation often peaks when the MI is above zero (not shown). However, the MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. Table 3 indicates the performance of U.S. financial assets when the MI is below zero. We used the periods in which the MI was persistently below zero to avoid false signals. Note that the average and median returns for most asset classes in Table 3 (MI below zero) are well below those in Table 2 (MI above zero). Notable exceptions are oil and the dollar, which strengthen when the MI is below zero. S&P 500 earnings growth struggles during this episodes. Chart 14, Appendix Chart 2, and Tables 4 and 5 present financial conditions versus key U.S. financial assets and commodities, and U.S. economic variables. BCA expects the financial conditions index (FCI) to decline further into negative territory in the next few years. U.S. equities and credit tend to perform better when the FCI rises (Table 4) rather than when it falls (Table 5). However, when it does fall, gold and oil are stronger. Chart 14Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Tighten Table 4Performance Of Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Are Easing Table 5Performance Of Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Are Tightening Moreover, we note that GDP growth and cyclical spending as a share of GDP often peak when FCI drops. Employment and inflation are mixed at best when the FCI decelerates (Appendix Chart 2). Bottom Line: The U.S. economy is growing above its long-term potential, the labor market is tightening and inflation is at the Fed's target but poised to move higher next year. The Fed will increase rates to cool the overheating economy. Therefore, liquidity and financial market conditions will deteriorate further in the next year as Treasury yields increase and the dollar climbs in tandem with a more aggressive Fed. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," published May 9, 2018. Available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," published March 28, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Coming To Grips With Gradualism," published May 9, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Stressing The Housing And Consumer Sectors," published May, 7 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/workingpaper/53616-wp-laborforceparticipation.pdf 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Waiting...," published March 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20180321.pdf 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics," published April 17, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stressing The Housing And Consumer Sectors," published May 7, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "2018: Synchronized Global Growth," published December 4, 2017, and "Drives U.S. Economy And Markets," published December 4, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published November 24, 2016. Available at bca.bcarearch.com. 12 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," published October 2017. Available at bca.bcarearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Research's Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top-Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," published December 3, 2015. Available at ets.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Coming To Grips With Gradualism," published May 8, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Chart 1The Economy When Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero Appendix Chart 2The Economy When Financial Conditions Are Tightening
Highlights Tinbergen's rule says that the successful implementation of economic policy requires there to be at least as many "instruments" as "objectives." Policymakers today are increasingly discovering that they have too many of the latter but not enough of the former. By turning fiscal policy into a political tool rather than one for macroeconomic stabilization, the U.S. has found itself in a position where it can either meet President Trump's goal of having a smaller trade deficit or the Fed's goal of keeping the economy from overheating, but not both. In the near term, we expect the Fed's priorities to prevail. This will keep the dollar rally intact, which could spell bad news for some emerging markets. Longer term, the Fed, like most other central banks, must confront the vexing problem that the interest rate necessary to prevent asset bubbles from frequently forming may be higher than the rate necessary to keep the economy near full employment. Getting inflation up a bit may be one way to mitigate this problem, as it would allow nominal interest rates to rise without pushing real rates into punitive territory. This suggests that the structural path for bond yields is up, consistent with our thesis that the 35-year bond bull market is over. Feature Constraints And Preferences The late Jan Tinbergen was one of the great economists of the twentieth century. Often referred to as the father of econometrics, Tinbergen and Ragnar Frisch were the first people to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1969. One of Tinbergen's most enduring contributions was his demonstration that the successful implementation of economic policy requires there to be at least as many "instruments" (i.e., policy tools) as "objectives" (i.e., policy goals). Just like any system of equations can be "overdetermined" or "underdetermined," any set of "policy functions" may have a unique solution, many solutions, or no solution at all. The first outcome corresponds to a situation where there are as many instruments as objectives, the second where there are more instruments than objectives, and the third where there are fewer instruments than objectives. In essence, the Tinbergen rule is a mathematical formulation of the idea that it is hard to hit two birds with one stone. The Tinbergen rule often comes up in macroeconomics. Consider a country that wants to have a low and stable unemployment rate (what economists call "internal balance") and a current account position that is neither too big nor too small ("external balance"). This amounts to two objectives, which can be realized with the right mix of two instruments: Monetary and fiscal policy. As discussed in greater detail in Appendix A, the classic Swan Diagram, named after Australian economist Trevor Swan, shows how this is done. Chart 1Spain: The Cost Of The Crisis If the country wants to add a third objective to its list of policy goals, it has to either give up one of its existing objectives or find an additional policy instrument. Suppose, for example, that a country wants to move to a pegged exchange rate. It can either forego monetary independence, or introduce capital controls in order to allow domestic interest rates to deviate from the interest rates of the economy to which it is pegging its currency. This is the logic behind Robert Mundell's "Impossible Trinity," which states that an economy cannot simultaneously have all three of the following: A fixed exchange rate, free capital mobility, and an independent central bank. It can only choose two items from the list. Peripheral Europe learned this lesson the hard way in 2011. Not only did euro membership deny Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland access to an independent monetary policy and a flexible currency, but the ECB's failure under the bumbling leadership of Jean-Claude Trichet to backstop sovereign debt markets necessitated fiscal austerity at a time when these economies needed stimulus. These countries were left with no effective macro policy instruments whatsoever, thus putting them at the complete mercy of the bond vigilantes, German politicians, and the multilateral lending agencies. The only thing they could do was incur a brutal internal devaluation to make themselves more competitive. Even for "success stories" such as Spain, the cost in terms of lost output was over one-third of GDP (Chart 1) - and probably much more if one includes the deleterious effect on potential GDP growth from the crisis. Trump Versus Tinbergen One might think that the U.S. is largely immune from Tinbergen's rule. It is not. President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have rammed through massive tax cuts and spending increases (Chart 2). By doing so, they have turned fiscal policy into a political tool rather than one for macroeconomic stabilization. In and of itself, that is not an insuperable constraint since monetary policy can still be used to achieve internal balance. The problem is that Trump has also declared that he wants external balance, meaning a much smaller trade deficit. Now we have two policy objectives (full employment and more net exports) and only one available instrument: Monetary policy. Chart 2The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline This puts the Fed in a bind. If the Fed hikes rates aggressively, this will keep the economy from overheating, thus achieving internal balance. But higher rates are likely to bid up the value of the dollar, leading to a larger trade deficit. On the flipside, if the Fed drags its feet in raising rates, the dollar could weaken, resulting in a smaller trade deficit and moving the economy closer to external balance. However, the combination of low real interest rates, a weaker dollar, and dollops of fiscal stimulus will cause the unemployment rate to fall further, leading to higher inflation. Investor uncertainty about which path the Fed will choose may be partly responsible for the gyrations in the dollar of late. At least for the next year or so, our guess is that the Fed's independence will keep it on course to raise rates more than the market is currently pricing in, which will result in a stronger dollar. Beyond then, the picture is less clear. This is partly because the increasing politicization of society may begin to affect the Fed's behavior. History suggests that inflation tends to be higher in countries with less independent central banks (Chart 3). But it is also because Tinbergen's ghost is likely to make another appearance, this time in a wholly different way. Chart 3Inflation Tends To Be Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks The Fed's "Other" Mandate Officially, the Fed has two mandates: ensuring maximum employment and stable prices. In practice, this "dual mandate" can be boiled down to a single policy objective: Keeping the unemployment rate near NAIRU, the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. The Fed has sought to meet this objective through the use of countercyclical monetary policy: Easing monetary policy when output falls below potential and tightening it when the economy is at risk of overheating. So far, so good. The problem is that the Fed, like most other central banks, is being asked to take on another policy objective: ensuring financial stability. Here's the rub though: The interest rate necessary to prevent asset bubbles from frequently forming may be higher than the rate necessary to keep the economy near full employment. Excessively low rates are a threat to financial stability. A decline in interest rates pushes up the present value of expected cash flows; the lower the discount rate, the more of an asset's value will depend on cash flows that may not be realized for many years. This tends to increase asset market volatility. In addition, borrowers need to devote a smaller share of their incomes towards servicing their debt obligations when interest rates are low. This tends to increase debt levels. From The Great Moderation To The Great Intemperance Starting in the 1990s, far from entering an era which policymakers once naively referred to as the "Great Moderation," it is possible that the world entered a precarious period where the only way to generate enough spending was to push down interest rates so much that asset bubbles became commonplace. In a world where central bankers have to choose between insufficient demand and recurrent asset bubbles, the idea of a "neutral rate" loses much of its meaning. By definition, the neutral rate is a steady-state concept. However, if the interest rate that produces full employment and stable inflation is so low that it also generates financial instability, how can one possibly describe this interest rate as "neutral"? Faced with the increasingly irreconcilable twin objectives of keeping the unemployment rate near NAIRU and putting the financial system on the straight and narrow, central bankers have reached out for a second policy instrument: macroprudential regulations. So far, however, the jury is still out on whether this tool is sufficiently powerful to prevent future financial crises. Politics has a bad habit of getting in the way of effective regulation. President Trump and the Republicans have been looking for ways to water down the Dodd-Frank Act. The Democrats are complaining that banks and other financial institutions are not doing enough to channel credit to various allegedly "underserved" groups. Faced with such political pressure, it is not clear that regulators can do their jobs. If You Can't Raise r-Star, Raise i-Star What is the Fed to do? One possibility may be to aim for somewhat more inflation. A higher inflation target would allow the Fed to raise nominal policy rates while still keeping real rates low enough to maintain full employment. Higher nominal rates would impose more discipline on borrowers and discourage excessive debt accumulation. Higher inflation would also reduce the likelihood of reaching the zero bound again, while also limiting the economic fallout of asset busts. The Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index declined by 34% in nominal terms and 41% in real terms between April 2006 and March 2012. Had inflation averaged 4% over this period rather than 2.2%, a 41% decline in real home prices would have corresponded to a less severe 26% decrease in nominal prices, resulting in fewer underwater mortgages. Finally, higher inflation would allow countries to increase nominal income growth. In fact, higher inflation may be the only viable way to reduce debt-to-GDP ratios in a high-debt, low-productivity growth world. Investment Conclusions We advised clients on July 5, 2016 that we had reached "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market." As fate would have it, this was the exact same day that the 10-year yield reached an all-time closing low of 1.37%. Bond positioning is very short now (Chart 4), so a partial retracement in yields is probable. Cyclically and structurally, however, the path for yields is up. Much like what transpired between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s, investors should expect global bond yields to reach a series of "higher highs" and "higher lows" with each passing business cycle (Chart 5). Chart 4Traders Are Short Treasurys Chart 5A Template For The Next Decade? Just as was the case back then, the Fed is now behind the curve in raising rates. The three-month and six-month annualized change in core PCE has reached 2.6% and 2.3%, respectively. Yesterday's CPI report was softer than expected, but the miss was almost entirely due to a deceleration in used car prices and airfares, both of which are likely to be temporary. Meanwhile, the labor market remains strong. The unemployment rate is down to 3.9%, just slightly above the 2000 low of 3.8%. According to the latest JOLTS survey released earlier this week, there are now more job openings than unemployed workers, the first time this has happened in the 17-year history of the survey (Chart 6). Faced with this reality, the Fed will keep begrudgingly raising rates until the economy slows. Right now, the real economy is not showing much strain from higher rates. The cyclical component of our MacroQuant model, which draws on a variety of forward-looking economic indicators, moved back into positive territory this week. Both the housing market and capital spending are in reasonably good shape (Chart 7). Chart 6There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 7Higher Rates Have Not (Yet) Slowed The Economy The U.S. financial sector should also be able to weather further monetary tightening. Corporate debt has risen, but overall U.S. private-sector debt as a percent of GDP is still 18 percentage points lower than in 2008 (Chart 8). Lenders are also more circumspect than they were before the Great Recession. For example, banks have been tightening lending standards on credit and automobile loans, which should reverse the increase in delinquency rates seen in those categories (Chart 9). Chart 8U.S. Private Debt Still Below Pre-Recession Levels Chart 9Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days Resilience to Fed tightening may not extend to the rest of the world, however. Following the script of the late 1990s, it is likely that the combination of higher U.S. rates and a stronger dollar will cause some emerging markets to fall out of bed before U.S. financial conditions have tightened by enough to slow U.S. growth (Chart 10). This week's turbulence in Turkey and Argentina may be a sign of things to come. For now, investors should underweight EM assets relative to their developed market peers. Chart 10Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com APPENDIX A The Swan Diagram The Swan Diagram depicts four "zones of economic unhappiness," each one representing the different ways in which an economy can deviate from "internal balance" (low and stable unemployment) and "external balance" (an optimal current account position). A rightward movement along the horizontal axis represents an easing of fiscal policy, whereas an upward movement along the vertical axis represents an easing in monetary policy. All things equal, easier monetary policy is assumed to result in a weaker currency. The internal balance schedule is downward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a tightening in monetary policy in order keep the unemployment rate stable. The external balance schedule is upward sloping because easier fiscal policy raises aggregate demand, which results in higher imports, and hence a deterioration in the trade balance. To bring imports back down, the currency must weaken. Any point to right of the internal balance schedule represents overheating; any point to the left represents rising unemployment. Likewise, any point to the right of the external balance schedule represents a larger-than-acceptable current account deficit, whereas any point to the left represents an excessively large current account surplus. Appendix Chart 1Four Zones Of Unhappiness Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Underweight (High Conviction) News of a renewed attempt at a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile has weighed heavily on shares in the S&P telecom services index. Shares sold off on fears that a mightier competitor with the heft to invest in a 5G network would continue the price deflation of the past several years, which has only recently started to turn a corner (second panel). It has only been three months since we downgraded the S&P telecom services index to underweight and added it to our high-conviction list. A combination of negative headlines and higher Treasury yields (which are negatively correlated with high-dividend yielding telecom services stocks, top panel) has meant that our trade has racked up an impressive 13.5% gain versus the broad market in a short time. While S&P telecom services remains a high-conviction underweight, such rapid gains are likely unsustainable, particularly in the context of already-deeply discounted valuations (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Stay underweight the telecom services index. From a portfolio management perspective, this morning we suggest that clients institute a stop in this high-conviction call at the 10% relative return mark, in line with our late-January introduced risk management policy.1 The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5TELS - T, VZ, CTL. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Too Good To Be True?" dated January 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.
Underweight In line with our renewed focus on balance sheets as a measure of risk in our portfolio positioning (please see this week's Special Report for more details), we have applied the same rigor to our size bias. With elevated debt levels waving a red flag, today we are acting on our downgrade alert and recommend a large over small cap bias. Over the past decade, the Goldman Sachs weak/strong equity baskets share price ratio has moved in tandem with the small/large share price ratio (SLR, top panel). However, a large and exploitable gap has opened recently that will likely narrow via a convergence lower in the SLR. Respective net debt-to-EBITDA ratios corroborate this downbeat relative indebtedness backdrop, which have seen small caps binging on debt (middle panel); a resulting widening relative equity risk premium should precipitate a decline in small caps relative to their large cap peers. When the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is expressed as a year-over-year change, it is an excellent leading indicator of relative share price momentum (bottom panel); currently, the signal is crystal clear: over-levered small caps appear destined to underperform better capitalized large cap stocks. Bottom line: We are executing our downgrade alert and moving to a large over small cap preference.