Developed Countries
Our Consumer Discretionary Cyclical Macro Indicator (CMI) has snapped back after a tough year, driven by improving real wage growth. Higher home prices, a tighter labor market and increasing disposable income have consumers feeling flush, which should boost discretionary outlays. Importantly, consumer deleveraging is far advanced with the debt service ratio hovering near decade lows. Further, our Consumer Drag Indicator remains near its modern high, suggesting EPS gains will prove resilient. Although somewhat expensive from a historical perspective, our Valuation Indicator (shown in this week's Cyclical Indicator Update) remains close to the neutral zone, underscoring that profits will be the primary sector price driver. Our Technical Indicator (shown in this week's Cyclical Indicator Update) has fully recovered from oversold levels, and is flirting with the buy zone, underscoring additional recovery potential. We continue to recommend an overweight position, favoring the media-oriented sub-indices.
Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. TIPS: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of disappointing realized inflation and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our TIPS Financial Model. Inflation: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Feature Chart 1Bond Bear Takes A Pause Globally, a shift toward less accommodative monetary policy remains the dominant market theme. However, the U.S. bond selloff did pause last week following some disappointing macro data and comments from Fed policymakers that were interpreted as dovish. The market is now discounting 30 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, down slightly from the recent peak of 36 bps (Chart 1). The dovish comments came from Governor Lael Brainard in a July 11 speech1 and were echoed one day later by Fed Chair Janet Yellen in her semi-annual testimony to Congress.2 Both comments related to the stance of monetary policy in relation to its neutral (or equilibrium) level. In my view, the neutral level of the federal funds rate is likely to remain close to zero in real terms over the medium term. If that is the case, we would not have much more additional work to do on moving to a neutral stance. - Fed Governor Lael Brainard Because the neutral rate is currently quite low by historical standards, the federal funds rate would not have to rise all that much further to get to a neutral policy stance. - Fed Chair Janet Yellen Contextualizing "Neutral" Contrary to how many have interpreted the above remarks, neither Chair Yellen nor Governor Brainard meant to suggest that the rate hike cycle is close to finished. In fact, Yellen went on to say in her testimony that: ...we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years... This is the first important piece of context needed to understand how the Fed views the neutral rate. The Fed views the neutral rate as variable, and sees it increasing over time. This becomes clear when we look at the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections and note that the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. Second, the Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart 2 shows this estimate of the neutral rate alongside the real federal funds rate - deflated using 12-month trailing core PCE. We observe that the real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months, in part because the Fed lifted rates three times but also because inflation weakened. Chart 2Real Fed Funds Rate Getting Closer To Neutral We calculate that if the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays flat, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 at 0.02%, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. In sum, the LW neutral rate is a useful tool for assessing the path of Fed policy. If the real fed funds rate gets too close to neutral, then the Fed will probably need to see inflation rise before it delivers another hike. This would appear to be the situation we are in at the moment. We continue to expect that the Fed will start to unwind its balance sheet in September, but will need to see some signs that core inflation is increasing before lifting rates again. Our forecast still calls for higher core inflation during the next few months and another Fed rate hike in December (see section titled "Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month" below). A related issue is why the Fed thinks the neutral rate will rise during the next few years. In arguments that date back to Ben Bernanke's tenure,4 the Fed maintains that headwinds related to household deleveraging and balance sheet repair have depressed the neutral rate since the Great Recession and financial crisis. There is some evidence to support this stance. The LW neutral rate correlates quite strongly with the growth rate of household debt (Chart 3). Although the neutral rate hasn't kept pace so far this cycle, household debt is growing off an unusually low base (Chart 3, bottom panel) and that may mean it takes longer for the neutral rate to rise. There is one final important application for the neutral fed funds rate, and it relates to the timing of the corporate credit cycle (Chart 4). Typically, excess returns to corporate bonds do not start to decline until the following three criteria are met: Chart 3Household Leverage And The Neutral Rate Chart 4Neutral Rate Important For Credit Cycle Deteriorating corporate balance sheet health (Chart 4, panel 2) Restrictive monetary policy i.e. the fed funds rate above its neutral level (Chart 4, panel 3) Tightening bank lending standards (Chart 4, bottom panel) Notice that in the prior two cycles the real fed funds rate actually rose above the LW neutral level before our Corporate Health Monitor started to signal deteriorating corporate health. In contrast, corporate balance sheets have already aggressively added leverage this cycle and accommodative policy is the sole support for spreads. In this environment, we view inflation and the stance of Fed policy as the most important factors determining the medium term outlook for corporate bond returns.5 Policy Wildcard: A New Fed Chair In 2018 One potential wrinkle in our outlook for monetary policy is that Janet Yellen's term as Fed Chair will end in February 2018. If history is any guide, we should expect to learn the identity of the new Fed Chair sometime this fall. While we would not completely rule out the possibility that Janet Yellen is re-appointed, recently, the chatter is that Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee, is the frontrunner for the position (see Box). Box 1: Fed Chairs Since 1970 Gary Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have tended to select the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970 - 1978) was head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978 - 1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987 - 2006) served as the Chair of Ronald Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014 - present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team. Paul Volcker (1979 - 1987) was the lone exception to this rule, he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke were all reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. Chart 5Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 To see how the timing of the Fed Chair appointment can matter for markets in the short-term, we need only look back to the autumn of 2013 when two candidates - Larry Summers and Janet Yellen - were in the running for the position. Rightly or wrongly, Summers was viewed as the more hawkish candidate and once he withdrew from the race on September 15, the market's expected pace of rate hikes plunged and long-dated TIPS breakevens surged on the expectation of a more dovish Fed (Chart 5). Bottom Line: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. What's Driving The TIPS Breakeven Rate? We maintain an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities on the view that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates will eventually settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, once core inflation gets back to the Fed's 2% target. At the time of publication the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 1.76%. In that sense, we view the medium to longer-run driver of TIPS breakevens as the path of inflation itself. However, we also acknowledge that breakevens are highly correlated with other financial asset prices, which can explain many of the near-term moves (Chart 6). In fact, our TIPS Financial Model - a model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate based on the oil price, the dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio - was flagging that breakevens were far too wide earlier this year (Chart 6, panel 1). Through this lens, the year-to-date decline in breakevens can be attributed simply to overvaluation being wrung out of the market. Digging a little deeper into the model, we find that breakevens have maintained their strong positive correlation with energy prices this year (Chart 6, panel 2), while non-energy commodity prices exhibit a weaker positive correlation (Chart 6, panel 3). Interestingly, the negative correlation between breakevens and the trade-weighted dollar has broken down during the past year (Chart 6, bottom panel). If dollar weakness persists, we would eventually expect it to translate into higher realized inflation - via higher import prices - and also wider breakevens. Other pipeline inflation measures, which tend to correlate with breakevens, are sending mixed signals. Core PPI inflation for intermediate goods remains elevated (Chart 7, panel 2), while the supplier deliveries component of the ISM manufacturing survey is trending higher (Chart 7, panel 3). The prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing survey has followed breakevens lower (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6TIPS Breakevens: Financial Drivers Chart 7TIPS Breakevens: Pipeline Inflation Drivers Bottom Line: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of weak realized inflation data (Chart 7, panel 1) and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our Financial Model. Going forward, we expect TIPS breakevens to increase as the realized inflation data bounce back. Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month Core CPI increased just 0.12% month-over-month in June, marking the fourth consecutive downside surprise. The year-over-year growth rate also moderated from 1.74% to 1.71%, and the weakness was once again broad based across the four major components (Chart 8). The cost of shelter continues to decelerate from a high level, and our model - based largely on the rental vacancy rate - forecasts further moderation in the months ahead (Chart 8, panel 1). Core goods prices continue to deflate, though dollar weakness should filter through to higher core goods prices in the coming months (Chart 8, panel 2). In last week's report we showed that non-oil import prices have already moved higher in response to the weaker exchange rate.6 The big drag on inflation in recent months has been the failure of core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) to respond to rising wage pressures. The third panel of Chart 8 shows that core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) correlates strongly with the employment cost index. Further, the employment cost index itself has been accelerating since 2010 alongside improvement in the prime-age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 9). Chart 8Core CPI Components Chart 9Wages Will Grow As Labor Market Heals We expect wages will continue to accelerate as the labor market remains on a steadily improving path. Eventually this will bleed into core services inflation, as it has in the past. In the near term, the employment cost index for the second quarter will be a crucial input for the direction of both inflation and monetary policy. It will be released on July 28. Bottom Line: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170711a.htm 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20170712a.htm 3 Laubach, Thomas, and John C. Williams. 2003. "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), November, 1063-1070. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20121120a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights DM Rates Strategy: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. U.S. Corporate Bond Liquidity: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Feature Chart of the Week2013 Revisited Developed Market (DM) policymakers continue to push towards a less accommodative monetary stance. Last week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) became the second central bank to hike rates this year, following the Fed's earlier tightenings. The European Central Bank (ECB) continues to signal a move to reduce the pace of its asset purchases, likely to be announced at the September policy meeting. A very public debate has opened up among the members of the Bank of England (BoE) policy committee against the stagflationary backdrop of high inflation and cooling growth. This current backdrop is reminiscent of the 2013 synchronized global economic upturn that also put pressure on policymakers to become less accommodative according to our Central Bank Monitors (Chart of the Week). That year was terrible for government bonds, but spread product held in well given the solid growth backdrop. A big difference now is that there is greater evidence of diminished economic slack (lower unemployment rates, higher capacity utilization) than in 2013, so the underlying inflation pressures should be greater. Realized inflation rates remain subdued in most countries (excluding the U.K.), but central bankers are attributing that to temporary factors that should soon fade. That forecast may prove to be wrong, which risks a potential policy mistake if interest rates move up too much or too fast. For now, however, central banks are in charge and bond investors should position accordingly by limiting duration exposure and overweighting growth-sensitive assets like corporate bonds versus sovereign debt. A Country-By-Country Summary Of Our Interest Rate Views With central banks now in the process of adjusting policy settings to varying degrees, financial markets are starting to show a greater level of diversification than in previous years. This can be seen in the moves in bond yields, equity markets and currencies since the speech by ECB President Mario Draghi on June 27 that ignited the latest bond sell-off (Chart 2). The largest yield moves have occurred in the Euro Area, U.K., Canada and Australia, which have also coincided with currency strength and equity market underperformance in those countries. As the markets now try to sort out the growing divergences between monetary policies, this has opened up opportunities for diversification of duration exposures, country allocation and yield curve strategies. This week, we present a brief summary of our individual country recommendations for the remainder of the year. United States: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection The Fed remains on track for a move to begin reducing its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting, with another rate hike expected in December. The inflation data of late has started to raise concern among some FOMC members about how many more interest rate increases will be necessary for this tightening cycle. We expect U.S. growth to show solid improvement over the latter half of 2017, and for this current downdraft in realized inflation to soon bottom out led by tightening labor markets and the lagged impact of this year's decline in the U.S. dollar. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher in the months ahead, led more by rising inflation expectations that will bear-steepen the yield curve. (Chart 3) Chart 2Market Moves Since Draghi's Portugal Speech Chart 3U.S. Rates Strategy Summary Germany: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection France: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection Italy: underweight duration, underweight country allocation (versus Spain), steeper yield curve The ECB is clearly signaling that a taper of its asset purchase program will begin in 2018. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mario Draghi will speak at the upcoming Fed Jackson Hole conference in late August.1 Similar to his speech at the ECB Forum in late June, this will likely be another opportunity for Draghi to prepare financial markets and other central bankers for the ECB's policy shift. We expect an announcement of a "Fed-like" tapering of bond purchases that will begin in January and end sometime in the fourth quarter of 2018. A rate hike is still some time away, most likely in the first half of 2019 at the earliest. The ECB will want to see more signs of lower unemployment and sustainable higher core Euro Area inflation before contemplating higher short-term interest rates - especially given the likely positive impact on the euro from such a move that would risk an unwanted tightening of financial conditions. There is far more risk in longer-dated bond yields to reprice via higher term premia and/or inflation expectations, thus we are recommending a bearish stance not only on European duration and country allocation, but also a bias toward steeper yield curves (Chart 4 & Chart 5). Tapering will also put upward pressure on Peripheral European yields and spreads, particularly in Italy, as risk premiums normalize away from the tight levels seen during the ECB asset purchase program. We do not anticipate a rout in Italian debt given the current improvements in the domestic economy and the positive moves seen in consolidating and recapitalizing the troubled Italian banking sector. However, we do see continued underperformance of Italian debt versus Spanish sovereigns, thus we are maintaining an overweight stance on Spain versus Italy in our model bond portfolio (Chart 6). Chart 4Germany Rates Strategy Summary Chart 5France Rates Strategy Summary Chart 6Italy & Spain Strategy Summary U.K.: underweight duration, neutral country allocation, neutral yield curve We have been maintaining a neutral allocation to U.K. Gilts, but with an underweight duration exposure and a curve steepening bias (Chart 7). The growing rift among the members of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee does suggest that there could be more two-way risk in U.K. interest rates than at any time seen since last year's Brexit vote. The BoE responded to that political surprise with rate cuts and a new round of asset purchases, even though the U.K. economy was operating at full employment at the time and inflation pressures were rising. Now, the chickens have come home to roost for the BoE, with inflation remaining stubbornly high despite signs of slowing growth (Chart 8). With real wage growth slowing substantially and household saving rates at very low levels, the risk of a consumer spending slowdown - that the BoE was flagging earlier in the year - is increasing. Chart 7U.K. Rates Strategy Summary Chart 8Stagflation In The U.K. Given the ongoing uncertainties from the upcoming Brexit negotiations that will likely continue to weight on business confidence and investment spending, and with consumption likely to continue losing steam, we see little case for the BoE to seriously consider a rate hike before year-end. We are only recommending a neutral stance on Gilts, though, as realized inflation continues to run well above the BoE's target, supported by the stubbornly soft British pound. We continue to recommend a steepening bias on the Gilt curve until there is more decisive evidence that U.K. inflation is rolling over. Japan: overweight duration, maximum overweight country allocation, neutral yield curve and neutral inflation protection We continue to recommend a maximum overweight on Japanese government bonds (JGBs). JGBs are a low-beta market with the BoJ still targeting a 0% level on the benchmark 10-year yield, even as other global bond markets sell off. The BoJ has been particularly aggressive in capping any rise in JGB yields of late, offering to buy 10-year bonds in unlimited size and also increasing its purchases at shorter maturities (Chart 9). With Japanese inflation still struggling to stay in positive territory, even with the economy estimated to be operating at full employment, the BoJ will do the only thing it can do to put a floor under inflation - keep JGB yields at low levels to trigger a new wave of yen weakness and, hopefully, some imported inflation pressures via the currency. Against this backdrop, JGBs will continue to outperform other DM bond markets during this move towards strong growth and less accommodative monetary policies outside of Japan. Stay overweight Japan against global hedged bond benchmarks. Canada: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, flatter yield curve, long inflation protection We moved our Canadian country allocation to underweight last week in advance of the BoC's expected rate hike, but we had been recommending bearish Canadian trades (curve flatteners and spread wideners versus U.S. Treasuries) in our Tactical Overlay Trade Portfolio for much of the year so far.2 The BoC's 180-degree policy shift over the past month has taken many investors by surprise, but the very strong upturn in the Canadian economy is forcing the BoC into action. With the BoC now projecting the Canadian output gap to be closed this year, expect another one, even two, rate hikes by the end of 2017. This will put additional upward pressure on Canadian bond yields and bear-flatten the Canadian government bond yield curve (Chart 10). Australia: neutral duration, neutral country allocation, neutral curve Australia has been one of the trickier markets on which to have a strong opinion, given the combination of a tight labor market, low inflation, mixed readings on domestic demand and heavy exposure to China's economy. This has led us to be neutral across the board on Australian bonds (Chart 11). We will be covering the outlook for Australia in a Special Report to be published next week, in which we will re-examine our current Australia recommendations. Chart 9Japan Rates Strategy Summary Chart 10Canada Rates Strategy Summary Chart 11Australia Rates Strategy Summary Bottom Line: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. An Update On The State Of U.S. Corporate Bond Market Liquidity In the Fed's latest Monetary Policy Report, presented by Janet Yellen to the U.S. Congress last week, an entire section was devoted to the state of U.S. corporate bond market liquidity.3 The Fed's conclusion was that, according to many commonly used metrics like average bid/ask spreads, corporate debt has not become more difficult to trade in recent years. This goes against the intuition of many bond investors who have perceived a deterioration of liquidity in corporate credit markets since the 2008 Financial Crisis. The Fed likely felt compelled to dedicate three pages of its Monetary Policy Report to a topic as mundane as bond market functionality as a defense of its current regulatory framework for U.S. banks. The Fed has taken a lot of flak from major U.S. financial institutions, conservative free-market politicians and, since last November, the Trump White House over the "heavy-handed" rules shackling the banks. Chart 12U.S. Dealers Don't Matter Regulations such as the Volcker Rule and the Supplementary Leverage Ratio have almost certainly reduced the odds of another financial crisis caused by undercapitalized banks speculating in risky assets. Yet the critics continue to point out that banks which are more worried about meeting regulatory targets are less able to make loans or, in the case of investment banks, make markets in risky assets like corporate debt. This is important for bond investors given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks in corporate debt markets. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 of $280bn to only $20bn this year (Chart 12). Over the same period, the size of the U.S. corporate bond market has more than tripled to $6.5 trillion (using the market capitalization of the Barclays Investment Grade and High-Yield indices as a proxy). On the surface, that indicates that dealers held 10% of "the market" at the peak. Now, dealer inventories barely represent only 0.3% of corporate debt outstanding. While that is low, it is not much lower than the share of corporates held by dealers in the early 2000s. When looking at the full span of the available data, the huge dealer footprint in the U.S. corporate bond market in the years prior to the Financial Crisis was the exception and not the norm. Like most other market participants in those years, the investment banks were seduced by the extended period of low macro and market volatility and ended up taking too much risk on their balance sheets. Now, dealers are much more cautious when trading with clients, acting more as an "agent" that matches buyers and sellers for individual trades and less as a "principal" that holds the bonds themselves. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if dealers in their usual role as market-makers cannot be there to absorb the selling pressure from investors during market sell-offs. Yet corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis. According to data from SIFMA, average daily trading volumes in the U.S. corporate bond market rose from a low in 2008 of $14bn to $30bn in 2016 (Chart 13). Corporate bond issuance has surged as well, but corporate bond turnover - total annualized trading volumes relative to total bonds outstanding - has improved by nearly 35% since the 2008 low. In addition, the reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads (bottom panel). The Fed noted this in its Monetary Policy Report as a sign that market liquidity was not impaired since there were not many "unrealized arbitrage opportunities". It is evident that other market participants have picked up the slack from the dealers in U.S. corporate bond trading. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are the obvious candidate, led by the popular iShares HYG and the SPDR JNK funds that have a combined $30bn in assets under management. According to the Fed's database on the Financial Accounts of the United States (formerly known as the Flow of Funds), the share of corporate bonds held by all retail funds, including ETFs, soared from 6.5% in 2008 to nearly 19% in Q1 of this year (Chart 14). This nearly offset the decline in the share of corporates held directly by households, as individual investors shifted their preferences toward the ease of trading corporate debt ETFs over individual bonds. Chart 13U.S. Corporate Bond Market Turnover Has Improved Chart 14Shifting Ownership Patterns For U.S. Corporates Importantly, institutional investors like insurance companies and pension funds have seen their influence in corporate bond markets increase, as they now hold a combined 35% of corporate debt, up from 26% in 2008 (bottom two panels). These groups will likely control an even greater share of the corporate bond market in the years to come with the growing usage of so-called "all-to-all" electronic trading platforms like MarketAxess or Bloomberg that allow users to trade directly with each other. All-to-all has already established a major market footprint, as activity on MarketAxess now represents 16% of all trading volume in U.S. Investment Grade corporates and 34% for High-Yield, according to The Economist.4 This is a hugely important development. If more professional bond investors can now transact directly with one another, this helps to alleviate any reduction in market liquidity caused by a smaller dealer presence in the market. Even with so much evidence pointing to no serious liquidity problems in U.S. corporate debt, some worrisome issues remain. Chart 15Market Performance Leads Fund Inflows,##BR##Not Vice Versa Average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed.5 This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. This creates an effect where it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing, on average. Corporate bond ETFs are easier to trade than the underlying bonds held in the ETFs themselves. This has worried many investors who fear that a corporate bond market downturn could turn into a much larger rout if rapid ETF redemptions cause "fire sales" of the bonds held in the ETFs to quickly raise cash. Admittedly, the unique ETF structure - where the shares of the ETF are traded and not the underlying bonds, similar to a closed-end mutual fund - has not yet been tested in a true credit bear market. However, there have been several episodes of "risk-off" bond sell-offs over the past few years, most notably for High-Yield ETFs during the 2014/15 oil bear market, which did not result in any disorderly disruption of corporate bond markets. If anything, the historical experience of U.S. corporate bond mutual funds shows that net flows into funds tend to follow, and not lead, the performance of markets (Chart 15). This may exaggerate bond market moves at turning points but, in general, outflows are a symptom, not a cause, of corporate bond downturns. Net-net, we agree with the assessment of the Fed that corporate bond market liquidity shows little sign of impairment and does not represent a threat to market stability. Bottom Line: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/draghi-may-address-future-of-ecb-stimulus-at-jackson-hole-1499944342 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Dangerous Duration", dated July 11 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20170707_mprfullreport.pdf 4 https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21721208-greater-automation-promises-more-liquidity-investors-digitisation-shakes-up 5 http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/10/has-us-corporate-bond-market-liquidity-deteriorated.html Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index
Highlights BCA's Central Bank Monitors support the case for less stimulus. Yellen's "dovish" testimony does not change our Fed call. The BCA Beige Book Monitor and related indicators support our view on the economy and Fed. Maximum central bank policy divergence has not been reached. Too early to predict Trump's replacement for Yellen. Now that economic surprise index has bottomed, risk assets can outperform as the metric mean reverts. Some wage measures are accelerating as the economy approaches full employment. Feature Chart 1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets##BR##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Global bond investors were shocked in June when central bankers announced at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking what appeared to be a global recalibration of monetary policy. Until that time, investors had been lulled into a false sense of security that growth headwinds would prevent the Fed from hiking by more than once a year and keep the other major central banks on hold "indefinitely." The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, as they signaled less need for ultra-stimulative policies because the threat of deflation had diminished. Together with some better-than-expected U.S. economic data, this shift in tone led to a sharp sell-off in global bond markets (Chart 1). The BoC followed up last week by kicking off a prolonged tightening cycle. The central bank now expects the Canadian economy to reach full employment and hit the BoC's inflation targets by mid-2018, which is much earlier than expected. The global bond mini-rout actually began before the ECB Forum, when the ECB President gave a very upbeat description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service highlights that the Euro Area is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. Draghi's comments confirm that the ECB will announce this fall that a further tapering of its asset purchase program will take place in early 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank Monitors (CB), which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart 2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing became popular, but the measures are relevant again. All of our CB Monitors are in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan (although even that one appears on the verge of breaking above the critical zero line). The Monitors have been rising due more to their growth than their inflation components. Bond investors may be startled by the ECB's posture because inflation remains well below target in all the major economies except the U.K. What is most worrying is the recent deceleration in U.S. inflation, where the economy is very close to or at full employment. Almost all of the major central banks point to temporary factors that will soon fade, which would allow inflation to escalate toward the target. Our Aggregate Inflation Indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart 3). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart 2All In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart 3BCA Aggregate Inflation Indicators These and other indicators support our view that core consumer price inflation will grind higher in the coming months in most of the advanced economies, including the U.S. Admittedly, all models and indicators have been poor predictors of inflation in this recovery. Nonetheless, historical relationships might begin to re-establish now that capacity utilization is rising and labor market slack has moderated significantly. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? June's FOMC minutes indicated that the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation and maintain the current timetable on rate hikes. Yellen's Congressional testimony last week did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." The Fed asserts there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is close to the short-term level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed Chair is at risk of confusing investors by discussing the concept of two neutral rates, although this may have been to head off demands by some Congressional lawmakers that the Fed should follow a mechanical policy rule when setting policy (such as the Taylor Rule). Nonetheless, the important point is that Yellen is not saying that the actual policy rate is close to the peak for the cycle. Yellen's testimony has not altered our Fed call for this year: balance sheet runoff beginning in the fall, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. We expect more rate hikes in 2018/19 than are discounted in the bond market. That said, the soft June CPI data challenges our view that inflation will move higher in the second half. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned decidedly bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Global bond yields have already taken a step up in recent weeks, but they will have to rise further to catch up with the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. Duration should be kept short. The Beige Book: Another Inflation Anomaly The Beige Book released on July 12 supports the Fed's base case outlook for the economy and inflation. It also keeps the Fed on track to begin to trim its balance sheet in September and boost rates by another 25 basis points in December. Our quantitative approach2 to the qualitative data in the Beige Book points to an acceleration in GDP and inflation, less business unease from a rising U.S. dollar, and ongoing improvement in real estate, both commercial and residential (Chart 4). Chart 4Beige Book Monitors Support Fed's Outlook##BR##On Economy And Inflation At 62%, the BCA Beige Book Monitor remained near its cycle highs in July, providing more confirmation that the economy rebounded in Q2 after a desultory Q1. The July 12 Beige Book covered the period from late May through June 30. Based on the Beige Book, the dollar should not be much of an issue in Q2 earnings season. The greenback seems to have faded as a concern for small businesses and bankers, which is in sharp contrast to 2015 and early 2016 when mentions of a strong dollar in the Beige Book surged. The Q2 earnings reporting season will provide corporate managements with another forum to express their views of currency impact on their operations. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) remained elevated in the most recent Beige Book (not shown). The implication is that the business community is mindful of the lack of progress by Washington policymakers on Trump's agenda. Our analysis of the Beige Book also shows that real estate was still stout as Q2 ended. This implies that both residential and commercial real estate, the former a source of strength in Q1, will add to growth again in Q2. Moreover, the latest reading on the BCA Real Estate Monitor further widened the gap between the BCA Beige Book Real Estate Monitor and the relative performance of REITS to the S&P 500. Nonetheless, BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service recently downgraded REITS to neutral,3 citing our expectation of higher Treasury yields, modest rent growth, some cracks in CRE credit quality, and tightening standards for bank lending in the CRE marketplace. Echoing the market's disagreement with the Fed on inflation, the big disconnect in the Beige Book showed up in the number of inflation words. Inflation words hit a new peak in July, in sharp contrast with the recent soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The Beige Book backs the Fed's assertion that the economy will expand around 2% this year and inflation will move higher in the coming months, supporting a gradual removal of policy accommodation. Uncertainty in Washington is distressing, but worries over the dollar seem to be fading. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached What about the dollar? Tighter Fed policy is dollar-bullish on its own, but some of the major central banks are also starting to remove the monetary punchbowl as well. Recent dollar action suggests that investors have decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but raising interest rates is a long way off because there is still a lot of economic slack in the Eurozone. In contrast, the Fed is increasingly concerned that allowing the unemployment rate to fall further below its estimate of full-employment risks too large an overshoot of the 2% target. We still believe that market pricing for the fed funds rate is too benign. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate. The major exception is the Canadian dollar, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. Does Gary Cohn Have What It Takes? A key wildcard in the financial outlook is the Fed Chair's replacement. Yellen's term as Chair will end in February 2018 and the markets have not yet shown any concerns about her potential replacement. The current frontrunner is Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee; his appointment would conform to some historical precedents but violate others. Our March 6 Weekly Report4 provides a list of potential Fed appointees and also provides some background on the potential for the Fed to become more politicized under Trump. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have selected the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate. Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970-1978) was the head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978-1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) served as the Chair of President Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014-present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team members. Paul Volcker (1979-1987) was the lone exception to this rule; he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volker, Greenspan and Bernanke were reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. The timing of Trump's announcement on Yellen's replacement may be critical. In the summer of 2013, names were already being floated by the Obama White House (and mainly rejected) by markets, before he finally settled on Yellen. The official announcement came in early October 2013. In August 2009, President Obama reappointed Bernanke for a second four-year term. Bernanke was initially nominated to be Fed Chair by George W. Bush in October of 2005. If the appointment comes in October and the nominee is perceived to be hawkish, the risk is that markets may begin to price in the regime change sometime in the next few months. Our U.S. Bond Strategy service argued in a recent report5 that rate hike expectations may already be ramping up, while the data on the economy and inflation begin to beat expectations again. Bottom Line: It is too early for the markets to be concerned about the next Fed Chair and their policies. The names mentioned in the summer may not be the ones offered the job in the fall. Surprise Index Finally Bottomed Out The June employment report marked a turning point for the Citigroup surprise index, following an extended period of disappointment that depressed the dollar and bond yields. The June reports on CPI and retail sales were disappointing, but June industrial production exceeded expectations. What does this mean for relative asset returns? After 86 days, expectations moved low enough to allow economic reality to begin to run ahead. It took as few as 8 business days (in 2009) and as many as 164 (2015) for the surprise index to return to the zero line, an average of 52 days (Chart 5). Chart 5Risk Assets Tend To Outperform As Economic Surprise Index Rebounds Mean-reversions in the surprise index following troughs have generally been good for risk assets in this recovery (Table 2). We have identified 11 periods since late 2009 when the surprise index bottomed out and then moved up toward zero. In 8 of those episodes, the total return on stocks was higher than 10-year Treasuries. Equities beat Treasuries by an average of 286 bps across all 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 400 basis points. Table 2U.S. Financial Market Performance As Economic Surprise Index Rises The total return on investment-grade corporate debt outperformed Treasuries in 6 of 11 episodes. In those six instances, investment grade credit outperformed on average by 132 bps. Nonetheless over all 11 episodes, the excess return was 0%. In contrast, high-yield bonds beat Treasuries in 7 of the 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 188 basis points. Similarly, small caps beat large caps 72% of the time as the economic surprise index moved back toward the zero line. The median outperformance of small over large in all 11 periods was 124 basis points. The performance of commodities was mixed as economic surprises climbed. Gold rose in 6 of the 11 times, but fell in 5. Oil prices posted increases in only 5 of the 11, but the median return for oil after economic surprise bottomed was -2.7%. Bottom Line: Economic expectations that ramped up post-election have now declined and allowed the economic surprise index to trough. The implication for investors is that risk assets tend to outperform as the economic surprise index moves back to zero. This supports our tactical views of stocks over bonds, small over large caps, and credit over Treasury. What's Up With Wages? The June jobs report released in early July6 only added to the market's fears that the Phillips Curve is dead because wage growth softened even as the labor market tightened. Unfortunately, no Fed officials including Yellen have addressed the topic in depth recently. The market does not believe the Fed when it says that the tighter labor market is pushing up wages. We see it another way. Chart 6 shows that wage inflation has accelerated since mid-to-late 2012, but some measures of wages have made more progress than others. Chart 7 and Chart 8 reinforce that, setting aside the rollover in average hourly earnings (AHE), wage inflation is accelerating, albeit modestly. Chart 6Plenty Of Signs That##BR##Wages Are Accelerating Chart 7Compositional Effects Do Not##BR##Explain Recent Rollover Chart 8Acceleration In Hours Worked Should##BR##Lead To Faster Wage Growth The Employment Cost Index (ECI) excluding bonuses (Chart 6, panel 1) is our favorite measure of labor compensation. It has accelerated steadily since 2010. It adjusts for compositional changes in the labor market (unlike the average hourly earnings measure) and is the broadest and most comprehensive wage metric. Its drawbacks are that it is released with a long lag. For example, the Q2 ECI data will not be released until the end of July. The AHE data is already available for June and Q2. On the other hand, unit labor costs (ULC) (panel 2) have stagnated for the past five years. Data starts in 1947, so it has the most history of any of the wage measures. However, it is even more delayed than the ECI: it is released five weeks after the end of the quarter. Moreover, these data are subject to revisions and tend to be more volatile than other wages measures, which makes it difficult to identify a change in trend. Productivity, which is used to construct ULC, is also very difficult to estimate. A recent BIS report7 notes that there is evidence that the relationship between ULC and labor market slack has diminished over time, but that ULC is a better measure of inflationary pressures than AHE. Median usual weekly earnings (panel 3) have also accelerated. This is not a pure wage measure; it combines hourly pay and hours worked and, therefore, is a good proxy for incomes. Income growth has picked up the pace, providing a solid underpinning for consumer spending. Panel 4 shows compensation per hour worked. It, too, has stalled and is subject to the same strengths and weakness as ULC because it is part of the quarterly Productivity and Costs report. This metric has run near 2% with no trend. Finally, average hourly earnings (panel 5) have sped up since 2012, but rolled over in late 2016. This wage gauge gets most of the market's attention although it is only one of many measures that the Fed watches. AHE is a timely data set, released alongside monthly payroll numbers. It includes average earnings of private non-farm production and non-supervisory positions. The major disadvantage of this measure is that hourly wage earners represent only about 58% of workers and do not account for trends in salaried jobs. Earnings do not include bonus pay or employee benefits. The data are available beginning only in 2006. In Chart 7, we created an "equally-weighted" AHE measure to adjust for shifts in the composition of the labor market, but we found that the recent deceleration is not linked to compositional effects. Since wage growth bottomed out in late 2012, the compositional shifts slightly lowered wage inflation on average, but the growth rates today are roughly the same. The Atlanta Fed wage tracker (not shown) is in a distinct uptrend. The Tracker has the advantage that it is not biased by compositional shifts. Chart 8 shows our update to a study by the Kansas City Fed8 that found only a few industries (mostly in the goods-producing sector of the economy) have accounted for most of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - were the laggards. The report shows that although earnings growth has fallen behind in service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have seen faster growth than in the goods-producing sector. We concur with the author that labor demand was strong in the past few years in areas that have not experienced much wage growth. As the labor market continues to tighten, wages in these industries may accelerate, but patience will be required. Bottom Line: The various measures of wage inflation provide a mixed picture. Taken as a group, however, we believe that wage growth has indeed accelerated as the labor market has tightened. The acceleration has admittedly been modest, but it is only recently that unemployment reached a full employment level. The real test for the Phillips curve will be in the coming quarters as the economy moves further into "excess labor demand" territory. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4, 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "SPX 3000?, dated July 10, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump And The Fed", dated March 6, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sizing up the Second Half", dated July 10, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Monetary policy: inching towards normalization", Bank for International Settlements (BIS), 25 June 2017. 8 Wage Leaders and Laggards: Decomposing The Growth In Average Hourly Earnings", Willem Van Zandweghe, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 15, 2017.
Highlights Key Portfolio Updates Synchronized global economic growth is driving real yields higher and boosting equities (Chart 1). Meantime, core inflation remains muted which will ensure that Fed policy stays sufficiently accommodative (Chart 2). Outside of the U.S., monetary tightening cycles are kicking into high gear, and this will sustain downward pressure on the greenback for now (Chart 3). Easy financial conditions are a boon for S&P 500 profit margins, and a slow moving Fed suggests that investors will extrapolate this goldilocks equity scenario for a while longer (Chart 4). Almost all of the S&P 500's advance year-to-date has been earnings driven (Chart 5). Buoyant EPS breadth bodes well for additional gains, a message in line with our SPX profit model. In terms of how far the broad market can advance from current levels before the next recession hits, we posit three ways to SPX 3,000 (Table 1). The ongoing sector rotation is a healthy development, and is not a precursor to a more viscous and widespread correction (Chart 6). Historically, receding sector correlations represent fertile ground for the overall equity market (Chart 7). Our macro models are signaling that investors should position for a sustained rebound in economic growth. Our interest rate-sensitive models are coming out on top, deep cyclicals are attempting to trough, while defensives took a turn for the worse (Chart 8). Deep cyclical sectors are the most overvalued followed by early cyclicals, while defensives remain in undervalued territory. Interest rate sensitives have recently become overbought, while both deep cyclicals and defensives are in the oversold zone (Charts 9 & 10). The most attractive combination of macro, valuation and technical readings are in the financials and consumer discretionary sectors. The least attractive combinations are in materials, technology and utilities sectors. Prospects for a durable synchronized global economic growth, a coordinated tightening G10 central bank backdrop and cheapened U.S. currency warrant an early cyclical portfolio tilt, with the defensive/deep cyclical stance shifting to a more neutral setting. Chart 1Synchronized Global Growth Chart 2Muted Core Inflation Chart 3G10 Central Banks Map Chart 4Easy Financial Conditions Boost Margins Chart 5Buoyant Breadth Bodes Well Table 1SPX Dividend Discount Model SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity ERP Analysis Chart 6Healthy Rotation Chart 7Falling Correlations Boost The S&P 500 Chart 8Interest Rate Sensitives Come Out On Top Chart 9Underowned... Chart 10...And Undervalued Defensives Chart 11Earnings Growth Set To Accelerate Chart 12Consumers Are Feeling Flush Chart 13Improving Fundamentals Signal A Trough Chart 14Staples Remain The Household's Choice Chart 15Weaker Rents And Higher Vacancies Bode Ill Chart 16Profits Look Set To Downshift Chart 17Cyclical Recovery Driving Backlogs Lower Chart 18Margin Recovery Appears Priced In Chart 19Pricing Collapse Driving Earnings Decline Chart 20Productivity Declines Will##br## Keep A Cap On Valuations Chart 21Valuations At Risk##br## When Inflation Returns Feature S&P Financials (Overweight) Our financials cyclical macro indicator (CMI) has climbed to new cyclical highs, supported by broad-based improvement among its components. Firming employment data, historically a precursor to credit growth and capital formation, has been a primary contributor to the lift in the CMI. Importantly, a tight labor market has not yet driven sector costs higher, which bodes well for near term profits (Chart 11 on page 8). A budding revival in loan demand is corroborated by our bank loan growth model, which points to the largest upswing in credit growth of the past 30 years. Soaring consumer and business confidence, rising corporate profits and a potential capital spending revival underpin our loans and leases model (Chart 11 on page 8). Expanding housing prices, increased housing turnover and rebounding mortgage purchase applications support household capital formation (Chart 11 on page 8). A recent lift in share prices partially reflects this much-improved cyclical outlook. Still, the message from our valuation indicator (VI) is that there is significant running room. Our technical indicator (TI) has retreated from overbought levels, but remains solidly in the buy zone, setting the stage for the next leg up in the budding relative bull market. We expect sentiment to steadily improve, buoyed by deregulation moving closer to reality as a partial Dodd-Frank replacement passed the House. Chart 22 S&P Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) Our CMI has snapped back after a tough year, driven by improving real wage growth. Higher home prices, a tighter labor market and increasing disposable income have consumers feeling flush, which should boost discretionary outlays. Importantly, consumer deleveraging is far advanced with the debt service ratio hovering near decade lows (Chart 12 on page 9). Further, our Consumer Drag Indicator remains near its modern high, suggesting EPS gains will prove resilient (Chart 12 on page 9). Although somewhat expensive from a historical perspective, our VI remains close to the neutral zone, underscoring that profits will be the primary sector price driver. Our TI has fully recovered from oversold levels, and is flirting with the buy zone, underscoring additional recovery potential. We continue to recommend an overweight position, favoring the media-oriented sub-indices. Chart 23 S&P Energy (Overweight) Our CMI has recently ticked up from its all-time lows, and is now diverging positively from the share price ratio. Ongoing gains in domestic production, partially offset by a still-high sector wage bill, underlie the recent CMI uptick. The steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing some signs of fatigue. Baker Hughes reported the first weekly decline in 24 weeks in the oil rig count for the week ending June 30th. At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely. Encouragingly, U.S. crude oil inventories are contracting, which could presage a renormalization of domestic inventories, market share gains for domestic production and at least a modest rally in energy shares (Chart 13 on page 9). Our S&P energy sector relative EPS model echoes this cautiously optimistic industry backdrop, indicating a burgeoning recovery in sector earnings (Chart 13 on page 9). The TI has returned to deeply oversold levels, suggesting that an oversold bounce could soon occur at a time when valuations are gravitating back to earth. Chart 24 S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) The consumer staples CMI has turned lower recently, held back by healthy economic data, particularly among confidence indicators. That should drive a preference for spending over saving after a long period of thrift, although a relative switch from staples into discretionary consumption has not yet taken firm hold. The savings rate has also stayed resilient, despite consumer euphoria (Chart 14 on page 10). The good news is that tamed commodity prices and a soft U.S. dollar should provide bullish offsets for this global-exposed (Chart 14 on page 10) and commodity-input dependent sector. A modestly weaker outlook for staples is more than reflected in our VI, which is still parked in undervalued territory. Technical conditions are completely washed out, signaling widespread bearishness, which is positive from a contrary perspective. Chart 25 S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Ongoing improvements in commercial & residential real estate prices continues to push our real estate CMI higher. However, the outlook for REITs has darkened; rents have crested while the vacancy rate found its nadir in 2016, suggesting further rent weakness on the horizon (Chart 15 on page 10). Further, bankers appear less willing to extend commercial real estate credit; declines in credit availability will directly impact REIT valuations. Our VI is consistent with our Treasury bond indicator, indicating that both are at fair value. Our TI is starting to firm from extremely oversold levels, a positive indication for both 12- and 24-month relative performance. Chart 26 S&P Health Care (Neutral) Our CMI has rolled over, driven by a steep decline in pharma pricing power (Chart 16 on page 11). In fact, the breadth of sector pricing power softness has spread, just as the majority of the industries we cover is enjoying a selling price revival. The divergence between the CMI and recent sector relative performance suggests that the latter has been mostly politically motivated, and may lack staying power. Worrisomely, the sector wage bill has spiked; in combination with a weaker top line, the earnings resilience of the sector could be at risk. Relative valuations remain appealing, but technical conditions are shaky, as our TI has bounced from oversold levels but is still in negative territory. Taken altogether, we would lean against the recent advance in relative performance. Chart 27 S&P Industrials (Neutral) The CMI has recovered smartly in the past couple of quarters, lifted mostly by a weaker U.S. dollar. The sector has moved laterally since the U.S. election. The improved export outlook is a positive, but a lack of response in hard economic data to the surge in confidence is a sizable offset. An inventory imbalance has largely unwound over the past six months, as durable goods orders are easily outpacing inventories, coinciding with a return of some pricing power to the sector (Chart 17 on page 11). Still, years of capacity growth in excess of production and the resulting low utilization rates mean that pricing gains may stay muted unless demand picks up substantially. Our valuation gauge is near the neutral zone, but there is a wide discrepancy beneath the surface, with construction & engineering trading cheaply and railroads and machinery commanding premium valuation multiples. Our TI has returned close to overbought levels, potentially setting the stage for another move higher. Chart 28 S&P Utilities (Neutral) Our CMI for the utilities sector remains in a long-term downtrend, albeit one with periodic countertrend moves. Most of the weakness in the CMI relates to external factors, such as robust leading indicators of global economic growth (Chart 18 on page 12). Encouragingly, the sector's wage bill has slowed from punitively high levels, and combined with improving pricing power should allow for some margin recovery (Chart 18 on page 12). Utilities have outperformed other defensive sectors, likely due to the expectation that the new U.S. administration's long-awaited tax reform will have outsized benefits to this domestic-focused industry. As a result, valuations have been creeping up, though not sufficiently enough to warrant an underweight position. Our TI has reversed its steep fall over the past year, but is unlikely to bounce through neutral levels in the absence of a negative economic shock. Ergo, our preferred strategy is to remain at benchmark, but look for tradable rally opportunities. Chart 29 S&P Telecom Services (Underweight) Our CMI for telecom services has moved laterally, as much-reduced wage inflation is fully offset by the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet and extremely deflationary conditions (Chart 19 on page 12). Our sales model paints a much darker picture, pointing to double-digit topline declines for at least the next few quarters, owing to the plunge in pricing power deep into negative territory (Chart 19 on page 12). The sector remains chronically cheap, and has all the hallmarks of a value trap, as relative forward earnings remain in a relentless secular downtrend. It would take a recession to trigger a valuation re-rating. Our Technical Indicator has nosedived but, like the VI, cycles deep in the sell zone have not proven reliable indicators that a relative bounce is in the offing. Chart 30 S&P Materials (Underweight) Recent Fed rate hikes have driven down the CMI close to all-time lows. The sector has historically performed very poorly in tightening cycles owing to U.S. dollar appreciation and the ensuing strains on the emerging world. Weak signals from China have also helped take the steam out of what looked like a recovery in the CMI last year. Commodity-currencies have rallied, but not by enough to offset a relapse in pricing power and weak sector productivity (Chart 20 on page 13). The heavyweight chemicals group (comprising more than 73% of the index) continues to suffer; earnings growth relies heavily on global reflation, an elusive ingredient in the era of a globally synchronized tightening cycle. Sagging productivity warns that profitability will remain under pressure. Valuations have now spent some time in overvalued territory; without a recovery in earnings growth, a derating is a high probability outcome. Our TI has dipped into the sell zone, indicating a loss of momentum and downside relative performance risks. It would be highly unusual for the sector to stay resilient in the face of a negative TI reading. Chart 31 S&P Technology (Underweight) The technology CMI is in full retreat, driven by ongoing relative pricing power declines and new order weakness. However, the sector had been resilient, until recently, as a mini-mania in a handful of stocks and the previously red-hot semiconductor group have provided resilient support. That reflected persistently low inflation and a belief that interest rates would still low forever. After all, tech stocks thrive in a disinflationary/deflationary environment and suffer during inflationary periods (Chart 21 on page 13). Nevertheless, a recovering economy from the first quarter's lull and tight labor market suggest that an aggressive de-rating in sky-high valuations in previous juggernauts is a serious threat, especially if recent disinflation proves transitory. Our relative EPS model signals a profit slide this year. In the context of analyst estimates of double-digit earnings growth, sector downside risk is elevated. Our VI is not overdone, but that partly reflects the massive overshoot during the bubble years. Our TI is extremely overbought, suggesting that profit-taking is likely to persist. Chart 32 Size Indicator (Overweight Small Vs. Large Caps) Our size CMI has retraced some of its 2016 climb, but remains firmly above the boom/bust line. Keep in mind that this CMI is not designed as a directional trend predictor, but rather as a buy/sell oscillator. Small company business optimism is near modern highs, as pricing and consumption vigor push domestic revenues higher. A smaller government footprint, i.e. fewer regulatory hurdles, and tax relief will disproportionately benefit SMEs. The prospect of trade barriers clearly favors the domestically focused small cap universe and underlie part of the post-election euphoria. Top line growth will need to persist if small businesses are to offset a higher wage bill, as labor looks more difficult to import and the economy pushes against full employment. Valuations have improved and the share price ratio has fully unwound previously overbought conditions. We expect the recent rally to gain steam.\ Chart 33 Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com
Highlights Yellen pointed out that the U.S. R-star is low but that it will rise as temporary depressing factors pass. The Fed is determined to push rates toward 3% over time. The euro area R-star is substantially lower than that of the U.S., limiting the capacity of the ECB to follow the Fed's path and pace. Traders are massively long the euro. Abe's woes do not signal the end of Abenomics, in fact they point toward more stimulus. The BoC has hiked and will keep doing so, continue to favor the CAD. Feature Janet Yellen offered both a fascinating and telling glimpse on the Federal Reserve's thinking this week. She argued that the equilibrium fed funds rate is currently very depressed, which is limiting the pace at which the FOMC can increase interest rates before plunging the economy into recession. However, she also noted that the Fed anticipates equilibrium interest rates will continue to rise over time, which means the actual fed funds rate has more upside on a multi-year horizon, despite what will be a slow pace of increases. With this additional information on the Fed's mindset, investors should be even more comfortable in their assessment that the period of maximum policy divergence between the euro area and the U.S. is behind us, which justified bullish bets on the euro. However, the broader picture is a bit more complex. Different Equilibria The idea that the neutral fed funds rate is still low but rising explains why the Fed is still pegging its terminal rate at 3%. Currently, the Laubach and Williams formulation of the neutral real fed funds rate (also known as R-star) is at 0.4%, while the current real fed funds rate stands at -0.5%, which implies 0.9% upside in real rates over the next two years or so (Chart I-1). Moreover, if as we expect core inflation moves back toward 2% over the Fed's forecast horizon, the upside to rates would be closer to 150 basis points. In the euro area, however, the same long-term R-star stands at -0.1%, depressed by lower population growth, a higher savings rate and lower structural productivity gains. Since the real policy rate is at -0.7%, this signifies that the gap between the actual real policy rate and its equilibrium is a smaller 0.6% (Chart I-2). This means that euro area rates have much less upside than U.S. ones before generating a deleterious impact on growth. Chart I-1U.S. R-Star Vs. Policy Rates Chart I-2Euro Area R-Star Vs. Policy Rates It is easy to argue that R-star differences are nice theoretical concepts, with little practical implications for currency investors. After all, interest rate differentials at the long end of the curve are clearly a function of the relative GDP per capita between the euro area and the U.S. (Chart I-3). These same GDP-dynamics also have an impact - albeit a less tight one - on EUR/USD. Chart I-3Yield Differentials And Relative GDP Chart I-4How R-Star And GDP Tango Yet, R-star spreads do affect growth differentials between the euro area and the U.S. As Chart I-4 illustrates, when the euro area real policy rate crosses above its equilibrium, euro area real GDP per capita growth sags soon after. The same holds true for the U.S. This suggests the capacity of European GDP per capita to outperform that of the U.S. is currently limited, or at the very least needs rates in Europe to remain quite low relative to the U.S., anchored lower by the depressed level of the R-star in Europe vis-a-vis the U.S. Moreover, the recent outperformance of European GDP per capita relative to the U.S. has a lot to do with the poor performance of U.S. GDP in 2016. However, U.S. GDP should firm in the coming quarters, particularly since household income levels are well supported. As Chart I-5 shows, based on an average of the pay-related and hiring-related components of the NFIB small businesses survey, the aggregate wages and salaries received by U.S. households are set to accelerate, both in nominal and real terms. This represents a boost to aggregate income and should support consumption, or almost 70% of the U.S. economy. Additionally, the rebound in U.S. capex should continue. Both the NFIB and the various regional Fed capex intention surveys remain healthy. This, along with labor market tightness, should be accretive to per capita GDP. As Chart I-6 shows, a composite indicator based on the NFIB survey capex and "jobs hard to fill" components is very strong, which historically has led to an acceleration of real-GDP-per capita growth. Chart I-5U.S. Household Income Will Accelerate Chart I-6U.S. Real GDP Per Capita Will Strengthen As a result, we are inclined to bet on a renewal of strength in the U.S. economy, which will support R-star there and help the Fed hike rates by more than the 43 basis points currently anticipated over the next 24 months. Bottom Line: The U.S. long-term equilibrium real fed funds rate is low, but remains substantially higher than the R-star in the euro area. This suggests that U.S. rates have more upside than European ones. Moreover, the outlook for U.S. per capita GDP is healthy, while that of Europe will continue to require low rates to remain on an upward path. Tactical Considerations Around EUR/USD EUR/USD is well bid, and our base case scenario remains that the 1.15 to 1.16 zone will be retested. However, some technical indicators have made us leery to chase this move, and might even prevent this target zone from ever being breached. To begin with, the number of long speculative bets on the euro has hit a record high, while the number of short bets has collapsed (Chart I-7). Net long speculative positions are not at a record high yet, but are in the upper echelons of the distribution of the past 17 years. Interestingly - and some would argue almost mechanically - while speculators' optimist or pessimist extremes can be used as contrarian indicators, commercial traders tend to be disproportionally short or long the euro at the appropriate time - i.e., when the euro is set to plummet or rally, respectively. Theoretically, commercial and non-commercial traders' positions should be in perfect balance as they are counterparties to one another, but in practice this is rarely the case. Because of this observation, we decided to amplify the message of both series by subtracting the net long commercial positions from net long non-commercial ones. This indicator tends to work best at highlighting tops in EUR/USD. The current reading has been indicative of an upcoming period of weakness in this pair (Chart I-8). The only exception was in 2007, a period when unlike today, the Fed was cutting rates while the ECB policy rate was being lifted all the way to July 2008. Chart I-7Record Longs In The Euro Chart I-8Aggregate Positioning Points To A Lower Euro Moreover, the buying pressure on EUR/USD may be exhausting itself. Wednesday, despite a seemingly dovish message from Fed Chair Yellen and despite stronger-than-anticipated industrial production numbers out of the euro area, EUR/USD weakened 0.6% instead of appreciating. In fact, our European Investment Strategy Senior Vice President Dhaval Joshi's Fractal Dimension indicator - a measure of group-think in the market - is now at 1.25, a level that also warns of an imminent trend change (Chart I-9).1 Chart I-9A Risk Of Reversal As a result, we do not yet think it is time to be betting aggressively on a fall in EUR/USD, especially as next week's ECB meeting might give an occasion for President Mario Draghi to re-affirm his optimism, giving the euro its final push toward 1.15-1.16. However, nimble traders should begin building small short positions in the euro on the optic of expanding their bets if the EUR/USD gathers downward momentum. Bottom Line: The euro may well hit the 1.15-1.16 range, but positioning in EUR/USD is currently extremely overstretched, and the euro's trading action suggests that groupthink has become prevalent, confirming the message of positioning. This means the euro is at risk. Nimble traders should begin building small short positions in EUR/USD, but it is not yet time to bet aggressively on this pair. Shinzo's Troubles Are Not The Demise Of Abenomics Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's popularity has been in freefall in recent weeks, hitting the most dismal levels of his current premiership (Chart I-10). The flogging received by the LDP in the recent Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly election is indeed being perceived as a rejection of the party's policy stance since 2012. Does this represent the coup de grace that will end Abenomics? We doubt it. The key behind the recent dip in Abe's popularity is not his economic policy but his move away from it. Instead, his focus on changing the pacifist constitution of post-war Japan is the source of the LDP's and Abe's woes, as this topic remains anathema with the Japanese public. Moreover, we are not willing to bet on the demise of the LDP. The Tokyo election was a one-off event. The new Tomin First no Kai (Tokyoites First) party that is now the largest force in the regional assembly is led by the very popular Tokyo governor Yuriko Koike, and will rely on the pacifist Komeito to control the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly. At the national level, the DPJ remains in tatters, and no potential new party is in place to carry the torch of the opposition. Japan is still effectively a one-party democracy. So what are the market implications of these political developments? We expect a doubling down by Abe on economic stimulus. If Abe ever wants a passing chance to have, let alone win, a referendum to increase Japan's militarism, the economy needs to be stronger than it is. Thus, we think this boot of unpopularity will be key to unlocking more fiscal stimulus out of Tokyo. When more fiscal stimulus finally does materialize, if it boosts growth, it will also lift long-term inflation expectations (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Abe's Plummeting##br## Popularity Chart I-11If Fiscal Stimulus Is Implemented ##br##CPI Expectations Will Rise... In this context, we would expect continued pressure on the Bank of Japan to remain one of the two most dovish central banks in the G10, as to not undo the benefits of fiscal stimulus. Moreover, the BoJ cannot remove stimulus, as realized CPI excluding food and energy remains in negative territory. Tokyo's CPI report, which offers a one-month lead on the national release, shows that core inflation is still in negative territory. National summer wage negotiations point to negative wage growth next year, making a revival of domestically generated inflation a remote event without an easing of financial conditions (Chart I-12). Additionally, the recent rollover in the leading diffusion index suggests the economic upswing may already be fading (Chart I-13). Continued BoJ support and higher inflation expectations would hurt Japanese real yields and handicap the yen. Chart I-12...But That Will Also Require Easy Monetary##br## And Financial Conditions Chart I-13A Slowdown ##br##In Japan The recent upswing in global bond yields is thus likely to continue to weigh on the yen, leading to a higher USD/JPY. As this week illustrated, rising global yields are forcing the BoJ to increase its amount of JGB purchases to cap the upside in Japanese 10-year yields. Tactically, USD/JPY has been in an upswing, but has hit an important resistance close to 114.5. A few more days of weakness could ensue, but such weakness should be used by investors to sell the yen. Bottom Line: Abe's political problems do not represent the end of Abenomics. Instead, they illustrate the Japanese public's lack of appetite toward abandoning Japan's post-war pacifism. If Abe is serious about holding a referendum on this topic, he will have to support growth going forward - which implies higher fiscal stimulus and inflation expectations. Meanwhile, the absence of inflation in Japan continues to hamstring the BoJ in keeping policy extremely supportive, limiting the upside to nominal interest rates across the Japanese yield curve. Real rate differentials will continue to support USD/JPY. Use any weakness in this pair to buy the dollar versus the yen. Canada: Poloz Delivers The Bank of Canada on Wednesday increased interest rates by 25 basis points to 0.75%, the first central bank to follow the Fed's lead. Our analysis two weeks ago suggested that the BoC was faced with some of the most supportive conditions in the world to follow the Fed's path.2 More interesting than the decision itself was the accompanying quarterly Monetary Policy Report. In the report, the BoC moved forward its estimation of the closure of the output gap from 2018 to 2017. Additionally, despite expecting a slowdown in household consumption in 2018, the BoC upgraded its GDP forecast by 0.2% in 2017 and 0.1% in 2018, to 2.8% and 2%, respectively. Obviously, the market took note of these views, with USD/CAD falling three big figures on the news. The tone of the report was quite bullish on the Canadian economy, highlighting robust as well as broad-based growth and increasing signs of vanishing slack. In fact, the message reiterated that of the summer Business Outlook Survey, which showed strong growth, growing difficulty meeting demand, and growing and intensifying labor shortages (Chart I-14). As a result, the BoC expects the weak Canadian CPI to rebound, after the transitory effects of low food inflation, automobile rebates, and Ontario's electricity subsidies dissipate. We are inclined to agree with this assessment. At 2% per annum, Canadian employment growth is robust and the unemployment rate has fallen significantly. Now that oil prices have stabilized, employment is improving, suggesting that even the weakest regions of the economy are participating in the party. Additionally, our Canadian economic diffusion index - based on retail trade, manufacturing sales, building permits and employment data in the 10 provinces - has sharply accelerated, pointing to a continued rise in GDP growth (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Canada Is Booming And Slack Is Shrinking Chart I-15Strong Data Across The Board USD/CAD continues to trade at a discount to real interest rate differentials, signaling further upside on the CAD. Also, while investors have begun to curtail their shorts on the loonie, there do remain enough stale shorts for the CAD advance to persevere. We continue to prefer playing the CAD's strength on its crosses such as versus the AUD and the EUR, as the risk profile seems cleaner on these pairs than versus the USD. Short EUR/CAD looks particularly attractive. Our long CAD/NOK trade is near its target, and we are closing this position. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada has not only hiked rates, but it has also highlighted that the Canadian economy is strong and inching closer to full capacity. The market has taken note, with the loonie rallying violently. The CAD has more upside going forward, especially against the euro and the AUD. We are booking profits on our long CAD/NOK position. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see European Investment Strategy Special Report titled, "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model", dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy And Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report titled, "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The greenback has largely been flat this week, despite Yellen's statements regarding rate hikes and balance sheet normalization at her Congressional Testimony, even if, 10-year yields went down. U.S. economic data has a soft tone: NFIB Business Optimism Index came in lower than expected at 103.6, reflecting broad-based softness in the details of the survey; JOLTS job openings also came in lower than expected at 5.666 mn; Initial jobless claims underperformed expectations, coming in at 247,000; Additionally, continuing jobless claims were higher than expected at 1.945 mn. While data remains mixed, the Fed is still intent on tightening policy. The dollar will follow suit, especially if inflation moves as the Fed expects. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data out of Europe this week was reasonably strong: Both exports and imports increased at a 1.4% and 1.2% monthly pace, respectively; The current account beat expectations; Industrial production increased by 4%, more than the expected 3.6%; However, despite this upbeat data, the euro remained largely flat this week. This behavior is justified from a technical perspective: the RSI is close to overbought levels; the MACD line is rolling over and closing the gap with the signal line; the number of speculators with long positions is at its highest level ever. The considerable weakness in EUR/SEK and EUR/NOK on Thursday shows underlying weakness in the euro. This decreases the likelihood that EUR/USD breaches the 1.15-1.16 zone. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Labor cash earnings yearly growth outperformed expectations and grew from last month, coming in at 0.7%. However, machinery orders yearly growth was far below expectations, coming in at 0.6%. In spite of the selloff in the dollar, USD/JPY has rallied by more than 1% since last week, stopping its ascent after hitting a key technical level at 114.5. We continue to be yen bears, even in the face of the declining popularity of Shinzo Abe: the champion for expansionary fiscal policy in Japan. Instead, we are confident that Abe will double down on fiscal spending as his decline in popularity has been precisely because he has strayed away from this key policy pillar which made him so popular. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Halifax House prices grew by only 2.6% YoY, underperforming expectations of 3.1%. Industrial Production contracted by 0.2% year-on-year, also underperforming expectations. While the unemployment rate decreased, coming in at 4.5% and also beating expectations, average earning growth fell to 1.8%. After appreciating by almost 2% this week, and reaching 0.895, EUR/GBP has come down to 0.885, but the pound is likely to have short term downside against the euro. Furthermore, GBP/USD is also likely to have downside, as the pound is not as attractive as it was in the beginning of the year from a valuation standpoint. Indeed, sentiment has turned much more positive on the outcome of Brexit, which means that the significant discount in the pound has disappeared. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The AUD has seen a broad-based increase this week, except for against the CAD. This increase has largely been a factor of Chinese data, although domestic conditions also played a role: Chinese exports and imports both increased at a 11.3% and 17.2% annual pace, respectively; China's trade balance in June was USD 42.77 bn, better than expected; Chinese new loans came in at RMB 1,540 bn; NAB Business Conditions and Confidence both beat expectations; However, investment lending for homes is still contracting at 1.4%, albeit at a lesser than expected pace of 2.3%; Also, home loans are increasing at a lesser than expected pace of 1%. We retain our view of the inherent weakness in the Australian economy, which will restrict the RBA from changing its view. This will weigh on the AUD in the near future. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 AUD/NZD has rallied by almost 1.3% since last week. This in part, was the market reaction to an approved housing infrastructure fund by Prime Minister Bill English worth NZ$1 Billion aimed at increasing the supply of housing in the country. This measure provides the RBNZ with some breathing room, as it is a policy aimed at cooling housing market, which has prices growing at a 14% rate. The increase in housing supply alleviates the pent up demand generated by the dramatic increase in population in New Zealand in recent years. The RBNZ is unlikely to join the BoC and the Fed this year, as they remain cautious, and have opted for macro prudential measures to eliminate any imbalances in the economy. Stay short the NZD against the dollar and the yen. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canada followed the footsteps of its partner in the south, joining the U.S. as the only two central banks in the G10 space raising interest rates. The Bank of Canada highlighted that "the adjustment to lower oil prices is largely complete" and that "both the goods and services sectors are expanding". Alberta's economy validates this stance as all sectors of the economy are growing at a very brisk pace. The BoC estimates that the output gap will now close at the end of 2017, instead of the previous forecast of the first half of 2018, further escalating their hawkish rhetoric. The press release noted that the recent restrain in inflationary pressures will be transitory, as "excess capacity is absorbed". Recent data corroborates this view with strong employment data and stronger than expected housing starts. USD/CAD declined 1.3% at the end of the day of the hike, and outperformed all other currencies. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Unemployment remains very low, coming in at 3.2% However, producer and import prices contracted by 0.1% year-on-year, coming below expectations and decreasing from the previous month. The low unemployment number is not the only indicator that shows a tight labor market, as employment is also growing at an astonishing 5% yearly rate. However, this tightness in the labor market is not translating to higher wages, as wages are growing at a paltry 0.6%, anchored by strong deflationary forces. Thus, the SNB will continue with their ultra-dovish monetary policy and with their interventions in the currency market. Nevertheless, we will monitor if the recent plunge in the CHF against the euro creates any kind of inflationary dynamics in the economy, and causes the SNB to rethink their stance. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Manufacturing output contracted by 0.3%, falling sharply from last month number. Additionally, although both core and headline inflation came above expectations at 1.6% and 1.9% respectively, they still fell from last month reading. The Krone has appreciated sharply the past week, with USD/NOK falling by 1.45% and EUR/NOK falling by 1.15%. This has been a result of the rebound in oil prices caused by the massive draws in inventories the past couple of weeks. Indeed, last week's number, which showed an inventory draw of 7.6 million barrels was the biggest since 2011. Overall, we expect that OPEC should be able to continue managing supply, and therefore, oil should rise until the end of the year. This will be negative for EUR/NOK. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The Riksbank's change in rhetoric was perfectly timed, as Sweden's economy is increasingly showing signs of strength. Data has outperformed these past two weeks: Manufacturing PMI came in at 62.4, beating expectations of 59.8; Industrial production increased at a 8% annual pace in May; Inflation in Sweden is firming, coming in at 1.7% in June and beating expectations. The SEK appreciated 0.7% against EUR, and 0.6% against USD. Markets are pricing in stronger growth and a further escalation of hawkish rhetoric from the central bank, especially as Stefan Ingves as tabulated to leave this Riksbank in a few months. Part of the reason for Sweden's strength is also a stronger European economy. With Germany leading the pack, Sweden's largest export partner is also lifting the largest Scandinavian economy. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades
U.S. airlines have been enjoying some of their highest profits in history, lifted by the collapse in oil prices and cheap financing and the market has rewarded them handsomely (bottom panel). However, the last year has seen a trend shift as excess profits have been eaten away at by the always-cutthroat competition. Further, the stringent labor cost control of the past decade will be difficult to maintain in such a profitable environment. Delta Air Lines (DAL) Q2 results offer some insight; unit revenues grew 2.5% while non-fuel unit costs grew 7.3%. The impact of these margin hits is likely to be magnified if, as we expect, oil prices recover. Overall, we think the sector's best days are receding into the contrails. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AIRL -DAL, LUV, AAL, UAL, ALK.
In our latest Weekly Report, we note our belief that the S&P 500 will hit the 3,000 mark before the end of the business cycle. We arrive at this conclusion three ways. First, we created a Dividend Discount Model (see Table 2 of our Weekly Report) that assumes a long term average dividend growth rate and the average corporate high yield interest rate; this model yields an S&P 500 value in excess of 2,900. Importantly, our model does not include share retirement which is currently greater than dividend payouts and would drive the SPX peak value higher. Second, we examined the S&P 500's sensitivity to EPS growth rates and forward valuation multiples. If we use the consensus 10.6% implied CAGR in S&P 500 EPS estimates and assign the current 12-month forward multiple as a starting point, our model estimates an S&P 500 value of just under 3,000 (see Table 3 of our Weekly Report). Lastly, we examined an SPX peak value assuming a contraction in the equity risk premium from its historically elevated level (middle panel) to 200bps. We deem this appropriate as it is still well in excess of previous cycles and justified by the sustained high ISM manufacturing index (bottom panel). Our analysis yields an S&P 500 value of slightly over 3,000. Net, while we think garden variety 5-10% corrections are all but inevitable, a peak S&P 500 value of 3,000 is likely before the next recession hits late in the decade.
Highlights The G20 summit highlighted our theme of multipolarity, which encourages global instability; U.S.-China tensions have resumed their escalation after a brief pause; The Middle East is still a "red herring" for investors this year, but tail risks are rising; Any negative impact on oil production from these risks should be minor; Iran stands to benefit; Egypt is a buy on the back of cyclical recovery and Saudi support. Feature For the first time in the history of G20 summits, the "sherpas" (emissaries) who prepared the event failed to reach any notable policy agreements. Allegedly, the only policy that the U.S. administration endorsed prior to the summit was women's entrepreneurialism, Ivanka Trump's pet project. Why should investors care? G20 meetings have always been abstract, retroactive (as opposed to proactive), and barely able to move the markets. But they have occasionally mattered. The summits in Washington D.C. (November 2008) and London (April 2009) set the agenda for economic stimulus and global financial regulatory reform that brought the world back from the brink of abyss. The London summit, in particular, set the stage for coordinated, global, fiscal policy that reflated the economy. At the September 2009 Pittsburgh summit, the G20 replaced the Western-dominated G8 as the premier economic governance platform. (The latter is now the G7 because of Russia's exclusion after annexing Crimea.) The idea behind the expanded forum was to give emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil a say in the global economic architecture. It was the forum's expansion that ultimately doomed its effectiveness. To our knowledge, no multilateral framework has ever successfully coordinated global affairs. Global stability has always been underpinned by hegemony, which is why we have warned our readers since 2011 that emerging global multipolarity - caused by America's relative geopolitical decline - would lead to instability.1 The press will inevitably blame President Trump's "America First" for the failures of the G20. We do not disagree, but there is more to it than just politics. "America First" is a natural political reaction to the reality of American geopolitical decline. It is also a reaction to nearly two decades of foreign policy decisions to commit massive amounts of U.S. hard and soft power to pursuing nation-building policies in the Middle East. As such, "America First" is a symptom, not the cause, of global multipolarity. The "Trump Doctrine" could indeed be highly destabilizing, if followed through to its logical conclusion.2 Ostensibly, President Trump seeks to renegotiate global security and economic arrangements that have taken advantage of American magnanimity. But it was America that initially designed these arrangements, at the height of its power in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, to secure its own interests. Institutions like NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank underpin, they do not undermine, American hegemony. Without these institutions, American allies will seek their own negotiated arrangements more freely and frequently with U.S. adversaries, slowly eroding Washington's global influence. Over the long term, the Trump Doctrine could also undermine the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency. The dollar's reserve currency status is a privilege that monetizes American geopolitical hegemony. America's allies are essentially already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets.3 Chart 1 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege."4 Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability of the market, and its deep liquidity, but also because the U.S. provides them with assurances of peace through security. If Washington raises barriers to its markets and becomes a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and thus diversify more rapidly. They could also be forced to diversify by new security guarantors, regional hegemons, and geopolitical bullies. Chart 1Exorbitant Privilege The concept of exorbitant privilege - and its economic benefits - cannot easily be explained to voters. What voters understand is that China's rapid industrialization has been accomplished at the cost of American manufacturing jobs. Candidate Trump successfully tapped into this angst during the campaign. President Trump, however, initially shied away from seriously applying the "America First" doctrine. The April Trump-Xi summit at Mar-a-Lago was hailed as evidence that fears of global protectionism were overblown and that the "globalist" camp of advisers in the White House were prevailing over the nationalists. As we expected, however, the détente did not last long. Over the past several weeks, China and the U.S. have clashed over several key issues: Taiwan: On June 29, the U.S. announced that it will sell $1.42 billion worth of arms to the island nation.5 Secondary sanctions: At the end of June, the Trump administration sanctioned a Chinese shipping company, bank, and two citizens for their ties to North Korea. Human rights: Also at the end of June, the U.S. State Department announced it would list China among the worst human trafficking offenders, which could trigger punitive actions and complicate trade negotiations in the future. Steel tariffs: President Trump asked the Department of Commerce back in April to study whether steel imports were harming national security, under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and a potential decision by Trump on tariffs is due within days. While China only accounts for 2% of U.S. steel imports, new tariffs could set in motion more protectionist measures that target additional industries. Sovereignty claims: The U.S. Navy and Air Force have made sojourns into disputed maritime areas. The navy conducted a "freedom of navigation" operation in the South China Sea in July, with USS Stethem steaming within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island. The air force also conducted separate missions sending B-1 bombers over the South China Sea, and over the Korean peninsula and East China Sea along with Japanese and South Korean F-15 fighter jets. This flurry of brinkmanship has largely emanated from Washington, not Beijing. As Trump's domestic political agenda stalled - with both health care and tax reform now in doubt - the administration has set its sights on the policy realm where the U.S. president has few constraints: foreign and trade policy. That is not to say that Beijing has not invited these actions. It has continued to militarize its artificial islands in the South China Sea and has failed to impose meaningful sanctions on North Korea. The Trump administration is clearly disappointed that its Mar-a-Lago summit failed to produce any tangible effect on these fronts, particularly with North Korea having launched a purported intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time. It is the Trump administration itself, however, that is to be blamed for China's lack of enthusiasm. One of the first acts of the Trump administration was to bring into question Washington's "One China" policy. As we remarked at the time, this would have serious implications for Sino-American policies. Defending sovereignty is a core pillar of the Chinese Communist Party; it is part of its "creation myth," and this is nowhere truer than in regard to Taiwan. When Trump brought into question the "One China" principle, he signaled to Beijing policymakers that Washington is not to be trusted. North Korea is both formally and in practical terms a Chinese ally. Though the Xi administration evidently wishes that the North was not providing the U.S. with excuses to enhance the American position on the Korean Peninsula, nevertheless it is longstanding Chinese policy to avoid destabilizing the North Korean regime. A collapse, possibly followed by a unified Korean Peninsula, could benefit the U.S. in the region. In other words, China will pressure the North enough to encourage a new round of talks but not enough to risk fracturing the regime. Chart 2Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over What investors are seeing today is the impact of words - "signaling" to be technical - in geopolitics. To be fair to President Trump, he has not pursued a revolutionary foreign policy yet. However, his mere words - literally dithering on NATO's Article V and calling into question the "One China" policy - have pushed other global powers into realignment. The rest of the world takes Trump very seriously because he may one day act on his unorthodox policies, or because American voters may elect someone in the future who will. The likely result is further erosion of U.S. global influence. Notably, the U.S. president stood alone on several crucial global issues at the G20 summit in Germany, making it look more like a "G19" summit. American isolation makes sense from Trump's short-term, domestic-political vantage. In the long term, however, it accelerates the drift toward geopolitical multipolarity and thus encourages global instability. Over the near term, we are particularly concerned that Sino-American tensions could escalate and spill over into a trade war. Since Donald Trump's election, and particularly since the Mar-a-Lago summit, the market has largely priced out economic tensions between the two superpowers, with China-exposed S&P 500 equities outperforming the market (Chart 2). We would bet against the continuation of this trend. Lack of cooperation over North Korea is a sign that the Sino-American relationship is systematically broken. Middle East Update: Watch Power Vacuums In Iraq And Syria At the beginning of this year, we made a forecast that geopolitics in the Middle East would not be investment relevant.6 So far we are correct. However, we continue to worry that vacuums in Iraq and Syria - in the Sunni-dominated territories formerly occupied by the now-collapsing Islamic State - could become greater sources of instability in the region. We are particularly concerned about three potential flash points: North Iraq, North Syria, and East Syria. East Syria In East Syria, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) loyal to President Bashar al-Assad - as well as its Lebanese Shia ally Hezbollah - has aggressively moved to establish control over the Syrian-Iraqi border. As indicated on Map 1, SAA forces have created a land-bridge through Islamic State territory to Tayyara on the Iraqi border. This has put SAA troops in close proximity to "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) forces operating in the southeast of the country. Map 1Syria's Army Has Created A Land-Bridge To Iraq The FSA was created by the U.S. and its allies. Its forces are trained by the U.S., and the U.S. Air Force provides cover for its territory. The recent downing of Syrian fighter jets and Iranian drones have occurred near the U.S. FSA base, which is based in the proximity of the FSA stronghold at Al Tanf. Without committing land troops, however, the best the U.S. can hope for is to limit SAA incursions into FSA-held territory. The push by SAA and Hezbollah to the Iraqi border creates an all-important land-bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. It allows Tehran to reinforce Assad's SAA and Hezbollah by land, rather than relying on sea routes - which can be intercepted by the U.S. and Israel's superior naval capabilities in the Mediterranean - or through air. Not only will Iran and Shia-dominated Iraq be able to supply Assad with weapons, but also with troops. After a five-year war of attrition, the main resource that has been depleted on all sides is manpower. A significant influx of "fresh blood" means that the power balance will shift more easily in favor of Assad. Following the collapse of the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq will be able to deploy significant resources from its Shia militias to Syria. This could be the game changer that ends the conflict in Syria in Assad's favor over the next 12 months. The SAA penetration to Tayyara has now set up the next target: Al Bukamal to the north and also on the Iraqi border. From there, the SAA will be able to round back deep into Islamic State territory and capture Deir ez-Zor. This will give Assad control over most of Syria's border with Iraq as well as the country's highway infrastructure. It will also pin the U.S.-backed FSA to a largely irrelevant corner of Syria. The success of Iranian and Russian-backed SAA in Eastern Syria is very important for the geopolitics of the region. By creating a land-bridge between Iran and the Mediterranean, Syrian forces have now opened up the possibility of one day hosting massive natural gas and oil pipeline infrastructure that would link natural gas from the Persian Gulf, developed jointly by Qatar and Iran, and oil from Iran and Iraq to European markets (Map 2). Map 2The Path Is Opening For Iranian Pipelines Through Syria Such an alternative route to Iranian energy exports would give Tehran an upper hand over Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies. In a hypothetical conflict scenario between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, Tehran would be more willing to try to close shipping in the Straits of Hormuz if it possessed an alternative route for energy exports. This is clear to Saudi Arabia, which is why it has lashed out against Qatar in recent weeks. The main Saudi demand of Qatar is that it abandon its pro-Iranian foreign policy. It is becoming clear to Saudi Arabia that Iran's power is set to grow in the wake of the Islamic State's defeat in Iraq and Syria. As such, Saudi Arabia is trying to tie loose ends in its own coalition, starting with Qatar. Despite the reported Trump-Putin ceasefire agreed at the G19, U.S. and Russian forces could still become entangled as their proxies battle in the strategic regions near the Syrian-Iraqi border. SAA troops have also begun to operate near Raqqa, where the Kurdish forces supported by the U.S. are currently encircling the Islamic State capital. Final stages of wars tend to be erratic and even more violent. As belligerents glimpse the end of conflict they rush to seize as much territory as possible before negotiations begin. This is effectively what is happening in East Syria and around Raqqa today. Northern Syria In the Kurdish dominated northern Syria, the People's Protection Units (YPG) have massively increased the territory under their control. Supported by the U.S., YPG have encircled Raqqa and will soon defeat the Islamic State in the North. Assad's SAA will concede Raqqa in order to move onto the more strategic Resafa and Deir ez-Zor, effectively abandoning northern Syria to the Kurds to focus on establishing the land-bridge with Iraq. Turkey, however, is not interested in conceding northern Syria to YPG. The latter are allied to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that Ankara considers a terrorist organization. With SAA focused on controlling population centers and the Syrian-Iraqi border, northern Syria will descend further into Kurdish domination. This would give PKK militants a large territory from which to regroup and resupply operations in Turkey. It is therefore a real possibility that Turkey will invade YPG-controlled northern Syria as soon as the operations against the Islamic State end. This will put the U.S. into a difficult position. On one hand, Turkey is a NATO ally. On the other, the Kurds are informal U.S. allies. The YPG have fought valiantly against the Islamic State and are perhaps the group most deserving of thanks for the defeat of its so-called Caliphate. Northern Iraq In northern Iraq, a similar dynamic has emerged where the Kurds have benefited the most from the rise of the Islamic State (Map 3). Operations in Mosul will soon end the Islamic State's dominion over parts of Iraq, which will allow Iraqi forces to focus on two tasks. First, resupplying Assad's SAA with weapons and troops. Second, turning to Kurdish gains in the north, particularly in the city of Kirkuk. Map 3Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey Iraqi Kurds, for their part, have called an independence referendum for September 25, 2017. President Masoud Barzani will not necessarily proclaim an independent Kurdistan following the referendum. The exercise could be a bid to negotiate more autonomy with Baghdad or a pre-election ploy to secure a majority in upcoming general elections and bolster the eventual presidential bid of his nephew, Nechirvan Barzani (current Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan). Iraqi Kurds may be able to find some sort of an arrangement with Baghdad for greater autonomy. The problem is that both sides claim parts of the region. Kirkuk, for example, is not officially part of Iraqi Kurdistan. However, Kurds see it as their ancient capital and thus seized it in June 2014 as a preventative move to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of the Islamic State. Not only is Kirkuk a major Iraqi population center, but it is also a significant oil-producing region. Investment Implications Over the next several months, we would expect tensions in these three geographies to increase. Given the proximity of Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and American forces, we would expect the probability of accidents to rise significantly. This could temporarily move the markets and assign some geopolitical risk premium to oil prices. However, investors should realize that the regions involved are not major producers of oil, aside from Iraqi Kurdistan where we do not expect large-scale warfare. As such, any effect on oil production would be a minor blip in the global supply. Over the long term, the clear winner in the region remains Iran. Bashar al-Assad, Iran's ally in Syria, will stay in power. It is also clear that the Sunni Islamic State Caliphate will disappear, giving back the Shia-dominated Iraqi government control over its territory. For Saudi Arabia, this is a reality that cannot be changed at the moment. As we have pointed out before, low oil prices are a constraint to war.7 They reduce government revenue and force leaders to focus on domestic stability. A major conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is therefore unlikely. However, Saudi Arabia will respond by building a Sunni alliance against Iran. With Syria and Iraq now in the Iranian sphere, the imperative for Saudi Arabia is to counter Iranian regional hegemony through alliances. Egypt will remain a clear beneficiary of this strategy. The country is already the Middle East's candidate for the "too big to fail" moniker. Its population, economy, demographics, and security challenges all make it the main candidate for chief regional security risk. As such, it will continue to receive support from the international community. For Saudi Arabia, Egypt is a way to diversify its security portfolio away from the aloof United States. As such, we would expect the Saudis to continue to prop up the Egyptian economy with loans and grants in return for being able to call on the Egyptian military in time of need. Given a cyclical recovery in Egypt, which BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy has recently elucidated, this creates a structural buying opportunity in the country's equity market.8 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist EM Equity Sector Strategy obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 The closest the world ever got to a powerful and effective multilateral structure was the nineteenth-century "Concert of Europe," which kept general peace in Europe for a century (1814-1914), but at the cost of dividing up the rest of the planet into imperial spheres of influence where European states could play out their mercantilist rivalries. Ultimately, even that architecture crumbled as the British hegemony that underpinned it weakened after the 1870s. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive almost nothing for holding U.S. assets, while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 5 The deal is not particularly significant in a military sense, and it is smaller in value than the last deal in December 2015, but it still sends a signal that angers Beijing, which also expects more controversial deals to be forthcoming given the Trump administration's signals that it plans to strengthen the Taiwan alliance. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust?" dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report, "Egypt: A Cyclical Recovery Amid Lingering Structural Challenges," dated June 20, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.