Economy

Highlights Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds, so there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. We estimate that bond yields can rise by no more than 30 bps, before the Fed is forced to talk them back down again. Starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. In capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. Fractal analysis: Cotton, and Polish equities. Feature Chart of the WeekTech Stocks Have Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One Equity valuations are extremely stretched versus bonds. The upshot is that there is little wiggle room for bonds to sell off before pulling down large tracts of the stock market. This is not just an abstract hypothesis – it is an empirical fact, as recent market action is making painfully clear. Since February, the global tech sector has tracked the 30-year T-bond price almost one-for-one. The near perfect fit proves that the tech (and broader growth stock) rally has been entirely premised on the bond market rally. Hence, on the three occasions that bonds have sold off sharply – including in the last couple of weeks – tech stocks have sold off sharply too (Chart of the Week). Put simply, the performance of the tech sector is being driven by the change in its valuation, and the change in its valuation is being driven by the change in the bond yield (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Tech Stock Valuations Are Being Driven By The Bond Yield Of course, stock prices are also premised on earnings. So, given enough time, rising earnings can make valuations less stretched, adding more wiggle room for bonds to sell off. The trouble is that a change in earnings happens much more gradually than can a change in valuation – a 10 percent rise in earnings can take a year, whereas a 10 percent fall in valuation can happen in a week. Bond Yields Remain The Dominant Driver Of The Stock Market For the next few months at least, the movement in bond yields will remain the dominant driver of the most stretched parts of the stock market and, by extension, the overall market itself. This is especially true for the growth-heavy S&P 500 which, since March, has been tracking the 30-year T-bond price one-for-one (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The S&P 500 Has Also Been Tracking The 30-Year T-Bond Price One-For-One The key question for investors is, what is the upper limit to bond yields before stock market damage causes the Federal Reserve to talk them down again? To answer this question, our working assumption is that a 15 percent drawdown in growth stocks would damage the growth-heavy S&P 500 enough – and thereby worsen ‘financial conditions’ enough – for the Fed to change its tone. Based on this year’s very tight relationship between tech stocks and the 30-year T-bond yield, a 15 percent drawdown would occur if the 30-year T-bond yield increased to 2.4 percent from 2.1 percent today (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Fed's 'Pain Point' Is Only 30 Basis Points Away This confirms our view that the resistance level to long-duration bond yields is around 30 bps above current levels, equivalent to around 1.8 percent on the 10-year T-bond yield. More About The ‘Negative Equity Risk Premium’ Our recent report The Equity Risk Premium Turns Negative For The First Time Since 2002 caused quite a stir. So, let’s elaborate and clarify the arguments we made about the equity risk premium (ERP) – the estimated excess return that stocks will deliver over bonds over a long investment horizon, such as 10 years. Many investors estimate the ERP by taking the stock market’s earnings yield – currently 4.6 percent in the US1 – and subtracting the real 10-year bond yield – currently -0.9 percent on US Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). At first glance, this presents a very generous ERP of 5.5 percent. So, equities are attractively valued versus bonds, right? Wrong. The glaring error is that the earnings yield estimates the stock market’s prospective return only if the earnings yield starts and ends at the same level. If it does not, then the prospective return could be very different to the earnings yield. For example, imagine that the stock market was trading at a bubble price-to-earnings multiple of 100, meaning an earnings yield of 1 percent. Clearly, from such a bubble valuation, nobody would expect the market to return 1 percent. Instead, as the bubble burst, and valuations normalised, the prospective return would be deeply negative. It follows that when, as now, the earnings yield is extreme versus its history, we must build in some prudent normalisation to estimate the prospective return. The question is, how? One approach is to use history to inform us of the likely normalisation. Chart I-5 does this using the ‘best-fit’ relationship between the earnings yield at each point through 1990-2011 and subsequent 10-year real return from each starting point. Using the best-fit for this specific episode, the current earnings yield of 4.6 percent implies a prospective 10-year real return not of 4.6 percent, but of -1.1 percent. Chart I-5Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 10-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Yet this best-fit approach meets a common reproach – that the best-fit for this specific episode is massively distorted by the dot com bubble peak and the global financial crisis (GFC) trough occurring (by coincidence) almost 10 years apart. We can counter this reproach in two ways. First, the best-fit relationship is much better than the raw earnings yield even for undistorted 10-year periods such as 1995-2005 or 2011-2021. Better still, we can change the prospective return from 10 years to 7 years and thereby remove the dot com bubble peak to GFC trough distortion. Chart I-6 shows that this 7-year best-fit relationship also works much better than the raw earnings yield. Chart I-6Based On History, The Current Earnings Yield Implies A Prospective 7-Year Real Return Much Less Than 4.6 Percent Admittedly, the best-fit comes from just one episode in history, and there is no certainty that the 10-year and 7-year relationships that applied during that one episode should apply through 2021-31 and 2021-28 respectively. Nevertheless, starting from an earnings yield that is extreme versus its history, as is the case now, we should prudently assume that the prospective long-term real return from equities will be far below 4.6 percent, and closer to zero, even if not actually negative. Will The ‘Real’ Real Yield Please Stand Up Measuring the ERP also requires an estimate of the prospective real return on bonds. This part should be easy because the yield on the US 10-year TIPS – currently -0.9 percent – is the guaranteed 10-year real return of buying and holding that investment. It is derived by taking the yield on the 10-year T-bond – currently 1.5 percent – and subtracting the market’s expected rate of inflation over the next 10 years – currently 2.4 percent. But the equivalent real return on the much larger conventional bond market could be quite different. In this case, it will be the 10-year T-bond yield minus the actual rate of inflation over the next 10 years. To the extent that the actual rate of inflation turns out less than the expected rate of 2.4 percent, the real return on the T-bond will turn out higher than that on the TIPS. In fact, this has consistently turned out to be the case. The market has consistently overestimated the inflation rate over the subsequent 10 years, meaning that the real return on T-bonds has been around 1 percent higher than that on TIPS (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Will The 'Real' Real Yield Please Stand Up Yet given the current surge in inflation, and no end in sight for supply chain disruptions and bottlenecks, is it plausible that the next ten years’ rate of inflation will be lower than 2.4 percent? The answer is yes. Because, as my colleague Peter Berezin points out: in capitalist economies, gluts may or may not lead to shortages; but shortages always lead to gluts. And gluts always cause prices to collapse. In other words, the current inflation is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Hence, we reiterate our structural recommendation to overweight US T-bonds versus US TIPS. The Cotton Is Stretched, And So Are Polish Equities Talking of shortages, cotton now adds to the list of commodities in which supply bottlenecks have raised prices to extremes. Cotton prices have reached a 10-year high due to weather conditions in the US (the world’s biggest cotton producer) combined with shipping disruptions. However, with cotton now exhibiting extreme fragility on its combined 130/260-day fractal structure, there is a high likelihood of a price reversal in the coming months when the shortage turns into a glut (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Cotton Is Stretched Meanwhile, the bank-heavy Polish equity market has surged on the back of the spectacular outperformance of its banks sector. This strong uptrend has now reached the point of fragility on its 130-day fractal structure that has indicated several previous reversals (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Poland's Outperformance Is Stretched Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to underweight the Warsaw General Index versus the Eurostoxx 600, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 6 percent.   Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Based on the 12-month forward earnings yield. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades     Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area   Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations   Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations      

Special Report

Highlights Electricity shortages in China are largely due to excessive power demand rather than a matter of shrinking electricity production. Chinese electricity consumption has been supercharged by the export sector’s booming demand for electricity. Excessive overseas (mainly US) demand for goods has been the main culprit behind China’s robust electricity demand. Divergence in the mainland economy between booming exports on the one hand and weakening property construction and infrastructure spending on the other hand will reduce the likelihood that policymakers will rush to stimulate. Odds are that Chinese and EM share prices will continue selling off and underperforming DM equities. Feature Contrary to popular perceptions, China’s electricity crisis is not due to drastic supply shortages but rather caused by excessive demand. This has implications for macro policy. Given that electricity shortages stem from strong demand, policymakers will be less aggressive in providing blanket stimulus over the near term. The basis is that unleashing more stimulus to boost the industrial sector – at a time when there are already scarcities of electricity and other inputs – will intensify the shortages and aggravate the situation. Robust Electricity Demand Electricity demand has been outstripping growing electricity output. Hence, shortages are largely due to excessive electricity demand. Charts 1 and 2 demonstrate that both electricity consumption and output have been expanding but demand growth has outpacing supply. Notably, electricity demand has surged above its trend by more than electricity production.  Chart 1Chinese Electricity Production Is Above Its Trend Chart 2Chinese Electricity Consumption Is Well Above Its Trend The mainland’s electricity demand has been strong due to surging manufacturing consumption of electricity. The top panel of Chart 3illustrates that electricity consumption in manufacturing has become overextended. On the other hand, residential demand for electricity has been expanding gradually and has not been excessive (Chart 3, bottom panel). The manufacturing sector has been supercharged by booming exports. Chart 4 reveals that China’s industrial output and exports have expanded briskly – their levels have surged well above their 10-year trend. Chart 3Electricity Demand Growth Is Driven By Manufacturing Not Residential Consumption Chart 4Manufacturing And Exports Have Been Very Strong Chart 5US Goods Demand: Classic Overheating DM countries’ stimulus has been responsible for this export boom. Specifically, US demand for goods has been running well above its pre-pandemic trend (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Both electricity consumption and production have been rising but demand has outstripped supply, resulting in shortages. On Supply Constraints Not only has total electricity output been rising but electricity produced by thermal coal has also been expanding, albeit gradually (Chart 6). China still generates 71% of its electricity using thermal coal. While electricity output growth from this source has slowed down recently, it has still not contracted (Chart 7). Chart 6China: Sources Of Electricity Production Chart 7Electricity Output Has Slowed But Not Contracted   Similarly, coal supply has been rising slowly, i.e., it has not shrunk (Chart 8). Coal supply has been capped due to the following reasons: Coal production has decelerated due to decarbonization policies adopted by Beijing. Authorities have also constrained coal mining by strictly enforcing safety protocols in mines following accidents early this year. Moreover, coal imports have been constrained by Beijing's ban on coal from Australia. Beijing’s “dual control” policy – which imposes targets on energy intensity and the level of energy consumption on provinces – has also led several local governments to reduce electricity production in recent weeks to ensure that annual targets are met. Finally, in recent years electricity prices have been flat-to-down while coal prices have surged (Chart 9). Thus, coal-based power generators have recently been incurring losses and some of them have been reluctant to produce more electricity. Chart 8China's Coal Supply Has Been Timid   Chart 9Coal Power Plants Are Operating With Losses   Authorities have begun tackling these problems. Coal supply will likely rise moderately as will electricity output from thermal coal. Reportedly, some Australian coal has in recent days been offloaded in China, and authorities have eased restriction on coal production and encouraged banks to lend to coal producers and electricity generators. Bottom Line: There has been a slowdown – not a contraction – in electricity produced by thermal coal. Authorities have started addressing these bottlenecks and odds are that electricity output will catch up with electricity demand before year-end, i.e., the power shortages will likely gradually ebb. Implications For Chinese Macro Policy Given that electricity demand has been outstripping supply, clients might wonder about the pace of China’s economic growth. This has ramifications as to whether or not authorities will stimulate aggressively. On the one hand, the manufacturing and especially export-oriented segments have been expanding briskly. As shown in Chart 4 above, manufacturing output in general and exports in particular have been overheating. Further, the labor market has been tightening, as is illustrated in Chart 10. On the other hand, as we have been writing, construction and infrastructure spending have been weakening (Chart 11). Chart 10China: Urban Labor Market Is Tight Chart 11Construction And Infrastructure Have Slowed Granted property developers, local governments and LGFVs are facing debt limits and financing constraints, it is safe to assume that they will cut back on their capital spending. China’s construction and infrastructure spending accounts for a large share of industrial metals demand. This is a basis for our argument that industrial metal prices remain at risk of declining. Unlike the current power crunch, industrial metal shortages are not caused by excessive demand but rather are due to shrinking production. Chart 12 shows that China’s steel output has contracted. Hence, the surge in steel prices has been due to production cutbacks. Local governments are probably shutting down metals production in response to decarbonization policies and to divert power to export-oriented companies. The fact that the price of steel’s key ingredient – iron ore – has collapsed is consistent with reduced demand for it (Chart 13). This is in contrast with the current strong demand for coal. Chart 12Lower Steel Production = Higher Steel Prices Chart 13Weak Iron Ore Demand = Lower Prices Overall, the bifurcation in the economy characterized by booming exports versus weakening property construction and infrastructure spending reduces the likelihood that policymakers will rush to stimulate. Rather, they will provide targeted support to negatively affected segments of the economy in the form of easier credit access, easing industry regulation and easier decarbonization targets. Bottom Line: Policymakers in Beijing will not rush to provide a blanket stimulus for now. Rather, they will use this period of booming exports to undertake deleveraging in the real estate sector as well as local governments and their affiliated companies. Investment Implications: Barring any large stimulus, construction and infrastructure spending will continue to disappoint, which is bad for industrial metals. This outlook in combination with the ongoing regulatory clampdown on internet companies heralds lower prices for Chinese investable stocks. Chart 14Stay Long A Shares / Short Chinese Investable Stocks Given that Chinese investable stocks include few export companies, booming exports will not be sufficient to propel China’s MSCI Investable equity index higher. Among the Chinese indexes, we reiterate our long A shares / short China MSCI Investable index strategy, a recommendation made in early March (Chart 14). Reshuffling The EM Portfolio BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team is recommending the following changes in country allocation within EM equity and fixed-income portfolios. Equities: We are downgrading Indian stocks from overweight to neutral. The reasons for this portfolio shift are presented in the country report we are publishing today. In its place, dedicated EM equity managers should upgrade Russian and Central European equity markets like Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary from neutral to overweight. The rationale is that high oil prices favor Russian equity outperformance. Barring a major crash in oil prices, we are comfortable maintaining an overweight allocation to Russia in an EM portfolio. ​​​​​​​In turn, rising bond yields in core Europe are positive for bank stocks that have a large weight in Central European bourses.   Fixed Income: We are upgrading Russian local currency bonds from neutral to overweight within an EM domestic bond portfolio. A hawkish central bank is positive for the long end of the Russian yield curve. 10-year yields also offer great value. Further, high energy prices (even if they drop from current very elevated levels but remain above $60 per a barrel) will help the ruble to outperform its EM peers. We maintain a yield curve trade of receiving 10-year/paying 1-year swap rates in Russia. Finally, we continue overweighting Russian sovereign and corporate credit within an EM credit portfolio.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations