Economy
Highlights Monetary Policy: Investors should fade the recent increase in expectations of a March rate hike. Still-low inflation and elevated policy uncertainty will keep the Fed on hold until June. Continue to position for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve, driven by the combination of above-trend growth and accommodative Fed policy. Economy: U.S. growth will be higher this year than in 2016, driven mainly by rebounds in residential and non-residential investment. Consumer spending should also remain firm, driven by solid income growth and a savings rate that has scope to decline in the coming months. High-Yield: High-Yield valuations are tight, but still consistent with small positive excess returns to corporate credit during the next twelve months. Feature Chat 1A Hawkish Market Reaction After having been relatively subdued in the two months since the Fed's last rate increase, rate hike expectations priced into money market curves awakened last week following Janet Yellen's semi-annual Congressional testimony. Expectations priced into the overnight index swap curve have returned close to levels last seen on the day of the December 2016 FOMC meeting (Chart 1). As of last Friday's close, the market was priced for 53 basis points of rate increases between now and the end of the year, with a 26% chance that the next rate hike occurs in March. The implied probability of a March hike peaked at 34% last Wednesday.1 In this week's report we discuss why a March rate hike is unlikely. We also consider the outlook for U.S. economic growth in 2017, which we expect will remain decidedly above trend. Above-trend growth will allow the gradual increase in core inflation to persist, reaching the Fed's target by the end of the year. As a result, the Treasury curve will bear-steepen during this timeframe. To position for this outcome, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration and favor the belly (5-year bullet) of the curve relative to the wings (2/10 barbell) in duration-matched terms.2 Yellen's Hawkish Turn? Most news reports of Janet Yellen's testimony last week perceived a hawkish tone in her remarks and focused specifically on the following sentence: As I noted on previous occasions, waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise, potentially requiring the FOMC to eventually raise rates rapidly, which could risk disrupting financial markets and pushing the economy into recession.3 However, more important than the above boilerplate is the simple fact that inflation remains below target and the Fed has an incentive to tread cautiously to support its eventual recovery. There is no pressing need to move quickly on rate hikes and we expect that the next rate increase will not occur until June. One reason is that, in the current cycle, the Fed has not lifted rates without having first guided market expectations in the months leading up to the hike. As can be seen in Chart 2, rate hike probabilities implied by fed funds futures were already well above 50% one month prior to each of the last two rate hikes. If there was a strong desire to lift rates in March, Yellen would have likely sent a more powerfully hawkish signal in her testimony last week. Instead, Yellen chose not to mention the March meeting specifically and said only that the Fed would continue to evaluate the case for further rate hikes at its upcoming "meetings". Chart 2Market-Implied Rate Hike Probabilities: March Looks Too High Second, as was alluded to above, core PCE inflation is running at 1.7% year-over-year, still below the Fed's 2% target. What's more, long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates are also below levels that are consistent with inflation being anchored near the Fed's target (Chart 3). At present, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is 2.17%. Historically, a range of 2.4% to 2.5% is consistent with inflation at the Fed's target. Further, even though a strong January core CPI print, released last week, seemed to strengthen the case for a March hike, the details of the report show that only a few components (new cars +0.9% m/m, apparel +1.4% m/m, and airline fares +2.0% m/m) accounted for most of the gains. In fact, our CPI diffusion index fell even further below the zero line. With both our CPI and PCE diffusion indexes in contractionary territory (Chart 4), it is very likely that inflation will soften in the coming months. Chart 3Inflation Still Too Low Chart 4Inflation Recovery Not Broad Based Both our own and the Fed's forecasts for continued inflation increases are contingent on the view that tight labor markets are causing wage pressures to mount, and certainly wages have accelerated during the past few years. However, wage growth in both real and nominal terms is still below where the Fed would like it to be, and there has been scant evidence of wage acceleration during the past few months. While the Atlanta Fed's Wage Growth Tracker remains strong in nominal terms, it has leveled off in real terms, and both the Employment Cost Index and Average Hourly Earnings have recently been flat (Chart 5). A final factor that will prevent the Fed from lifting rates in March is the extremely high degree of policy uncertainty. As shown in Chart 6, economic policy uncertainty traditionally correlates with financial conditions. With financial markets having already discounted a very positive fiscal policy outcome, there is a heightened risk that some disappointing news on the fiscal front will lead to a sharp tightening of financial conditions in the near term. Such an event would definitely put the Fed on hold until financial markets recovered. Chart 5Fed Needs Wage Growth To Pick Up Chart 6Policy Uncertainty Remains Elevated Bottom Line: Investors should fade the recent increase in expectations of a March rate hike. Still-low inflation and elevated policy uncertainty will keep the Fed on hold until June. Continue to position for a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve, driven by the combination of above-trend growth and accommodative Fed policy. Policy Aside, U.S. Growth Is Heating Up Chart 7ISM Surveys Point To Strong Growth Most recent economic discussion has focused on when President Trump will get around to enacting some of the more stimulative parts of his policy agenda, and whether or not the impact of these policies (tax cuts, infrastructure spending) will ultimately be offset by other spending cuts. But in the meantime, leading indicators of GDP growth have been picking up steam. Both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM surveys point to an increase in GDP growth in the first quarter (Chart 7), and consistently, the New York Fed's tracking model suggests Q1 GDP will grow by 3.1%. The Atlanta Fed's GDP tracking model pegs Q1 growth slightly lower at 2.4%. Our own sense is that GDP growth will remain solidly above trend this year, in the range of 2.5% to 3%, even in the absence of major fiscal stimulus. This forecast hinges on the view that both residential and non-residential investment will rebound from the depressed levels seen last year and that consumer spending will remain strong. Residential Investment Chart 8Residential & Non-Residential Investment Residential investment was actually a drag on GDP growth for two quarters in 2016, even though leading indicators such as the months supply of new homes and homebuilder confidence remained supportive (Chart 8, panels 1 & 2). The progress made on foreclosures since the financial crisis has driven housing inventory to its lowest level since the mid-1990s,4 meaning that housing supply no longer poses a headwind to construction. Further, demographics should also help boost the housing market during the next few years. According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, over the next ten years, the aging of the Millennial generation will boost the population in their 30s. The growth in this age cohort implies an increase of 2 million new households each year on average.5 While rising mortgage rates will be a drag on housing at the margin, they will not pose a significant headwind to residential investment in 2017. At least so far, mortgage purchase applications have been resilient in the face of rising rates (Chart 8, panel 3). Non-Residential Investment Non-residential investment was a small drag on growth in 2016, but this was largely related to depressed investment in the energy sector (Chart 8, panel 4). Now that the oil price has recovered, non-residential investment should return to being a small positive contributor to growth. Our composite indicator of New Orders surveys also suggests that non-residential investment will trend higher this year (Chart 8, bottom panel). While there is some concern that the optimism displayed in these survey measures may not filter through to the "hard" economic data, a Special Report from our Bank Credit Analyst publication that will be published on Thursday concludes that a tangible growth acceleration is indeed underway throughout the G7. Consumer Spending As always, the consumer is the main driver of U.S. growth and we expect consumer spending will remain firm in 2017. Our U.S. Investment Strategy service recently undertook a detailed analysis of consumer spending,6 focusing on its two main drivers - income growth and the savings rate (Chart 9). A look at past cycles suggests that income growth can remain strong even after the economy reaches full employment as rising wages compensate for decelerating payroll growth (Chart 10). The recent spike in consumer income expectations suggests that the impact from rising wages might be particularly important in the current cycle (Chart 10, panel 1). Chart 9Consumer Spending Is Driven By Income Growth And The Savings Rate Chart 10Wages Can Drive Income Growth Another benefit of the economy reaching full employment is that increased job security can translate into greater consumer confidence and a lower savings rate (Chart 9, bottom panel). Confidence trends suggest that the savings rate has scope to decline during the next few months. One possible headwind to consumer spending is the recent tightening of consumer lending standards. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the fourth quarter of 2016 shows that lending standards on auto loans have tightened for three consecutive quarters and that credit card lending standards also recently spiked into "net tightening" territory. In other words, more banks are now tightening lending standards on consumer loans than easing them. Prior to the financial crisis, consumer lending standards were strongly correlated with the savings rate (Chart 11). More stringent lending standards slowed the pace of consumer credit growth and led to reduced consumer spending. But this relationship broke down following the financial crisis. After the housing bust, households were no longer eager to supplement their consumption with as much credit as possible. Their chief concern became repairing their own balance sheets. As such, the supply of credit is no longer the most important driver of the savings rate. In the data, we observe that the savings rate did not fall by as much as would have been predicted by easing lending standards in the early years of the recovery. As a result, we do not think that modestly tighter lending standards will have much of an impact either. The Fed's latest Senior Loan Officer Survey also showed that demand for consumer credit declined sharply in 2016 Q4. This is potentially more worrisome for the savings rate since lower credit demand may still suggest a reduced appetite for spending, even in the wake of the Great Recession. However, a look back at prior cycles shows that loan demand from the Senior Loan Officer Survey tends to decline several years prior to the next recession, but the savings rate has tended to stay low until the next recession actually hits (Chart 11, bottom panel). We would not be surprised to see the same dynamic play out again. Bottom Line: U.S. growth will be higher this year than in 2016, driven mainly by rebounds in residential and non-residential investment. Consumer spending should also remain firm, driven by solid income growth and a savings rate that has scope to decline in the coming months. Chart 11Lending Standards Less Of A Risk Chart 12Default-Adjusted Spread A High-Yield Valuation Update With the release of the Moody's default report for January we are able to update our forecast for High-Yield default losses during the next 12 months, and also our High-Yield default-adjusted spread. The default-adjusted spread is our preferred valuation indicator for both High-Yield and Investment Grade corporate bonds. It is calculated by taking the option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index and subtracting an estimate of expected default losses during the next twelve months (Chart 12). Default loss expectations are calculated using the Moody's baseline forecast for the 12-month High-Yield default rate and our own forecast of the recovery rate based on its historical relationship with the default rate (Chart 12, bottom two panels). The current reading from our default-adjusted spread is 152 basis points. Most of the time, a reading of 152 bps on the default-adjusted spread is consistent with small positive excess returns for both High-Yield and Investment Grade corporate bonds (Chart 13 & Chart 14). This is also consistent with the excess returns we expect from corporate credit this year. Chart 1312-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. Ex-Ante ##br##Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Chart 1412-Month Excess Investment Grade Returns Vs. Ex-Ante High-Yield##br## Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) In fact, when the default-adjusted spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps, 12-month excess returns to High-Yield have been positive in 65% of cases, with a 90% confidence interval placing 12-month excess returns in a range between -5.0% and +1.7%. Given the favorable economic back-drop of strong economic growth and accommodative Fed policy, we would expect High-Yield excess returns to be positive during the next 12 months. But given the tight starting valuation, probably not above +1.7%. Bottom Line: High-Yield valuations are tight, but still consistent with small positive excess returns to corporate credit during the next twelve months. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our internal calculations of rate hike probabilities implied by fed funds futures are lower than those shown on Bloomberg terminals. Our measure differs because we use the actual data for the effective fed funds rate and also adjust for the well-known fact that the effective fed funds rate tends to fall by approximately 10 basis points on the last day of the month. 2 For further details on our recommended yield curve trade please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20170214a.htm 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see "The State Of The Nation's Housing 2016", Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 6 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Consumer: The Comeback Kid", dated January 16, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Add the S&P asset manager & custody banks index to the high-conviction overweight list. Prospects for higher interest rates bode well for a catch up phase with the rest of the financials sector. Initiate a long S&P consumer staples/short S&P technology pair trade, a truly out of consensus call. Housing-related equities are likely to gain ground as housing activity should stay resilient amidst rising borrowing costs. Recent Changes S&P Asset Managers & Custody Banks - Added to our high-conviction overweight list on February 16th. Long S&P Consumer Staples/Short S&P Technology - Initiate this pair trade today. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Momentum continues to drive the broad market trend. The drag from a reduction in global liquidity courtesy of depleting foreign exchange reserves continues to be overwhelmed by economic optimism. The latter is fueling a major rotation from bonds to stocks, which is the dominant market force. Valuations have taken a backseat, emblematic of blow-off phases. Two weeks ago we introduced our Complacency-Anxiety Indicator, which hit a new high. Another way to measure greed overwhelming fear is the relentless rise of the forward P/E over the VIX. The spread between these two measures can also gauge complacency. This Indicator has also soared to an all-time high (Chart 1). Chart 2 applies this methodology for the broad S&P sectors, using forward P/E and implied equity volatility, and then standardizes the result to remove biases from perennially low and high P/E sectors. A low reading suggests lower risk, and vice versa. Chart 1Buy At Your Own Risk Chart 2Sector Vulnerabilities And Opportunities At the moment, financials, telecom, utilities, REITs and health care have the lowest implicit vulnerability, while cyclical sectors carry the most risk. How long can this overshoot phase last? There are obviously no easy answers. However, from a purely technical perspective and in the absence of any major monetary, economic and/or geopolitical shocks, an examination of our Composite Technical Indicator (CTI) suggests some running room remains. Our CTI is driven primarily by momentum components. Overbought conditions are signaled once it hits one standard deviation above the mean. Currently, the TI remains slightly below this threshold (Chart 3). Even then, it can cross decisively into the danger zone before the S&P 500 eventually sells off in a meaningful fashion. Chart 3Overbought Conditions Can Persist Importantly, when the CTI swings quickly from deeply oversold to overbought levels, there can be a multi month lead before the broad market crests or suffers a sustained setback (Chart 3), and the bulk of those moves are associated with economic recessions and/or growth disappointments. The implication is that even though extended broad market valuations virtually guarantee paltry long-term returns and economic expectations are now sky-high, technical conditions suggest that momentum may continue to carry the day for a while longer. That does not mean investors should abandon a largely defensive portfolio structure, given that this is where the reward/risk tradeoff is most attractive and timing corrections is inherently difficult. Two weeks ago we recommended buying both gold and packaging stocks. As part of our ongoing rebalancing, this week we are further tweaking our portfolio. We recommend a pair trade to position for the inevitable sub-surface mean reversion heralded by our Indicators in the coming 3-6 months. Asset Managers: Shifting To High-Conviction Status The interest rate and market-sensitive S&P asset managers & custody banks index (AMCB) has lagged most other financials sub-indexes at a time when macro forces are lining up bullishly, particularly in view of the sector's attractive ranking on a forward P/E to volatility basis. While the capital markets and banks groups are seen as having higher torque to these positive forces, these three groups tend to move together. Lately, a divergence has opened, but a number of factors point to an imminent AMCB catch up phase (Chart 4), especially given that AMCB is not levered to overall credit growth, which has dried up. Fed Chair Yellen's testimony last week was interpreted to be slightly more on the hawkish side. That, coupled with the recent upside surprise in core inflation, raises the possibility of more 2017 tightening than currently discounted. That would provide further relief for custody banks, as ultra-low interest rates have been an anchor on this group's profitability as fees earned on funds held in trust have been minimal. The increase in short-term Treasury yields heralds a share price rally (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Catch Up Ahead Chart 5Time To Rally Moreover, the boost in economic expectations signals scope for an increase in fee generating activity, such as M&A, stock issuance and even stock lending. BCA's Global Economic Sentiment Index also indicates that the share price ratio has undershot (Chart 5). Most importantly, the asset preference shift from bonds to stocks reverses another major drag on profitability (Chart 5, third panel). Fixed income products carry lower margins than equity products, so as equity assets under management grow, profit margins should expand. If so, then we would anticipate a relative valuation re-rating, especially if the pace and scale of financial sector deregulation disappoints. The latter has been a key factor propelling capital markets and banks, and any disappointment could cause a capital rotation into the lagging AMCB index. Bottom Line: We are already overweight the S&P asset management & custody banks index, and added it to our high-conviction list in a daily Sector Insight on February 16th. New Pair Trade This week we are recommending what can be considered a highly contrarian pair trade: long the S&P consumer staples sector and short the S&P technology sector. It may be difficult to swallow executing such a non-consensus position while the broad market is going gangbusters. However, the objective message from our Indicators and increasing odds of a vicious, un-telegraphed correction, argue that the reward/risk trade-off is too attractive to ignore. As outlined in last week's Cyclical Indicator Update, the technology sector's relative earnings profile has deteriorated, because the corporate sector is not spending much yet and tech companies have suffered a serious loss of pricing power. Conversely, the consumer staples sector has a better chance of earnings outperformance, according to our model (Chart 6). Both sectors appear to have discounted the opposite outcome. Moreover, from a technical perspective, tech stocks are overbought and consumer staples are extremely oversold (Chart 6). Even a simple technical/momentum renormalization would imply a sharp jump in the share price ratio. Both sectors lose competitiveness when the U.S. dollar rise, but given that the technology sector's share of foreign sales (58%) is much higher than that of consumer staples (28%), the pain is disproportional. Importantly, consumer staples exports are accelerating, whereas tech exports are shrinking (Chart 7). Chart 6Contrasting Profiles Chart 7The Strong Dollar Is Worse For Tech Non-durable consumer goods are less sensitive to emerging market prospects, and thus when their currencies weaken, momentum in the consumer staples/tech share price ratio tends to accelerate (EM currencies shown inverted and advanced, bottom panel, Chart 7). Moreover, a strong U.S. dollar tends to reduce input costs for many consumer staples vendors, both through lower commodity prices and a reduced cost of imported goods sold. We have shown that tech stocks fare poorly toward the latter stages of a U.S. dollar bull market, when consumer staples start to shine. This dynamic reflects the economic fallout abroad from a strong U.S. dollar, particularly on developing economies, as well as the drag on U.S. corporate profits, and by extension, capital spending. While the U.S. dollar and stocks have risen in tandem in recent months, that cannot continue indefinitely, and when the correlation breaks down, the defensive consumer staples sector should outperform. In terms of economic dynamics, this share price ratio tends to accelerate when consumer spending outperforms capital spending. Consumer confidence is outpacing business confidence (Chart 8, top panel), signaling such an environment ahead. That sentiment mismatch has already translated into faster consumption than business investment on tech goods (Chart 8, second panel). Unless the gap between the return on and cost of capital reverses course and widens anew, then this trend is likely to persist. As a result, the surge in consumer staples vs. technology pricing power will continue, ultimately flattering the share price ratio through relative profit performance (Chart 8, bottom panel). The message is that consumer staples profits can have the upper hand over tech even when overall GDP growth is positive, provided the underlying driver is consumption rather than capital spending. From an external standpoint, it is notable that consumer staples have a better track record than tech stocks during inflationary periods. Chart 9 shows that the uptrend in long-term inflation expectations and increase in actual inflation both forecast a revival in this pair trade. Chart 8Unsustainable Divergences Chart 9Inflation Pressures? Buy This Ratio Rising inflation ultimately heralds tighter monetary policy, which is a precursor to elevated broad market volatility and a rise in the discount rate, to the detriment of long duration sectors. History shows that the high priced tech sector is more vulnerable than the safe haven staples sector in such an environment. In sum, the time is ripe for a contrary pair trade favoring consumer staples vs. technology. Notable risks to this trade are that the U.S. dollar weakens meaningfully and/or global capital spending re-accelerates decisively, relative to consumer spending. Bottom Line: We recommend a market neutral long consumer staples/short technology pair trade. The time horizon for this trade is 3-6 months. Will Housing Stocks Go Through The Roof? Housing-related stocks have delivered positive earnings surprises, but anxiety about rising mortgage rates challenges the outlook. While the latter is a risk, cheap valuations and consumers' underappreciated ability to absorb rising borrowing costs offset these concerns. Sensitivity analysis shows that even a 200 basis point (bps) spike in interest rates from current levels would fail to push housing affordability back to the long-term average (Chart 10). Moreover, mortgage payments as a percentage of incomes and effective borrowing costs would also remain below their respective historic means even with such a spike. Importantly, housing market fundamentals are improving. Lumber prices are on fire. Lumber has been the best performing commodity year-to-date. This is a real time indicator of housing demand (Chart 11). Similarly, railroad carloads of lumber are also firming, signaling that the price rise is demand-driven rather than a speculative bet in the trading pits. Sustained house price inflation, solid housing turnover and the acceleration in building permits reinforce that housing activity remains robust (Chart 11). Chart 10Higher Rates Are Not A Show Stopper Chart 11Lumber Strength Is Housing Bullish The credit tap to sustain strong activity is still open. According to the latest Fed Senior Bank Loan Officer Survey, banks are willing and able to extend residential mortgage credit (bottom panel, Chart 11). This contrasts with many other credit categories, where banks are tightening the screws and credit demand is faltering: C&I loans have shrunk over the past three months, as has total bank credit. First time home buyers are also reappearing and anecdotes of increased house flipping activity signal a vibrant market with unobstructed access to credit. All of this should continue to support earnings-led outperformance from both homebuilders and home improvement retailers (HIR). The bullish outlook for the S&P homebuilding index rests on four pillars. The latest National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) survey revealed that sales expectations remain over 20 points above the boom/bust line and just shy of recent cyclical highs (Chart 12). Homebuilders are clearly still seeing strong traffic. New home prices are still expanding at a healthy clip (Chart 12). Sales growth and new home price inflation are tightly linked. The mortgage application purchase index has picked up steam despite the mortgage rate increase, confirming that first time homebuyers are entering the market after a long hiatus as the financial motivation to buy vs. rent has improved. This optimism is causing an aggressive re-rating in earnings estimates from chronically bearish levels (Chart 12), a harbinger of further gains in relative share prices. The S&P HIR index also has a concrete foundation. Higher lumber prices flow straight to the bottom line, because HIR companies typically earn a set margin on lumber-related sales. Moreover, higher housing turnover is a boon for industry sales volumes (Chart 13). Historically, home sales momentum has been an excellent leading indicator of renovation activity. Chart 12Buy Homebuilders... Chart 13... And Building Supply Retailers Encouragingly, the NAHB remodeling survey is still in expansion territory, and tends to follow the trend in home sales, underscoring that home renovation activity is set to improve (Chart 13). Our HIR model encapsulates many of these key drivers, and has climbed anew (Chart 13). The message is that profits, and share prices, are on track to outperform. Adding it all up, the housing backdrop remains attractive, and even a steady increase in borrowing costs should not disrupt momentum. The time to become concerned will be if inflation becomes a serious risk, causing the Fed to get 'tight' and credit availability to dry up. The next few interest rate hikes won't move the monetary settings to that phase yet. Until then, we recommend erring on the bullish side. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight in the S&P home improvement retail index (HD, LOW) and continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation in the S&P homebuilding index (PHM, DHI, LEN). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).
Highlights Recent economic and inflation data can be characterized as Goldilocks: strong enough to keep recession fears at bay, yet not hot enough to warrant Fed tightening. Historical precedent suggests that the current period of positive economic surprises could persist for at least another month or two, fueling ever-more lopsided positioning into equities. Despite a lot of good news already discounted, we retain a cyclical bias toward small caps. Currently, the main driver of style performance is sector weightings. Value stocks are likely to perform slightly better than Growth by virtue of a smaller weighting in technology and larger weighting to financials. Higher conviction in Value stocks outperformance awaits better credit growth trends. Feature The term Goldilocks is used to describe an economy that is growing, but is not quite hot enough to create serious inflation risks, and not so cold that it fosters recession fears. Last week's major data reports fit this view of the world and helped U.S. equity prices soar to a new all-time high (Chart 1): NFIB Small Business Survey: Since small businesses have long been considered the job engine of the U.S. economy, monitoring the sentiment of small businesses owners, their likelihood to undertake expansion plans, and raise/cut prices, can often give a good glimpse into the likelihood of financial market trends to be sustained on a cyclical basis. In January, the NFIB small business sentiment indexes surged and to our surprise, the positive sentiment did not correct in February (Chart 2). The expectations component actually rose even further! Chart 1Rotation Into Stocks Chart 2Will Hopes Be Dashed? We continue to believe the survey reflects a lot of hope and is likely to reverse substantially. According to the survey, business conditions are the best in thirty years, save for a brief period in the early 2000s. Even the most ardent of Trump supporters will find it difficult to explain how a handful of executive orders and memoranda have so significantly altered the business landscape in such a short space of time! This radical shift in sentiment makes risk asset prices vulnerable: the pace of economic expansion has only gradually improved, but investors and other economic agents have drastically revised upward their expectations. Retail Sales: A number of cyclical tailwinds are beginning to finally align for consumers, as discussed in January 16 Weekly Report, and consumers appear to be in slightly better shopping moods in 2017. January retail sales beat expectations and prior months were revised higher. Spending improved across categories and these broad-based gains reinforce our view that the consumer can lead a gradual, self-reinforcing economic recovery (Chart 3). Inflation: We do not worry that cyclical inflation trends will be strong enough to force the Fed to raise rates faster than the FOMC's current expectations (three rate hikes by end-2017). True, both headline and core CPI were stronger than consensus expectations in January, and producer prices are in a noticeable uptrend. But this should not be viewed as the beginning of a new, more dangerous inflation problem. As Chart 4 shows, producer prices - at all stages of production - have been rising for the past few months. But only a fraction of any price rise at the producer level is likely to be passed on to consumers. Chart 5 shows that core goods prices have decoupled with finished goods producer prices (i.e. the last stage of production) since 2000. This speaks to the massive deflationary impulse at the end of the supply chain: a combination of deflation via imported goods, major technological advances in supply chain management and logistics, and changing consumer behavior in an e-commerce age means that consumers are not price takers. These factors imply that any budding inflation pressures will stay "trapped" at the earlier stages of the supply chain and it should not be a foregone conclusion that PPI can drive CPI prices higher. Chart 3Consumer Supports Are In Place Chart 4Producer Prices Turning Higher... Chart 5...But PPI Barely Leaks Into CPI Similarly, the rise in the headline inflation rate - for the first time since 2013 above core CPI - should not be viewed as an omen for what lies ahead for broader inflation trends. As Chart 6 shows, the relationship between energy prices and core CPI broke down during the early 1980s: a rise in energy prices does not correlate with non-energy consumer prices. Chart 6Energy Prices Uncorrelated With Core CPI Since The 1980s Finally, we note that despite general optimism about business conditions in the NFIB survey, the pricing backdrop remains a glaring exception. In the most recent survey, the number of businesses expecting to raise prices actually fell. With respect to last week's core CPI print, the monthly increase of 0.3% is unlikely to be sustained. A few components were behind the upside surprise. For example, new car prices increased 0.9% m/m, apparel prices rose 1.4% m/m and airline fares spiked 2.0% m/m. The usual suspects behind outsized price gains were actually quite tame in January. Homeowners' equivalent rents increased by 0.2% m/m versus several months of 0.3% gains. Similarly, medical care was up 0.2% m/m. Our CPI diffusion index fell further below the zero line, confirming that inflation pressures are not broad based. Perhaps the only negative development last week was that positive data surprises, combined with a slightly hawkish interpretation of Janet Yellen's testimony, have pushed forward the bond market's expectations of the next Fed interest rate hike. We expect the most likely outcome will be that the next rate hike will be in June. If that forecast proves correct, then any upward pressure on bond yields should be modest in the next few months. We do not expect a resumption of the cyclical bond bear market to be a headwind for stocks until later this year at the earliest. How long can the Goldilocks backdrop persist? As Chart 7 shows, positive economic surprises have been propping up financial markets alongside optimism about a Trump-led Republican government. Importantly, for the first time since 2011, positive economic surprises are occurring in the first quarter of the calendar year. During past episodes, this level (i.e. above 40) in the Economic Surprise Index has persisted for upwards of three months. The implication is that economic surprises may continue to help fuel the momentum in equity prices for another month or even longer. Chart 7Economic Surprises Could Persist A While Longer This corroborates our review two weeks ago of technical indicators, which showed that apart from extreme sentiment and despite the persistent run-up in equity prices, most short-term indicators are not yet flashing warning signs. In sum, recent data prints show that the U.S. economy is on sturdier footings. The absence of a meaningful inflation threat implies that a prolonged economic cycle can feed positive gains in the stock/bond ratio over a cyclical horizon. But these positive underpinnings cannot explain the speed and magnitude of the recent financial market adjustments. Although the bulk of our indicators suggest that positioning may become more lopsided in the short term, the current phase of the rally is high-risk. Size And Style Guide Several clients have asked about size and style investing in recent weeks. We remain overweight small caps relative to large, and are only slightly more optimistic about Value versus Growth. In the case of Value versus Growth, we echo the advice of our Global ETF strategy:1 the Value/Growth decision has become, more than ever, a matter of sector preference. As Table 1 shows, there are three sectors with vastly differing weights between S&P Growth and Value Indexes. The Value index is dominated by Financials (27% of the index, versus a 4% weight in the Growth index and 15% in the S&P 500) and Energy (12% in the Value Index versus 3% and 7% in the Growth and S&P 500 Indexes, respectively). Meanwhile, technology stocks make up a whopping 34% of the Growth Index. It is no wonder then that Value stocks shot higher on the back of a post-election financial sector outperformance streak (Chart 8). Financials (as well as the energy sector) received a big boost due to the promise of drastic de-regulation of the industry under a majority-Republican government. TABLE 1Sector Composition Our U.S. Equity Strategy service is underweight the technology sector, but only neutral on financials and energy stocks. On this basis, only a slight Value bias would make sense. At present, relative sector weightings appear to be the highest conviction argument in favor of a particular style, since many indicators that have reliably gauged style performance are not convincingly tilting in one direction or another. For example, growth stocks tend to need rising long-term earnings expectations to help them outperform. But this cycle, Growth stocks outperformed long before long-term earnings expectations started to move higher. Now that EPS have adjusted upward, it is hard to see - absent a repeat of the tech bubble in the late 1990s - long-term earnings growth rising enough to drag relative share performance higher. Conversely, the conditions for a plunge in long-term earnings expectations do not exist (Chart 8). Similarly, Value stocks tend to require improving global growth conditions in order to sustain relative outperformance over Growth stocks (Chart 8, bottom panel). That condition is in place, though the strength of the trend is unclear. In an upcoming publication by our Bank Credit Analyst, BCA editors uncover that although it is clear that an upswing in global growth is occurring in both the "soft" and "hard" data, there is little concrete evidence that this cyclical upturn will be any more enduring than previous mini-cycles so far in this lackluster expansion. The bottom line is that the outperformance in Value stocks relative to Growth may endure, by virtue of Value stocks having a comparably small allocation to technology stocks and a relatively larger allocation to financials (and energy). A more compelling case for Value stocks requires a higher conviction view in a prolonged financial sector outperformance phase. The latter awaits a move from promises to watch action on financial deregulation and more importantly, a more positive outlook on credit creation. As for small caps relative to large, we expect that the cyclical outperformance trend in small caps is sustainable (Chart 9). True, in the near term, there is room for overbought conditions to be further unwound. The consensus opinion that corporate tax reform and Trump trade policy will disproportionately benefit small companies is likely already fully discounted, making small cap share prices vulnerable to political disappointment. Chart 8Growth Will Struggle ##br##To Keep Up With Value Chart 9Small Cap Outperformance##br## Is Not Constrained By Valuation Meanwhile, if the dip in the U.S. dollar becomes a more sustainable trend, then small caps will be at further risk. However, that is not our base case: we expect broad dollar strength to be supportive of small cap stocks over the next six to twelve months. The U.S. economy is on sounder footing than its global counterparts and the Fed is far out in front; both of these conditions are supportive of a stronger dollar. Fortunately, small caps earnings are far more insulated from dollar strength, by virtue of the fact that small caps revenues are much more domestically oriented than large caps. The one area that small caps earnings may come under more pressure than large caps is margins. As noted above, small businesses are not yet particularly optimistic about their ability to raise prices in order to match wage hikes. Nonetheless, we expect better domestic (and thus small-cap positive) top-line growth to outweigh a margin squeeze felt more heavily for small caps versus large. Finally, small caps are often viewed as a higher beta play on growth (although this has not always been the case). Since relative valuations are not yet problematic, then if our base case of a prolonged, albeit not necessarily overly robust, non-inflationary economic expansion pans out, then the small cap outperformance phase could also endure for a prolonged period. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global ETF Strategy/ETS Equity Trading Strategy Special Report “Smart-Beta ETF Selection, Part I - Value Funds,” dated February 15, 2017, available at bcaresearch.com.
Dear Client, In addition to our regular Weekly Report, we sent you a Special Report on Wednesday prepared by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, assessing the election landscape in Europe this year. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights Global growth has accelerated, corporate earnings are rebounding, and leading indicators suggest that these positive trends will persist over the remainder of the year. This supports our cyclically bullish view on global equities. Looking further out, the impulse to growth from the easing in financial conditions that began in early 2016 will fade, setting the stage for a slowdown in 2018. If growth does falter next year, easier fiscal policy could provide an offsetting tailwind. However, there continues to be a large gap between what politicians are promising and what they can realistically deliver. What is different this time is that spare capacity is much lower than it was during previous mid-cycle slowdowns. Thus, while global bond yields could eventually dip, they remain in a secular uptrend. Feature The Elusive Correction We have been arguing since last fall that stronger global growth will help fuel a variety of reflationary trades.1 This part of our view has panned out nicely. What has surprised us is just how relentlessly the market has traded that view. With the exception of a few small wobbles, the S&P 500 has basically marched higher since the morning following the U.S. presidential election. Reflecting this development, the VIX fell to near record low levels earlier this week (Chart 1). The market's failure to take a breather has sabotaged our efforts to have our cake and eat it too - to maintain an overweight stance on global equities, while also profiting from the occasional correction. In contrast to our last three tactical hedges - which generated a cumulative return of 42% - our latest hedge is now down 9%. That's a lot of red ink. Out of pure risk management considerations, we will close this trade if the loss breaches 10%. Nevertheless, most indicators continue to warn of a looming correction. In particular, our U.S. equity strategists' new "Complacency-Anxiety" index is at an all-time high, suggesting that stocks have entered a technical overshoot phase (Chart 2).2 Chart 1VIX Is Near Record Lows Chart 2Complacency Reigns Cyclical Picture Still Solid In contrast to the short-term outlook, the 12-month cyclical picture for risk assets still looks reasonably good. Measures of current activity are rebounding as animal spirits begin to kick in (Chart 3). Falling unemployment and stronger wage growth are causing households to open their wallets. Against the backdrop of decreasing spare capacity, firms are reacting to this by increasing investment spending. Capital goods orders in the G3 economies have jumped higher in recent months, and capex intention surveys are pointing to further upside (Chart 4). Chart 3Current Activity Indicators Are Rebounding Chart 4An Upswing In Capex Corporate earnings have also accelerated on the back of faster economic growth. Consensus estimates call for global EPS to expand by 12% in local-currency terms this year, with the S&P 500 registering 10.4% growth, the STOXX Europe 600 gaining 14.3%, Japan's TOPIX adding 12.5%, and MSCI EM leading the pack at 16%. Outside the U.S., year-to-date earnings revisions have generally been positive, particularly in Japan and EM (in the U.S., 2017 EPS estimates have ticked down a modest 0.8%). BCA's in-house earnings models are consistent with this optimistic profit picture (Chart 5). What accounts for this fortuitous turn of events? A number of reasons help explain why growth accelerated in the second half of 2016: The drag on global growth from the plunge in commodity sector investment ran its course. U.S. energy sector capex, for example, tumbled by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016, knocking 0.7 percent off the level of U.S. GDP. The fallout for commodity-exporting EMs such as Brazil and Russia was considerably more severe. The global economy emerged from a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 6). In the U.S., inventories made a negative contribution to growth for five straight quarters starting in Q2 of 2015, the longest streak since the 1950s. The U.K., Germany, and Japan also saw notable inventory corrections. Fears of a hard landing in China and a disorderly devaluation of the RMB subsided as the Chinese government ramped up fiscal stimulus, helping to reflate the economy. Global growth benefited with a lag from the easing in financial conditions that began in earnest in early 2016. Government bond yields fell to record low levels in July. In addition, junk bond spreads collapsed, dropping from a peak of 7.9% in February to 4.3% by year-end (Chart 7). Higher equity prices, particularly in a number of beaten down emerging markets, also helped. Chart 5Broad-Based Acceleration In Corporate Earnings Chart 6Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 7Corporate Borrowing Costs Have Fallen How Much Longer? Chart 8Improvement In Global ##br##Leading Economic Indicators The key question for investors is how long the good times will last. Right now, most leading indicators that we follow are signaling that the expansion will endure for the remainder of this year (Chart 8). As we look towards 2018, however, things get murkier. Conceptually, it is the change in financial conditions that matters for growth. While the ongoing rally in global equities and continued narrowing in credit spreads has contributed to some easing in financial conditions since the U.S. presidential election, this has been partly offset by higher government bond yields. A stronger dollar has also led to an incremental tightening in the U.S., as well as in some emerging markets with high levels of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. As such, it is likely that the positive "impulse" to economic growth from the easing in financial conditions that took place last year will begin to dissipate towards the end of this year. Fiscal Policy To The Rescue? If growth does slow next year, easier fiscal policy could provide an offsetting tailwind. The fiscal thrust for developed economies turned positive in 2016, the first year this happened since 2010 (Chart 9). However, it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue. There is little support among Republicans in Congress for a big infrastructure program. It once seemed possible that Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats could find common ground with President Trump on this issue, but that is looking less likely with each passing day, given the level of vitriol in Washington. Broad-based tax cuts are a certainty, but the risk is that they will be coupled with cuts to government spending. Empirically, the latter have a larger "multiplier effect" on GDP than the former. To complicate matters, the introduction of a border adjustment tax - something to which we assign 50% odds - could generate significant near-term dislocations for the global economy.3 Meanwhile, much of Trump's regulatory agenda is in limbo. A repeal of Dodd-Frank is off the table. Senate Republicans do not have the 60 votes needed to scrap it. The Volcker rule is here to stay. On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission has recommended a further loosening in fiscal policy this year, but member states themselves are actually targeting somewhat smaller fiscal deficits (Chart 10). As is often the case, budgetary overruns are likely, but with the Greek bailout program now back on the ropes, Germany and a number of other countries may begin to dial up the austerity rhetoric. Chart 9Will Fiscal Policy Continue To Ease? Chart 10European Commission Recommending Greater Fiscal Expansion Uncertainty over the slew of European elections slated for this year could also weigh on business sentiment. Marine Le Pen is likely to place first in the initial round of the French presidential election, but faces an uphill battle in the subsequent runoff. Nevertheless, betting markets are assigning a one-in-three chance of Le Pen becoming president - similar to the odds they were assigning to a Brexit "yes vote" and a Trump victory (Chart 11). Italy also remains a risk, as my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, discussed in this week's Special Report.4 Anti-euro sentiment is now stronger there than in any other major European economy (Chart 12). Chinese fiscal policy has already tightened significantly, with the year-over-year rate of change in government spending falling from a high of 25% in November 2015 to zero at present (Chart 13). So far the Chinese economy has held up well, but there is a risk that this may change. Despite Trump's backpedaling on the "One China" question, we expect the Trump administration to declare China a currency manipulator later this year. This will pave the way for higher tariffs on a variety of Chinese goods, which could lead to retaliatory measures by China. Chart 11Brexit, Then Trump... Is Le Pen Next? Chart 12Italy: Anti-Euro Sentiment Is A Risk Chart 13China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Fading Investment Conclusions Chart 14Diminished Slack In The Global Economy Global growth continues to be strong, and is likely to stay that way for the remainder of this year. However, there is a heightened risk that the global economy will falter in 2018. We remain cyclically overweight global equities and underweight government bonds, but are not dogmatic about this view. As the discussion above suggests, plenty of things could derail the reflation trade. If evidence begins to mount that a slowdown is coming earlier than we think, we will turn more bearish on stocks. Given that equities are technically overbought at present, we would not fault anyone for taking some money off the table. If growth does slow in 2018, does this mean that bond yields will fall back towards last year's lows? We don't think so. For one thing, a major deflationary commodity bust of the sort we endured in 2014-15 is not in the cards. In addition, there is less slack in the global economy now than there was last year, or for that matter, anytime since early 2008 (Chart 14). As we discussed in our Q1 Strategy Outlook, potential GDP growth is likely to remain structurally depressed across much of the world, owing to slower productivity and labor force growth.5 Lower potential growth means that excess capacity could continue to be absorbed even if growth slows somewhat from its current well-above trend pace. In the U.S., this absorption of excess capacity is nearly complete, with most labor market indicators suggesting that the economy is approaching full employment (Chart 15). In this vein, we would heavily discount the decline in average hourly earnings in January's employment report. Chart 16 shows that this was mainly driven by an anomalous drop in compensation in the financial sector. Broader measures continue to point to brewing wage pressures (Chart 17). We expect the Fed to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is now pricing in. If this happens, the dollar is likely to strengthen modestly over the remainder of the year. Chart 15U.S. Economy Approaching ##br##Full Employment Chart 16Financial Sector Dragging ##br##Down Hourly Earnings In The U.S. Chart 17U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing ##br##To Rising Wage Pressures Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bridging The Gap," dated February 6, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Chinese fiscal stimulus, both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment, has slowed significantly since late last year. This raises a red flag on the sustainability of the cyclical upturn. The Chinese economy should remain buoyant in the near term, despite fiscal retrenchment. Policy initiatives should be closely monitored. Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." Stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. There are early signs that deflation is re-emerging in Hong Kong. Feature The Chinese economy has maintained strong momentum since the beginning of the year. Some sectors are showing remarkable strength, an extraordinary development considering that January is historically a lackluster month for industrial activity due to seasonality factors. The recent strength is all the more noteworthy as policymakers have apparently rolled back fiscal support significantly since late last year, and have more recently also tightened on the monetary front.1 The divergence between strengthening growth momentum and waning policy support raises hopes that the economy has finally found its footing with self-sustainable dynamics, but at the same time raises the risk that growth may relapse anew without policy tailwinds - especially if struck by an exogenous shock. For now we maintain our benign view on China's cyclical growth outlook, but the risk is tilted to the downside, and policy initiatives should be closely monitored going forward. Meanwhile, we remain positive on Chinese equities on a cyclical basis. This week we are also upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight." Strengthening Growth Versus Waning Fiscal Support Despite seasonal noise in the macro data in the first two months of the year, most macro numbers coming out of China of late have surprised significantly to the upside. Producer prices have continued to accelerate, heavy-machine sales have been booming, and even exports have rebounded sharply (Chart 1). The regained strength in the economy is partly attributable to early last year's low base, which has supercharged year-over-year growth rates. However, there is little doubt at this stage that China's growth recovery since early last year has developed into a mini boom. Beneath the robust growth numbers, there are some disconcerting undercurrents on the policy front (Chart 2). Fiscal spending growth has decelerated sharply since early 2016, and actually contracted towards year end. More importantly, capital spending on infrastructure construction, which can be viewed as an indicator for broader policy-driven spending in the economy, also slowed sharply in the last quarter. Fixed asset investment in transportation networks and utility concerns have also abruptly slowed. Investment in railway construction contracted by almost 30% in the final months of last year from a year earlier. All of this underscores a synchronized reduction in the public sector's involvement in the economy of late. Chart 1Growth Recovery... Chart 2... Meets Waning Fiscal Stimulus It is not immediately clear why the government has significantly scaled back fiscal support. Combined with the latest interest rate adjustments by the People's Bank of China, it is likely that the authorities have become content with the economy's performance to a degree that any direct policy pump-priming in their view is no longer necessary or justified. If China's ongoing cyclical growth improvement was due to the authorities' reflationary efforts, then the abrupt change in policy course certainly raises a red flag on how long the recovery may last. Can The Growth Recovery Continue Without Fiscal Support? Chart 3Monetary Conditions Matter More Than Fiscal We expect the Chinese economy to remain buoyant in the next two quarters, even without major acceleration in fiscal spending, for the following reasons: First, China's growth recovery since last year has been driven primarily by easing monetary conditions through a weakening exchange rate and falling real interest rates, rather than strong fiscal boost. Chart 3 shows that industrial sector growth deterioration worsened dramatically in 2014, which in hindsight was due to a combination of aggressive fiscal retrenchment and tighter monetary conditions index (MCI). Even though fiscal expenditures began to accelerate strongly starting in early 2015, the economy only began to improve a year later when the MCI started to ease. In fact, the industrial sector continued to improve throughout 2016 along with a rising MCI when fiscal expenditures decelerated. In other words, the industrial sector's performance is much more tightly correlated with the country's monetary conditions than the cyclical swings in fiscal spending. On one hand, the RMB exchange rate matters fundamentally for the manufacturing sector, which is heavily exposed to overseas markets. On the other hand, lower real interest rates, either through easing deflation or falling nominal rates, has been a primary driver of corporate profitability and overall business conditions, given the country's debt-centric financial intermediation system (Chart 4). As PPI is still rising rapidly and the trade-weighted RMB has once again rolled over, monetary conditions will likely continue to ease, which will further boost the industrial sector despite the fiscal cuts. Second, the slowdown in infrastructure spending will likely be compensated by accelerating investment in other sectors, manufacturing and mining in particular. Easing monetary conditions and ensuing growth improvement have significantly boosted corporate profitability, which should in turn boost manufacturing capital spending (Chart 5). It is likely that the multi-year slowdown in manufacturing sector capital spending has run its course and will accelerate going forward, albeit gradually.2 Investment in the mining sector is still contracting sharply. However, there has also been a dramatic improvement in profits among mining related industries, particularly coal and base metals (Chart 5, bottom panel). If historical correlations hold, the dramatic contraction in mining sector investment has likely already become very advanced, if not already bottomed. At minimum, it is highly unlikely that mining-related capex will continue to contract at an accelerating pace. Chart 4Interest Rates Versus Corporate Profits Chart 5Profits Versus Capital Spending A potential revival in manufacturing and mining capex will reverse a major growth headwind the Chinese economy has faced in recent years, which will continue to buoy growth despite slowing infrastructure construction. Manufacturing and mining account for over 33% of China's total fixed asset investment, higher than the 25% share of infrastructure alone (Chart 6). Indeed, there are signs that the corporate sector's intentions to expand capital investment may already be improving. In recent months medium- to long-term new loans to the corporate sector have accelerated strongly, which could be a sign that the corporate sector is beefing up on investment capital (Chart 7). Chart 6Manufacturing And Mining Capex ##br##Versus Infrastructure Construction Chart 7Longer Term Loans##br## Have Accelerated Sharply Finally, we maintain the view that overall inventory levels in the economy are unsustainably low, and improving growth and easing deflation should push producers to re-stock (Chart 8). This should also ease any near-term pressure on production, even if new orders are hit by slowing public sector demand. In other words, the economy has a built-in buffer for a period of weaker demand which could allow policymakers to re-orient demand-side policies in light of the new growth situation. Chart 8The Case For Inventory Restocking In short, we expect that waning fiscal support in the economy will not derail the cyclical recovery. Macro numbers may look toppy in the coming months, as the favorable base effect from last year's low levels wears out, but business activity should remain buoyant at least in the coming two quarters. Nonetheless, in a global environment that is still facing enormous challenges and mounting uncertainties, domestic policy tightening obviously raises downside risks. The annual People's Congress in early March should offer some important clues on the Chinese government's growth priorities and policy directions, and should be closely monitored. Tactically Upgrade H Shares In terms of Chinese stocks, our attempt to time a market correction in H shares ahead of the U.S. presidential elections in October did not bear fruit as expected.3 This week we are upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight". Even though H shares did correct, they found support at key technical levels and have broken out of late, underscoring a strong technical pattern (Chart 9). We are still concerned that some global markets, especially U.S. stocks, appear frothy and are vulnerable to some sort of shakeout, but the market appears to be in a melt-up phase in the near term. The risk of being left out in a rising market is higher than otherwise. More importantly, Chinese H shares are not nearly as frothy, if not outright cheap, which should further limit downside risks. The Trump administration has notably toned down the anti-China rhetoric, and the near term risk of escalating trade tension between the U.S. and China has abated.4 This should also soothe investors' concerns on Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." A shares will likely remain largely trendless. Meanwhile, stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. Hong Kong: Is Deflation Coming Back? Hong Kong's GDP numbers to be released next week are likely to show the economy accelerated in the final quarter of the year, according to our model (Chart 10). However, the improvement was likely almost entirely driven by exports rather than domestic factors. In fact, retail sales contracted by 3% in December from a year ago. More importantly, with the exception of essential items such as food, alcohol and tobacco, the growth rates of all other major consumer goods are in deeply negative territory. Durable goods, an important barometer for consumer confidence and spending power, dropped by a whopping 20% in value, or 15.8% in real terms from a year ago, underscoring very weak domestic demand. Therefore, Hong Kong's growth outlook will remain heavily dependent on external demand. Chart 9H Shares: A Technical Breakout Chart 10Hong Kong's Growth Recovery Weak domestic demand also weighs heavy on inflation. Hong Kong's headline inflation is falling rapidly, primarily driven by declining rental prices, and odds are high that inflation may dip below zero in the coming months. This means that deflation may re-emerge for the first time since 2005. These developing deflationary pressures underscore the frothy housing market, and also suggest the Hong Kong dollar may have become expensive again. The currency board system prevents nominal exchange rate adjustments, and therefore any adjustment has to be through changes in domestic prices. There is little systemic risk in Hong Kong's financial system, but the re-emergence of deflationary pressures further weakens domestic demand, augments growth difficulties and bodes poorly for asset prices, especially real estate. We will follow up on these issues in the coming weeks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "On Chinese Tightening," dated February 9, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Watch," dated January 19, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Bonds are universally unloved. The economic 'mini-upswing' is extended. 6-month bank credit impulses have rolled over. Europe is entering a period of high-impact political events. Equities are universally loved. If bond prices bounce back, Bank equities are losers and Real Estate equities are winners. Feature From time to time it is worth stepping out of the herd and asking: is the herd heading in the right direction? Given the seemingly universal dislike of high-quality government bonds, this week's report goes through five reasons why bonds could make a surprising comeback in the coming months.1 Chart of the WeekBrexit And Trump Distorted An Otherwise Typical Mini-Cycle Upswing 1. Bonds Are Universally Unloved The extent of herding in bonds is extreme on both a 65-day and 130-day basis (Chart I-2). The herd is a good metaphor for financial markets given the capacity for investor sentiment to move en masse. However, excessive herding is dangerous, because it destroys market liquidity. Chart I-2The Extent Of Herding In Bonds Is Extreme Liquidity - defined as the ability to buy or sell an investment in large volume without moving its price - requires healthy disagreement. After all, at today's price, if you sell a bond and I buy it from you, we are disagreeing about the attractiveness of the price. If many investors disagree on the attractiveness of the price, then there will be plenty of liquidity. The main reason for healthy disagreement and plentiful liquidity is that the market is usually split between short-term momentum traders and long-term value investors. If the price fluctuates downwards, the momentum trader interprets this as a strong sell-signal but the value investor sees it as an equally strong buying-opportunity. Hence, the two types of investor can trade with each other in large volume without moving the price (much). However, if the value investor flips to become a momentum trader and sells rather than buys, the price must fall until it attracts a bid from a deep value investor. If the deep value investor then also flips to become a momentum trader, the price must fall further until it attracts a bid from an even deeper value investor. And so on... As everybody in turn flips to the same view, the herd and the trend will get stronger and stronger. The tipping point comes when there is nobody left to flip and to join the herd. If a value investor then suddenly reverts to type and puts in a buy order, he will find that there are no sellers left. Liquidity has evaporated, and to replenish it might require a substantial reversal in the price. On both our 130-day and 65-day herding indicators, bonds appear vulnerable to such a reversal in the coming weeks. 2. The Economic 'Mini-Upswing' Is Extended Chart 1-3Major Economies Exhibit ##br##Very Clear 'Mini-Cycles' A typical business cycle lasts multiple years. But within this longer cycle, major economies exhibit very clear 'mini-cycles' whose upswings and downswings last 6-12 months (Chart I-3). As we demonstrated in Slowdown: How And When? 2 these mini-cycles result from the perpetual interplay between changes in bond yields, accelerations/decelerations in credit growth, and accelerations/decelerations in economic growth. The inception of the current mini-upswing coincided with last February's G20 meeting in Shanghai. At the start of 2016, global growth appeared to be stalling and financial markets were fragile. In response, a so-called 'Shanghai Accord' facilitated a synchronized stimulus in the major economies - either directly, or in the case of the U.S., a watering down of monetary tightening expectations. By spring last year, bond yields were forming a typical mini-cycle bottom. But in June, the Brexit shock sent yields sharply, but briefly, lower. Conversely, the Trump shock-victory in November accelerated the upswing in yields that was already well underway (Chart of the Week). Absent these two political shocks, 2016 produced a typical mini-upswing whose duration is now approaching 12 months - making it long in the tooth. Mini-upswings do not die of old age. But it would be highly unusual for the economy's credit-sensitive sectors not to feel a strong headwind now from the sharp upswing in bond yields. 3. 6-Month Bank Credit Impulses Have Rolled Over 6-month credit impulses have indeed rolled over in the major economies (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5), exactly as would be expected after a sustained upswing in bond yields. Chart I-46-Month Credit Impulses Have ##br##Rolled Over In Major Economies... Chart I-5... And ##br##Globally Now you could argue that the upswing in bond yields is simply a response to improved expectations for growth. The problem with that argument comes from the inter-temporal and geographical distribution of that potential growth pickup. U.S. fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending is an uncertain tailwind to be felt in 2018, or end 2017 at the earliest. Furthermore, this stimulus is unlikely to benefit Europe or other economies outside the U.S. Yet the recent rise in bond yields and weakening of credit impulses has occurred everywhere. Compared to Trump's intangible stimulus, the choke on credit-sensitive sectors is a certain headwind whose impact will be felt sooner and more universally. 4. Europe Is Entering A Period Of High-Impact Political Events The next few months will also see a sequence of potentially high-impact political events in Europe. The Netherlands and France hold elections in which disruptive populist politicians are likely to perform well, though probably not well enough to gain power. Meanwhile, Greece appears to be reneging on the terms and conditions of its latest bailout - whose next tranche of funds it needs to make a large debt repayment in July. Into this sensitive mix, add the start of the formal and potentially acrimonious divorce proceedings between the U.K. and the EU27, due to start by the end of March. To be clear, the probability of a shock outcome in any of these individual events is low. But the probability of a shock from at least one of these multiple events is not so low. If the probability of an individual shock is, let's say, 20% then the probability that the event goes smoothly is clearly 80%. Therefore, the probability that all four events go smoothly would be 0.8 to the power of 4, equal to 41%.3 Which means that the probability of at least one shock would be a significant 59%. Perhaps the probability of an individual shock in any of these four events is less than 20%. However, there are also other more nebulous sources of risk, such as the possibility of early elections in Italy, and a disruptive outcome. To reiterate, an individual risk might be low or very low. But the chance of at least one shock in the upcoming sequence of events must be close to evens. And this is the chance that high-quality government bonds will receive significant haven demand at some point in the coming months. 5. Equities Are Universally Loved High-quality government bonds are universally unloved, but mainstream equities have the opposite problem. They are universally loved. The extent of herding in equities is extreme on a 65-day basis (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Extent Of Herding In Equities Is Extreme This perfect symmetry of herding behaviour suggests to us that if investors suddenly fall out of love with equities - even briefly - then unloved bonds would be the very likely beneficiaries. Pulling all of the five arguments above together, we conclude that the odds of a tactical retracement in high-quality government bond yields in the next 3-6 months are more than evens. And we would position accordingly. In this eventuality, stock market investors should note that the sector that might be most vulnerable is Bank equities (Chart I-7). Conversely, the sector that might be one of the biggest beneficiaries is Real Estate equities (Chart I-8). Chart I-7If Bond Prices Bounce Back, ##br##Bank Equities Are Losers... Chart I-8... And Real Estate ##br##Equities Are Winners Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Our analysis throughout uses the JP Morgan Global Government Bond Index as the best representation of the direction of high-quality government bonds, including those in Europe. 2 Published on February 2, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 3 Strictly speaking, this assumes that all four events are independent - that is, the outcome of one does not influence the outcome of another. Fractal Trading Model There are no new trades this week. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Chart I-1No Recovery In Domestic Demand Feature Today we are publishing charts on cyclical economic conditions within developing economies. The aim of this report is to aid investors in gauging the business cycle profiles of these individual emerging economies. Global trade and manufacturing have recovered, driven by an acceleration in U.S. and euro area demand. Chinese imports have also recovered, supporting global trade amelioration. Although there has been improvement in EM manufacturing PMIs (diffusion indexes), "hard" EM economic data have not recovered (Chart I-1). This is especially true for EM domestic demand measures such as consumer spending and real gross fixed capital formation. Given the still-lingering credit excesses in many EM countries, credit growth is likely to decelerate further, leaving little chance of domestic demand recovering. Bottom Line: Continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets versus their DM peers. China Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7 Chart I-2C2 Chart I-3C3 Chart I-4C4 Chart I-5C5 Chart I-6C6 Chart I-7C7 Korea Chart I-8, Chart I-9, Chart I-10, Chart I-11 Chart I-8C8 Chart I-9C9 Chart I-10C10 Chart I-11C11 Taiwan Chart I-12, Chart I-13 Chart I-12C12 Chart I-13C13 India Chart I-14, Chart I-15, Chart I-16, Chart I-17 Chart I-14C14 Chart I-15C15 Chart I-16C16 Chart I-17C17 Indonesia Chart I-18, Chart I-19 Chart I-18C18 Chart I-19C19 Malaysia Chart I-20, Chart I-21 Chart I-20C20 Chart I-21C21 Thailand Chart I-22, Chart I-23, Chart I-24 Chart I-22C22Chart I-24C24 Chart I-23C23 Philippines Chart I-25, Chart I-26 Chart I-25C25 Chart I-26C26 Brazil Chart I-27, Chart I-28, Chart I-29, Chart I-30, Chart I-31, Chart I-32 Chart I-27C27 Chart I-28C28 Chart I-29C29 Chart I-30C30 Chart I-31C31 Chart I-32C32 Mexico Chart I-33, Chart I-34, Chart I-35, Chart I-36, Chart I-37 Chart I-33C33 Chart I-34C34 Chart I-35C35 Chart I-36C36 Chart I-37C37 Colombia Chart I-38, Chart I-39, Chart I-40, Chart I-41 Chart I-38C38 Chart I-39C39 Chart I-40C40 Chart I-41C41 Peru Chart I-42, Chart I-43, Chart I-44 Chart I-42C42Chart I-43C43 Chart I-44C44 Chile Chart I-45, Chart I-46, Chart I-47, Chart I-48 Chart I-45C45 Chart I-46C46Chart I-47C47Chart I-48C48 Argentina Chart I-49, Chart I-50, Chart I-51, Chart I-52, Chart I-53 Chart I-49C49 Chart I-50C50 Chart I-51C51 Chart I-52C52 Chart I-53C53 Russia Chart I-54, Chart I-55 Chart I-54C54 Chart I-55C55 Turkey Chart I-56, Chart I-57, Chart I-58, Chart I-59 Chart I-56C56 Chart I-57C57 Chart I-58C58 Chart I-59C59 South Africa Chart I-60, Chart I-61, Chart I-62, Chart I-63 Chart I-60C60 Chart I-61C61 Chart I-62C62 Chart I-63C63 Central Europe Chart I-64, Chart I-65 Chart I-64C64 Chart I-65C65 Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights Rate Volatility: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Treasury Yields: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. MBS: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Feature Low interest rate volatility has been a constant feature of the investing landscape during the past few years. In fact, you need to go back to the 1970s to find another period when interest rate volatility was consistently at or below its current level (Chart 1). Not surprisingly, the implied volatility priced into Treasury options is also as low as it has been during the past 30 years, with the exception of the period just prior to the financial crisis in 2007 (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Volatility: Lowest Since The 70s Chart 2Implied And Realized Yield Volatility Move Together This begs the question of whether the current low-vol environment can be sustained, or whether overly complacent investors are in for a shock. At the very least, we believe that rate volatility has already passed its cyclical trough and will start to move up this year. Investors should prepare themselves for higher volatility. In this week's report we examine the key macro drivers of interest rate volatility and discuss the implications of rising vol for both Treasury yields, and crucially, mortgage-backed securities. Macro Uncertainty & Rate Volatility Chart 3Macro Drivers Of Rate Volatility In a Special Report published in 2014,1 we posited that the long-term trends in volatility across all asset classes are largely driven by common macroeconomic factors. Specifically, investor uncertainty regarding the outlook for economic growth and monetary policy. A 2004 paper by Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi2 provides some theoretical justification for this view, as the authors observed that investors tend to overreact to new information when macro uncertainty is high, and underreact when uncertainty is low. To test the linkage between interest rate volatility and macro uncertainty we consider three measures of uncertainty. The first two measures, shown alongside the MOVE index of implied Treasury volatility in Chart 3, are measures of GDP growth and T-bill rate forecast dispersion. We measure dispersion - the disagreement among forecasters - by looking at individual forecasts of GDP growth and T-bill rates and calculating the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. The series shown in Chart 3 are equal-weighted averages of the forecast dispersion calculated for five different time horizons, ranging from the current quarter to four quarters ahead. As can be seen in the top two panels of Chart 3, implied interest rate volatility is higher when the disagreement among forecasters is greater, consistent with our thesis. The third measure of uncertainty we consider is the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index tracks uncertainty about the macro environment by counting the number of mentions of certain key words in major global newspapers. Elevated readings from this index have also coincided with high rate volatility in the past (Chart 3, bottom panel). GDP Growth Forecast Dispersion Chart 4Forecast Dispersion & Corporate Lending Disagreement among GDP growth forecasts reached an all-time low in the fourth quarter of 2016, but has since recovered to slightly more typical levels. Historically, we have found that C&I lending standards and corporate sector balance sheet health correlate most closely with GDP growth forecast dispersion (Chart 4) and both measures suggest that forecast dispersion is biased upward. T-Bill Rate Forecast Dispersion T-bill rate forecast dispersion was abnormally low between 2011 and 2014 for two reasons. The first reason is quite simply the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. A short rate bounded at zero necessarily trimmed the distribution of possible T-bill rate forecasts, since forecasters logically assumed that further interest rate cuts were not possible. This impact will gradually dissipate the further the fed funds rate moves off zero. Chart 5Fed Says March Meeting Is Live The second reason for extremely low T-bill rate forecast dispersion was the Fed's forward guidance. During this timeframe the Fed was actively trying to convince the public that interest rates would remain low. The most obvious example being the "Evans Rule", where the Fed promised not to lift interest rates at least until the unemployment rate had fallen below a specific threshold. This activist forward guidance limited the range of conceivable T-bill rate forecasts and crushed interest rate volatility. Nowadays, the Fed is engaged in a different sort of forward guidance, trying to convince markets that every FOMC meeting is live and that rate hikes could occur at any moment. Essentially, the Fed is trying to inject volatility into the rates market. Just a few weeks ago, when asked about the low probability markets are assigning to a March rate hike (Chart 5), San Francisco Fed President John Williams replied flatly: "I don't agree. All our meetings are live." Global Economic Policy Uncertainty We have written a lot about the policy uncertainty index in recent reports,4 focusing specifically on how it has diverged from its historical relationships with many asset prices. At the very least, we expect that sustained elevated policy uncertainty will place upward pressure on asset price volatility at the margin. Bottom Line: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Rate Volatility & Treasury Yields Long-dated nominal Treasury yields can be decomposed in a few different ways. In recent reports we have focused on the decomposition of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield into its real and inflation components. By identifying different macro drivers for each component we concluded that nominal Treasury yields will increase this year, driven by a rising inflation component and relatively stable real yields.5 Alternatively, we can think of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield as consisting of an expectations component equal to the market's expected path of short rates over the next ten years, and a term premium that reflects all of the other market imbalances and uncertainties associated with taking duration risk. This second approach is complicated by the fact that it requires a model of ex-ante interest rate expectations and every commonly used model is fraught with its own unique difficulties.6 Setting that aside, if we use the Kim & Wright (2005)7 estimate of the 10-year term premium we observe an expectations component that generally tracks the fed funds rate and a term premium component that is correlated with implied Treasury volatility (Chart 6), although the latter correlation is less than perfect. This decomposition also suggests that nominal Treasury yields should rise. The Fed is much more likely to hike rates than cut them and we have concluded that rate volatility is likely to trend higher from current depressed levels. However, the relationship between rate volatility and the term premium is complicated. The main reason for the complicated relationship between interest rate volatility and the term premium is the fact that elevated interest rate volatility also tends to be correlated with high equity volatility (Chart 7). So while higher rate volatility puts upward pressure on the term premium, the associated increase in equity volatility tends to raise investor risk aversion and increase the perceived value of bonds as a hedge against equity positions. This mitigates some (or often all) of the impact of rising rate volatility on the term premium. Chart 6Which Way For The ##br##Term Premium? Chart 7MOVE & VIX Have Opposing##br## Impacts On Bond Yields Bottom Line: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. Rate Volatility & MBS The relationship between rate volatility and MBS is much more straightforward than for Treasury yields. We observe a tight correlation between nominal MBS spreads and the MOVE implied volatility index (Chart 8). Chart 8 suggests that, even in the near-term, MBS spreads are too low for current levels of rate vol. The relationship between MBS spreads and rate volatility is easily explained. The defining characteristic of a negatively convex asset, such as MBS, is that its duration is positively correlated with the level of interest rates (Chart 9). This correlation leads to increased losses when yields rise and lower gains when yields fall. It's not surprising that negatively convex assets perform best in low volatility environments. Chart 8MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol Chart 9MBS Duration Moves With Yields We maintain an underweight allocation to MBS given that spreads are already low and that the volatility environment is poised to become less favorable. Further, if the Fed continues along its planned normalization path it is likely to cease the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio at some point in 2018. There are two reasons why this poses a risk for MBS. The first reason is that the unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio is likely to place upward pressure on implied volatility. While private investors often hedge their MBS positions by purchasing volatility, the Fed has no incentive to do so. It follows that by removing a large stock of MBS from private hands the Fed has also removed a large source of demand for volatility. When this supply is re-introduced into the market, demand for volatility is likely to increase. The second reason relates more directly to the supply and demand balance for MBS. In years when net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been negative, excess MBS returns have tended to be positive (Chart 10). Further, while negative net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been the norm since Fed asset purchases began in 2009 (Chart 11), this state of affairs will change once the Fed starts to unwind its MBS portfolio. Chart 10Annual MBS Excess Returns ##br## Vs. Net Supply Since 1989 Chart 11Net Issuance Will Turn##br## Positive In 2018 During the past three years the Fed has been buying between $20bn and $40bn MBS per month, just to keep its balance sheet stable. Net new MBS issuance will not be strong enough to overcome this hurdle in 2017, but net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) will swing quickly into positive territory in 2018 if the Fed decides to let its MBS portfolio run down. Bottom Line: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Volatility, Uncertainty And Government Bond Yields", dated May 13, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 "Inflation and earnings uncertainty and volatility forecasts", Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi, Manuscript, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago (2004). 3 Please see www.policyuncertainty.com for further details. 4 Please see Theme # 4 in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Volatility - The Unwelcome Guest That Will Not Leave", dated June 16, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Don H. Kim and Jonathan H. Wright, "An Arbitrage-Free Term Structure Model and the Recent Behavior of Long-Term Yields and Distant-Horizon Forward Rates", FEDS 2005-33. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2005/index.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights The divergence in political uncertainty measures and the VIX index suggests that equity prices are vulnerable to Washington disappointments. Longer term, a self-reinforcing, low-inflation recovery is in place, which sets a fundamentally positive cyclical backdrop for equities. Monetary policy is still in a sweet spot for risk assets. Fed policy decisions throughout the current cycle have been in line with the Taylor Rule, once the model is adjusted for regional growth disparities. The most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey runs counter to most other data on the consumer. Improved consumer confidence should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. Feature Equity market performance over the past few weeks has been impressive. Still, there are starting to be signs that investors are becoming nervous. Safe-haven assets have been undergoing a stealth recovery since mid-December: gold, the Japanese yen, and the Swiss franc have all appreciated (Chart 1). In relation to these trends, the equity market is the so-called "odd man out": even though several safe-haven assets bottomed out mid-December, the stock market continued to make new highs. A second worrying divergence is the behavior of two popular risk indexes: the VIX and the Global Policy Uncertainty Index. The former - a measure of the cost of equity insurance - remains very low, while political uncertainty is making record highs. In fact, Chart 2 shows that the gap between these two risk measures is at a historic extreme. This reinforces our view that the equity market is vulnerable to negative surprises. Chart 1A Message From Safe Havens? Chart 2Different Signals? One main risk is that investors will become disappointed with the timing and magnitude of market-friendly policies from Washington. Meanwhile, the possibility of less friendly policies being passed is rising. Our Geopolitical team believes that the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) proposal, though the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show.1 We would expect market volatility to rise as the BAT debate intensifies. Longer term, the economy is entering a self-reinforcing phase. And since it is premature to expect inflation to flare up to a point that would require aggressive monetary tightening,2 we expect that the cyclical bull market will be prolonged. Policy Sweet Spot We have shown on several occasions3 that equities perform well in the early phases of a rising interest environment, i.e. for as long as rates remain in accommodative territory. We have identified four phases of the fed funds rate cycle, which are defined by the policy rate relative to its equilibrium level (accommodative or restrictive) and the direction of its last move: Phase I = Policy is accommodative, but the Fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed funds is still rising. Phase III = Policy is tight, but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easing and the Fed is cutting rates. As one would expect, the best equity market returns occur when the Fed funds rate is accommodative (below the equilibrium rate) and the Fed is still cutting and/or on extensive hold, i.e. Phase IV. The second best phase for equity performance is the current one: when policy is still accommodative, but rates are rising (Chart 3). Granted, the magnitude of returns in this phase depend markedly on earnings performance, but the general message is that risk assets will continue to eke out positive gains, so long as the Fed finds reason to stay accommodative. Chart 3Policy Sweet Spot Can Last A Long Time To this end, this week we examine the Taylor rule - which prescribes a value for the federal funds rate based on the values of inflation and economic slack - and its usefulness in the current economic (and political) environment. The Robotization Of The Fed In mid-January, FOMC Chair Janet Yellen gave a speech4 that outlined the merits of using statistical rules to guide monetary policy. Her speech served as a rebuttal to the FORM Act (Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act). The FORM Act - whose main feature is to have Fed officials determine a mathematical formula to guide their interest-rate decisions - is only one of several measures that have been proposed over the years to revamp the Fed to put it under greater Congressional scrutiny and limit its discretionary powers. The Senate has never voted on the FORM Act, but Yellen's speech on rule-based approaches to monetary policy suggest that this type of legislation should be on investors' radars. In the past, plenty of simple policy rules have been suggested to guide central banks' decisions.5 But in her speech, Yellen spoke about the relevance of the Taylor Rule. The Taylor rule calls for systematic adjustments in the federal funds rate relative to its expected longer-run neutral level in response to movements in inflation and the output gap, defined as the percentage difference between actual output and the economy's productive potential. The traditional Taylor Rule shows that the Fed is currently behind the curve and should be much more hawkish (Chart 4, top panel). Chair Yellen's preferred variant is to use a "balanced approach," which is twice as responsive to the movements in resources utilization (Chart 4, bottom panel). Simply put, it doubles the coefficient of the output gap, putting more emphasis on maintaining sustainable growth. But even with this methodological tweak, Yellen warned of the danger of using simple rules to conduct policy and quoted the uncertain footing of the global economic growth pattern. She also highlighted that the uncertainty related to upcoming fiscal policy: "simple rules ignore such important factors as fiscal policy, trends affecting global growth, structural developments influencing supply of credit, and overall financial conditions." For this reason, we created an Augmented Taylor rule that improves on the Traditional as well as Yellen's preferred modified Taylor rule. Our version of the Taylor rule has a better track record in explaining the Fed's policy decisions historically. Chart 4Taylor Vs. The Fed Chart 5Different Rates For Different States Augmenting The Taylor Rule One of the difficulties in conducting monetary policy in the U.S. is that growth is unevenly distributed. For example, according to the BEA, state level real GDP growth varied between -0.1% (In Alaska and New Mexico) and 7.1% (in South Dakota). Regulating interest rates over such an eclectic base has the potential to create distortions. Therefore, determining a mathematical formula for monetary policy should take into account these asymmetric patterns. By studying state-specific variables, we augment the Taylor Rule and come up with a more accurate reading of the Fed's behavior. The Augmented Taylor Rule is calculated using an average of 51 state-specific Taylor rules,6 using state GDP deflator and state unemployment rate as inputs. Please note that the following work does not make us advocates for the Fed following a mathematical formula. However, our model does better formulize the Fed's historical actions. To construct our Augmented Taylor rule we do the following: Step 1 - State Taylor Rules: NAIRU and the Fed's targets for interest rates and for inflation were used at the national level. As such, we used state-specific variables for the rest of the variables. Specifically, we used each states' GDP deflator and unemployment rate as inputs for inflation and resource utilization, respectively. With these variables, we calculated each states' Taylor Rule using Janet Yellen's preferred formula, the balanced approached. We then aggregated the data by calculating a simple average of the 51 Taylor Rules. As a reference, the top panel of Chart 5 shows that the averaged state Taylor Rules and Yellen's balanced approach are similar despite slightly different methods. Step 2 - Quantifying Asymmetry: As the middle panel of Chart 5 shows, there are large divergences between states' Taylor Rule-prescribed interest rates throughout time. Therefore, we calculated the standard deviations of the Taylor Rules across the 51 states Taylor Rules to come up with a value of asymmetry measure (Chart 5, bottom panel). Step 3 - Augmenting The Taylor Rule: We then deducted the asymmetry measure from the average Taylor Rule (Chart 6). The rationale for doing so is that it is much more difficult for the Fed to raise rates when outputs gaps vary greatly across states. Step 4 - Validating The Rule: Chart 7 shows the relationship between the national balanced Taylor rule (i.e. Yellen's preferred approach) and the Fed funds rate, and the augmented Taylor rule and the Fed funds rate. The main difference between our adjusted Taylor rule and Yellen's balanced approach is that we give equal weight to each state Taylor rule and then subtract the variance across states. Recall that both the Traditional and Balanced Taylor rules use national aggregate data, and do not account for state variances. The augmented Taylor Rule improves the R2 over the national rule, therefore providing more explanatory power of the Fed's decisions. Chart 6The Fed Is Constrained By Asymmetry Chart 7Validating The Augmented Taylor Rule The bottom line is that the Augmented Taylor Rule allows us to understand and quantify the economic asymmetry within the U.S. Further, it appears as though the Fed has been following this rule even if policymakers are not aware of it! Given the current message from our rule, investors should expect the Fed to remain gradual in raising rates. We do not foresee the Fed "catching up" with the Traditional Taylor (which currently calls for a policy rate of over 4%). The above Taylor Rule analysis corroborates our view that policy will stay in a sweet spot for equities. The bond market currently is priced for two rates in the next twelve months. If that is realized, interest rates would still be below the equilibrium rate, underscoring that monetary policy will be a benign factor for risk assets. Economy Update: Too Early To Worry About Rising Rates The most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, completed after most of the run up in interest rates, showed that banks' lending standards for loans to businesses remained largely unchanged, though lending standards for consumer loans stiffened, especially for auto loans and credit cards (Chart 8). There was also reportedly less demand for consumer credit. These results run counter to most other data on the U.S. consumer. As we highlighted in previous reports, consumer confidence has soared to its highest level in the cycle and the labor market is approaching full employment. These trends should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. This was not borne out in the Fed's Q1 lending survey, especially as it relates to auto and credit card loans: banks expect the asset quality of auto and credit card loans to further deteriorate this year. These survey results are difficult to ignore as they tend to correlate reasonably well with consumer spending patterns. We maintain an optimistic view on household spending for 2017, driven by the strong labor market, though the next survey (to be released in early May) will tell whether the Q1 results were an aberration or the start of a weaker trend. Importantly, recent work from our Bank Credit Analyst service7 concluded that household interest payment burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100bps for today's levels. According to their analysis, it would require a much more significant shock, i.e. 300bps or greater, to move interest payments as a share of GDP back toward historical averages. Projections are shown in Chart 9. Chart 8Banks Are Still Cautious On Lending Chart 9Rising Rates Are Not Problematic More broadly for the major economies, global debt has soared by over 40 percentage points since 2007. However, The BCA report uncovers that a doomsday scenario for global growth due to a rising interest rate environment (led chiefly by the Fed) is unlikely to unfold. First, the starting point for debt service burdens in the corporate, household and government sectors is low. These burdens have generally trended down since 2007 because falling interest rates have more than offset debt accumulation, with the major exception of China. Second, the maturity distribution of debt means that it takes time for interest rate shifts to filter into debt servicing costs. For example, the average maturity of corporate investment-grade bond indexes in the major economies is between 3 and 12 years. The average maturity of government indexes range from 7½ to 16 years. Moreover, the majority of household debt is related to fixed-rate mortgages. Even a significant portion of consumer debt is fixed for 5 years and more in some countries. Third, even following the backup in yield curves since the U.S. election, current interest rates on new loans are still significantly below average rates on outstanding household loans, corporate debt and government debt. The implication is that most older loans and bonds coming due over the next few years will be rolled over at a lower rate compared to the loans and bonds being replaced. This will even be true if current yield curves shift up by 100bps in many cases (except for the U.S. where current yields are closer to average coupon and loan rates). The bottom line is that a rising interest rate backdrop will only become problematic much later in the economic cycle. In the meantime, the strength of the consumer spending upcycle depends on (stronger) income trends and banks' willingness to spend. We are optimistic about the former and will continue to monitor the latter. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat," dated January 9, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Lingering In The Policy Sweet Spot," dated September 26, 2016 and "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see a transcript of Janet Yellen's January 19, 2017 speech, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20170119a.htm 5 Taylor, J. and Williams, J. "Simple and Robust Rules for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco, Working Paper Series, Dated April 2010. 6 We used the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 7 Please see, The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg?," dated February 2017, available at bca,bcaresearch.com. Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommendation for cash has been upgraded to benchmark at the expense of bonds. The weightings for the major asset classes are: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), neutral Treasury allocation at 30% (benchmark 30%) and cash at 10% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with slight advances for both the breadth & trend and momentum indicators. The monetary component, which measures overall liquidity conditions, though still favorable for equities, is giving a less bullish signal. The earnings-driven component continues to give a cautious signal. Even as real operating earnings continue to gradually improve, they still remain at a significant distance from positive economic expectations which have moved higher yet again. Earnings momentum is also still sluggish, based on our earnings diffusion index. The model's recommendation for bonds is now at benchmark which fits with our neutral qualitative stance for Treasuries in balanced portfolios since November 7, 2016. Although the valuation and cyclical components of the bond model are still constructive, the deterioration of the technical component triggered a "sell" signal changing the allocation from overweight tot benchmark. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report “Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model”, February 6, 2009.