Fiscal
Highlights A positive backdrop still supports a cyclical bull market in Chinese stocks, but the upside in prices could be quickly exhausted. Investors may be overlooking emerging negative signs in China’s onshore equity market. The breadth of the A-share price rally has sharply declined since the beginning of this year; historically, a rapid narrowing in breadth has been a reliable indicator for pullbacks in the onshore market. Recent stock price rallies in some high-flying sectors of the onshore market are due to earnings multiples rather than earnings growth. Overstretched stock prices relative to earnings risk a snapback. We remain cautious on short-term prospects for China’s onshore equity markets. Feature Market commentators remain sharply divided about whether Chinese stocks will continue on their cyclical bull run or are in a speculative frenzy ready to capitulate. Stock prices picked up further in the first three weeks of 2021, extending their rallies in 2020. The positives that support a bull market, such as China’s economic recovery and improving profit growth, are at odds with the negatives. The downside is that the intensity of post-pandemic stimulus in China has likely peaked and monetary conditions have tightened. In addition, China’s stock markets may be showing signs of fatigue. While aggregate indexes have recorded new highs, the breadth of the rally—the percentage of stocks for which prices are rising versus falling—has been rapidly deteriorating. In the past, a sharp narrowing in breadth led to corrections and major setbacks in Chinese stock prices. Timing the eventual correction in stock prices will be tricky in an environment where plentiful cash on the sidelines from stimulus invites risk-taking. For now, there is little near-term benefit for investors to chase the rally in Chinese stocks. While we are not yet negative on Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis, the risks for a near-term price correction are significant. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a correction occurs. Positive Backdrop On a cyclical basis, there are still some aspects that could push Chinese stocks even higher. The question is the speed of the rally. The more earnings multiples expand in the near term, the more earnings will have to do the heavy lifting in the rest of the year to pull Chinese stocks higher. The following factors have provided tailwinds to Chinese stocks, but may have already been discounted by investors: Chart 1Chinas Economic Recovery Continues China’s economic recovery continues. China was the only major world economy to record growth in 2020. The massive stimulus rolled out last year should continue to work its way through the economy and support the ongoing uptrend in the business cycle (Chart 1). China’s relative success containing domestic COVID-19 outbreaks also provides confidence for the country’s consumers, businesses and investors. Chinese consumers have saved money—a lot of it. Although the household sector has been a laggard in China’s aggregate economy, much of the consumption weakness has been due to a slower recovery in service activities, such as tourism and catering (Chart 2). More importantly, Chinese households have accumulated substantial savings in the past two years. Unlike investors in the US, Chinese households have limited investment choices. Historically, sharp increases in household savings growth led to property booms (Chart 3, top panel). Given that Chinese authorities have become more vigilant in preventing further price inflation in the property market, Chinese households have been increasingly investing in the domestic equity market (Chart 3, middle and bottom panels). Reportedly, there has been a sharp jump in demand for investment products from households; mutual funds in China have raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion) in 2020, which is more than the total amount for the previous four years. The equity investment penetration remains low in China compared with developed nations such as the US.1 Thus, there is still room for Chinese households to deploy their savings into domestic stock markets. Chart 2Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Chart 3But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder Global growth and the liquidity backdrop remain positive. The combination of extremely easy monetary policy worldwide and a new round of fiscal support in the US will provide a supportive backdrop for both global economic growth and liquidity conditions. Foreign investment has flocked into China’s financial markets since last year and has picked up speed since the New Year (Chart 4). On a monthly basis, portfolio inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore equity market sentiment and prices (Chart 5). Chart 4Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Chart 5And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market Geopolitical risks are abating somewhat. We do not expect that the Biden administration will be quick to unwind Trump’s existing trade policies on China. However, in the near term, the two nations will likely embark on a less confrontational track than in the past two and a half years. Slightly eased Sino-US tensions will provide global investors with more confidence for buying Chinese risk assets. Lastly, localized COVID-19 outbreaks have flared up in several Chinese cities, prompting local authorities to take aggressive measures, including community lockdowns and stepping up travel restrictions. A deterioration in the situation could delay the recovery of household consumption; however, any negative impact on China’s aggregate economy will more than likely be offset by market expectations that policymakers will delay monetary policy normalization. Domestic liquidity conditions could improve, possibly providing a short-term boost to the rally in Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Much of the positive news may already be priced into Chinese stocks. Non-Negligible Downside Risks There is a consensus that Chinese authorities will dial back their stimulus efforts this year and continue to tighten regulations in sectors such as real estate. Investors may disagree on the pace and magnitude of policy tightening, but the policy direction has been explicit from recent government announcements. However, the market may have ignored the following factors and their implications on stock performance: Deteriorating equity market breadth. In the past three weeks, the rally in Chinese stocks has been supported by a handful of blue-chip companies. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates the largest 300 companies listed on both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges (i.e. the A-share market) outperformed the broader A-share market by a large margin (Chart 6). Crucially, stock market breadth has declined rapidly (Chart 7). In short, the majority of Chinese stocks have relapsed. Chart 6Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Chart 7The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply Chart 8Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Previously, Chinese stocks experienced either price corrections or a major setback as the breadth of the rally narrowed (Chart 8). However, the relationship has broken down since October last year; the number of stocks with ascending prices has fallen, while the aggregate A-share prices have risen. In other words, breadth has narrowed and the rally in the benchmark has been due to a handful of large-cap stocks. Top performers do not have enough weight to support the broad market. An overconcentration of returns in itself may not necessarily lead to an imminent price pullback in the aggregate equity index. The five tech titans in the S&P 500 index have been dominating returns since 2015, whereas the rest of the 495 stocks in the index barely made any gains. Yet the overconcentration in just a few stocks has not stopped the S&P 500 from reaching new highs in the past five years. Unlike the tech titans which represent more than 20% of the S&P index, the overconcentration in the Chinese onshore market has been more on the sector leaders rather than on a particular sector. China’s own tech giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan, represent 35% of China’s offshore market, but most of the sector leaders in China’s onshore market account for only two to three percent of the total equity market cap (Table 1). Given their relatively small weight in the Shanghai and Shenzhen composite indexes, it is difficult for these stocks to lift the entire A-share market if prices in all the other stocks decline sharply. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates some of China’s largest blue-chip companies and industry leaders, including Kweichow Moutai, Midea Group, and Ping An Insurance, is not insulated from gyrations in the aggregate A-share market. Historically, when investors crowded into those top performers, the weight from underperforming companies in the broader onshore market would create a domino effect and drag down the CSI 300 Index. In other words, the magnitude of returns on the CSI 300 Index can deviate from the broader onshore market, but not the direction of returns. Table 1Top 10 Constituents And Their Weights In The CSI 300, Shanghai Composite, And Shenzhen Composite Indexes Chinese “groupthinkers” are pushing the overconcentration. With the explosive growth in mutual fund sales, Chinese institutional investors and asset managers have started to play important roles in the bull market. Unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese fund managers’ performances are ranked on a quarterly or even monthly basis by asset owners, including retail investors. As such, they face intense and constant pressure to outperform the benchmarks and their peers, and have great incentive to chase rallies in well-known companies. In a late-state bull market when uncertainties emerge and assets with higher returns are sparse, fund managers tend to group up in chasing fewer “sector winners,” driving up their share prices. Chart 9Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Earnings outlook fails to keep up with multiple expansions. Despite the massive stimulus last year and improving industrial profits, forward earnings growth in both the onshore and offshore equity markets rolled over by the end of last year (Chart 9). Earnings from some of China’s high-flying sectors have been mediocre (Chart 10). Even though the ROEs in the food & beverage, healthcare and aerospace sectors remain above the domestic industry benchmarks, the sharp upticks in their share prices are largely due to an expansion of forward earnings multiples rather than earnings growth (Chart 11). The stretched valuation measures suggest that investors have priced in significant earnings growth, which may be more than these industries can deliver in 2021. Chart 10Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Chart 11Too Much Growth Priced In Cyclical stocks may be sniffing out a peak in the market. The performance in cyclical stocks relative to defensives in both the onshore and offshore equity markets has started to falter, after outperforming throughout 2020 (Chart 12). Historically, the strength in cyclical stocks relative to defensives corresponds with improving economic activity (and vice versa). Therefore, the recent rollover in the outperformance of cyclical stocks versus defensives indicates that China’s economic recovery and the equity rally could soon peak. An IPO mania. New IPOs in China reached a record high last year, jumping by more than 100% from 2019. IPOs on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges together were more than half of all global IPOs in 2020. The previous rounds of explosive IPOs in China occurred in 2007, 2010/11, and 2014/15, most followed by stock market riots (Chart 13). Chart 12Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Chart 13IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots Bottom Line: Investors may be neglecting some risks and pitfalls in the Chinese equity markets, which could lead to near-term price corrections. Investment Conclusions We still hold a constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Yet the equity market rally has been on overdrive for the past several weeks. The higher Chinese stock prices climb in the near term, the more it will eat into upside potentials and thus push down expected returns. The divergence between forward earnings and PE expansions in Chinese stocks is reminiscent of the massive stock market boom-bust cycle in 2014/15 (Chart 14A and 14B). This is in stark contrast with the picture at the beginning of the last policy tightening cycle, which started in late 2016 (Chart 15A and 15B). Valuation is a poor timing indicator and investor sentiment is hard to pin down. Nevertheless, the wide divergence between the earnings outlook and multiples indicates that Chinese stock prices are overstretched and at risk of price setbacks. Chart 14AA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 14BA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 15AAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle Chart 15BAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle We remain cautious on the short-term prospects for the broad equity market. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a price correction occurs. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Only 20.4% of Chinese households’ total net worth is in financial assets versus the US, where the share is 42.5%. PBoC, “2019 Chinese Urban Households Assets And Liabilities Survey.” Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Global Yields: The fall in global bond yields over the past two weeks represents a corrective pullback from an overly rapid rise in inflation expectations, especially in the US. The underlying reflationary themes that drove yields higher, however, remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Duration Strategy: We maintain our broad core recommendations on global government bonds: stay below-benchmark on overall duration exposure, overweighting non-US markets versus US Treasuries, while favoring inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. Australia vs. US: Following from the conclusions of our Special Report on Australia published last week, we are initiating a new cross-country spread trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio: long 10-year Australian government bond futures versus short 10-year US Treasury futures. Feature Chart of the WeekCentral Banks Will Stay Very Dovish The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield fell to 1.04% yesterday as this report went to press, after reaching a high of 1.18% on January 12th. 10-year government bond yields have also fallen over the same period, but by lesser amounts ranging between 5-10bps, in Germany, France, the UK and Australia. We view these moves as a consolidation before the next upleg in global yields, and not the start of a new bullish cyclical phase for government bond markets. Our Central Bank Monitors for the major developed economies are all showing diminished pressure for easier monetary policies, but are not yet signaling a need for tightening to slow overheating economies (Chart of the Week). Realized inflation and breakevens from inflation-linked bond markets remain below levels consistent with central bank policy targets, even in the US after the big run-up in TIPS breakevens. Reflationary, pro-growth monetary (and fiscal) policies are still necessary. Policymakers can talk all they want about optimism on future global growth with COVID-19 vaccines now being rolled out in more countries, but it is far too soon to expect any shift away from a maximum dovish monetary policy stance that is bearish for bonds and bullish for risk assets. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall stance on global cyclical duration exposure, with a country allocation focused most intensely on underweighting US Treasuries. The Global Backdrop Remains Bond Bearish Optimism over a potential boom in global economic growth in the second half of 2021 - fueled by the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, massive pandemic income support programs and other increased government spending measures, and ongoing easy monetary policies – has become an increasingly consensus view among investors. As evidence of this, the latest edition of the widely-followed Bank of America Fund Managers’ Survey highlighted that the biggest tail risks for financial markets all relate to that bullish narrative: a disappointing vaccine rollout, a “Tantrum” in bond markets, a bursting of the US equity bubble and rising inflation expectations.1 We can understand why investors would be most worried about the success of the COVID-19 vaccine distribution which has started with mixed results. According to the Oxford University COVID-19 database, the UK has now delivered 10.38 vaccinations per 100 people, while the US has given out 6.6 shots per 100 people (Chart 2). By comparison, the pace of the vaccine rollout has been far slower in Germany, France, Italy and China. Note that this data shows total vaccine shots administered and does not represent a count of the total number of inoculated citizens, as a full dose requires two shots. Chart 2Vaccine Rollout So Far: Operation Impulse Power Success on the vaccine front is what is needed for investors to envision an eventual end to the pandemic … or at least an end to the growth-damaging lockdowns related to the pandemic. So a slower-than-expected rollout does justify somewhat lower bond yields, all else equal. However, the news on the spread of the virus itself has turned more encouraging during this “dark winter” of COVID-19. The latest data on new cases of the virus shows that the severe surge in the US and UK appears to have peaked (Chart 3). In the euro area, the overall number of new cases is at best stabilizing with more divergence between countries: cases are continuing to explode higher in Italy and Spain but slowing in large economies like Germany and the Netherlands (and stabilizing in France). The growth in new virus-related hospitalizations, however, has clearly slowed across those major economies, including in places with surging new case numbers like Italy. Chart 3Lockdowns Will Not Last Forever Chart 4European Lockdowns Taking A Bite Out Of Growth A reduction in the strain on hospital bed capacity gives hope that the current severe economic restrictions seen in Europe and parts of the US can soon begin to be lifted. This can help sustain the cyclical upturn in global economic growth, especially in countries where lockdowns have been most onerous like the UK, which saw a sharp plunge in the preliminary Markit PMI data for January (Chart 4). So on the COVID-19 front, we interpret the overall backdrop as more positive for global growth expectations, and hence more supportive of higher global bond yields. Chart 5Reflationary Expectations Remain Well Entrenched Expectations are still tilted towards rising yields, judging by the ZEW survey of global financial market professionals (Chart 5). The survey shows that the bias continues to lean towards expectations of both higher long-term interest rates and inflation, but without any expected increase in short-term interest rates. This fits with the overall yield curve steepening theme that has driven global bond markets since last summer, which has been consistent with the dovish messaging from central banks. The Fed, ECB and other major central banks continue to project a very slow recovery of labor markets from the COVID-19 shock, with no return to pre-pandemic levels until at least 2024 (Chart 6). This is forcing central banks to maintain as dovish a policy mix as possible, including projecting stable policy rates over the next several years supported by ongoing quantitative easing (QE). These policies have helped support the rise in global inflation expectations and helped fuel the “Everything Rally” that has stretched the valuations of risk assets worldwide. So it is also not surprising that worries about a bond “Tantrum”, rising inflation expectations and a bursting of equity bubbles would also top the tail risks highlighted in that Bank of America investor survey. All are connected to the next moves of the major global central banks. Chart 6Central Banks Must Stay Easy For A Long Time On that front, we are not worried about any premature shift to a less dovish stance, given the lingering uncertainties over COVID-19 and with actual inflation – and inflation expectations - remaining below central bank targets. Several officials from the world’s most important central bank, the US Federal Reserve, have made comments in recent weeks discussing the outlook for US monetary policy. A few FOMC members raised the possibility of a potential discussion of slower bond purchases by year-end, if the US economy grows faster than expected and the vaccine rollout goes smoothly. Although the majority of FOMC members, including Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Vice-Chairman Richard Clarida, noted that any such discussion was premature and would not take place until 2022 at the earliest. In our view, the Fed will not begin to signal any shift to a less dovish policy stance before US inflation and inflation expectations have all sustainably returned to levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% target (Chart 7). That means seeing TIPS breakevens rise to the 2.3-2.5% range that has prevailed during previous periods when headline PCE inflation as at or above 2%. Chart 7US Inflation Still Justifies Maximum Fed Dovishness Chart 8The Fed Is Not Yet Worried About Overly Easy Financial Conditions Such a shift by the Fed could happen by year-end, but only if there was also concern within the FOMC that financial conditions in the US had become overly stimulative and risked future instability of overvalued asset prices (Chart 8). At the present time, however, the Fed will continue to focus on policy reflation and worry about any negative spillover effects on financial markets at a later date. Financial conditions are also a potential issue for other central banks, but from a different perspective – currencies. Financial conditions in more export-focused economies like the euro area and Australia are more heavily influenced by the impact on competitiveness from currency values (Chart 9). Chart 9Currencies Dictate Financial Conditions Outside The US Chart 10Projected Relative QE Favors UST Underperformance The combination of the Fed’s lingering dovish policy bias and the improving global growth backdrop should keep the US dollar under cyclical downward pressure. The weaker greenback means that non-US central banks must try to maintain an even more dovish bias than the Fed to limit the upward pressure on their own currencies. A desire to fight unwanted currency appreciation via a more rapid pace of QE relative to the Fed – at a time when US Treasury yields are likely to remain under upward pressure from rising inflation expectations – should support a narrowing of non-US vs US bond spreads over the next 6-12 months (Chart 10). Bottom Line: The underlying reflationary themes that drove global bond yields higher over the past several months remain intact, even with uncertainty over COVID-19 vaccine distribution and mixed messages on future central bank policy moves. Stay below-benchmark on overall global duration exposure, overweighting non-US government bond markets versus US Treasuries, while also favoring global inflation-linked debt over nominal bonds. A New Cross-Country Spread Trade: Long Australian Government Bonds Vs. US Treasuries In last week’s Special Report on Australia, which we co-authored jointly with BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy, we concluded that a neutral exposure to Australian government debt within global bond portfolios was still warranted.2 Uncertainty over the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) reaction function and the future path of Australia’s yield beta, which measures the sensitivity of Australian yields to global yields and remains elevated, justified a neutral stance. We do, however, have a higher conviction view that Australian government debt will outperform US Treasuries – especially given our expectation that US yields have more cyclical upside – given that the yield beta of the former to the latter has declined (Chart 11). Chart 11Australian Government Bonds Are "Defensive" When US Yields Are Rising This week, we translate that view into a new tactical trade—going long 10-year Australian government bonds versus shorting 10-year US Treasuries. This trade will be implemented through bond futures (details of the trade can be seen in our trade table on page 15). In addition to the yield beta argument, the Australia-US 10-year spread looks attractive on a fair value basis. Chart 12 presents our new Australia-US 10-year spread valuation model, based on fundamental factors such as relative policy interest rates, inflation and unemployment. The model also accounts for the impact from the massive bond buying by the Fed and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA); we include as an independent variable the relative central bank balance sheets as a share of respective nominal GDP. Although the Australia-US spread has converged somewhat towards fair value since the blow out in March 2020, it is still at attractive levels at 13bps or 0.8 standard deviations above fair value. The model-implied fair value of the Australia-US spread could also fall further, thereby creating a lower anchor point for spreads to gravitate towards. While the policy rate differential will likely remain unchanged until 2023, other factors will move to drag down the spread fair value (Chart 13). The gap in relative headline inflation should, much to the RBA’s chagrin, move further into negative territory given the relatively weaker domestic and foreign price pressures in Australia. On the QE front, the RBA also has much more room to expand its balance sheet relative to developed market peers, and will feel pressured to do so if the Australian dollar continues to rally. Finally, the RBA expects a much slower recovery in Australian unemployment than the Fed does for the US. This should further push down fair value if the central bank forecasts play out as expected. Chart 12The Australia-US 10-Year Spread Is Undervalued Technical considerations also seem to be in favor of our trade (Chart 14). While the deviation of the Australia-US 10-year spread from its 200-day moving average, and its 26-week change, are both slightly negative, the 2008 period is instructive. Chart 13Relative Fundamentals Point Towards A Lower Australia-US Spread Chart 14Technicals Favor Further Reduction In The Australia-US Spread For both measures, after blowing up to around the +75-150bps zone, they likewise fell by a commensurate amount, attributable to a strong “base effect”. A similar dynamic should play out now after the dramatic 2020 spike in spread momentum. Meanwhile, duration positioning in the US, while it is short on net, is still far from levels where it has troughed. Lastly and most importantly, forward curves are pricing in an Australia-US spread close to zero, which provides us a golden opportunity to “beat the forwards” as the spread tightens without incurring negative carry. As a reference, we are initiating this trade with the cash 10-year Australia-US bond spread at 4bps, with a target range of -30bps to -80bps over the usual 0-6 month horizon that we maintain for our Tactical Overlay positions. Bottom Line: We seek to capitalize on our view that Australian yields will be slower to rise relative to US yields by introducing a new spread trade: buy Australian government bond 10-year futures and sell US 10-year Treasury futures. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1https://www.bloombergquint.com/markets/record-number-of-fund-managers-overweight-on-emerging-markets-says-bofa-survey 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Our baseline view is that inflation will increase only modestly over the next few years before accelerating in the middle of the decade. Nevertheless, the risks are skewed towards an earlier and sharper increase in inflation in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the other major economies. The first round of stimulus left US households with $1.5 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to 10% of annual consumption. The stimulus deal Congress reached in December and President Biden’s proposed package would inject an additional $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the monthly output gap is $80 billion. The true number may be even lower since the CBO’s estimate does not take into account the temporary disruption to the supply side of the economy from the pandemic or the potential disincentive to work from unusually generous unemployment benefits. In and of itself, inflation is not necessarily bad for stocks. Inflation is only bad for stocks when it triggers monetary policy tightening. The bar for the Fed to raise rates is still very high, which suggests that equities will weather a temporary burst of inflation. Nevertheless, investors should hedge against the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside. This calls for reducing duration in fixed-income portfolios to below-benchmark levels, favoring inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds, and owning more real assets such as gold and farmland. Investors should also favor value stocks over growth stocks. Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices, while banks will benefit from steeper yield curves. The Austerians Give Up In his 2011 State Of The Union Address, President Obama declared that “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.” And so the government did. According to calculations by the Brookings Institution, tighter fiscal policy subtracted about 1.2 percentage points from annual GDP growth between 2011 and 2014 (Chart 1). Chart 1US Fiscal Easing Gave Way To Fiscal Drag Soon After The Great Recession The US was not alone. As Chart 2 illustrates, most advanced economies tightened fiscal policy not long after the Great Recession officially ended. In the case of countries such as Italy and Spain, the tightening came in response to market duress. In other cases such as those involving Germany and the UK, the tightening occurred against the backdrop of fairly low borrowing costs. Chart 2Fiscal Austerity Was The Favored Post-GFC Policy Prescription After the pandemic struck, most governments were quick to loosen fiscal policy again (Chart 3). However, unlike ten years ago, calls for reducing the flow of red ink have been a lot more muted this time around. Chart 3Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis Back in 2010, the OECD – the go-to source for conventional thinking on all economic matters – opined that “monetary policy must be normalized” and that “exit from exceptional fiscal support must start now, or by 2011 at the latest.” Today, the OECD admits that it made a “mistake” in pushing for austerity so soon after the recession ended. “The first lesson is to make sure governments are not tightening in the one to two years following the trough of GDP” explained Laurence Boone, the OECD’s current chief economist, to the FT earlier this month. The OECD’s change of heart partly reflects political reality – assistance for businesses and workers who lost income due to lockdowns is more palatable than bailouts for banks and for homeowners who took on more debt than they could afford. Yet, there is an important economic dimension to the policy pivot as well. The huge spike in bond yields that many pundits predicted a decade ago never materialized. Despite soaring debt levels, real bond yields in the US and most other economies are near record lows (Chart 4). Even the Italian 10-year yield stands at a mere 0.68% now that the ECB has effectively promised to backstop European governments. Chart 4Governments Enjoy Low Borrowing Costs The Bondholder Who Cried Wolf Chart 5Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings After many false alarms, could the inflationistas get the last laugh in 2021? The idea is not entirely far-fetched. Consider the case of the US. Chart 5 shows that US households are sitting on $1.5 trillion of excess savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption. The amount of dry powder US households have at their disposal will only get larger. Taken together, the stimulus deal Congress reached in December and President Biden’s proposed fiscal package would inject an average of $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September. Republicans and centrist Democrats in the Senate may force Biden to winnow down his stimulus plans to something closer to $1 trillion. Nevertheless, this still would provide about $200 billion in incremental monthly support. Official estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office last summer imply that the monthly output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing – is currently only $80 billion. In fact, the true output gap may be even lower than this. First, GDP has recovered more rapidly than the CBO had projected. Second, official estimates of the output gap do not control for the fact that part of the economy’s productive capacity – certain retail establishments, hotels, airlines, etc. – has been rendered either fully or partly inoperative due to the pandemic. Third, official estimates also do not account for the fact that generous jobless benefits may have made some workers less eager to find work, thus temporarily raising the natural rate of unemployment. Inflation: Movin’ On Up If the demand for goods and services exceeds supply, prices are likely to go up. How much will they rise? In the near term, inflation is certain to increase from very low levels, if only due to base effects. As my colleague Ryan Swift has noted, both core PCE and core CPI inflation will soon spike above 2% on an annualized basis even if consumer prices rise by a meager 0.15% per month, as the deflationary March and April 2020 data points fall out of the rolling 12-month average (Chart 6). Looking beyond the next few months, the trajectory for inflation will depend on the degree to which the economy overheats. In some categories, there is already evidence of excess demand. US core goods inflation is running at 1.6%, the highest level since 2012. The ISM manufacturing Prices Paid index points to further upside for goods inflation. Soaring commodity prices tell a similar tale (Chart 7). Chart 6Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Chart 7Further Upside For Goods Inflation And Commodity Prices While services inflation has been more downbeat, that could change as the labor market tightens (Chart 8). Housing inflation is also set to bottom. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index remains in contractionary territory. However, the closely-linked Sales Volume Index recently jumped to the highest level in nine years (Chart 9). Sales volume led the Market Tightness Index coming out of the last recession. If that happens again, shelter inflation should creep up. Chart 8A Pickup In Services Inflation Is Awaiting A Tighter Labor Market Chart 9Shelter Inflation Could Bottom Soon A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Like most macroeconomic phenomena, inflation is subject to feedback loops. If households expect prices to increase initially but then fall back down once the stimulus has lapsed, they may defer some of their spending until prices return to normal. This could prevent prices from rising in the first place. In contrast, if households expect prices to rise and then keep rising, they may try to expedite their purchases. This would supercharge spending. One can see that there is a self-fulfilling process at work. If households expect prices to remain broadly stable, then they will remain broadly stable. If households expect prices to rise a lot, then they will rise a lot. Imagine last year’s Great Toilet Paper Shortage but on an economy-wide scale. A similar self-fulfilling process works at the firm level. If firms expect prices to rise only briefly, they will try to run down their inventories as quickly as possible to take advantage of temporarily high profit margins. The additional supply will limit any increase in prices. In contrast, if firms expect selling prices to keep rising, they may hoard inventory to take advantage of future higher prices. Likewise, firms may be reluctant to raise wages in response to a temporary overheating of the economy for fear that this would lock in a higher cost structure. In contrast, firms would be more willing to raise wages if they thought that prices would keep rising. Hence, the expectation of rising inflation could trigger a price-wage spiral. Lifting The Anchor The inflationary scenario described above could play out if long-term inflation expectations become unmoored. Central banks have invested a lot of effort in trying to anchor inflation expectations at around 2%. To the extent that they have fallen short of their goal, it is because prices have risen less than desired (Chart 10). Chart 10Central Banks Have Missed Their Inflation Targets To remedy the shortfall in inflation, the Fed has pledged to allow inflation to rise above 2% for a few years, with the aim of bringing the price level back to its long-term target trend. The risk is that such an inflation overshoot happens sooner and is more pronounced than policymakers desire. Christina Romer, the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, famously wrote a paper entitled “It Takes A Regime Shift.” Using the example of Roosevelt’s decision to take the US off the gold standard in 1933, she argued that major monetary policy decisions could permanently jolt inflation expectations. It is too early to say whether the Fed’s new inflation-targeting framework will go down in history as a “regime shift.” What one can say with more confidence is that the rollout of this framework is coming at a tumultuous time. Policymakers and business leaders routinely talk about the “The Great Reset” – the notion that the pandemic provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shift policy in a new, rather curious, direction. Central bankers better hope that inflation expectations are not reset too much. Investment Implications Our baseline view is that inflation will increase only modestly over the next few years before accelerating in the middle of the decade. Nevertheless, as highlighted in this week’s report, the risks are skewed towards an earlier and sharper increase in inflation in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the other major economies. The spectre of higher inflation is unsettling to many investors. However, in and of itself, inflation is not necessarily bad for stocks. Inflation is only bad for stocks when it triggers monetary policy tightening. In the absence of rate hikes, rising inflation would push real rates lower. This would be quite good for stocks, as the experience of the past nine months demonstrates (Chart 11). As noted above, the bar for the Fed to withdraw monetary support is fairly high. This suggests that rising inflation is unlikely to derail the bull market in stocks. Of course, if both actual inflation and inflation expectations were to jump too much, the Fed would have to intervene. With that in mind, investors should position their portfolios to withstand rising inflation. This calls for reducing duration in fixed-income portfolios to below-benchmark levels, favoring inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds, and owning more real assets such as gold and farmland. Chart 11Lower Real Yields Have Lifted Equity Prices Chart 12Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Inflation Expectations And Bond Yields Are Rising Investors should also favor value stocks over growth stocks. Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices, and would benefit from rising inflation. Banks are also overrepresented in value indices. Chart 12 shows that banks tend to outperform when inflation expectations and long-term bond yields are rising. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations This table provides trade recommendations that may not be adequately represented in the matrix on the preceding page. Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Inflation: Additional fiscal stimulus will lead to higher inflation in the goods sector, where bottlenecks are already forming. But stronger services inflation is required (particularly in shelter) before broad price pressures emerge. Some leading indicators of shelter inflation suggest that a bottom may be near. Fed: The Fed will not lift rates or taper asset purchases until the unemployment rate is close to 4.5% and 12-month PCE inflation is firmly above 2%. This could occur in late-2021 if economic growth is very strong, but 2022 is more likely. Investment Strategy: Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Nominal curve steepeners, real curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners all continue to make sense. Feature Biden Goes Big Joe Biden unveiled his economic plan last week and, as expected, the incoming President is setting his sights high. First on the agenda is the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion package that contains $410 billion for fighting the coronavirus, $1 trillion of income support for households and $440 billion in direct aid to state & local governments. Biden will seek enough Republican support in the Senate to pass this legislation without using the budget reconciliation process. If that can be achieved, Democrats will still have two opportunities to pass reconciliation bills in 2021. Those bills will focus on other priorities such as infrastructure investment and expanding the Affordable Care Act. With households already flush with cash, an influx of new stimulus risks an earlier return of inflation than was previously anticipated. Biden’s announcement was in line with what our political strategists anticipated, and the federal deficit is on track to fall somewhere between the “Democratic Status Quo” and “Democratic High” scenarios shown in Chart 1. This means that the deficit will peak at between 22% and 25% of GDP in fiscal year 2021 before gradually converging back to the baseline. To put this number in context, the federal deficit peaked at just below 10% of GDP at the height of the Great Financial Crisis in 2009. The US economy is now on the cusp of receiving a much greater fiscal injection at a time when nominal GDP is only 2.7% off its prior peak. Chart 1Massive Fiscal Stimulus Is On The Way As mentioned above, the American Rescue Plan contains $1 trillion of income support for households, delivered in the form of one-time $1400 checks and an expansion of unemployment insurance benefits. This is a lot of stimulus, and it looks like even more when you consider the significant income boost that households have already received. Chart 2 shows nominal personal income relative to a pre-COVID trend. Income has been significantly above trend since last spring’s passage of the CARES act, and with fewer spending opportunities than usual, households have been building up a significant buffer of excess savings. Chart 2A Mountain Of Excess Savings The risk here is quite clear. With households already flush with cash, an influx of new stimulus risks an earlier return of inflation than was previously anticipated. The remainder of this report considers the likelihood of this risk materializing and what it might mean for Fed policy and our TIPS and portfolio duration recommendations. Inflation Outlook & TIPS Strategy One complication brought on by the pandemic is the stark divergence between goods and services sectors. The large fiscal response means that households have ample cash to deploy towards consumer goods, but service sectors remain shuttered. This divergence is reflected in the inflation data where price pressures are already emerging in the core goods space but services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) remains below recent historical levels (Chart 3). Manufacturing indicators, such as the ISM Prices Paid survey and commodity prices, provide further evidence of a bottleneck in manufactured goods (Chart 4). Capacity utilization remains low, but it is rising quickly (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Goods Vs. Services Inflation Chart 4A Bottleneck In Manufacturing The split between goods and services inflation will persist until vaccination efforts gain enough traction for services to re-open, and it will only be exacerbated as more fiscal stimulus is rolled out. Households will continue to dump cash into goods, but service sector participation is likely needed before broad upward pressure on overall inflation emerges. Specifically, broad upward pressure on overall inflation will not be possible until we see a turnaround in shelter (roughly 40% of core CPI). Shelter inflation plummeted during the past year (Chart 5), but some tentative signals are emerging that suggest a bottom may occur within the next 3-6 months. Shelter inflation tends to fall when the unemployment rate is high and rise as labor slack dissipates. Shelter inflation is highly sensitive to the economic cycle. That is, it tends to fall when the unemployment rate is high and rise as labor slack dissipates. Abstracting from large swings in temporary unemployment, the permanent unemployment rate finally ticked down in December (Chart 6). If this marks an inflection point, then shelter inflation is likely close to its trough. The National Multi Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index is another excellent indicator of shelter inflation. It remains below 50, consistent with downward pressure on shelter inflation, but the tightly-linked Sales Volume Index recently jumped into “more volume” territory (Chart 6, bottom panel). Sales volume led the Market Tightness Index coming out of the last recession. If that happens again, we could soon see shelter inflation creep up Chart 5Shelter Inflation Near ##br##A Trough? Chart 6Shelter Inflation Is Highly Sensitive To The Economic Cycle It is still too soon to call a bottom in shelter inflation. However, if the permanent unemployment rate continues to fall and the Apartment Market Tightness Index follows sales volume higher, then a bottom in shelter could emerge within the next 3-6 months. TIPS Strategy Chart 7Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Our strategy has been to position for higher TIPS breakeven inflation rates by going long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, with a plan to tactically reverse this position for a time once the inflation narrative reaches a fever pitch in Q1 of this year. One reason for the inflation narrative to take hold is that base effects will naturally lead to a jump in year-over-year inflation rates during the next few months as the March and April 2020 datapoints fall out of the rolling 12-month average. Chart 7 shows that both 12-month core PCE and core CPI will soon spike above 2%, even if a modest 0.15% monthly growth rate is achieved. Our expectation is that inflation pressures will wane after April of this year, potentially giving us an opportunity to position for a drop in TIPS breakeven inflation rates. However, if shelter inflation does indeed reverse course, as leading indicators suggest it might, that opportunity may not present itself. Bottom Line: Stay positioned long TIPS / short duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries and watch for further evidence of a bottom in shelter inflation within the next 3-6 months. The Fed Has Already Told Us What It Will Do It is certainly possible (even likely) that large-scale fiscal stimulus will cause inflation pressures to emerge earlier than would have otherwise been the case. However, any meaningful monetary tightening in 2021 still seems like a long shot. The potential for Fed tightening in 2021 became a hot topic last week when Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said he’s open to the possibility of tapering asset purchases in late-2021, assuming economic growth turns out to be stronger than anticipated. Fed Chair Powell downplayed the odds of a 2021 taper in his remarks later in the week, causing bond prices to regain some lost ground. Year-over-year inflation will peak in April. Our advice is to not get caught up in the different tones of Fed speakers. The Fed has already been very explicit about the economic criteria that will cause it to tighten policy. Any evaluation of when tightening will occur should be based on an assessment of the economic data relative to these criteria, not on whether certain Fed officials sound more or less optimistic about the future. Tapering & The Timing Of Liftoff Chart 8No Liftoff Until We Reach Full Employment Our “Fed In 2021” Special Report laid out the three criteria that must be met before the Fed will consider lifting the funds rate.1 Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida reiterated this checklist in a recent speech.2 Before lifting rates: 12-month PCE inflation must be 2% or higher Labor market conditions must have reached levels consistent with the Fed’s assessment of maximum employment PCE inflation must be on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time 12-month core PCE inflation is currently 1.38%. As we already noted, it will likely jump above 2% by April but Fed officials will not view that increase as sustainable. The elevated unemployment rate is a big reason why. At 6.7%, the unemployment rate remains well above the range of 3.5% to 4.5% that Fed officials view as consistent with full employment (Chart 8). In his speech, Vice-Chair Clarida said that when “labor market indicators return to a range that, in the Committee’s judgment, is broadly consistent with its maximum-employment mandate, it will be data on inflation itself that policy will react to.” In other words, liftoff will not occur until the unemployment rate is between 3.5% and 4.5%, no matter what happens with inflation. Then, even when the “full employment” criterion has been met, 12-month PCE inflation must still rise above 2% before a rate hike will be considered. The guidance around the tapering of asset purchases is vaguer than the guidance around liftoff. All we know is that the Fed intends to start tapering asset purchases before it lifts the funds rate. Since Fed officials know that a tapering announcement will send a signal that liftoff is imminent, it is highly likely that tapering will occur only a few months before the Fed expects to raise rates. In all likelihood, the unemployment rate will be close to 4.5% before tapering is considered. This could happen by late-2021 if economic growth is very strong, as President Bostic suggested, but a 2022 tapering seems like a safer bet. The Pace Of Rate Hikes Once liftoff occurs, Vice-Chair Clarida has been very clear that inflation expectations will be the principal factor guiding the pace of policy tightening. Specifically, if long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are below the 2.3 to 2.5 percent range that has historically been consistent with “well anchored” inflation expectations, policy tightening will proceed more slowly than if breakevens are threatening to break above 2.5% (Chart 9). Other measures of inflation expectations based on surveys and inflation’s long-run trend will also be considered (Chart 10). Chart 9TIPS ##br##Breakevens Chart 10Inflation Expectations: Survey And Trend Measures The indicators of inflation expectations shown in Charts 9 & 10 are currently below “well-anchored” levels. However, this may not be the case when the Fed is finally ready to raise rates off the zero bound. In fact, when we look at the amount of policy tightening currently priced into the yield curve, we see a good chance that it will be exceeded. The market is currently priced for liftoff to occur in mid-2023, followed by only two more 25 basis point rate hikes over the subsequent 18 months (Chart 11). Chart 11Market Priced For Mid-2023 Liftoff With all the fiscal stimulus coming down the pipe, we can easily envision liftoff occurring sometime in 2022, followed by a somewhat quicker pace of tightening. With that forecast in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2021”, dated December 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Even though bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the equity risk premium remains elevated. The end of the pandemic and supportive fiscal and monetary policies should buoy economic activity in the second half of the year, lifting corporate earnings in the process. Some critics charge that low interest rates and QE have exacerbated wealth and income inequality. The evidence suggests the opposite: Rising inequality since the early 1980s has depressed aggregate demand, forcing central banks to loosen monetary policy. The tide of inequality may be turning, however. Ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulus, increasingly aggressive income distribution policies, heightened anti-trust enforcement, and waning globalization could all shift the balance of power from capital back to labor. Investors should overweight global equities for now but prepare for a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Market Overview We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. While bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the global equity risk premium is still quite wide by historic standards (Chart 1). The distribution of vaccines over the coming months should pave the way for a strong rebound in economic activity in the second half of 2021. This will lift corporate earnings. The macro policy mix will also remain supportive. Thanks to the combination of increased fiscal transfers and subdued spending last year, US households have accumulated $1.5 trillion in savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption – over and above the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 2Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending US household balance sheets are set to improve further. Congress passed a $900 billion stimulus bill in December, which provides direct support to households, unemployed workers, and small businesses. On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden unveiled an additional $1.9 trillion relief package. Biden’s plan calls for making direct payments of $1400 to most Americans, bringing the total to $2000 after the $600 in direct payments in December’s deal is included. President Trump had earlier called for stimulus payments of $2000 per person, a number the Democrats quickly seized on. Biden’s plan would also extend emergency unemployment benefits to the end of September, boost funding for schools, raise the child tax credit, and increase spending on Covid testing and the vaccine rollout. Unlike the December deal, it would also provide $350 billion in assistance to state and local governments. We expect at least $1 trillion of Biden’s proposal to be enacted into law. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Admittedly, taxes are also likely to rise. During the election campaign, Joe Biden pledged to lift the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He also promised to introduce a minimum 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and boost payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. If carried out, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. Given the slim majority that Democrats maintain in the Senate, it is unlikely that taxes will rise as much as Joe Biden’s tax plan calls for. Nevertheless, a tax hit to EPS of around 5% starting in 2022 looks probable. On the positive side, the additional spending will goose the economy, so that the net effect of the tax increase on corporate profits should be fairly small. Meanwhile, monetary policy will remain exceptionally accommodative. The Fed is unlikely to hike rates until late 2023 or early 2024. It will take even longer for policy rates to rise in the other major economies. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will start tapering QE only about six months before the first rate hike. Hence, for the time being, ongoing bond buying will limit the upside to yields. We see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 1.5% by the end of this year, only modestly higher than market expectations of 1.36%. Rising Inequality: The Dark Side Of QE? Chart 3Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies One often-heard objection to QE is that it has exacerbated inequality by pushing up equity prices without doing much to help the real economy. Some even contend that QE has hurt the middle class by depriving savers of a critical source of interest income. It is certainly true that inequality has risen sharply over the past 40 years, especially in the US (Chart 3). It is also true that the bulk of equity wealth is held by the very rich. According to Fed data, the wealthiest top 1% own half of all stocks (Chart 4). However, QE has pushed up not only equity prices. Falling bond yields have also pushed up home prices. Unlike stocks, housing wealth is broadly held across the population. Moreover, monetary policy operates through other channels. Lower interest rates tend to weaken a country’s currency, boosting competitiveness in the process. Lower rates also encourage investment. Again, real estate figures heavily here. Chart 5 shows that there is a very strong correlation between mortgage yields and housing starts. And while lower interest rates do penalize savers, the middle class is not the main victim. Interest receipts represent a much larger share of total income for ultra-wealthy individuals than for everyone else (Chart 6). Chart 4The Rich Hold The Bulk Of Equities Chart 5Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Chart 6Interest Represents A Bigger Share Of Overall Income At The Top Of The Income Distribution Far from exacerbating income inequality, a recent IMF research paper argued that easier monetary policy may dampen inequality by boosting employment and wage growth. Chart 7 shows that labor’s share of GDP has tended to rise whenever the labor market tightened. Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Inequality Paved The Way To QE Chart 8The Rich Save More Than The Poor Rather than QE exacerbating inequality, a more plausible story is that rising inequality led to QE. The rich tend to save more than the poor (Chart 8). Consistent with estimates by the IMF, we find that the shift in income towards the rich has depressed US aggregate demand by about 3% of GDP since the late 1970s (Chart 9). A standard Taylor Rule equation suggests that real interest rates would need to be 1.5-to-3 percentage points lower to offset a 3% loss in demand.1 That’s a lot! Thus, not only have the rich benefited directly from receiving a bigger share of the economic pie, they have also benefited indirectly from the fact that falling interest rates have pushed up the value of their assets. Chart 9Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s For a while, lower rates allowed poorer households to take on more debt, thus masking the impact of rising income inequality on consumption. However, after the housing bubble burst, households were forced to retrench and start living within their means. The resulting collapse in spending pushed interest rates towards zero and forced the Fed to undertake one QE program after another. It Is Not About Education Many of the popular explanations for rising inequality have focused on the widening gap between well-educated and less well-educated workers. While there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Beaudry, Green, and Sand have shown that it has declined since then. Together with a rising supply of college-educated workers, softer demand for skilled workers compressed the so-called “skill premium.” So why has inequality increased? One can get a sense of the answer by looking at Chart 10. It shows that almost all the increase in US real incomes has occurred not just near the top of the income distribution, but at the very very top – people in the highest 0.1% of income earners. These are not university professors. These are hedge fund managers and corporate chieftains, with a sprinkling of celebrities (Chart 11). Chart 10The (Really) Rich Got Richer Chart 11Who Are The Top Income Earners? Superstars In his seminal paper entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” Sherwin Rosen argued that technological trends have facilitated the rise of winner-take-all markets. The classic example is that of stage actors. A century ago, tens of thousands of actors could eke out a living performing at the local theater. Today, a small number of superstars dominate the entertainment industry, while countless others work odd jobs, waiting in vain for their chance for stardom. A similar argument applies to professional athletes. The applicability of the superstar model to other classes of workers is more debatable. How much of the income of star hedge fund managers reflects their unique skills and how much of it reflects a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to investing client money? Similarly, do CEOs get paid what they do because there is no one else who can do the same job with less pay? Or is it because CEOs can effectively set their own compensation, subject to an “outrage constraint” from shareholders and the broader public — a constraint that has loosened in recent decades due to rising stock prices and a shift in public attention away from class issues towards the debilitating distraction of identity politics? The Rise Of Monopoly Capitalism Where the superstar model may be more relevant is at the firm level. Standard economics textbooks treat profit as a return on capital. This implies that when the after-tax rate of return on capital goes up, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, this has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. Yet, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 12). Why did the textbook economic relationship between investment and the rate of return on capital break down? The answer is that the textbook approach ignores what has become an increasingly important source of corporate profits: monopoly power. Chart 12No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment Chart 13A Winner-Take-All Economy A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely finds that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997. Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times higher than the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 13). The rise of monopoly power has been most evident in the tech sector. Over the past 25 years, rising tech profit margins have contributed more to tech share outperformance than rising sales (Chart 14). Chart 14Decomposing Tech Outperformance Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Tech companies also benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Monopolies And The Neutral Rate Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output tends to depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As such, rising market power may simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment spending. This may be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. An increase in savings relative to investment, in turn, will depress the neutral rate of interest. An Inflection Point For Inequality? After rising for the past four decades, inequality may be set to decline. Central banks are keen to allow economies to overheat. A feedback loop could emerge where overheated economies push up labor’s share of income, leading to more spending and even higher wages. Fiscal policy is likely to amplify this feedback loop. As we discussed last week, loose monetary policy is allowing governments to pursue expansionary fiscal policies. Fiscal stimulus raises the neutral rate of interest, making it easier for central banks to keep policy rates below their equilibrium level. Government policy is also moving in a more redistributive direction. Tax rates on high-income earnings will rise over the next few years, which will support new spending initiatives. Minimum wages are also heading higher. It is worth noting that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump in November, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden also reaffirmed today his pledge to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. In addition, there is bipartisan support for strengthening anti-trust policies. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated that “Today’s big tech companies have too much power – too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” Increasingly, Republicans agree with this sentiment. According to a Pew Research study conducted last June, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). This number has probably gone up following last week’s coordinated effort by the largest tech companies to banish Parler, a Twitter-style app popular with conservatives, from the internet. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot. After rising significantly, the ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 16). As competition from foreign workers abates, working-class wages in advanced economies could rise. Chart 16Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Long-Term Investment Implications What is good for Main Street is usually good for Wall Street. For the past 70 years, the S&P 500 has generally moved in sync with the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 17). The same pattern holds globally. Chart 18 shows that the stock-to-bond ratio has correlated closely with the global manufacturing PMI. Chart 17Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Cyclical fluctuations can disguise important structural trends, however. US productivity has doubled since 1980, but real median wages have increased by only 20% (Chart 19). The bulk of productivity gains have flowed to upper-income earners and owners of capital. Hence, corporate profits rose, while inflation and interest rates declined. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 19Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity If we are approaching an inflection point for inequality, we may also be approaching an inflection point for profit margins and bond yields. To be sure, with unemployment still elevated, wage growth and inflation are not about to take off anytime soon. However, investors should prepare for a more inflationary – and ultimately, stagflationary – environment in the second half of the decade. This calls for reducing duration risk in fixed-income portfolios, favoring TIPS over nominal bonds, and owning inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. It also calls for maintaining a bias towards value over growth stocks, as the former usually outperform when inflation and commodity prices are on the upswing (Chart 20). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Footnotes 1 One can specify different parameters to weight the inflation and capacity utilization segments of a Taylor rule equation so that they are equally-weighted, meaning there is a coefficient of 0.5 on the gap between the year-over-year percent change in headline PCE and the Fed's 2% target and a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap term. Previous Fed Chair and incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen preferred an alternative specification where there was a coefficient of 1 on the output gap term so that the equation is as follows: RT= 2 + PT + 0.5(PT- 2) + 1.0YT, where R is the federal funds rate; P is headline PCE as expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and Y is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Rising commodity prices and a weaker dollar will lead to higher inflation at the consumer level beginning this year. In the real economy, tighter commodity fundamentals – restrained supply growth, increasing demand, and falling inventories in oil, metals and grain markets – will push prices higher, which will feed US CPI inflation and inflation expectations going forward. Stronger fiscal stimulus, and the expanding budget deficits that will accompany it – along with the Fed’s oft-affirmed willingness to accommodate them – will allow the USD to resume its bear market, and will also boost commodity prices. Policy support will be kicking into a higher gear as COVID-19 vaccines are more widely distributed, contributing to a revival in organic growth globally. This will keep the rate of growth in commodity demand above that of supply. Increasing inflation expectations will be evident in longer-dated CPI swaps markets used by traders, portfolio and pension-fund managers to manage longer-term inflation risks (Chart of the Week). Risks remain elevated to the upside and downside: Fundamentals and policy are supportive; public-health risks are acute, and political risk is elevated, particularly in the US, where tensions remain high following the assault on the Capitol in Washington. Feature In the real economy, industrial commodities – particularly oil and copper – are signaling prices will move higher. The real economy and financial markets are pointing to higher inflation going forward. This will become apparent in the longer-term US CPI swaps markets used by traders, portfolio and pension managers as commodity prices continue to rise and the USD resumes its bear market.1 In the real economy, industrial commodities – particularly oil and copper – are signaling prices will move higher. Production-management in the oil market is keeping the rate of growth in supply below that of demand, a trend we expect will continue this year. In the copper market, demand growth will outstrip supply growth this year and next (Chart 2). As a result, both markets will see physical supply deficits this year. Chart of the WeekReal And Financial Markets Point To Higher Inflation Chart 2Copper Supply-Demand Balances Point To Growing Deficits Physical Deficits in Oil, Copper Indicate Supplies Are Tightening Fiscal stimulus in the US will be accommodated by the Fed, which, despite some dissonant messaging, continues to signal its policy of targeting average inflation can be expected to result in lower real rates, as inflation overshoots its 2% target. Policy support is helping to maintain commodity demand globally. Fiscal policy worldwide continues to be supportive. In the US, it likely will become even more expansionary, following the electoral wins of Democrats in Senate run-off elections last week, which will bolster president-elect Joe Biden's position in stimulus-package negotiations after he takes office next week. This expansion of fiscal stimulus will dwarf the levels seen in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008-09 (Chart 3). This fiscal stimulus in the US will be accommodated by the Fed, which, despite some dissonant messaging, continues to signal its policy of targeting average inflation can be expected to result in lower real rates, as inflation overshoots its 2% target. This continued policy support will lead to a resumption of the USD bear market, following a brief dead-cat bounce over the past few days. This will support demand by lowering the local-currency costs of dollar-denominated commodities, and restrict supply growth at the margin by raising the local-currency cost of production. Chart 3Massive US Fiscal Stimulus Will Grow Real Economy Will Boost Inflation Expectations Global fiscal and monetary policy support will further energize the rebound in industrial activity and trade globally. This will keep the rate of growth in commodity demand generally above that of supply, and keep prices elevated. The top panel in the Chart of the Week shows the relationship between CPI 5-year/5-year (5y5y) swaps and crude oil and copper prices, price indexes like the DJ UBS commodity index and the S&P GSCI index, and EM trade volumes in the post-GFC period (2010 to now). The curve in the top panel shows the average of single-equation regressions that use these variables as to estimate CPI 5y5y swap rates; the average coefficient of determination for these equations is just below 0.81, meaning these real variables explain ~ 81% of the level of the CPI 5y5y swaps level post-GFC. This also illustrates how prices and activity in the real economy feed into inflation expectations, which we have demonstrated in the past.2 There also is a correspondence between our measures of real activity – i.e., BCA’s Global Industrial Activity index, Global Commodity Factor and EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast – and CPI 5y5y swaps can be seen in Chart 4. These gauges are more heavily weighted to industrial, manufacturing and trade activity than the commodity indexes, and have an average correlation of ~51% with the level of CPI 5y5y swaps. These series are not as highly correlated with CPI 5y5y swaps as the real and financial variables we used above, but they are, nonetheless, useful indicators to track. Chart 4Real Economic Activity Feeds Into Inflation Expectations Real Economic Activity Feeds Into Inflation Expectations Financial Markets Point To Higher CPI Swaps The Fed’s oft-affirmed willingness to accommodate expanding fiscal deficit strongly supports a weaker-dollar view. The bottom panel in the Chart of the Week shows the average of single-equation estimates that use dollar-related financial variables as regressors against CPI 5y5y swap rates – i.e., the USD broad trade-weighted index, the DXY index, and DM financial-conditions index; the average coefficient of determination for these equations is just below 0.83, meaning these financial variables explain ~ 83% of the CPI 5y5y swaps levels. The Fed’s oft-affirmed willingness to accommodate expanding fiscal deficits strongly supports a weaker-dollar view, which also will boost commodity prices and feed into the CPI swaps market. This fiscal and monetary support will be kicking into a higher gear as COVID-19 vaccines are more widely distributed, contributing to a revival in organic growth globally. This will keep the rate of growth in commodity demand above that of supply. As CPI swaps rates continue to move higher, longer-maturity TIPS breakevens will follow suit (Chart 5). We remain strategically long TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries. We remain strategically long TIPS. Chart 5Expect TIPS Breakevens To Stay Well Bid Risks Remain Elevated CPI 5y5y swap rates will move higher on the back of rising commodity prices, growth in real economic activity, and a weaker dollar. While fundamentals and policy continue to be supportive – and jibe with our longer-term view that industrial commodity prices will move higher – downside risks remain acute. On the health front, COVID-19 pandemic risks remain high, with public-health officials now warning the risk of a more contagious variant of the virus that emerged in the UK could become the dominant strain by March. Public health officials are considering expanded lockdowns to contain the spread of this strain, which reportedly is 50% to 74% more transmissible, according to the MIT Technology Review.3 Fed policy remains supportive of markets in general and commodities in particular. However, with officials offering conflicting views on the policy stance going forward – specifically re the need to taper sooner rather than later – uncertainty around monetary policy will remain a near-constant feature of the market. Lastly, short-term political risk is elevated, particularly in the US, where tensions are high going into the second impeachment of US President Donald J. Trump, following the assault on the US Capitol. This is an evolving story we will be following closely. Bottom Line: CPI 5y5y swap rates will move higher on the back of rising commodity prices, growth in real economic activity, and a weaker dollar. While risks remain elevated, we expect policy risks to be managed and for organic growth to pick up going into 2H21. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent prices reached an 10-month high on Tuesday at close to $57/bbl. Saudi Arabia’s surprise cuts will offset the slowdown in demand growth caused by renewed lockdowns in most DM countries, which is expected to be most pronounced in 1Q21. Consequently, in its most recent forecast, the EIA revised its demand estimate for OECD demand by -450k b/d on average in 2021. Separately, cold weather in Asia, combined with supply and shipping constraints, pushed JKM LNG prices close to $20/MMBtu earlier this week (Chart 6). The cold wave will push storage in Europe lower ahead of the summer injection season, as LNG cargoes are redirected towards Asia to meet higher space-heating demand. Base Metals: Bullish Chinese imports of metallurgical coal from Australia fell to 447.5k MT in December, the lowest level since January 2015, when Refinitiv, a Reuters data and analytics service, started tracking them. Met coal imports peaked last year in June 2020 at 9.6mm MT, according to reuters.com. The proximate cause of this collapse is the Chinese retaliation to Australia’s call for an investigation into the source of the COVID-19 pandemic. China’s imports from Indonesia have surged, while India’s imports from Australia have picked up much of the loss in Chinese demand, Reuters notes. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold prices fell by $78/oz to $1,834/oz on Friday – a 2-week low – following Democrats win in run-off elections that gave them both of Georgia’s Senate seats last week. The decline in gold prices largely reflects the rise in US real rates, which rose following an increase in US nominal rates that was not accompanied by higher inflation reports in the short term (Chart 7). Going forward, we expect investors will increasingly focus on inflation risks as fiscal policy in the US expands. Democrats will be able to provide extra COVID relief – increasing monthly income-support payments to individuals to $2,000 from $600 – in a reconciliation bill in 2021. This will pressure real rates down as inflation expectations steadily move higher. Ags/Softs: Neutral In its global supply-demand estimates released earlier this week, the USDA lowered its global grain and soybean production and yields forecasts, which pushed prices sharply higher. CME spot corn prices held sharp price gains, which sent futures limit up Tuesday, on the back of lower production and yields. Soybean and wheat futures also responded to reduced supply estimates in the wake of the WASDE release. Chart 6DECLINE IN GOLD PRICES REFLECTS A RISE IN US REAL RATES Chart 7TIGHTENING MARKETS PUSH UP LNG PRICES Footnotes 1 We focus on US CPI swaps because they are responsive to the perceived stance of US monetary policy, even if the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge is the PCE deflator and not the CPI. US monetary policy has a strong bearing on the trajectory of US interest rates and the USD, which impacts commodity prices directly. Please see Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), posted by the US Treasury, which notes: TIPS “provide protection against inflation. The principal of a TIPS increases with inflation and decreases with deflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. When a TIPS matures, you are paid the adjusted principal or original principal, whichever is greater.” A fixed interest payment, which changes as the CPI changes, is made twice a year. 2 See, e.g., Trade And Commodity Data Point To Higher Inflation, which we published 27 July 2017. Our approach – i.e., treating inflation expectations as a function of global real variables and financial variables – is consistent with that of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is described in Has globalization changed the inflation process?, posted 4 July 2019. We treat the events of the GFC and central banks’ responses to them as a regime change. In our modeling we estimate dynamic OLS and ARDL equations, to ensure we are modeling cointegrated systems. The average of the coefficients of determination estimated using real variables in DOLS models is pulled lower by the model using COMEX copper futures as an explanatory variable. 3 Please see We may have only weeks to act before a variant coronavirus dominates the US published by the MIT Technology Review 13 January 2021. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights The incidents of state-owned enterprise (SOE) bond defaults late last year reflected deteriorating corporate balance sheets and exposed local governments’ weakening fiscal positions. Both were preexisting conditions that worsened due to the pandemic. China’s policymakers have vowed to accelerate restructuring the SOE/corporate sector, but they face a dilemma between economic stability and painful reforms; the outcome will ultimately depend on policymakers’ pain thresholds. In the next 6 to 12 months, the policy tightening cycle will continue and credit growth will decelerate. Chinese stocks are already more expensive than before the start of the last policy tightening cycle. We recommend a neutral position on domestic and investable stocks for now. Feature The days of China’s unconditional bailout of state firms may be over. In the past six months, Beijing has embarked on a series of reform agendas, including restructuring and stricter regulations targeting SOEs and the broader spectrum of the corporate sector. When three SOEs defaulted on bond payments late last year, neither the central nor the local government supported those firms. Allowing market forces to allocate capital to more productive firms by driving out the less efficient companies is structurally positive for the Chinese economy. However, the pursuit of meaningful SOE and broader corporate reforms will be a tough choice for Chinese policymakers this year while the economic recovery is underway. Ultimately, the degree and speed to reform SOEs will depend on how much near-term pain policymakers are willing to endure. We recommend a neutral position in Chinese stocks for now. We expect the financial markets to experience frequent mini-cycles in 2021 due to policy zigzags. Risks for policy miscalculations cannot be ruled out; equity prices will falter if Chinese authorities push for deeper reforms and tighter industry regulations while scaling back stimulus at the same time. Chinese stocks are already expensive and are vulnerable to authorities opting for much smaller stimulus and harsher corporate/SOE reforms. SOE Defaults: Policy Response Matters More Than Defaults Chart 1Policy Zigzags And Market Mini-Cycles A flurry of high-profile defaults by state firms late last year unnerved investors and pushed up onshore corporate bond yields. Beijing’s move to allow SOEs to fail forced investors to reprice bonds issued by state firms as much riskier propositions. Following the defaults in November, the PBoC injected unusually large interbank liquidity; the de jure policy rate dropped and Chinese stock prices rallied (Chart 1). In our view, the recent liquidity injections do not provide enough evidence that macro policy is shifting to an easier bias. Despite a retreat in the short-term interbank rate, the authorities have plowed ahead with reforms and initiated more restrictions in key industries. In the coming months, investors should expect the following: SOE reforms will tolerate more bond defaults. Bank loans and local government bonds make up nearly 80% of China’s total domestic credit, whereas corporate bonds (including SOEs and local government financing vehicles (LGFVs)) account for only 10% of the total (Chart 2). Thus, even if corporate bond defaults push up yields, Beijing may see this as a small price to pay in the near term, in exchange for a market-driven system cleansing to eliminate inefficient SOEs. This outcome will be negative for corporate bonds (Chart 3). Chart 2Corporate Bond Issuance Make Up Only A Small Portion Of Total Financing Chart 3Periods Of Financial Tightening Dampen Corporate Bond Market Chart 4Higher Funding Costs Will Discourage Corporate Borrowing Policymakers may underestimate the unintended consequences of SOE defaults on credit flow and the broader economy. The central bank was able to engineer a sharp drop in its policy rate last month, which may prompt policymakers to believe that interbank liquidity injections are efficient market-calming measures and rising corporate bond yields will not impede overall credit growth. This may be true in the short term, however, tightened policy in the name of reforms has previously pushed up both the 3-month SHIBOR and bank lending rates, leading to a significant slowing in credit growth and an eventual slowdown in economic expansion (Chart 4). Reasons for such chain reactions are twofold. First, banks become more risk averse during a tightening cycle and charge higher premiums when lending to smaller financial institutions and the private sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Secondly, although Chinese SOEs can borrow from banks at much lower interest rates than private-sector entities (Chart 5), their heavy indebtedness makes them hyper-sensitive to even a slight uptick in financing costs. Chinese SOEs rely more on bank lending than bond issuance for financing and SOE borrowers dominate China’s bank credit to the corporate sector.1 Chart 6 shows that the rise in the weighted average lending rate in 2017 was relatively minor compared with levels that prevailed in the past decade. Nonetheless, a less than one percentage point hike in the lending rate materially slowed credit growth and the investment-driven sectors of China's economy. Chart 5SOEs Tend To Have Lower Borrowing Costs, Partially Reflecting Implicit Government Guarantees Chart 6Small Rise In Lending Rate, Large Fall In Credit Growth Regulatory pressures will lead to de facto tightening. As outlined in our 2021 Outlook report, as part of the macroeconomic policy normalization, credit growth will likely decelerate by two to three percentage points this year from 2020. The extended Macro Prudential Assessment (MPA) System will wrap up by year-end and financial institutions will need to start slowing their asset balance sheets to meet the assessments. Moreover, last week the central government revised Measures for the Performance Evaluation of Commercial Banks. The modified version factors lending to the new-economy sectors and micro and small enterprises into the performance evaluation and salaries of the state-owned and controlled commercial banks’ management.2 The new measures will likely dampen the banks’ propensity to lend to old-economy sectors, such as real estate and traditional infrastructure. All in all, a faster-than-desired slowdown in credit growth will ensue if policymakers simultaneously allow more SOE/corporate defaults, undertake industry reforms, and implement tighter banking regulations in 2021. This is negative for both economic growth and the equity market. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers will likely allow more SOE defaults in the coming months. In addition to an increased number of SOE defaults that is negative for the corporate bond market, sped up industry restructuring and more stringent regulations may lead to a sharp fall in credit growth and stock prices. Worsening Old Economy SOEs’ Financial Positions Chart 7SOEs Are Less Efficient Than Private Firms In Profitability And Productivity An acceleration in SOE reforms may trigger near-term risks, but a delay in restructuring China’s loss-making SOEs will have repercussions in the long term. The explicit and implicit government protections for SOEs have eroded their efficiencies compared with the private sector (Chart 7). The most significant side effect is a rapid rise in SOE leverage and diminishing profitability in some of the old economy sectors. It may be a dead end for the government to continue bailing out state firms with inefficient operations and financial losses. A Special Report we previously published showed that among SOEs in the industrial and construction sectors, which account for half of all SOEs in China, the adjusted return on assets (ROA) versus borrowing costs has been negative since 2013 (Chart 8). This suggests that SOE investment funded by higher leverage cannot produce sufficient income to repay debt. During the last tightening cycle that started in late 2016, policymakers managed to rein in local SOE debt growth, but it reversed course in 2018 due to a collapse in domestic demand (Chart 9). As Chart 8 illustrates, ROA among SOEs in the industrial and construction sectors has significantly deteriorated since then. Chart 8SOEs Financial Gains From Debt Are In Deep Contraction Chart 9China Was Successful In Reining In SOE Debt, But Only Briefly Bottom Line: A continued capital misallocation by perpetually leveraging SOEs and LGFVs with negative marginal operating gains will eventually lead to a self-reinforcing debt trap. In turn, that would precipitate a default en masse and necessitate a larger government bailout. Another Layer To The SOE Reform Dilemma The central government’s SOE reform agenda is further complicated by the involvement of local governments (LGs). We have several observations: First, a meaningful SOE restructuring, which would require consolidating/liquidating some of the unprofitable SOE assets, may expose the LGs’ fiscal vulnerabilities to both investors and regulators. The fiscal weakness of China’s provincial-level governments is illustrated by the bond-payment default of Yongcheng Coal, a SOE from Henan Province. Henan is economically sound with GDP growth above the national average. However, when considering the province’s direct and hidden debt, debt servicing costs, and liquidity availability, Henan is in a group of 10 provinces with the worst fiscal conditions in 2020.3 This implies that LG officials may not have been able to bail out Yongcheng even if they wanted to. Moreover, cash-strapped LGs have reportedly formed reciprocal and entrenched relationships with local SOEs. These SOEs may carry debt for LGs and in turn, free up an LG’s borrowing capacity. When these SOEs fail, the credibility of LG officials may be questioned and investigated by the central government. As such, LGs are incentivized to protect their local SOEs. Chart 10More Defaults, More Bank Lending Secondly, removing the government’s bailout of SOE debt defaults does not negate the underlying factor eroding SOE productivity: the government’s support of local SOEs with easier access to bank loans. Banks, which heavily influence LGs, are not always vigilant about risks associated with local SOE debt. Banks provide loans at preferential rates to localities and their affiliated SOEs. In return, LGs often award banks financing opportunities for profitable infrastructure projects. In this regard, local SOE bond defaults are not necessarily detrimental to bank profits because banks can make up their losses through financing more lucrative projects. Studies show that even when some LGs have experienced large-scale SOE bond defaults, lending to these LGs from commercial banks actually increased relative to other forms of financing (Chart 10). Beijing must take bold measures to break up the long-standing relationship between LGs and SOEs in order to achieve any market-oriented reform of local SOEs. The LGs will likely strongly resist severing the connection. Lastly, given that SOEs are often deployed to support the central government’s economic, political and strategic initiatives, LGs can use those grand initiatives to help justify their local SOEs’ existence - even unprofitable ones. Bottom Line: Beijing faces a tough choice between implementing effective SOE reforms and worsening local governments’ fiscal conditions with negative implications for economic growth. While allowing more SOE bond defaults can force investors to reprice SOE credit risks, as long as the implicit government support for SOEs through bank lending still exists, allocating capital to more efficient private-sector companies will be a formidable task. Investment Conclusions Some economists argue that China’s SOE debt should be considered part of public-sector leverage because many SOE investments are affiliated with government projects. Additionally, Chinese SOEs have accumulated massive assets, which can more than offset their debt4 and make SOE bonds and debt low- risk propositions. Moreover, even though the government may allow more SOE bond defaults, if the defaults threaten China’s financial stability, then the government can move non-performing debt from LGs and SOEs to the balance sheets of the central bank or central government. There are several issues with this argument. The stock of assets in a large portion of Chinese SOEs5 has persistently failed to generate sufficient cash flow to service debt, which implies that the true value of the assets may be low and will likely be sold at below cost when liquidated. It is not useful to compare book value of assets with debt because the true value of assets is contingent on the income/cash flow that they generate. We agree that public-sector leveraging/deleveraging is fundamentally a political choice in countries with control over their own monetary policy and debt is in local currency. Theoretically, a country can monetize public and private local currency-denominated debt via a central bank or government- controlled commercial banks. In such a case, the authorities will have little control over inflation, the exchange rate, and the long-term productivity. For now, Chinese policymakers seem to be on a path of accelerating reform, an indication that they want to avoid bailing out state firms and private-sector companies. In addition, President Xi’s “dual circulation” mantra emphasizes the importance of improving the country’s corporate efficiency and productivity. We think that consolidating some inefficient SOE sectors in the old economy fits such initiative. Our baseline view is that the SOE consolidation process will be gradual and the PBoC will provide sufficient liquidity in an effort to prevent market jitters. At the same time, the sharp turns in the policy rate in the past six months are prime examples of the periodic oscillation in China’s policymaking between maintaining economic stability and pursuing meaningful reforms. The policy swings will create mini-cycles for Chinese risk asset prices. Chinese stocks are not cheap compared with values at the start of the last policy tightening cycle (Chart 11A and 11B). We recommend a neutral position on domestic and investable equities for the time being. CHART 11AInvestable Stocks Are More Expensive Now Than Prior To The Last Tightening Cycle CHART 11BA-Shares Are Less Expensive, But Valuations Are Still Elevated Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Based on the OECD estimates, SOEs’ share of China’s total corporate debt escalated from 46% in 2013 to roughly 80% in 2018. 2Banks included in the new appraisal system are state-owned and state-controlled commercial lenders, and other commercial banks may also refer to the guidelines. Lenders will be evaluated yearly and the results will be factored into the annual reviews of top bank executives as salary determinants. Each of the four new categories will carry an equal weighting. The “national development goals and real economy” category has four benchmarks: serving the government’s “ecological civilization strategy” to encourage lending for green industries and companies; serving strategic emerging industries; implementing the “two increases” - inclusive lending to micro and small enterprises; and implementing the “two controls” - nonperforming loans and borrowing costs of micro and small enterprises. The category “controlling and preventing risks” includes metrics on bad loan ratios, the nonperforming loan growth rate, provision coverage, liquidity ratios and capital adequacy ratios. 3“Seeing Through the Frosted Glass: Assessing Chinese Local Governments’ Creditworthiness”, Pengyuan Rating Public Finance Report, June 2020 4Chinese SOE assets are estimated to have reached 2.3 times China’s 2019 GDP, whereas their debt is close to 130% of GDP. 5IMF estimated that about a quarter of Chinese SOEs were operating at a loss in 2017. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights US Reflation: The Georgia senate victories for the Democratic Party have returned the bond-bearish “Blue Sweep” scenarios to the forefront. More fiscal stimulus and an easy Fed will extend the policy-driven reflation of the US economy and financial markets. US Treasury Strategy: Stay underweight US Treasuries, with below-benchmark duration exposure, in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries and continue to position for more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Global Corporate Sector Valuation: Developed market investment grade corporate spread valuations look stretched. Maintain only neutral levels of spread risk for higher-quality corporates while targeting sectors that look undervalued across the majority of regions, such as Energy and Financials. Avoid universally expensive consumer sectors such as Retailers, Restaurants, and Food & Beverages. Feature Chart of the WeekUS Policy Reflation Is Negative For USTs In a week of stunning US political events, the most important one for financial markets was not the mob invasion of the US Capitol. The Georgia senate runoff votes completed the unfinished business of the 2020 US elections, with Democratic Party candidates winning both seats. This effectively delivered a change in party control of the US Senate to the Democrats, with a 50/50 seat split that would give incoming Vice-President Kamala Harris the potential tiebreaking vote. With the Democratic Party now in control of the US House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, the bond-bearish “Blue Sweep” scenario that we discussed in our pre-election Special Report last October – with greater odds that the highly expansionary Biden policy agenda can be more fully implemented - is now coming to fruition.1 The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield broke above 1% after the election results, continuing to climb to 1.13% yesterday. The overall US Treasury market action has continued the reflationary trends seen in the latter half of 2020, with a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve and wider inflation breakevens in the TIPS market (Chart of the Week). Treasuries continue to underperform other developed economy government bond markets (in USD-hedged terms), continuing a move that started back in the spring of 2020. We expect these trends to remain in place over the next several months, given the current and likely future monetary and fiscal policy mix in D.C. The Biden Boost To US Treasury Yields BCA Research’s newest service, US Political Strategy, launched last week with a discussion of the US fiscal policy outlook after the Georgia senate elections.2 The conclusion was that the most radical parts of the Democratic Party agenda will be difficult to pass given their narrow majorities in the House and Senate, but some sizeable fiscal stimulus is still likely. In the near term, an expansion of the COVID relief passed in the December stimulus bill, such as boosting monthly checks to individuals from $600 to $2000, is likely to come relatively quickly after Biden is inaugurated via a “reconciliation bill”. Additional stimulus measures could also be enacted, partially funded by some rollback of the Trump tax cuts. Beyond that, the Biden administration will attempt to push through some of the more expansionary parts of incoming president’s campaign platform related to items like infrastructure spending. In the end, the expectation is that the US fiscal drag (a reduction in the deficit) that was set to occur in 2021 after the massive stimulus measures enacted in 2020 will be much smaller with full Democratic control in D.C. This will help boost US GDP growth this year. A greater implementation of the Biden agenda would have a more lasting impact on US economic growth in the following years. Last September, Moody’s published a report that compared the policy platforms of Candidate Biden and President Trump, running the details of the agendas into the Moody’s US economic model.3 The analysts concluded that under realistic assumptions about how much of the Biden platform would be implemented under a “Blue Sweep” scenario, US real GDP growth would average 6% in 2021 and 2022 under President Biden, a full two percentage points higher than the baseline scenario (Chart 2). This would also drive the US unemployment rate back toward pre-pandemic levels more quickly. Moody’s concluded that the Fed would start hiking rates in 2023 under the Democratic sweep scenario, similar to the current pricing in the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve, but with a more aggressive pace of tightening expected over the subsequent two years (bottom panel) – a bond bearish outcome that would push the 10-year Treasury yield back to 2% by the end of 2022 and 3% by the end of 2023. We expect the Fed to normalize US monetary policy at a slower pace than Moody’s, but we do agree on there is still plenty of upside potential for Treasury yields over the next 1-2 years. This will initially come more from rising inflation breakevens than real yields. Currently, US TIPS breakevens are drifting steadily higher, even as realized US inflation is starting to cool off a bit (Chart 3). The 10-year breakeven is now up to 2.1%, a level last seen in 2018 but still below the 2.3-2.5% level we deem consistent with the market expecting that the Fed’s 2% inflation target will be sustainably achieved. The idea that inflation breakevens can widen without higher realized inflation may seem odd on the surface, but it is not unprecedented. In the years immediately after the 2008 financial crisis, when the Fed kept rates at 0% while the economy recovered from the Great Recession, TIPS breakevens rose alongside very weak US inflation. Chart 2How 'Bidenomics' Can Be Bond-Bearish Chart 3Fed Policy Stance Favors Wider TIPS Breakevens With the Fed having shifted to an Average Inflation Targeting framework last year, we don’t expect the Fed to turn more hawkish too quickly. We expect the Fed to keep the funds rate well below US realized inflation for at least the next couple of years and likely longer, keeping real US interest rates negative and preventing an unwanted flattening of the Treasury curve (Chart 4). The Fed’s low interest rate policies will also make it easier to service the growing stock of US government debt during the Biden Administration (Chart 5). Net-net, we continue to see additional upside for US Treasury yields in the aftermath of the “Blue Sweep”. Chart 4US Policy Mix Favors UST Curve Steepening Net-net, we continue to see additional upside for US Treasury yields in the aftermath of the “Blue Sweep”. We expect the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield to rise to the 1.25-1.5% range over the next six months, with higher yields possible if the market begins to question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate anchored at 0% - an outcome that could occur by year-end if the Fed starts to consider a slower pace of Treasury purchases via quantitative easing (Chart 6). Chart 5Low Interest Rates Help Service Rising Debt Chart 6More Upside Room For UST Yields We continue to recommend an overall US Treasury investment strategy that will perform well as yields rise. Stay underweight US Treasuries, with below-benchmark duration exposure, in global bond portfolios. Stay overweight TIPS versus nominal US Treasuries and continue to position for more bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Bottom Line: The odds of a major US fiscal spending boost from the incoming Biden Administration, both in the short-run and over the medium term, are now much higher after the Georgia senate elections. More fiscal stimulus and an easy Fed will extend the policy-driven reflation of the US economy and financial markets. Maintain positions that will benefit from higher Treasury yields. Finding Value In Global Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors As we discussed in our 2021 Model Bond Portfolio Update published last week,4 the strong performance of global spread product in H2/2020 has led to an across-the-board narrowing of credit spreads, with investment grade spreads hovering close to, or below, pre-COVID levels in developed markets (Chart 7). Predictably, this has stretched valuations to historically expensive levels across developed economy investment grade corporate bond markets. Our preferred measure of spread valuation, the 12-month breakeven spread, measures how much spread widening is required over a one-year horizon to eliminate the yield advantage of owning corporate bonds versus duration-matched government debt. We then show those breakeven spreads as a percentile ranking versus its own history, to allow comparisons over periods with differing underlying spread volatility. These breakeven spread percentile rankings for investment grade corporates are now at the bottom percentile in the US and below the 25th percentile level in the euro area, UK, Australia, and Canada, indicating that there is limited potential for additional spread tightening from current levels (Chart 8). Chart 7Investment Grade Spreads At Or Below Pre-Covid Lows As the gains from the “beta” of owning corporate credit have been largely exhausted, it now makes sense to pay more attention to the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors. To accomplish this, we return to our cross-sectional relative value framework, which we last discussed in the summer of 2020.5 Readers should refer to that report for details on our framework methodology. In this report, we apply our relative value framework to investment grade corporate bond markets in the US, euro area, UK, Canada and Australia. Chart 8Valuations Look Stretched On A Breakeven Spread Basis US In Table 1, we present the latest output from our US investment grade sector valuation model. In keeping with the framework used by BCA Research US Bond Strategy, we use the average credit rating, duration, and duration-squared (convexity) of each sector as the model inputs. As the gains from the “beta” of owning corporate credit have been largely exhausted, it now makes sense to pay more attention to the “alpha” in corporate debt markets by looking at relative valuations across sectors. Table 1US Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation To determine our US sector recommendations, we not only need to look at the spread valuations from the relative value model, but we must also consider what level of overall US spread risk, which we measure as duration-times-spread (DTS), to target. With valuations for US investment grade looking stretched, we are looking to target only a neutral DTS at or around that of the benchmark index. Investors willing to take on a greater amount of spread risk should look at the beaten-up Airlines sector, which offers the most attractive risk-adjusted valuation in US investment grade within our model. The sweet spot, therefore, is the upper half of Chart 9, around the dotted horizontal line denoting the benchmark DTS. Given the large amount of spread narrowing seen since we last published these models, there are fewer obvious overweight candidates, with most sectors priced close to our model-implied fair value. However, Finance Companies, Lodging, and REITs are interesting opportunities that fit our “risk budget”. Investors willing to take on a greater amount of spread risk should look at the beaten-up Airlines sector, which offers the most attractive risk-adjusted valuation in US investment grade within our model. Sectors to avoid, meanwhile, are Restaurants, Environmental, and Other Utilities. Chart 9US Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Euro Area In Table 2, we present the results of our euro area investment grade sector valuation model. The independent variables in this model are each sector’s duration, trailing 12-month spread volatility, and credit rating. Note that we will be using the same independent variables in our UK model. Table 2Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation In keeping with our neutral stance on euro area investment grade, we will be targeting an overall level of spread risk at or around the benchmark. Therefore, we are interested in overweighting sectors in the upper half of Chart 10 that are close to the overall index DTS. Chart 10Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward On that basis, Subordinated Debt, Brokerage Asset Managers, and Integrated Energy seem appealing overweight candidates while Airlines, Independent Energy, and Building Materials are ones to avoid. UK In Table 3, we present the latest output from our UK relative value spread model. We are currently overweight UK investment grade, one of the best performers in our model bond portfolio universe last year. Although investment grade spreads are below pre-pandemic lows, the major factor to watch is how the economy adjusts to the Brexit trade deal. Table 3UK Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation As with other regions, our ideal overweight candidates here are those with positive risk-adjusted residuals and a relatively neutral DTS—represented in the upper half of Chart 11 near the dotted line. The best overweight candidates are concentrated within Financials, with Brokerage Asset Managers, REITs and Insurance appearing attractive. Tobacco and Railroads also fit our criteria. Meanwhile, Metals and Mining, Aerospace, and Restaurants are sectors to avoid. Chart 11UK Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Canada Table 4 shows the output from our Canadian relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are: sector duration, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg) and credit rating. While we do not have an allocation to Canadian corporate debt in our model bond portfolio, our key insight regarding other markets also applies here—historically expensive valuations for the overall market mean that we recommend keeping exposure to spread risk neutral while finding pockets of value where available. Table 4Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation On that basis, some of the most appealing overweight candidates, shown in the top half of Chart 12, are Finance Companies, Office and Healthcare REITs, Brokerage Asset Managers, Life Insurance, and Other Industrials. Meanwhile, we are staying away from Cable Satellite, Media Entertainment, and Environmental sectors. Chart 12Canada Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Australia Table 5 shows the output from our new Australia relative value spread model. The independent variables in this model are sector credit rating, one-year ahead default probability (as calculated by Bloomberg), and yield-to-maturity. Due to the relatively small size of the Australian corporate bond market, we are focusing our analysis on Level 3 sectors within the Bloomberg Barclays Classification System (BCLASS) rather than the more granular Level 4 analysis we have employed for other markets. Table 5Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation & Recommended Allocation As with Canada, we have no exposure to this market in our model bond portfolio but are looking to maintain a neutral level of recommended overall spread risk while looking at sectors in Chart 13 that show positive risk-adjusted valuations and have a DTS close to the Australian corporate benchmark. On that basis, Finance Companies and Insurance appear attractive while Energy, Technology, and REITs should be avoided. Chart 13Australia Investment Grade Corporate Sectors: Risk Vs. Reward Comparing Sector Valuations Across Regions The above analyses have allowed us to paint a picture of sector valuation within regions. However, there is added benefit in looking at risk-adjusted valuations across the three major corporate bond markets—the US, euro area and UK—with the intent of spotting broader sector level trends in the global investment grade universe that are not limited to just one market. Table 6 allows us to highlight some clear trends: Table 6Valuations Across Major Corporate Bond Markets Industrials such as Chemicals, Capital Goods, and Diversified Manufacturing look overvalued across the board. These cyclicals, which are deeply sensitive to the health of business investment and confidence, rallied strongly on vaccine optimism but now look overbought. On the consumer side, there is weakness in cyclicals such as retailers and restaurants, and non-cyclicals like consumer products and food & beverages. The new round of lockdowns instituted in Europe and the UK are a major risk for these sectors as we head into the final stretch before mass vaccination. Energy looks undervalued in all three regions. This result is supported by the outlook from our BCA Research Commodity & Energy strategists, who are bullish on oil and believe that Brent prices will average at $63/bbl in 2021 as demand continues to grow and OPEC 2.0 keeps a tight grip on supply. Financials look to be a bastion of value, with finance companies/institutions and insurance looking cheap across the board. These sectors have obviously benefited from the steepening in yield curves we have already seen but there is still remaining upside as inflation expectations continue to rise and push up nominal yields at the long-end of the curve. Financials look to be a bastion of value, with finance companies/institutions and insurance looking cheap across the board. Bottom Line: Developed market investment grade corporate spread valuations look stretched. Maintain only neutral levels of spread risk for higher-quality corporates while targeting sectors that look undervalued across the majority of regions, such as Energy and Financials. Avoid universally expensive consumer sectors such as Retailers, Restaurants, and Food & Beverages. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep", dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Political Strategy Report, "Buy Reflation Plays On Georgia’s Blue Sweep", dated January 6, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The full report can be found here: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy For 2021: Leaning Into Reflation", dated January 6, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Hunting For Alpha In The Global Corporate Bond Jungle", dated May 27, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Rates: The Democratic sweep of the election has caused the uptrend in bond yields to accelerate and has benefited our recommended rates positions (below-benchmark duration, nominal and real curve steepeners, inflation curve flatteners). We aren’t yet ready to exit any of these positions, and our medium-term target of 2% - 2.25% for the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield remains unchanged. Municipal Bonds: Though valuation has become more expensive, we continue to recommend a maximum overweight allocation to municipal bonds. In particular, investors should favor municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with equivalent credit rating and duration. Economy: December’s employment report showed the first monthly contraction in nonfarm payrolls since April. However, this negative headline reflects the transitory impact of the latest COVID wave. It does not signal renewed weakness in the pace of economic recovery. Feature A Politically Driven Bond Rout In a Special Report last October, we argued that the bond market was vulnerable in a scenario where the November 3rd election resulted in the Democratic party winning the House, Senate and White House.1 It took some time, but after Democrats won both of Georgia’s Senate seats in last week’s special election, we are finally seeing the impact on the bond market. Nominal Treasury Yields First, the 10-year nominal Treasury yield moved above 1% for the first time since March. It currently sits at 1.13% (Chart 1). Meanwhile, the front-end of the Treasury curve held steady as the Fed continued to signal that liftoff is unlikely to occur within the next two years. The result has been a persistent steepening of the nominal curve (Chart 1, bottom panel). The 10-year nominal Treasury yield moved above 1% for the first time since March. We are positioned for a bear-steepening of the nominal Treasury curve, but the speed of this most recent move raises the question of how much further the bond sell-off can run. As we wrote in our year-end Special Report, we see yields continuing to rise until the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reaches levels consistent with survey estimates of the long-run equilibrium fed funds rate (Chart 2).2 This would be in line with where yields peaked during the prior two global growth recoveries (2013/14 and 2017/18). At present, survey responses put our target for the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield at roughly 2% to 2.25%, still 18 to 43 bps above current levels. Chart 1Nominal Curve Bear-Steepening Chart 2How Much Upside For Yields? The prospect of greater fiscal stimulus under a Democratic government doesn’t necessarily translate into a higher ceiling for Treasury yields, but it does increase the speed with which yields will reach our target. All in all, we remain positioned for a bear-steepening of the nominal Treasury curve but will re-consider this stance if the 5-year/5-year forward yield reaches a range of 2% to 2.25%. Inflation Compensation Chart 3Stay Overweight TIPS For Now The recent 20 bps jump in the 10-year nominal Treasury yield was driven by a 15 bps increase in the 10-year TIPS yield and a 5 bps increase in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Notably, the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates have both pushed above 2% and are sitting at 2.08% and 2.06%, respectively. While these long-maturity TIPS breakevens have recovered nicely, the Fed won’t be tempted to adopt a more hawkish policy stance until they reach a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent, a range that has been consistent with “well-anchored” inflation expectations in the past (Chart 3).. While TIPS breakeven inflation rates aren’t yet high enough to worry the Fed, they are starting to look elevated compared to actual inflation. At 2.08%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 27 bps above the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 3, panel 3).3 Given this expensive valuation, we are currently looking for an opportunity to tactically reduce our allocation to TIPS. We expect that opportunity will come when the 12-month core and trimmed mean inflation rates re-converge (Chart 3, bottom panel). The low level of core CPI inflation relative to the trimmed mean suggests that inflation has near-term upside as some downtrodden sectors that are excluded from the trimmed mean recover from the pandemic. But inflation will moderate once that “snapback phase” is over, and we should get an opportunity to reduce our TIPS allocation.4 Along with an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, we also recommend owning inflation curve flatteners. The inflation curve tends to flatten when the cost of inflation protection rises, and this has indeed been the case during the past few weeks (Chart 4). It will make sense to exit this flattener when we tactically reduce our TIPS allocation, but this will only be a temporary move. In the long run, the inflation curve will eventually invert and then remain in negative territory for an extended period. This is the result of the Fed’s plan to engineer an overshoot of its 2% inflation target. If the Fed is successful, it means that it will be attacking its inflation target from above for the first time since the 1980s. In such an environment, it makes sense for the inflation curve to be inverted. Chart 4Inflation Curve Flattening Real Yield Curve Chart 5Real Curve Steepening Our final rates curve recommendation is a real yield curve steepener. This position has also performed well during the recent bond rout, as a 14 bps increase in the 10-year real yield occurred alongside a 13 bps drop in the 2-year real yield (Chart 5). As with our other rates positions, we are inclined to stay the course. A 2/10 real yield curve steepener can be thought of as the combination of a 2/10 nominal curve steepener and a 2/10 inflation curve flattener. During the recent bond sell-off, the 2/10 real curve has steepened by 27 bps, split between 17 bps of nominal curve steepening and 10 bps of inflation curve flattening. We will likely maintain our real yield curve steepener as a core portfolio position even if we eventually close our inflation curve flattener. Gradual progress toward fed funds liftoff and the resulting steepening of the nominal curve should be sufficient to steepen the real yield curve, even if inflation takes a pause. Corporate Credit Chart 6Move Down In Quality Corporate spreads have reacted well to the news of a Democratic sweep, even though it means that a corporate tax hike is coming in 2021. All else equal, the one-time hit to profits from a tax hike is negative for corporate balance sheets, but this is a minor consideration when the macro back-drop remains so positive for spread product. The combination of above-trend economic growth and highly accommodative monetary policy will encourage investors to keep adding credit risk, and the average investment grade and high-yield index spreads have still not quite recovered to their pre-COVID tights (Chart 6). We continue to view the Ba credit tier as the most attractive from a risk/reward perspective, as the incremental spread pick-up in Ba compared to Baa is elevated compared to what we’ve seen in recent years (Chart 6, panel 3). Bottom Line: The Democratic sweep of the election has caused the uptrend in bond yields to accelerate and has benefited our recommended rates positions (below-benchmark duration, nominal and real curve steepeners, inflation curve flatteners). We aren’t yet ready to exit any of these positions, and our medium-term target of 2% - 2.25% for the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield remains unchanged. Fiscal Policy In 2021 Chart 7Organic Household Income Has Recovered Our US Political Strategy service debuted last week with a report that considers the outlook for fiscal policy in 2021 given that Democrats now have control of the House, Senate and White House.5 In short, the Democrats now have complete control of the government but their majorities in the House and Senate are thin. This means that the most radical parts of the Democratic agenda, like the Green New Deal, will be hard to pass. However, the Democrats will be able to deliver two reconciliation bills in 2021. The first bill could come soon and will likely focus on additional COVID relief and social support, such as $2000 checks to individuals instead of $600 ones. After that, the Democrats will focus on expanding and entrenching the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). They will partially repeal the Trump tax cuts to help finance these priorities. On the issue of COVID relief, we are no longer concerned about the US economy receiving enough stimulus to avoid a double-dip recession. We had previously estimated that a further $600 billion to $1 trillion of income support for households would be required to support consumer spending at reasonable levels.6 This estimate now looks too high because non-CARES act household income has recovered much more quickly than we had anticipated. Non-CARES act household income is already back to pre-COVID levels (Chart 7). In our prior research, we assumed this wouldn’t happen until July 2021. In any event, another round of $2000 checks will provide more than enough income support to sustain a recovery in consumer spending. A Democratic sweep suggests big fiscal thrust in 2021 and less contraction in 2022. More generally, our US Political Strategy team has estimated the medium-term path for the US deficit under a “Democratic Status Quo” scenario that assumes another round of $2000 checks and that the remaining $2.5 trillion of the proposed HEROES Act will be enacted. It also considers a “Democratic High” scenario that adds Joe Biden’s $5.6 trillion policy agenda on top of the Democratic Status Quo (Chart 8). Biden will not achieve all of his agenda, so the reality will lie somewhere between the Democratic Status Quo and Democratic High scenarios. In either case, we will see considerably more fiscal thrust compared to the Republican Status Quo and Baseline scenarios. Chart 8Democratic Sweep Suggests Big Fiscal Thrust In FY2021 And Less Contraction FY2022 Municipal Bonds The prospect of federal government aid for challenged state & local governments is a crucial issue for municipal bond investors. Fortunately, the Democratic party’s HEROES act contains more than $1 trillion of aid to state & local governments and this will likely form the basis of the next COVID relief package. On top of that, further support for household incomes will also help support state & local tax revenues that are already recovering (Chart 9). Chart 9State & Local Austerity Will Continue That said, we are likely still in for a considerable period of state & local austerity given the large budget gaps that have opened during the past nine months. However, the expectation of help from the federal government makes us even more confident that state & local governments will muddle through without a spate of muni downgrades or defaults. We maintain our “maximum overweight” recommendation for tax-exempt municipal bonds, though valuation is turning more expensive by the day. Muni yield spreads versus Treasuries are contracting, particularly at the long end of the curve (Chart 10A) and valuations appear more expensive if we look at yield ratios instead of spreads (Chart 10B). In both cases, value looks better at the front end of the curve than at the long end. Chart 10AMuni / Treasury Yield Ratios Chart 10BMuni / Treasury Yield Ratios Bottom Line: The new Democratic government will deliver more than enough income support to sustain the recovery in consumer spending. Aid for state & local governments is also forthcoming and it will help sustain municipal bond outperformance versus both Treasuries and investment grade corporates. Though valuation has become more expensive, we continue to recommend a maximum overweight allocation to municipal bonds. In particular, investors should favor municipal bonds over investment grade corporate bonds with equivalent credit rating and duration. December Payrolls Only A Temporary Setback At first blush, last week’s December employment report looks disastrous. Nonfarm payrolls fell by 140 thousand, the first monthly contraction since April. The contraction looks especially worrying when you consider that payrolls remain almost 10 million below pre-COVID levels and should be rising quickly at this stage of the economic recovery (Chart 11). Chart 11Payrolls Contracted In December Chart 12Permanent Unemployment Fell In December The grim headline numbers, however, severely overstate the magnitude of the problem. Rather than implying underlying economic weakness, the drop in payrolls reflects the transitory impact of the pandemic’s latest violent wave. December’s job losses came from the Leisure and Hospitality sector (-498k), the sector most impacted by the virus. Job gains remained solid elsewhere in the economy (+358k). The unemployment rate held flat at 6.7% in December, but encouragingly, this stable number masks both an increase in the number of temporarily unemployed (or furloughed) workers and a drop in the number of permanently unemployed workers (Chart 12). Those furloughed workers will return to work once the virus is better contained. Meanwhile, the drop in the number of permanently unemployed suggests that the economic recovery is taking hold. It will only gain momentum as the COVID vaccine is rolled out and additional fiscal stimulus is delivered in 2021. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep”, dated October 20, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2021 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on our model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on inflation’s “snapback phase” please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Political Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Reflation Plays On Georgia’s Blue Sweep”, dated January 6, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification