Fixed Income
Dear Client, Following up on last week's report, my colleagues Caroline Miller, Mathieu Savary, and I held a webcast on Wednesday to discuss the outlook for the dollar along with recent events. If you haven't already, I hope you find the time to listen in. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Protectionism is popular with the American public in general, and Trump's base specifically. The sabre-rattling will persist, but an all-out trade war is unlikely. Trump is focused on the stock market, and equities would suffer mightily if a trade war broke out. The Pentagon has also warned of the dangers of across-the-board tariffs that penalize America's military allies. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. That's not the case today. The equity bull market will eventually end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Feature Q: What prompted Trump's announcement? A: Last week began with President Trump proclaiming that he would seek re-election in 2020. Then came a slew of negative news, including the resignation of Hope Hicks, Trump's White House communications director, and the downgrading of Jared Kushner's security clearance. All this happened against the backdrop of the ever-widening Mueller probe. Trump needed to change the subject. Fast. However, it would be a mistake to think that the tariff announcement was simply a distractionary tactic. Turmoil in the White House might have been the immediate trigger, but events had been building towards this outcome for some time. The Trump administration had imposed tariffs on washing machines and solar panels in January. Hiking tariffs on steel and aluminum - two industries that had suffered heavy job losses over the past two decades - was a logical next step. In fact, the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on aluminum were similar to the 24% and 7.7% tariff rates, respectively, that the Commerce Department proposed as one of three options on February 16th.1 Protectionism is popular with the American public. This is especially true for Trump's base (Chart 1). Indeed, it is safe to say that Trump's unorthodox views on trade are what handed him the Republican nomination and what allowed him to win key swing (and manufacturing) states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Trump made a promise to his voters. He is trying to keep it. Q: Wouldn't raising trade barriers hurt the U.S. economy, thereby harming the same workers Trump is trying to help? A: That's the line coming from the financial press and most of the political establishment, but it's not as clear cut as it may seem. An all-out trade war would undoubtedly hurt the U.S., but a minor skirmish probably would not. The U.S. does run a large trade deficit. Economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney recently estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the U.S. economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation.2 This accords with other studies, such as the one by David Autor and his colleagues, which found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses in the U.S. manufacturing sector (Chart 2).3 Chart 1Trump Is Catering ##br##To His Protectionist Base Chart 2China's Ascent Has Reduced##br## U.S. Manufacturing Employment Granted, China does not even make it into the top ten list of countries that export steel to the United States. But that is somewhat beside the point. As with most commodities, there is a fairly well-integrated global market for steel. Due to its proximity to Asian markets, China exports most of its steel to the rest of the region (Chart 3). That does not stop Chinese overcapacity from dragging down prices around the world. Chart 3Most Of China's Steel Exports Don't Travel That Far Q: Wouldn't steel and aluminum tariffs simply raise prices for American consumers, thereby reducing real wages? A: That depends. If Trump's gambit reduces the U.S. trade deficit, this will increase domestic spending, putting more upward pressure on wages. As far as prices are concerned, the U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and an additional $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. And even that would be a one-off hit to the price level, rather than a permanent increase in the inflation rate. In practice, it is doubtful that prices would rise by the full amount of the tariff (if they did, what would be the purpose of retaliatory measures?). Most econometric studies suggest that producers will absorb about half of the tariff in the form of lower profit margins. To the extent that this reduces the pre-tariff price of imported goods, it would shift the terms of trade in America's favor. Chart 4Does Trade Retaliation Make Sense ##br## When Most Trade Is In Intermediate Goods? There is an old economic theory, first elucidated by Robert Torrens in the 19th century, which says that the optimal tariff is always positive for countries such as the U.S. that are price-makers rather than price-takers in international markets. Put more formally, Torrens showed that an increase in tariffs from very low levels was likely to raise government revenue and producer surplus by more than the loss in consumer surplus. So, in theory, the U.S. could actually benefit at the expense of the rest of the world by imposing higher tariffs.4 Q: This assumes that there is no trade retaliation. How realistic is that? A: That's the key. As noted above, a breakdown of the global trading system would hurt the U.S., but a trade spat could help it. Trump was trying to scare the opposition by tweeting "trade wars are good, and easy to win." In a game of chicken, it helps to convince your opponent that you are reckless and nuts. Trump's detractors would say he is both, so that works in his favor. Trump has another thing working for him. Most trade these days is in intermediate goods (Chart 4). It does not pay for Mexico to slap tariffs on imported U.S. intermediate goods when those very same goods are assembled into final goods in Mexico - creating jobs for Mexican workers in the process - and re-exported to the U.S. or the rest of the world. The same is true for China and many other countries. This does not preclude the imposition of targeted retaliatory tariffs. The EU has threatened to raise tariffs on Levi's jeans and Harley Davidson motorcycles (whose headquarters, not coincidently, is located in Paul Ryan's Wisconsin district). We would not be surprised if high-end foreign-owned golf courses were also subject to additional scrutiny! But if this is all that happens, markets won't care. The fact that the United States imports much more than it exports also gives Trump a lot of leverage. Take the case of China. Chinese imports of goods and services are 2.65% of U.S. GDP, but exports to China are only 0.96% of GDP. And nearly half of U.S. goods exports to China are agricultural products and raw materials (Chart 5). Taxing them would be difficult without raising Chinese consumer prices. Simply put, the U.S. stands to lose less from a trade war than most other countries. Chart 5China Stands To Lose More From A Trade War With The U.S. Q: Couldn't China and other countries punish the U.S. by dumping Treasurys? A: They could, but why would they? Such an action would only drive down the value of the dollar, giving U.S. exporters an even greater advantage. The smart, strategic response would be to intervene in currency markets with the aim of bidding up the dollar. Chart 6Slowing Global Growth Is Bullish##br## For The Dollar Q: So the dollar could strengthen as a result of rising protectionism? A: Yes, it could. This is a point that even Mario Draghi made at yesterday's ECB press conference. If higher tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit, this will increase U.S. aggregate demand. The boost to demand would be amplified if more companies decide to relocate production back to the U.S. for fear of being shut out of the lucrative U.S. market. The U.S. economy is now operating close to full employment. Anything that adds to demand is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. That could lead to a stronger greenback. Considering that the U.S. is a fairly closed economy which runs a trade deficit, it would suffer less than other economies in the event of a trade war. A scenario where global growth slows because of rising trade tensions, while the composition of that growth shifts towards the U.S., would be bullish for the dollar (Chart 6). Q: What are the implications for stocks and bonds? A: Wall Street will dictate what happens to stocks, but Main Street will dictate what happens to bonds. The stock market hates protectionism, so it is no surprise that equities sold off last week. It is this fact that ultimately got Trump to soften his position. Trump is used to taking credit for a rising stock market. If stocks flounder, this could make him think twice about pushing for higher trade barriers. As far as bonds are concerned, they will react to whatever happens to growth and inflation. As noted above, a trade skirmish could actually boost growth and inflation. Given that the economy is near full capacity, the latter is likely to rise more than the former. This, too, could cause Trump to cool his heels. After all, if higher inflation pushes up bond yields, this will hurt highly-levered sectors such as, you guessed it, real estate. Q: In conclusion, where do you see things going from here? A: Trade frictions will continue. As my colleague Marko Papic highlighted in a report published earlier this week, NAFTA negotiations are likely to remain on the ropes for some time.5 The Trump administration is also investigating allegations of Chinese IP theft. The U.S. is a major exporter of intellectual property, but these exports would be much larger if U.S. companies were properly compensated for their ingenuity. Chinese imports of U.S. intellectual property were less than 0.1% of Chinese GDP in 2017, an implausibly small number (Chart 7). If China is found to have acted unfairly, this could lead the U.S. to impose across-the-board tariffs on Chinese goods and restrictions on inbound foreign direct investment. Nevertheless, as noted above, worries about a plunging stock market will constrain Trump from acting too aggressively. The rationale for protectionism made a lot more sense when there were masses of unemployed workers. Today, firms are struggling to find qualified staff (Chart 8). This suggest that Trump will stick to doing what he does best, which is taking credit for everything good that happens under the sun. Chart 7China Is Importing More IP From The U.S., ##br##But The "True" Number Is Probably Higher Chart 8Protectionism Makes Less Sense ##br##When The Labor Market Is Strong Ironically, the latest trade skirmish is occurring at a time when the Chinese government is taking concerted steps to reduce excess capacity in the steel sector, and the profits of U.S. steel producers are rebounding smartly (Chart 9). In fact, the latest Fed Beige Book released earlier this week highlighted that "steel producers reported raising selling prices because of a decline in market share for foreign steel ..."6 Chart 9Chinese Steel Exports Falling, U.S. Steel Profits Rising Meanwile, German automakers already produce nearly 900,000 vehicles in the U.S., 62% of which are exported. In fact, European automakers have a smaller share of the U.S. market than U.S. automakers have of the European one.7 A lot of what Trump wants he already has. The Pentagon has also warned that trade barriers imposed against Canada and other U.S. military allies could undermine America's standing abroad. This is an important point, considering that Trump invoked the rarely used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which gives the President broad control over trade policy in matters of national security, to justify raising tariffs. Trump tends to listen to his generals, if not his other advisors. He probably was not expecting their reaction. All this suggests that a major trade war is unlikely to occur. As we go to press, it appears that the White House will temporarily exclude Canada and Mexico from the list of countries subject to tariffs. We suspect that the EU, Australia, South Korea, and a number of other economies will get some relief as well. White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro has also said that some "exemptions" may be granted for specific categories of steel and aluminum products that are deemed necessary to U.S. businesses. That is a potentially very broad basket. The bottom line is that the equity bull market will end, but chances are that this will happen due to an overheated U.S. economy and rising financial imbalances met with restrictive monetary policy, not because of escalating trade protectionism. Investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Secretary Ross Releases Steel and Aluminum 232 Reports in Coordination with White House," U.S. Department of Commerce, February 16, 2018. 2 Katharine G. Abraham, and Kearney, Melissa S., "Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence," NBER Working Paper No. 24333, (February 2018). 3 David H. Autor, Dorn, David and Hanson, Gordon H., "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 4 A graphical illustration of this point is provided here. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018. 6 Please see "The Beige Book: Summary of Commentary on Current Economic Conditions By Federal Reserve District,"Federal Reserve, dated March 7, 2018. 7 Please see Erik F. Nielsen, "Chief Economist's Comment: Sunday Wrap," UniCredit Research, dated March 4, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Stay long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The Italian election result is not an investment game changer... ...but stay underweight the Italian equity market (MIB) on a 6-9 month horizon. Our sector stance to underweight banks necessarily implies underweighting the bank-heavy MIB. Feature "Even yet we may draw back, but once cross yon little bridge, and the whole issue is with the sword." - Julius Caesar, contemplating whether to cross the Rubicon River in 49 BC World GDP amounts to $80 trillion. But the combined value of equities and correlated risk assets such as high yield and EM debt is worth double that, around $160 trillion. Real estate is worth $220 trillion. Hence, global risk assets are worth around five times world GDP. With the value of risk assets dwarfing the world economy by a factor of five, it perplexes us that many commentators insist that causality must always run from the economy to financial markets. In fact, in major downturns, the causality usually runs the other way. Rather than economic downturns causing financial instabilities, it is more common for financial instabilities to cause economic downturns. Specifically, the last three economic downturns had their geneses in the financial markets. The bursting of the dot com bubble triggered the downturn of 2001; the large-scale mispricing of U.S. mortgages caused the Great Recession of 2008; and the explosive widening of euro area sovereign credit spreads resulted in the euro area recession of 2011. This raises a crucial question: is there a major vulnerability in financial markets right now? Risk Assets Are As Expensive As In 2000... For at least five decades, the ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP (effectively, the price to sales ratio) has proved to be an excellent predictor of subsequent 10-year global equity returns (Chart I-2). Chart of the WeekWorld Equities As Highly-Valued As In 2000 On Price To Sales Chart I-2Price To Sales Has Been An Excellent Predictor Of World Equity Returns Today's extreme ratio of global equity market capitalization to world GDP has been seen only once before in modern history - at the peak of the dot com boom in 2000. In the subsequent decade global equities went on to return a paltry 2% a year. Using the particularly tight predictive relationship in recent decades, we can infer that global equities are now priced to generate 2% a year in the coming decade too (Chart of the Week). Still, equities are not as extremely valued relative to government bonds as they were in 2000. Today, the global 10-year bond yield stands near 2%, implying a broadly equal prospective 10-year return from equities and bonds. In 2000, the global 10-year bond yield stood at 5%, implying that equities would return 3% less than bonds, which they duly did (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Relative To Government Bonds, Equities Were More Expensive In 2000 On the other hand, high yield credit is more extremely valued relative to government bonds than it was in 2000. Today, the global high yield credit spread stands at a very tight 4%: in 2000, it stood at 8% (Chart I-4). So taking the combination of equities and high yield credit, we can say that risk assets are as highly valued today as they were in 2000. Chart I-4Relative To Government Bonds, High Yield Credit Was Less Expensive In 2000 ...But Risk Assets Should Be Very Expensive When Bond Yields Are Ultra-Low The record high valuation of risk assets is fully justified when government bond yields are ultra-low. This is because bond returns take on the same unattractive asymmetry - known as 'negative skew' - that equity and high yield credit returns possess. For a detailed explanation, please revisit our report Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities? 1 But in a nutshell, as bond risk becomes 'equity-like' it diminishes the requirement for a superior return on equities and other risk-assets, lifting their valuations exponentially. Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let's say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Below A 2% Yield, 10-Year Bonds Are Riskier Than Equities At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years, meaning its price must rise by 22%.2 But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%.3 All well and good, except if bond yields go back up to 4%. In which case, bond and equity prices must fall again - in proportion to their preceding rise. Hence, risk assets find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Record high valuations are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall, but valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march much higher. However, a setback to $380 trillion of global risk assets means that yields can't march much higher without at least a temporary reversal. Unfortunately, the exact point at which the precarious equilibrium becomes threatened is hard to define. Still, we might define crossing the Rubicon as follows. If the average of the German 10-year bund yield and U.S. 10-year T-bond yield - now standing at 1.8% - breaks through 2%, we would downgrade equities and upgrade bonds. Italy: Banks More Important Than Politics On Sunday, Italy's electorate punished the establishment centre-left and centre-right parties - the Democratic Party and Forza Italia - whose combined vote share collapsed to just 33%. Italians gravitated to parties offering populist, anti-establishment and anti-migration bromides. Sound familiar? This is just a continuation of the pattern seen in recent elections in France, Germany and Austria - as well as the victories for Brexit and President Trump. Begging the question, does the Italian election result change anything for investors? Political change disrupts markets if it dislocates the long-term expectations embedded in economic agents and financial prices. The vote for Brexit changed expectations about the U.K.'s long-term trading relationships; the election of Trump changed expectations about fiscal stimulus, the tax structure, and protectionism; and the election of Macron exorcised the potential chaos of a Le Pen presidency. On this basis, the Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if M5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low. Many people - including some of the more populist Italian politicians - claim that Italy's long-standing economic underperformance is because it is shackled to the euro. But membership of the single currency cannot be the main cause of Italy's underperformance. After all, through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head performed more or less in line with the U.S., Canada and France, even without a private sector credit boom. Italy's underperformance really started after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-6). And the most plausible explanation is that its dysfunctional banking system has been left broken for close to a decade (Chart I-7). Italy procrastinated because its government is more indebted than other sovereigns and its banking problems did not cause an outright crisis. Chart I-6Italy Has Underperformed##br## Since The Great Recession... Chart I-7...Because The Banks ##br##Were Left Unfixed But now the banking system is finally recuperating. In the past year, banks have raised almost €50 billion in much needed equity capital, the share of non-performing loans (NPLs) is down sharply having peaked at the same level as in Spain in 2013 (Chart I-8), and bank solvency is much healthier (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Italy's NPLs Are Finally Declining... Chart I-9...And Bank Solvency Is Getting Better In effect, Italy is where Spain was in 2014. So could Italy in 2018-21 repeat Spain's turnaround in 2014-17? Italy has more work to do, but on balance we remain cautiously optimistic, and express this optimism through a relative trade in bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. The connection with the Italian equity market (MIB) is more tenuous. The market's outsize exposure to banks means that sustained outperformance of the MIB requires sustained outperformance of banks. On a 6-9 month horizon, our sector stance is to underweight banks. Necessarily, this means our country stance must be to underweight Italy. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Are Bonds A Greater Risk Than Equities?" published on January 25, 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 1.02^10 3 1.06^10 Fractal Trading Model* The rally in the Chilean peso appears technically extended. Hence, this week's trade recommendation is to short the Chilean peso versus the U.S. dollar setting a profit target of 2.7% with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Policymakers & Volatility: The major developed market central banks (Fed, ECB, BoJ), facing low unemployment rates and slowly rising inflation, are less able to respond to volatility spikes with more dovish monetary policies compared to past years. Investors should get used to a structurally higher level of volatility, likely for the remainder of the current business cycle upturn. Higher Volatilty & Spread Product: The relative risk-adjusted attractiveness of global spread product looks different when using a higher level of yield volatility, particularly when hedged into U.S. dollars. Continue to favor U.S. investment grade and high yield corporate debt over euro area and emerging market equivalents, even with the more elevated volatility backdrop. Feature If there is one lesson to be learned from recent events, it is that global policymakers can no longer be trusted to always make the most market-friendly decisions. Central bankers in most countries have shifted from solely supporting growth to fighting inflation pressures. The White House is now willing to risk a disruptive trade war to try and "correct" the large U.S. trade deficit, rather than focusing on stimulating growth solely through fiscal policy. Even geopolitical headlines have become more worrisome for investors, with Russia announcing new nuclear capabilities, China appointing a "president for life", the U.K. government remaining vague on the details of its Brexit negotiating stance and Italy's elections producing a hung parliament with anti-establishment parties outperforming expectations. The idea that central bankers have been explicitly putting a floor under risk assets, by focusing so much on financial conditions as a critical input into their economic and inflation forecasts, has become very entrenched among investors. The implication is that if risky assets sell off, central banks will shift to a more dovish stance, thus causing interest rate expectations to shift lower which eventually causes risk assets to rebound and financial conditions to ease. This has been most evident in the U.S., where a belief in the "Fed Put" - the idea that the Fed has implicitly sold investors a put option on equities by responding dovishly to market selloffs - goes all the way back to the Greenspan era. In the U.S., however, there is now greater uncertainty that a "Powell Put" even exists - or at least one as valuable as the "Yellen Put" and "Bernanke Put" before it. In other words, it may now take a much larger decline in risk assets to cause the Fed to question its economic forecasts enough to change them. New Fed Chairman Jay Powell said as much in his first appearance before the U.S. Congress last week, where he noted that the recent equity market turbulence was not "weighing heavily" on the Fed's outlook. In fact, Powell talked up a very bullish view on the U.S. economy, which markets took as a sign that the Fed could hike rates four times in 2018 - more than the three hikes currently embedded in the Fed's projections. A similar dynamic is playing out in Europe and Japan, where the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) have been more vocal about the potential end of their respective asset purchase programs given the underlying strength of the euro area and Japanese economies. The belief in a "Draghi Put" or "Kuroda Put" is also strong, but is starting to wane. Central Bankers As Options Traders Chart 1A Smaller Response To Higher Volatility One way to see this changing backdrop is to look at the response of monetary policy expectations to increases in market volatility. During 2017, there were a few small flare-ups of equity market volatility in the U.S., euro area and Japan. In each of those episodes, interest rate markets were quick to price in easier monetary policy through a lower projected level of the funds rate in the U.S. or by pushing out the timing of the eventual first rate hike in Europe and Japan (Chart 1). The story is much different in 2018, where volatility has soared higher but there has been little change to the expected path of interest rates. Markets now understand that inflation-fighting central banks, who strongly believe in the Phillips Curve, now have to focus more on inflation than asset prices with unemployment rates at or below full employment levels. Using the language of options markets, the "strike price" on the put options allegedly sold by central bankers is now much lower. The implication is that bouts of market turbulence cannot generate lasting decreases in government bond yields that can eventually restore calm to financial assets. In other words, policymakers are now implicitly, but not intentionally, putting a floor under volatility rather than asset prices. This has made the investment backdrop much more challenging in 2018, as both absolute market returns and, especially, risk-adjusted returns will be far lower than investors have enjoyed over the past couple of years. This is one of the key themes that we outlined in our 2018 Outlook.1 It will take signs that more volatile markets are damaging economic growth and inflation expectations for this new dynamic to change. Yet there is little sign of that happening, at least among the "Big 3" central banks. The Federal Reserve In the U.S., economic data continues to print strongly. The February ISM manufacturing Index hit a 13-year high (Chart 2, top panel), with the export index hitting the highest level since 1988! The Conference Board index of consumer confidence hit the highest level since 2000 (2nd panel), while the Board's index of leading indicators continues to accelerate (3rd panel). The ISM new orders index remains at elevated levels that suggest that the latest upturn in capital spending should continue (bottom panel). Meanwhile, U.S. inflation gauges continue to grind slowly higher. The 3-month annualized growth rate of the core PCE deflator rose to 2.1% in January - above the Fed's 2% target - while the ISM Manufacturing Prices Paid index is now at a 6-year high (Chart 3). Inflation expectations from the TIPS market have recently stalled below levels that we deem consistent with the Fed's inflation objective (between 2.3% and 2.5% on both the 10-year TIPS breakeven and the 5-year TIPS breakeven, 5-years forward), but they continue to trend in the direction of the Fed's target. If the wage numbers in this Friday's February Payrolls report build on the breakout seen in the January data, then breakevens should begin to climb higher once again and would all but ensure that another Fed rate hike will occur later this month. Chart 2Fed Chair Powell Is Right##BR##To Be Optimistic On U.S. Growth Chart 3U.S. Inflation Now Moving##BR##Towards The Fed Target The ECB Chart 4Will The ECB Pull Forward Its Projections? Turning to the euro area, economic data has begun to dip lower in recent readings for cyclical indicators like the manufacturing PMI, which complicates the story for the ECB heading into this Thursday's policy meeting. We continue to expect any decision on a tapering of the ECB's asset purchase program to not take place until the summer. However, some minor changes to its forward guidance, like removing language suggesting that asset purchases could be increased if necessary, could happen this week. The more meaningful signal will come from the new set of ECB economic forecasts. Core euro area HICP inflation is not projected to return close to the ECB's 2% target until 2020, and if that timetable is pulled forward in the new forecasts, that would give the ECB a credible reason to begin signaling a taper later this year. With full euro area unemployment hitting an 8-year low of 8.6% in January - dipping below the OECD full employment NAIRU estimate of 8.7% - the ECB could raise its projections for both wage growth and core inflation (Chart 4). With our own core HICP diffusion index showing a sharp increase in January, the risk of future upside surprises in euro area realized inflation has increased. Yet core inflation is still only 1.0% - a long way from the ECB's 2% target. This is already reflected in measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap forwards, which remain between 50-75bps below the levels that prevailed the last time euro area core inflation was around 2% (bottom two panels). This suggest further upside for euro area bond yields if core inflation does start to print higher later this year. For now, the ECB is unlikely to make any earth-shattering changes to its monetary policy this week, but should signal another small incremental step towards a full-blown taper later in 2018. The BoJ BoJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda threw a bit of a surprise at the markets last week in his testimony before the Japanese parliament following his reappointment as the head of the central bank. In response to a question on when the BoJ could consider beginning to exit its current Yield Curve Control (YCC) program, Kuroda stated that it could happen in fiscal year 2019 if the BoJ's inflation projections are realized. The media headlines took that as a sign that the BoJ was starting to change its forward guidance about its monetary policy, but that is an overreaction, in our view. Chart 5The Yen Leads The BoJ, Not Vice Versa Realized inflation remains well below the BoJ's target, with headline CPI inflation hitting 1.3% and 0.4%, respectively, in January (Chart 5). Even given the continued strength of the Japanese economy, with the unemployment rate now sitting at a 29-year low of 2.4%, inflation will have no realistic shot of reaching the BoJ 2% target without a weaker Japanese yen. The markets understand that dynamic, as our Japan months-to-hike measure - measuring the time until the first 25bps rate hike is priced into the Overnight Index Swap curve - has recently drifted up from 38 months to 47 months alongside the current appreciation of the yen (bottom panel). The BoJ remains the one major central bank that can still talk dovishly because inflation remains so low. Yet investors are aware that the BoJ is having greater difficulty operationally executing its asset purchase program, given its huge ownership share of Japanese government bonds and equity ETFs. So, like the Fed and the ECB, the BoJ's ability to credible respond in a dovish fashion to rising market turbulence - manifested through a rising yen - is severely hamstrung. Bottom Line: The major developed market central banks (Fed, ECB, BoJ), facing low unemployment rates and slowly rising inflation, are less able to respond to volatility spikes with more dovish monetary policies compared to past years. Investors should get used to a structurally higher level of volatility, likely for the remainder of the current business cycle upturn. What A Higher Volatility Regime Means For Global Spread Product If policymakers are now unable to take actions that can restore the low volatility regime seen last year, then this has implications for the relative attractiveness of global fixed income spread product. One way to see is this is to look at the ranking of volatility-adjusted yields for various global spread sectors. We present that in Table 1, where we take the currency-hedged yields for spread sectors and rank them according to two metrics: a) the outright hedged yield and b) the hedged yield relative to its trailing yield volatility.2 The sector yields are then re-ranked using the average ranking of those two metrics. We present the table with yields hedged into the four major developed market currencies (U.S. dollar, euro, yen and British pound). The level of those yields, shown against credit ratings, are graphically presented in the Appendix on pages 11 and 12. Table 1Ranking Currency-Hedged Global Spread Product Yields We also show two versions of the yield rankings - one using trailing volatility over the past year in the denominator of the risk-adjusted yield, and the other using trailing volatility over three years in the denominator. This is important, as bond volatility over the past year has been historically depressed and is much lower than the three-year volatility measure for almost every spread sector. The conclusion is that many sectors that look most attractive using the more recent low volatility look less appealing with a more "normal" volatility level. For example, U.S. high-yield corporates are the top ranked sector in USD terms using a trailing one-year volatility, but that ranking falls to #10 using a higher three year volatility. Euro area high yield falls from #6 to #11 when applying the different volatility measures, while emerging market USD-denominated sovereign debt falls from #3 to #6. While the differences in the yield rankings are not as meaningful for higher-quality sectors, and for other base currencies besides the U.S. dollar, the main takeaway is that a higher volatility environment can alter the relative attractiveness of spread sectors given the current low level of yields. Thus, if central banks now have reduced ability to respond to volatility shocks by signaling a more dovish stance - given strong growth, tight labor markets and slowly rising inflation - then investors should judge spread product, and risk assets in general, using a higher level of volatility than seen last year. The conclusion is that we should be using the upper left column of Table 1, using the more "normal" level of yield volatility, when assessing the attractiveness of spread sectors within our recommended investment universe that uses the U.S. dollar as the base currency. With regards to corporate bonds in our model bond portfolio, that means favoring U.S. investment grade over euro area and emerging market equivalents and favoring U.S. high yield over euro area high yield. We are happy to report that we already have those recommendations implemented in our portfolio. While the absolute valuations of U.S. investment grade corporates, from a perspective of breakeven spreads, do look historically tight (Chart 6, middle panel), the same can be said for euro area investment grade corporates (Chart 7, middle panel). We are willing to take that trans-Atlantic spread risk favoring the U.S., however, given that currency hedging costs continue to favor U.S. dollar investments over euro-denominated equivalents. Chart 6Favor U.S. Corporate Bonds... Chart 7...Especially Versus Euro Area Corporates The story is cleaner for U.S. high yield over euro are high yield, as the default-adjusted spreads in the former (Chart 6, bottom panel) look far more attractive than in the latter (Chart 7, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The relative risk-adjusted attractiveness of global spread product looks different when using a higher level of yield volatility, particularly when hedged into U.S. dollars. Continue to favor U.S. investment grade and high yield corporate debt over euro area and emerging market equivalents, even with the more elevated volatility backdrop. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix Chart 1Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into U.S. Dollars Appendix Chart 2Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into Euros Appendix Chart 3Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into British Pounds Appendix Chart 4Global Spread Product Yields, Hedged Into Japanese Yen 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 2 Using rolling averages of 60-day realized hedged yield volatility. 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 Chart 1Inflation Perks Up The Fed has struck a decidedly more upbeat tone in 2018. We noted last week that the Fed staff made upward revisions to its growth forecasts, and then Chairman Jerome Powell testified to Congress that "some of the headwinds the U.S. economy faced in previous years have shifted to tailwinds." So far this more optimistic outlook is borne out in the data. Core PCE inflation rose sharply in January. The annualized 6-month rate of change is back above the Fed's target (Chart 1), and the 12-month rate of change should follow once base effects kick-in in March. For our investment strategy the message is to stay the course. The re-anchoring of inflation expectations will impart another 18 bps to 38 bps of upside to the 10-year Treasury yield. How much higher yields rise beyond that will depend on how well credit markets and equities digest the less accommodative monetary environment. Stay at below-benchmark duration and be prepared to scale back on credit risk once our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% is reached by both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 62 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +10 bps. Although last month's sell-off did return some value to the investment grade corporate space, the sector is still expensive compared to both its own history and other comparable sectors. The 12-month breakeven spread for a Baa-rated corporate bond has only been tighter 11% of the time since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, in last week's report we compared breakeven spreads across the investment grade bond universe, split by credit tier.1 Our results showed that municipal bonds offer greater breakeven spreads than investment grade corporates, after adjusting for the tax advantage. We also found that Foreign Agency debt is more attractive than investment grade corporate debt in both the Aa and Baa credit tiers. Local Authority debt is more attractive in the Baa credit tier. With a less than compelling valuation case for investment grade corporates, we will start to pare exposure once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets (mentioned on page 1) are met. This week we take a preliminary step toward de-risking by adjusting our recommended sector allocation (Table 3). The adjustments were made to both increase exposure to sectors that look cheap after adjusting for credit rating and duration, and also to lower the average duration-times-spread (DTS) of the portfolio. Specifically, we downgrade Cable/Satellite, Paper, Media/Entertainment, Brokerage/Asset Managers/Exchanges and Lodging. We upgrade Supermarkets, Tobacco, Life Insurance and P&C Insurance. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +97 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 17 bps on the month, and currently sits at 348 bps. The 12-month trailing speculative grade default rate edged down to 3.2% in January, and Moody's projects it will fall to 2% in one year's time. The projected decline is mostly driven by the continued waning of credit stress in the oil & gas sector. Using the Moody's projection as an input, we forecast High-Yield default losses of 1.3% for the next 12 months. This means that if junk spreads are unchanged from current levels we would expect High-Yield to return 251 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries (Chart 3). One hundred basis points of spread tightening would translate roughly to excess returns of 661 bps, and 100 bps of spread widening would translate to excess returns of -159 bps. Though High-Yield valuation is more attractive than for investment grade corporates - the 12-month breakeven spread for a B-rated security has been tighter than it is today 28% of the time since 1995, the same measure has been tighter only 13% of the time for a Baa-rated security - we still view the potential for spread tightening in high-yield as limited. First, 130 bps of spread tightening would lead to all-time expensive valuations in the High-Yield index - using the 12-month breakeven spread as our valuation measure. Second, the higher levels of implied equity volatility that are likely to prevail in an environment with a less-accommodative Fed will also limit how far spreads can fall (top panel). MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -25 bps. February's underperformance was concentrated in GNMA and Conventional 15-year issues, and also in 3.5% and 4% coupons. Excess returns for Conventional 30-year MBS were roughly flat, and securities with coupons above 5% delivered strong positive performance. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread narrowed 4 bps on the month, split between a 3 bps reduction in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening in the option-adjusted spread. In last week's report we showed that the value proposition in Agency MBS is comparable to a Aaa-rated corporate bond, but is much less attractive than other Aaa-rated securitizations (consumer ABS and CMBS).2 However, MBS are also likely to offer investors more protection in a risk-off environment. Refinancing risk will remain muted as interest rates rise (Chart 4), and in past reports we showed that extension risk will likely be immaterial.3 Valuation in MBS versus investment grade corporates is less attractive than it was a month ago, owing to the recent widening in corporate spreads, but the relative spread is still elevated compared to recent years (panel 3). MBS will start to look more attractive on a relative basis as corporate spreads recoup some of their February losses. After that, we stand ready to shift some exposure from corporate bonds to MBS once our end-of-cycle inflation targets are met. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +22 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 108 bps on the month, Foreign Agencies underperformed by 20 bps and Supranationals underperformed by 2 bps. Local Authorities delivered excess returns of +11 bps, and Domestic Agencies performed in-line with the benchmark. The Sovereign index has returned only 9 bps in excess of Treasuries so far this year, compared to 40 bps from the Baa-rated corporate bond index (Chart 5).4 We expect this poor relative performance to continue in the months ahead as the composition of global growth shifts back to the U.S., putting upward pressure on the dollar. In last week's report we looked at 12-month breakeven spreads in each segment of the investment grade U.S. fixed income market.5 Our results showed that Sovereign debt looks expensive across every credit tier. In contrast, Foreign Agency debt and Local Authority debt offer elevated breakeven spreads. Foreign state-owned energy companies account for a large portion of the Foreign Agency index, and this sector's relative performance closely tracks the price of oil. With our commodity strategists now calling for average 2018 crude oil prices of $74/bbl and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI respectively, the Foreign Agency sector should stay well supported.6 Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +86 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal/Treasury yield ratio declined a modest 1% on the month, concentrated at the long-end of the curve. January's abrupt increase in flows into municipal bond mutual funds reversed course last month (Chart 6). Interestingly, the sudden surge and subsequent reversal in flows was mirrored by the behavior of municipal bond issuance for new capital (panel 2). This suggests that both trends were driven by changes to the federal tax code. While we remain underweight municipal bonds for now, we stand ready to shift exposure out of corporate bonds and into municipal bonds once our end-of-cycle inflation targets are met. But in the meantime, we note that municipal bonds are already quite attractive compared to corporates. In last week's report we showed that tax-adjusted municipal bond breakeven spreads are much higher than for comparable-quality corporate bonds.7 We also note that the yield differential between a tax-adjusted Aaa-rated municipal bond and an equivalent-duration A3/Baa1 corporate bond is only -19 bps (bottom panel). Historically, this yield differential turns positive near the end of the credit cycle and investors get an even better opportunity to shift out of corporates and into Munis. We expect to get that opportunity this year. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve rose sharply and steepened in February. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 4 basis points and the 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps. As a result, our recommendation to favor the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2/10 barbell returned +5 bps on the month, though it is still underwater 35 bps since the trade was initiated in December 2016. As we explained in a Special Report last year, bullet over barbell trades are designed to profit from curve steepening.8 But they also depend on what is initially priced into the yield curve. Our model of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread relative to the 2/10 Treasury slope shows that the 5-year note is currently 5 bps cheap on the curve (Chart 7). Or alternatively, it shows that the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is priced for roughly 26 bps of 2/10 curve flattening during the next six months (panel 4). In other words, if the 2/10 slope steepens during the next six months, or flattens by less than 26 bps, we would expect the 5-year bullet to outperform the 2/10 barbell. The window for curve steepening is clearly closing, given that the Fed has adopted a more aggressive tightening bias. However, with inflation on the rise and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates still below levels consistent with the Fed's target, we think 2/10 flattening in excess of 26 bps during the next six months is unlikely. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 9 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +84 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 2.12%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 4 bps and currently sits at 2.21%. As we explained in a recent report, we view the first stage of the cyclical bond bear market as being driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations.9 We will consider inflation expectations well anchored when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, where they were the last time that inflation was well anchored around the Fed's target. If the recent trend in realized inflation continues, then this re-anchoring could occur relatively soon. January data show that the annualized 6-month rate of change in trimmed mean PCE jumped to 1.99% (Chart 8), and while the 12-month rate of change rose only slightly to 1.69%, it will start to move higher in March when the strong inflation prints from January and February 2017 are removed from the sample. Our Pipeline Inflation Indicator also suggests that inflation will move higher, as do leading indicators for both shelter and medical care inflation, as we showed in last week's report.10 ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -16 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 10 bps on the month and now sits at 45 bps, 12 bps above its pre-crisis low (Chart 9). The 12-month breakeven spread differential between Aaa-rated ABS and Aaa-rated corporate bonds currently sits at +13 bps, solidly above its post-2010 average (panel 3).11 Further, we noted in last week's report that consumer ABS exhibit relatively low excess return volatility.12 Although valuation is quite attractive, the evidence suggests that collateral credit quality is starting to weaken. Delinquency rates have bottomed for both auto loans and credit cards, and a rising household debt service ratio suggests they will continue to trend higher (panel 4). Banks have also noticed the deterioration in credit quality and have responded by tightening lending standards (bottom panel). Historically, tighter lending standards tend to coincide with periods of spread widening. Remain neutral ABS for now, based on still-attractive valuation relative to investment alternatives, but monitor credit trends for a signal on when to downgrade further. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +47 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 4 bps on the month and currently sits at 62 bps, close to one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean (Chart 10). In last week's report we observed that the 12-month breakeven spread of Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS is elevated compared to other Aaa-rated sectors (consumer ABS being the exception), but that it also exhibits high excess return volatility.13 While there is no doubt that relative value is attractive, we are concerned about the gap that has emerged between CMBS spreads and the rate of appreciation in commercial real estate (CRE) prices (panel 4). It is possible that tight spreads are simply foreshadowing an imminent re-acceleration in prices, and in fact bank lending standards have become less of a headwind, tightening less aggressively than in recent years (bottom panel). But for now, we think non-Agency CMBS are still not worth the risk. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in February, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +8 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 41 bps. In last week's report we noted that the 12-month breakeven spread for Agency CMBS is higher than for all other Aaa-rated sectors, except for non-Agency CMBS and consumer ABS. We also noted that the sector has historically exhibited low excess return volatility. Remain overweight. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.96% (Chart 11). The fair value was revised down by 5 bps compared to last month due to a combination of more bullish dollar sentiment (bottom panel) and a tick lower in the Global PMI (panel 3). Of the four major economic blocs, PMIs declined in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. Only the Chinese PMI managed a slight increase (panel 4). We see the risk of a significant relapse in the U.S. PMI as quite low, but recently highlighted that weakening leading indicators in China could soon bleed into lower Chinese PMI prints.14 This is a significant near-term risk to our below-benchmark duration recommendation. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.86%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Assistant jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The Baa-rated corporate index is the Sovereign sector's closest comparable in terms of average credit rating. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices", dated February 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies" dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 The breakeven spread measures the option-adjusted spread on offer per unit of duration. 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Restraints", dated February 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 14 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)
Highlights Easier fiscal policy will cause U.S. inflation to rise or force the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than the market is discounting. Either outcome is likely to lead to a real appreciation in the dollar. Policy developments are starting to work in the greenback's favor. The Fed's leadership is turning somewhat more hawkish. Trade protectionism is also on the rise. Contrary to yesterday's market reaction, this will end up being dollar-bullish. The only plausible scenario where the dollar weakens in the face of bountiful fiscal stimulus is one where U.S. rates rise a lot but foreign rate expectations rise even more. Such an outcome is not particularly likely, considering that the U.S. is going from laggard to leader in the global growth horserace and most central banks are tightening monetary policy much more gingerly than the Fed. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded, which is why investors should consider going long 30-year U.S. Treasurys versus German bunds in currency-unhedged terms. This position would pay off if EUR/USD weakens, while also providing downside protection in the case where the greenback comes under pressure due to a narrowing in the long-term interest rate spread between Germany and the U.S. Held to maturity, investors stand to gain 40% on this position. Feature Beware Of "Arguments By Accounting Identity" One of the biggest mistakes economic commentators make is that they engage in "arguments by accounting identity." These arguments almost always fall flat. This is because there are plenty of ways for accounting identities to hold true, only a small number of which are consistent with how people actually respond to economic incentives. Consider the often-cited identity which says that the difference between what a country saves and what it invests is equal to its current account balance or, in algebraic terms, S-I=CA. The U.S. is currently operating at close to full employment. It is sometimes asserted, using this formula, that a large dollop of fiscal stimulus will drain national savings, thereby increasing America's current account deficit. A bigger current account deficit is normally associated with a weaker currency. Ergo, fiscal stimulus must be dollar-bearish. It is a plausible sounding argument, but it makes no sense because it confuses cause and effect.1 It is analogous to saying that an increase in the number of apples coming to market means that the price of apples will fall even when it is apparent that farmers are planting more apple trees because the demand for apples is rising. If the government cuts taxes and boosts outlays, aggregate spending will increase. Should the value of the dollar simultaneously fall, the composition of that spending will shift towards domestically produced goods and services. Not only will people want to spend more, but they will also want to devote a larger share of their spending on U.S.-made goods. But how exactly is the economy supposed to generate all this additional output? It is already running at full capacity! The only story that makes sense is one where the value of the dollar rises. That would allow aggregate spending to go up, while ensuring that spending on American-made goods and services remains the same. Table 1 illustrates this point using a stylized example of a hypothetical economy. Table 1A Stronger Currency Can Be A Counterweight To Fiscal Stimulus U.S. imports account for about 15% of GDP (Chart 1). Assuming no change in the exchange rate, spending on domestically produced goods and services will rise by about 85 cents in response to every $1 increase in aggregate demand. If the economy cannot produce this additional output due to a lack of available workers, one of two things will happen: Either inflation will go up or the Fed will be forced to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. Chart 1U.S. Trade As A Share Of The Economy Both outcomes imply a "real appreciation" in the dollar exchange rate, which can be thought of as the value of foreign goods and services that can be acquired by selling a basket of U.S. goods and services.2 In the former case, the real dollar exchange rate will appreciate because the U.S. price level will rise relative to prices abroad. In the latter case, the real dollar exchange rate will appreciate because higher interest rates will put upward pressure on the nominal value of the currency. Two Paths To A Real Dollar Appreciation The catch is that it is impossible to know how much of the real appreciation will occur through higher inflation and how much of it will occur through a stronger nominal dollar. In theory, one could envision a scenario where the real value of the dollar rises even as the nominal value declines. This would happen if the Fed fell so far behind the curve that inflation rocketed higher. Alternatively, one could contemplate a scenario where the Fed raises rates too aggressively, driving the dollar up so much that the economy falters and inflation declines. Our baseline scenario lies somewhere between these two extremes. We expect U.S. fiscal stimulus to push up inflation, while also pushing up the nominal trade-weighted dollar. It rarely happens that real and nominal exchange rates move in opposite directions (Chart 2). Thus, if the real dollar exchange rate appreciates, the nominal exchange rate is bound to appreciate as well. Chart 2Nominal And Real Exchange Rates Tend To Move In The Same Direction Global Growth: Back To The USA So why, then, has the dollar been on the back foot over the past year? The answer is better economic prospects at home were more than matched by stronger growth abroad. Keep in mind that the discussion above does not need to be confined to fiscal stimulus. Anything that causes domestic demand to accelerate is apt to trigger a real appreciation of the currency. After a sluggish recovery following the sovereign debt crisis, euro area growth accelerated last year as credit markets thawed and pent-up demand was unleashed. Sensing better economic times ahead, investors bid up the euro. The global growth revival was assisted by a rebound in global manufacturing activity. The manufacturing sector tends to be highly procyclical; when global growth accelerates, manufacturing production usually accelerates even more. The U.S. manufacturing sector accounts for only 12% of GDP, compared to 18% in the euro area, 21% in Japan, and 30% in China (Chart 3). As such, an improving manufacturing outlook disproportionately helped the rest of the world. Meanwhile, a rebound in commodity prices aided emerging markets and other economies with large natural resource sectors. Looking out, the picture for global growth is murkier. Global manufacturing PMIs have likely peaked. Korean exports, a leading indicator for the global business cycle, have softened (Chart 4). China is decelerating, with this week's weaker-than-expected official PMI print being the latest example. This could weigh on metals prices (Chart 5). As we discussed last week, slower global growth tends to benefit the dollar.3 Meanwhile, the composition of global demand growth should shift back toward the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects from the relative easing in financial conditions that the U.S. enjoyed last year, as well as all the fiscal stimulus coming down the pike (Chart 6). Chart 3Global Manufacturing Revival ##br##Not Benefiting The U.S. Much Chart 4Global Growth Seems To Be Peaking Chart 5Chinese Slowdown Will Weigh On Metal Prices Chart 6Lagged Easing In Financial Conditions ##br##And Fiscal Stimulus Bode Well For Growth A More Dollar-Friendly Policy Backdrop Policy developments are starting to work in the dollar's favor. Jerome Powell tried not to rock the boat during his Humphrey-Hawkins testimony this week. However, he did stress that the economic outlook did improve since the Fed last met in December, seemingly opening the door to four rate hikes this year. That was enough to lift the DXY by 0.4%. Powell is not a doctrinaire hard-money type, but he is no Yellen clone either. Remember this was the guy who said back in 2012 that "We look like we are blowing a fixed-income duration bubble right across the credit spectrum that will result in big losses when rates come up down the road. You can almost say that is our strategy."4 Critically, there are still four vacancies on the Fed's Board of Governors. If the nomination of Martin Goodfriend - who is definitely no good friend of easy money - is part of a broader trend, the composition of the board will shift in a somewhat more hawkish direction. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has introduced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. While we do not expect this decision to trigger an all-out trade war, it will almost certainly prompt retaliatory actions. There are three reasons why an escalation in trade protectionism would help the dollar. First, a decrease in global trade would likely reduce trade surpluses and deficits alike. This would shift demand back towards economies such as the U.S., which run trade deficits, at the expense of surplus economies such as Japan, China, and the euro area. Second, a slowdown in trade flows would curb global growth. As noted above, slower global growth tends to be dollar-bullish. Third, the specter of trade wars would exacerbate geopolitical risks. A more uncertain political landscape, even when instigated by the U.S., tends to prop up the dollar. It is true that foreign powers could retaliate against the U.S. by buying fewer Treasurys. But why would they? This would only drive down the dollar, giving U.S. exporters an even greater advantage. The smart strategic response would be to intervene in currency markets with the aim of bidding up the dollar. All this suggests that the dollar may be ripe for a rebound. Positioning has gotten fairly short the dollar (Chart 7). This raises the odds of a short-covering rally. Momentum measures have also improved over the past few weeks, an important consideration given that the dollar is one of the most momentum-driven currencies out there (Chart 8). Chart 7Speculative Positioning Has Gotten Increasingly Dollar-Bearish Chart 8Momentum Matters, And It May Be Starting To Move Back In The Dollar's Favor A Safer Way To Go Long The Dollar: Buy 30-Year Treasurys/Short 30-Year German Bunds, Currency-Unhedged The only scenario where the dollar weakens in the face of bountiful fiscal stimulus is one where U.S. rates rise a lot but foreign rate expectations rise even more. Sharply higher U.S. interest rates would offset the stimulative effects of a weaker dollar, thus preventing the economy from overheating. Such an outcome is not particularly likely, given that the U.S. is going from laggard to leader in the global growth horserace, and most central banks are tightening monetary policy much more gingerly than the Fed. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded. As such, investors should consider going long 30-year U.S. Treasurys versus German bunds in currency-unhedged terms. This position would pay off if EUR/USD weakens, while also providing downside protection in the case where the greenback comes under pressure due to a narrowing in the long-term interest rate spread between Germany and the U.S. The trade is effectively a bet that the interest rate differential between bunds and Treasurys - which has widened sharply this year, even as the dollar has weakened - will revert to its former self (Chart 9). Over the long haul, it is hard to see how one could lose money on this trade. As we go to press, 30-year Treasurys are yielding 3.11% while 30-year bunds yield only 1.29%. The euro would have to strengthen to 2.10 against the dollar over the next 30 years to cancel out the 182 bps in additional carry that U.S. bonds are offering. Even if one assumes that the fair value for the euro climbs by 0.4% annually due to lower inflation in the common-currency bloc, this would still leave the euro 40% overvalued.5 To maintain consistency with our other trade recommendations, we are closing our short 30-year Treasury trade for a gain of 3.8% and opening a new trade going long 30-year TIPS breakevens. Chart 10 shows that long-term inflation expectations as gauged by 30-year breakevens are still 27 basis points below where they were on average between 2010 and 2013. Chart 9EUR/USD And Long-Term Spreads Will Recouple Chart 10More Upside To Long-Term TIPS Breakevens Investment Conclusions We expect the dollar to strengthen over the coming months. EUR/USD should ultimately bottom at around 1.15. EM currencies will also struggle on the back of slower Chinese growth and higher financing costs for dollar-denominated loans. Among commodity producers, we favor "oily" currencies such as the Canadian dollar and Norwegian krone over metal exporters such as the Australian dollar. Our commodity strategists expect Brent and WTI to average $74 and $70/bbl this year, above current market expectations of $66 and $62, respectively. They note that Saudi Arabia has a strong incentive to boost oil prices by curtailing production in the lead up to Aramco's initial public offering. The yen is better positioned to hold its ground, considering that it is still very cheap and positioning remains heavily short (Chart 11). My colleague, Mathieu Savary, discussed the yen's prospects two weeks ago.6 A rebound in the dollar and creeping protectionism will pose headwinds for global equities. Nevertheless, with corporate earnings continuing to surprise on the upside, this is unlikely to derail the cyclical bull market in stocks. However, investors should prepare for a lot more volatility, as we flagged in several reports earlier this year.7 At the regional level, U.S. equities have underperformed their global peers in common-currency terms since the start of 2017, but outperformed in local-currency terms (Chart 12). We could see a reversal of that pattern over the coming months as the dollar begins to firm. Chart 11The Yen Is Cheap And ##br##Positioning Is Short Chart 12A Stronger Dollar Could Reverse ##br##U.S. Equity Relative Performance Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Paul Krugman made a similar point more than 20 years ago. 2 The real exchange rate between two currencies is the product of the nominal exchange rate and the ratio of prices between the countries. A real appreciation tends to make a country less competitive, either through a nominal increase in its currency or through an increase in prices in that country relative to those of its trading partners. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," dated February 23, 2018. 4 Please see FOMC Meeting Transcript, "Meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee on October 23-24, 2012," Federal Reserve. 5 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The inflation differential of 0.4% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.49 after 30 years. If the euro needs to strengthen to 2.10 over 30 years to cover the cost of carry, this would leave it 41% (2.10/1.49) overvalued. Our assessment would not change much if we used Germany rather than the euro area as the basis for the analysis. We estimate that the fair value exchange rate for Germany is 1.45, which is higher than the fair value exchange rate for the euro area as a whole. However, the differential in 30-year CPI swaps between Germany and the U.S. is only 16 basis points. Thus, if the fair value German exchange rate evolves in line with inflation differentials, it would rise to only 1.52. This would still leave Germany 38% (2.10/1.52) overvalued against the U.S. after 30 years. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues...For Now," dated February 16, 2018. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Return Of Vol," dated February 6, 2018; and Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Fiscal Stimulus To Prolong The Expansion The market swoon in early February should not induce investors to lower risk. The stock market correction (the first for almost two years) was triggered by a couple of inflation and wage readings that came in slightly above expectations, and was exacerbated by some technical factors such as automated trading by volatility-target funds. But, significantly, it was not accompanied by the usual signals of rising risk aversion: for example, credit spreads barely widened and the gold price was stable (Chart 1). Volatility is likely to remain high but, as our U.S. Investment Strategy service recently found, the VIX has not been a useful indicator of recessions and bear markets: many times over the past 30 years it has spiked higher without risk assets producing negative returns over the subsequent 12 months (Chart 2).1 Recommended Allocation Chart 1Sell-Off Didn't Trigger Risk Signals Chart 2Spike In Vix Is Not A Sell Signal Fiscal policy moves in the U.S. make us believe, rather, that the current economic expansion will last longer than we previously forecast. A combination of tax cuts plus recent spending proposals (including $165 billion on the military and $45 billion on disaster relief) will boost GDP by about 0.8% of GDP this year and 1.3% next, compared to the IMF's earlier forecast of a fiscal contraction this year (Chart 3).2 Add to that the boost from the 8% trade-weighted depreciation of the U.S. dollar over the past 12 months (which should add 0.3% to growth over two years), and it is difficult to imagine U.S. GDP growth turning down any time soon. Accordingly, BCA has shifted its recession call from the second half of 2019 to sometime in 2020. Of course, this is not all good news. The U.S. budget deficit is likely to increase to 5½% of GDP in 2019, which will put upward pressure on interest rates. The fiscal impulse will hit an economy already at full capacity, and so will be inflationary. The scenario we envisage is boom-and-bust, leading to a nastier recession than we had previously expected. Nonetheless, the boost to growth should be positive for risk assets over the next 12 months. Our model of earnings growth now suggests that U.S. EPS should continue to grow at close to a 20% rate for the rest of this year (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Boost To U.S. Growth Chart 4Earnings Growth Gets A Boost Too How quickly will the Fed push back against the potentially inflationary implications of this higher growth? We have found a remarkable turnaround in investors' perceptions of inflation over the past few weeks. Whereas last year most argued that structural forces (online shopping, the gig economy etc.) meant that inflation would stay depressed, now many worry that it will quickly shoot above 2% and force the Fed to tighten policy aggressively. This has caused them to over-react, for example, to the (rather obvious) statement from the last FOMC minutes that "participants noted that a stronger outlook for economic growth raised the likelihood that further gradual policy firming would be appropriate." Our view remains that core PCE inflation - the Fed's favorite measure - is likely to move back gradually to 2% (from 1.5% currently), but not accelerate dramatically. Unit labor costs remain subdued (Chart 5), the continued rise in the participation rate means there is more slack in the labor market than implied by headline unemployment (Chart 6), and inflation expectations remain low. This should allow new Fed chair Jerome Powell to continue to withdraw accommodation at a measured pace. The market has already priced in that the Fed will tighten this year at least in line with its dots (Chart 7). We expect four, rather than the Fed's projected three, hikes this year, but this should not be too hard for the market to absorb. Chart 5Unit Labor Costs Don't Point To Jump In Inflation Chart 6 Still Some Slack In Labor Market Chart 7Market Has Caught Up To The Fed We have for some months now advised long-term, more risk-averse investors to consider dialing back risk, and the volatility in February was a good example of why. We would expect further such bouts of volatility. However, with a recession still probably two years away, and a combination of stronger-than-expected growth and a Fed reluctant to accelerate tightening, the next 12 months should remain positive for equities and other risk assets. Fixed Income: We now expect the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield to rise to 3.3-3.5%. This will come from a further 40 BP increase in inflation expectations (taking them back to a level compatible with the Fed achieving its inflation target) plus a rise in the real yield, as markets start to price in the end of secular stagnation (Chart 8). The rise in global yields will be exacerbated by increasing net supply, as fiscal deficits rise and central banks wind down QE (Chart 9). We are, accordingly, underweight duration, and prefer inflation-linked bonds to nominal ones. We will likely reduce our exposure to credit before we turn defensive on equities. But, for now, strong economic growth and higher oil prices mean spread product is likely to outperform government bonds. Chart 8Inflation Expectations And Real Yields To Rise Chart 9Net Government Bond Supply To Increase Currencies: Rising interest rate differentials have failed to cause the dollar to rally (Chart 10). FX markets are trading, rather, on valuations (the euro and yen are, indeed, undervalued), on current account positions (the euro zone and Japan have large surpluses), and on the narrative that U.S. twin deficits historically caused the dollar to weaken. Our FX strategists find this is true only when, as in 2001-3, U.S. real rates were falling; after the Reagan tax cuts in 1981, real rates rose, pushing up the dollar (Chart 11). The key, therefore, is how quickly the Fed reacts this time. The dollar currently has strong downward momentum (especially against the yen) and this could continue. But as global growth slows relative to the U.S., relative interest rates are likely to reassert themselves as a factor, causing the dollar to strengthen again. Chart 10Rising Rate Differentials Fails To Boost Dollar Chart 11Do Twin Deficits Matter For Dollar? Equities: Given the macro environment, we continue to recommend pro-cyclical equity tilts, with overweights in higher beta markets such as the euro zone and Japan, and cyclical sectors such as financials, energy, and industrials. Our underweight on EM equities is based on the risk of a slowdown in China (where tighter financial conditions point to a slowing of the industrial sector, Chart 12), the possibility of a U.S. dollar rebound, and the vulnerability of highly leveraged foreign-currency EM borrowers to a rise in U.S. interest rates. Commodities: Our energy team has further revised up their oil price forecast, on expectations that the OPEC agreement will be extended, which will cause a greater draw-down in oil inventories (Chart 13).3 They see Brent crude averaging $74 a barrel this year, with spikes above $80. However, the response of the U.S. shale industry will begin to kick in, pushing the price down to below $60 by end-2019. We are neutral on industrial commodities, which will benefit from stronger global growth but are at risk in the event of dollar appreciation and slowdown in China. Chart 12Tighter Monetary Conditions In China Chart 13Oil Inventories To Draw Down Further Please note that, due to the Easter holidays in some countries, the GAA Quarterly Portfolio will be published one day later than usual, on April 3. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Late Innings," dated 26 February 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 For details, please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "March 2018," available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0: Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices," dated 22 February 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation
Highlights The political path of least resistance leads to fiscal profligacy - in the U.S. and beyond. The response to populism is underway. The U.S. midterm election is market-relevant. Gridlock between the White House and Congress does, in fact, weigh on equity returns, after controlling for macro variables. The Democratic Party's chances of taking over Congress have fallen, but remain 50% in the House of Representatives. A divided House and Senate is the worst combination for equities, but macro factors matter most. China is clearly rebooting its "reform" agenda as Xi Jinping becomes an irresistible force. We remain long H-shares relative to EM, for now. Emerging markets - including an improved South Africa - will suffer as politics become a tailwind for U.S. growth and a headwind for Chinese growth. Feature The bond market has been shocked into action this month by the twin realizations that the Republican-held Congress is not as incompetent as believed and that the Republican Party is not as fiscally conservative as professed. When combined with steady U.S. wage growth and rising inflation expectations (Chart 1), our core 2018 theme - that U.S. politics would act as an accelerant to growth - has been priced in by the bond market with impressive urgency.1 The tax cuts alone were not enough to wake the bond market. First, the realization that a tax cut would pass Congress struck markets in late October, when it became increasingly clear that the $1.5 trillion Tax Cuts And Jobs Act would indeed pass the Senate. Second, the bill's passage along strict party lines - including the slimmest of margins in the Senate thanks to reconciliation rules - convinced investors that there would be no further compromises down the pipeline. The real game changer was the realization that the political path of least resistance leads towards profligacy. This happened with the signing into law of the February 9 two-year budget compromise (the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) that will see fiscal spending raised by around $380 billion.2 The deal failed to gain the support of a majority of Republicans in the House, despite House Speaker Paul Ryan's support, but 73 Democrats crossed the aisle to ensure its passage. They did so despite a lack of formal assurances that the House would consider an immigration bill. The three-day shutdown in late January has forced Democrats, who largely took the blame, to assess whether they care more about preserving their liberal credentials on fiscal policy or immigration policy. The two-year budget agreement is a testament to their concern for the former. The deal will see the budget deficit most likely rise to about 5.5% of GDP in FY2019, up from 3.3% in last year's CBO baseline forecast (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising U.S. Inflation Expectations Chart 2Fiscal Policy Gets Expansive Adding to the newly authorized fiscal spending could be a congressional rule-change that reintroduces earmarks - leading to a potential $20 billion additional spending per year. There is also a 10-year infrastructure plan that could see spending increase by another ~$200 billion over the next decade. The new budget compromise, combined with last year's tax cuts, will massively increase U.S. fiscal thrust beyond the IMF's baseline (Chart 3). The IMF's forecast, done before the tax cuts were passed, suggested that fiscal thrust would contract by about 0.5% of GDP this year, and would only slightly expand in 2019. Now we estimate that fiscal thrust will be a positive 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. These figures are tentative because it is not clear exactly how much of the spending will take place this year versus 2019 and 2020. Our colleague Mark McClellan, author of BCA's flagship The Bank Credit Analyst, has stressed that the impact on GDP growth will be less than these figures suggest because the economic multipliers related to tax cuts are less than those for spending.3 Our theme that the political path of least resistance will lead to profligacy is not exclusive to the U.S. After all, populism is not exclusive to the U.S, with non-centrist parties consistently capturing around 16% of the electoral vote in Europe (Chart 4). Chart 3The Budget Deal And Tax Cuts##br## Will Expand U.S. Fiscal Thrust Chart 4Populism Will Fuel Fiscal##br##Spending Beyond The U.S. Policymakers are not price-setters in the political marketplace, but price-takers. The price-setter is the median voter, who we believe has swung to the left when it comes to economic policy in developed markets after a multi-year, low-growth, economic recovery.4 Broadly speaking, investors should prepare for higher fiscal spending globally on the back of this dynamic. Aside from the U.S., the populist dynamic is evident in the world's third (Japan), fourth (Germany), and sixth (the U.K.) largest economies. Japan may have started it all, as a political paradigm shift in 2011-12 spurred a historic reflationary effort.5 Geopolitical pressure from China and domestic political pressures on the back of an extraordinary rise in income inequality, and natural and national disasters, combined to create the political context that made Abenomics possible. While the fiscal arrow has somewhat disappointed - particularly when PM Shinzo Abe authorized the 2014 increase in the consumption tax - Japan has still surprised to the upside on fiscal thrust (Chart 5). On average, the IMF has underestimated Japan's fiscal impulse by 0.84% since the beginning of 2012. Investors often understate the ability of centrist, establishment policymakers to rebrand anti-establishment policies - whether on fiscal spending or immigration - as their own. In January 2015, we asked whether "Abenomics Is The Future?"6 We concluded that rising populism in Europe would require a policy response not unlike the policy mix favored by Tokyo. Today, the details of the latest German coalition deal between the formally fiscally conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SDP) means that even Germany has now succumbed to the political pressure to reflate. The CDU has agreed to fork over the influential ministry of finance to the profligate SPD and apparently spend an additional 46 billion euros, over the duration of the Grand Coalition, on public investment and tax cuts. Finally, in the U.K., the end of austerity came quickly on the heels of the Brexit referendum, the ultimate populist shot-across-the-bow. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, announced a shift away from austerity almost immediately, scrapping targets for balancing the budget by the end of the decade. The change in rhetoric has carried over to the new government, especially after the Labour Party pummeled the Tories on austerity in the lead up to the June 2017 election. The bond market action over the past several weeks suggests that investors have not fully appreciated the political shifts underway over the past several years. Bond yields had to "catch up" to the political reality essentially over the course of February. However, the structural upward trajectory is now in place. The end of stimulative monetary policy will accelerate the rise in bond yields. Quantitative easing programs have soaked up more than the net government issuance of the major economies. Chart 6 shows that the flow of the major economies' government bonds available for the private sector to purchase was negative from 2015-2017. This flow will now swing to the positive side as fiscal spending necessitates greater issuance and as central banks withdraw demand. Real interest rates may therefore be higher to the extent that government bonds will have to compete with private-sector issuance for available savings. Chart 5Japan's Abenomics Leads The Way To More Spending Chart 6Lots Of Bonds Hitting The Private Market Bottom Line: The U.S. electorate chose the populist, anti-establishment Donald Trump as president with unemployment at a multi-decade low of 4.6%. The message from the U.S. election, and the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, is that the electorate is restless, even with the post-Great Financial Crisis recovery now in its ninth year. Policymakers have heard the message, loud and clear, and are adjusting fiscal policy accordingly. Over the course of the next quarter, BCA's Global Investment Strategy expects the rapid rise in bond yields to peter out, but investors should use any bond rallies as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. BCA's House View calls for the 10-year Treasury yield to finish the year at about 3.25%.7 Our U.S. bond strategists expect the end-of-cycle level of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield to be between 3.3% and 3.5%.8 Does The U.S. Midterm Election Matter? The three-day government shutdown that ended on January 22 has hurt the chances of the Democratic Party in the upcoming midterm election. The Democrats' lead in the generic congressional ballot has gone from a high of 13% at the end of 2017 to just 9% today (Chart 7). As Chart 8 illustrates, this generic ballot has some predictive quality. However, it also suggests that for Democrats, the lead needs to be considerably larger than for Republicans to generate the type of seat-swing needed to win a majority in the House of Representatives in 2018. Chart 7Democrats Have Lost Some Steam Chart 8Democrats Need Big Polling Lead To Win Majority There are three reasons for this built-in advantage for the Republican Party in recent midterm elections. First, the Republicans dominate the rural vote, which tends to be overrepresented in any electoral system that draws electoral districts geographically. Second, redistricting - or gerrymandering - has tended to favor the Republican Party in the past several elections. While the Supreme Court has recently struck down some of the most egregiously drawn electoral districts, the overall impact of gerrymandering since 2010 overwhelmingly favors the GOP. Third, midterm elections tend to have a lot lower voter turnout than general elections, which hurts the Democrats who rely on the youth and minority vote. Both constituencies tend to shy away from participation in the midterm election. Does the market care who wins the House and Senate? On the margin, yes. If the current GOP control of the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate were to be broken, markets might react negatively. It is often stated that gridlock has a positive effect on stock prices, as it reduces the probability of harmful government involvement in the economy and financial markets. However, research by our colleague Jonathan LaBerge, which we have recently updated, suggests otherwise. After controlling for the macro environment, gridlock between the White House and Congress is actually associated with modestly lower equity market returns.9 This conclusion is based on the past century of data. For most of that period, polarization has steadily risen to today's record-setting levels (Chart 9). As such, the negative impact of gridlock could be higher today. Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of executive/legislative disunity and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.10 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 9U.S. Polarization Has Risen For 60 Years Table 1Divided Government Is, In Fact, Bad For Stocks As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of timeframe. The takeaway for equity investors is that, contrary to popular belief, political gridlock is not positive for stock prices after controlling for important macro factors. Absolute results are similarly negative, with the average monthly S&P 500 returns considerably larger during periods of unified executive and legislative branches (Chart 10). Intriguingly, the less negative constellation of forces is when the president faces a unified Congress ruled by the opposing party. We would reason that such periods force the president to compromise with the legislature, which constitutionally has a lot of authority over domestic policy. The worst outcome for equity markets, by far, is when the president faces a split legislature. In these cases, we suspect that uncertainty rises as neither party has to take responsibility for negative policy outcomes, making them more likely. Chart 10A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks In the current context, gridlock could lead to greater political volatility. For example, a Democratic House of Representatives would begin several investigations into the Trump White House and could potentially initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. But as we pointed out last year, impeachment alone is no reason to sell stocks.11 The Democrats would not have the ability to alter President Trump's deregulatory trajectory - which remains under the purview of the executive - nor would they be likely to gain enough seats to repeal the tax cut legislation. Yet given President Trump's populist bias, center-left Democrats could find much in common with the president on spending. This would only reinforce our adage that the political path of least resistance will tend towards profligacy. The only thing that President Trump and the Democrats in Congress will find in common, in other words, will be to blow out the U.S. budget deficit. Bottom Line: The chances of a Democratic takeover following the midterm elections have fallen, but remain at 50% for the House of Representatives. A gridlocked Congress is mildly negative for equity markets, taking into consideration that macro variables still dominate. Nonetheless, investors should ignore the likely higher political volatility and focus on the fact that President Trump and the Democrats are not that far apart when it comes to spending. China: The Reform Reboot Is Here And It Is Still Winter He told us not to believe the people who say it's spring in China again. It's still winter. - Anonymous Chinese government official referring to Liu He, the top economic adviser.12 The one risk to the BCA House View of a structural bond bear market - at least in the near term - is a peaking of global growth and a slowdown in emerging markets. The EM economies, which normally magnify booms in advanced economies, particularly in latter stages of the economic cycle, are currently experiencing a relative contraction in their PMIs (Chart 11). BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "carry canary" indicator - which shows that EM/JPY carry trades tend to lead global industrial activity - is similarly flashing warning signs (Chart 12).13 Chart 11EM Economies Underperforming Chart 12Yen Carry Trades Signal Distress At the heart of the divergence in growth between EM and DM is China. Beijing has been tightening monetary conditions as part of overall structural reform efforts, causing a sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (Chart 13). In addition, the orders-to-inventories ratio has begun to contract, import volumes are weak, and export price growth is slowing sharply (Chart 14). Chart 13Li Keqiang Index Surprises Downward Chart 14China's Economy Weakens... The Chinese slowdown is fundamentally driven by politics. Last April we introduced a checklist for determining whether Chinese President Xi Jinping would "reboot" his reform agenda during his second term in office. We define "reform" as policies that accelerate the transition of China's growth model away from investment-driven, resource-intensive growth. Since then, political and economic events have supported our thesis. Most recently, interbank lending rates have spiked due to China's new macro-prudential regulations and monetary policy (Chart 15), and January's total credit growth clocked in at an uninspiring 11.2% (Chart 16). Tight credit control in the first calendar month typically implies that credit expansion will be limited for the rest of the year (Chart 17). A strong grip on money and credit growth is entirely in keeping with the three-year "battle" that Xi Jinping has declared against systemic financial risk.14 Chart 15...While Policy Drives Up Interbank Rates Chart 16January Credit Growth Disappoints... Chart 17... And January Credit Is The Biggest In short, we have just crossed the 50% threshold on our checklist, confirming that China is indeed rebooting its reform agenda (Table 2). Going forward, what matters is the intensity and duration of the reform push. Three events at the start of the Chinese New Year suggest that the market will be surprised by both. Table 2How Do We Know China Is Reforming? First, the National People's Congress (NPC), which convenes March 5, is reportedly planning to remove term limits for the president and vice-president, thus enabling Xi Jinping to remain as president well beyond March 2023. Xi was already set up to be the most powerful man in China's politics through the 2020s,15 so we do not consider this a material change in circumstances: the material change occurred last October when "Xi Thought" received the status of "Mao Zedong Thought" in the Communist Party's constitution and reshaped the Politburo to his liking. The point is that Xi's position is irresistible which means that his policies will have greater, not lesser, effectiveness as party and state bureaucrats scramble to enact them faithfully.16 Chart 18Crackdown On Shadow Lending Has Teeth Second, the Communist Party is reportedly convening its "Third Plenum" half a year early this year - that is, in late February and early March, just before the annual legislative meeting that begins March 5. This is a symbolic move. The third plenum is known as the "reform plenum," and this year is the fortieth anniversary of the 1978 third plenum that launched China's market reform and opening up to the global economy under Deng Xiaoping. However, the last time China convened a third plenum - in 2013 when Xi first announced his agenda - the excitement fizzled as implementation proved to be slow.17 As we have repeatedly warned clients, China's political environment has changed dramatically since 2013: the constraints to painful structural reforms have fallen.18 If the third plenum is indeed held early, some key decisions on reform initiatives will be made as we go to press, and any that require legislative approval will receive it instantly when the National People's Congress convenes on March 5.19 This will be a "double punch" that will supercharge the reform agenda this year. It is precisely the kind of ambition that we have been expecting. Third, one of the most important administrative vehicles of this new reform push, the Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), has just made its first serious move.20 On February 23, China's top insurance regulator announced that it is taking control of Anbang Insurance Group for one year, possibly two, in order to restructure it amid insolvency and systemic risks. Anbang's troubles are idiosyncratic and have received ample media attention since June 2017.21 Nevertheless, China's government has just seized a company with assets over $300bn. Clearly the crackdown on the shadow financial sector has teeth (Chart 18). Anbang's case will reverberate beyond the handful of private companies involved in shadow banking and highly leveraged foreign acquisitions abroad. Beijing's focus is systemic risk, not merely innovative insurance products. The central government is scrutinizing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments as well as a range of financial companies and products. We provide a list of reform initiatives in Table 3. Table 3China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms What is the cumulative effect of these three developments? Basically, they raise the stakes for Xi's policies dramatically this year. If Xi makes himself president for life, and yet this year's third plenum is as over-hyped and under-delivered as in 2013, then we would expect China's economic future to darken rapidly. China will lose any pretext of reform just as the United States goes on the offensive against Beijing's mercantilism. It would be time to short China on a long-term time line. However, it would also spell doom for our positive U.S. dollar outlook and bearish EM view. If, on the other hand, Xi Jinping couples his power grab with renewed efforts to restructure China's economy and improve market access for foreigners, then he has a chance of deleveraging, improving China's productivity, and managing tensions with the U.S. This is the best outcome for investors, although it would still be negative for Chinese growth and imports, and hence EM assets, this year. The next political indicator to watch is the March 5 NPC session. This legislative meeting will be critical in determining what precise reforms the Xi administration will prioritize this year. The NPC occurs annually but is more important this year than usual because it installs a new government for the 2018-23 period and will kick off the new agenda. In terms of personnel, there is much speculation (Table 4).22 Investors should stay focused on the big picture: four months ago, the news media focused on Xi Jinping's Maoist thirst for power and declared that all reform efforts were dead in the water. Now the press is filled with speculation about which key reformer will get which key economic/financial position. The big picture is that Xi is using his Mao-like authority in the Communist Party to rein in the country's economic and financial imbalances. His new economic team will have to establish their credibility this year by remaining firm when the market and vested interests push back, which means more policy-induced volatility should be expected. Table 4China's New Government Takes Shape At National People's Congress The risk is that Beijing overcorrects, not that reforms languish like they did in 2015-16. Our subjective probability of a policy mistake remains at 30%, but we expect that the market will start to price in this higher probability of risk as the March political events unfold. As Liu He declared at Davos, China's reforms this year will "exceed the international community's expectations."23 The anti-corruption campaign is another important factor to monitor. In addition to any major economic legislation, the most important law that the NPC may pass is one that would create a new nationwide National Supervisory Commission, which will expand the Communist Party's anti-corruption campaign into every level of the state bureaucracy. In other words, an anti-corruption component is sharpening the policy effectiveness of the economic and financial agenda. In the aforementioned Anbang case, for instance, corporate chief Wu Xiaohui was stung by a corruption probe in June 2017 and is being tried for "economic crimes" - now his company and its counterparty risks are being restructured. The combination of anti-corruption campaign and regulatory crackdown has the potential to cause significant risk aversion among financial institutions, SOEs, and local governments. Add in the ongoing pollution curbs, and any significant SOE restructuring, and Chinese policy becomes a clear source of volatility and economic policy uncertainty this year that the market is not, as yet, pricing (Chart 19). On cue, perhaps in anticipation of rising domestic volatility, China has stopped updating its home-grown version of the VIX (Chart 20). Chart 19Market Expects No Political Volatility Yet Chart 20Has China Halted Its Version Of The VIX? We would not expect anything more than a whiff, at best, of policy easing at the NPC this March. For instance, poverty alleviation efforts will require some fiscal spending. But even then, the point of fiscal spending will be to offset credit tightness, not to stimulate the economy in any remarkable way. Monetary policy may not get much tighter from here, as inflation is rolling over amid the slowdown (Chart 21),24 but anything suggesting a substantial shift back to easy policy would be contrary to our view. More accommodative policy at this point in time would suggest that Xi has no real intention of fighting systemic risk and - further - that global growth faces no significant impediment from China this year. In such a scenario, the dollar could fall further and EM would outperform. We expect the contrary. We are long DXY and short EUR/JPY. We remain overweight Chinese H-shares within emerging markets, but we will close this trade if we suspect either that reform is a fig leaf or that authorities have moved into overcorrection territory. Otherwise, reform is a good thing for Chinese firms relative to EM counterparts that have come to rely on China's longstanding commodity- and capital-intensive growth model (Chart 22). Chart 21Monetary Policy May Not Tighten From Here Chart 22Tighter-Fisted China Will Hit EM Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has rebooted China's economic reforms. The new government being assembled is likely to intensify the crackdown on systemic financial risk. Reforms will surprise to the upside, which means that Chinese growth is likely to surprise to the downside amidst the current slowdown, thus weighing on global growth at a time when populism provides a tailwind to U.S. growth. What It All Means For South Africa And Emerging Markets We spent a full week in South Africa last June and came back with these thoughts about the country's economy and the markets:25 The main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 23). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist, economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled have supported the ongoing EM carry trade. The actual emerging market growth fundamentals and politics are therefore unimportant. Chart 23Weak Inflation And Dollar Drove EM Assets Chart 24Market Likes Ramaphosa, Unlike Zuma In the near term, South African politics obviously do matter. Markets have cheered the election of Cyril Ramaphosa to the presidency of the African National Congress (ANC), a stark contrast to the market reaction following his predecessor's ascendancy to the same position (Chart 24). However, the now President Ramaphosa's defeat of ex-President Jacob Zuma's former cabinet minister and ex-wife, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was narrow and has split the ANC down the middle. On one side is Ramaphosa's pragmatic wing, on the other is Dlamini-Zuma's side, focused on racial inequality and social justice. Chart 25Chronic Youth Unemployment Chart 26Few Gains In Middle Class Population For now, the ANC bureaucracy has served as an important circuit-breaker that will limit electoral choices in the 2019 election to the pro-market Ramaphosa, centrist Democratic Alliance, and radical Economic Freedom Fighters. From investors' perspective, this is a good thing. After all, it is clear that if the South African median voter had her way, she would probably not vote for Ramaphosa, given that the country is facing chronic unemployment (Chart 25), endemic corruption, poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. South Africa stands alone amongst its EM peers when it comes to its tepid rise in the middle class as a percent of the population (Chart 26) and persistently high income inequality (Chart 27). We see no evidence that the electorate will welcome pro-market structural reforms. Chart 27Inequality Remains Very High Nonetheless, Ramaphosa's presidency is a positive given the recent deterioration of South Africa's governance, which should improve as the new regime focuses on fighting corruption and restructuring SOEs. Whether Ramaphosa will similarly have the maneuvering room to correct the country's endemically low productivity (Chart 28) and still large twin deficits (Chart 29) is another question altogether. Chart 28A Distant Laggard In Productivity Chart 29Twin Deficits A Structural Weakness Will investors have time to find out the answer to those latter questions? Not if our core thesis for this year - that politics is a tailwind to U.S. growth and a headwind to Chinese growth - is right. In an environment where the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is rising, DXY stabilizes, and Chinese economy slows down, commodities and thus South African assets will come under pressure. As our colleague Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's chief EM strategist, recently put it: positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. Bottom Line: Markets are cheering Ramaphosa's ascendancy to the South African presidency. We agree that the development is, all other things being equal, bullish for South Africa's economy and assets. However, the structural challenges are vast and we do not see enough political unity in the ANC to resolve them. Furthermore, we are not sure that the global macro environment will remain sanguine for long enough to give policymakers the time for preemptive structural reforms. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our recommendation to bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa, which has been flat since initiation on June 28, 2017. However, we will maintain our recommendation to buy South African 5-year CDS protection and sell Russian, even though it has returned a loss of 17.08 bps thus far. We expect that Russia will prove to be a low-beta EM play in the next downturn, whereas South Africa will not be so lucky. On a different note, we are booking gains of 2525bps on our short Venezeulan vs. EM 10-yr sovereign bonds, as our commodity team upgrades its oil-price forecast for this year. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Congressional Budget Office, "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018," February 8, 2018, available at www.cbo.gov. 3 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "March 2018," dated February 22, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan's Political Paradigm Shift: Investment Implications," dated December 21, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Is Abenomics The Future?" dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Tom Mitchell, "Xi's China: The Rise Of Party Politics," Financial Times, July 25, 2016, available at ft.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Carry Canary" indicator tracks the performance of EM/JPY carry trades. These trades short the Japanese Yen and long an emerging market currency with a high interest rate (Brazilian real, Russian ruble, or South African rand), and as such they are highly geared to a positive global growth back-drop. Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues ... For Now," dated February 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 The other two battles are against pollution and poverty. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Consider that the standard political calendar would have called for Xi to make personnel adjustments at the second plenum (which was held in January), then to formalize those personnel changes at the legislature in March, and then to announce reform initiatives at the third plenum in the fall, leaving implementation until late in the year or even March 2019. Instead, all of this will be done by March of this year, leaving the rest of the year for implementation. 20 The Financial Stability and Development Commission was created last July at an important financial gathering that occurs once every five years. We dubbed it a "Preemptive Dodd Frank" at the time because of China's avowed intention to use it to tackle systemic financial risk. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. The FSDC's purpose is to coordinate the People's Bank of China with the chief financial regulators - the banking, insurance, and securities regulatory commissions (CBRC, CIRC, and CSRC) and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). There is even a possibility under discussion (we think very low probability of happening) that the FSDC will preside above the central bank - though the precise organizational structure will remain unclear until it is formalized, probably during the March legislative session. 21 Anbang is part of a group of companies, including Foresea, Fosun, HNA, Ping An, and Dalian Wanda, that have been targeted over the past year for shady financial doings, corruption, excessive debt, and capital flight. In particular, Anbang was integral to the development of universal life products, which have been highly restricted since last year. These were not standard insurance products but risky short-term, high-yield shadow investment products. Investors could redeem them easily so there was a risk that purchasers could swamp insurance companies with demands for paybacks if investment returns fell short. This would leave insurance companies squeezed for cash, which in turn could shake other financial institutions. The systemic risk not only threatened legitimate insurance customers but also threatened to leave insurance companies unable to make debt payments on huge leveraged buyouts that they had done abroad. Anbang and others had used these and other shadow products to lever up and then go on a global acquisition spree, buying assets like insurance subsidiaries, hotels, and media/entertainment companies. The targeted firms are also in trouble with the central government for trying to divest themselves of China's currency at the height of the RMB depreciation and capital flight of 2015. They were using China's shadow leverage to springboard into Western assets that would be safe from RMB devaluation and Chinese political risk. The government wants outward investment to go into China's strategic goals (such as the Belt and Road Initiative) instead of into high-profile, marquee Western assets and brands. 22 Particularly over whether Xi Jinping's right-hand man, Liu He, will be appointed as the new central bank governor, to replace long-serving Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, and/or whether he will replace Vice Premier Ma Kai as chairman of the FSDC. It is important whether Liu He takes the place of central banker or chief reformer because those roles are so different. Making him PBoC chief would keep a reformer at the helm of a key institution at an important point in its evolution, but will raise questions about who, if anyone, will take charge of structural reform. Giving him the broader and more ad hoc role of Reformer-in-Chief would be reminiscent of Zhu Rongji at the historic NPC session in March 1998, i.e. very optimistic for reforms. Of course, Liu He is not the only person to watch. It is also important to see what role former anti-corruption czar Wang Qishan gets (for instance, leading U.S. negotiations) and whether rising stars like bank regulator Guo Shuqing are given more authority (he is a hawkish reformer). 23 Please see Xie Yu and Frank Tang, "Xi picks team of problem solvers to head China's economic portfolios," South China Morning Post, dated February 21, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy," dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Federal Reserve: Is the U.S. neutral rate now higher? ECB: How much has the euro rally damaged European growth? Bank of Japan: Will a stronger yen tip Japan back into deflation? Bank of England: Will higher real wages offset Brexit uncertainties? Bank of Canada & Reserve Bank Of Australia: How much spare capacity truly exists? Feature We have not published a regular Weekly Report in Global Fixed Income Strategy since February 6th. We instead published necessary Special Reports on two countries of immediate relevance: Japan, because of the recent surprising strength in the yen, and Italy, because of the upcoming election. The pause in our regular commentary on the state of the markets, however, was useful. It has given us more time to reflect on the potential for a continuation of the global bond bear market after the volatility spike earlier in the month. What we find interesting is that, despite the common narrative that the back-up in global bond yields seen in 2018 has been about rising inflation fears, market pricing suggests the big shift has instead been in real bond yields and central bank policy expectations. In Table 1, we present the year-to-date change in the 10-year government bond yield for the major developed markets. We also show the changes in various other interest rate measures, including: Table 12018 Year-To-Date Changes In Government Bond Yield Components Our 12-month Policy Rate Discounters, which show the change in short-term interest rates priced into money market curves Our proxy measure of the market pricing of the real neutral ("terminal") interest rate - the 5-year Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rate, 5-years forward minus the 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward Our estimate of the term premium on the 10-year government bond yield. What stands out in the table is that markets have moved to price in both a higher amount of expected rate hikes over the next year (Chart 1) and a higher neutral real interest rate, even with very little change in expected inflation. This can also been seen by looking at recent declines in the correlations between inflation expectations and nominal bond yields in the major economies, which are off from the peaks seen late in 2017 (Chart 2). Chart 1Rising Rate Expectations Have##BR##Been Pushing Yields Higher Of Late... Chart 2...Rather Than Higher##BR##Inflation Expectations The obvious conclusion is that the bulk of the rise in global bond yields seen year-to-date has been driven by increases in the real yield component, which itself has been heavily influenced by expected changes to central bank policy rates. Keeping that in mind, in this Weekly Report, we take a look at the most important question faced by each major central bank, and what that means for future decisions on policy interest rates - and by extension, for government bond yields. The Federal Reserve: "Is The U.S. Neutral Rate Now Higher?" With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield having taken several runs at the critical 3% level in recent weeks, the debate has raged among investors as to whether that should be considered a breakout point or a buying opportunity. Comparing the U.S. economy now to what it looked like the last time the 10-year yield was at 3% at the end of 2013 suggests that yields could have more upside: Real GDP growth: 1.7% then, 2.3% now1 The unemployment rate: 6.7% then, 4.1% now Headline CPI inflation: 1.4% then, 2.1% now Core CPI inflation: 1.7% then, 1.8% now Average Hourly Earnings growth: 1.9% then, 2.9% now Growth is faster, there is less spare capacity, and inflation is higher now than it was just over four years ago. Yet when looking at the decomposition of the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield into its real and inflation expectations component (Chart 3, 2nd panel), we find that the mix is only slightly more skewed to real yields today: Chart 3Treasury Yields Still Have More Upside,##BR##Based On 2013 Comparisons Nominal 10-year Treasury yield: 3.03% then (December 31st, 2013), 2.87% now (February 26th, 2018) Inflation expectations (10-year CPI swap): 2.54% then, 2.30% now Real yields (nominal 10-year yield minus 10-year CPI swap): 0.49% then, 0.57% now In other words, the real yield today is 20% of the total nominal 10-year yield compared to 16% back at the end of 2013. Not a major difference. Yet there are much bigger discrepancies between the elements that go into our real neutral rate proxy for the U.S. (bottom two panels): 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward: 4.1% then, 2.6% now 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward: 2.9% then, 2.3% now Real neutral rate proxy: 1.2% then, 0.3% now The market is now pricing in a real neutral funds rate that is nearly one full percentage point below the level that prevailed the last time the 10-year Treasury yield reached 3% prior to 2018. Even though the U.S. economy is now growing faster, with far less spare capacity and higher inflation, than it did at the end of 2013. This does suggest that the level of the neutral real fed funds rate has likely gone up, which the 43bps increase in our market-implied real neutral rate proxy so far in 2018 is likely reflecting. But does the Fed actually believe that the neutral funds rate should be higher? The minutes from the January FOMC meeting, released last week, noted that there was discussion on the neutral funds rate, but one that was different than during previous FOMC meetings in 2017 - the actual appropriate level of the neutral funds rate was a topic of debate: "Some participants also commented on the likely evolution of the neutral federal funds rate. [...] the outlook for the neutral rate was uncertain and would depend on the interplay of a number of forces. For example, the neutral rate, which appeared to have fallen sharply during the Global Financial Crisis when financial headwinds had restrained demand, might move up more than anticipated as the global economy strengthened. Alternatively, the longer-run level of the neutral rate might remain low in the absence of fundamental shifts in trends in productivity, demographics, or the demand for safe assets."2 Any change in the Fed's estimation of the long-run neutral funds rate is critical for the future path of Treasury yields, given where market pricing is at the moment. The U.S. OIS curve has now fully converged to the FOMC interest rate projections (the "dots") for this year and next year. More importantly, the market-implied terminal rate (the nominal 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward) has now caught up to the FOMC terminal rate dot (Chart 4). The implication is that any further meaningful increase in Treasury yields can only come from higher inflation expectations - unless the Fed signals that a higher neutral rate is required. Our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, recently noted that the Fed has historically been much more reluctant to raise its terminal rate projection in response to rising inflation than it was in cutting the projection when inflation falls.3 The conclusion is that inflation expectations will likely need to return to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target - 2.3-2.5% on both the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate and the 5-year breakeven rate, 5-years forward - before the Fed would make any significant upward revisions to its terminal rate projection. In the meantime, Treasury yields are more likely to see a near-term consolidation, as U.S. data surprises have rolled over, market positioning has become very short, momentum is oversold and market pricing has fully converged with Fed expectations (Chart 5). In terms of data, the release of the next U.S. Employment report on March 9th is critical for the Treasury market in the near term, given that the January uptick in wage growth was the trigger for the spike in bond yields, and subsequent equity market correction, at the beginning of February (bottom panel). Chart 4Could The Fed Move##BR##The Interest Rate 'Goalposts'? Chart 5Treasury Selloff May Be##BR##Due For A Pause The ECB: "How Much Has The Euro Rally Damaged European Growth?" The European Central Bank (ECB) has been slowly preparing markets for an eventual withdrawal of its extraordinary monetary policy stimulus since last summer. Specifically, the ECB has begun a discussion of what it would take to end its bond buying program. Already, the central bank cut the monthly pace of its asset purchases in half at the beginning of 2018, and the topic of "tapering" has come up in many speeches from ECB officials. The ECB has been trying to not present an overly hawkish message when discussing an eventual end to its hyper-easy monetary stance. The overall level of government bond yields - both in the core and Periphery of the Euro Area - has been drifting higher, but by less than the increases seen in the U.S. Inflation expectations have been rising since the middle of 2017, although most of the 23bps increase in the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield seen so far in 2018 can be attributed to rising real yields (Chart 6). The market-implied real neutral rate has also been increasing, but still remains below zero (-0.2%). Yet despite only the modest increase in European interest rate expectations, there has been a substantially larger move in the euro. The trade-weighted euro has bond up by 8% over the past year, bringing the currency back to levels last seen in 2014 (Chart 7, top panel). The appreciating euro has become a subject of focus by the ECB, although it is not yet a cause for worry according to the minutes of the January ECB meeting released last week: Chart 6Only A Modest Rise In European Yields, So Far Chart 7A Potential ECB Dilemma "[...] although the past appreciation of the euro had so far had no significant impact on euro area external demand, volatility in foreign exchange markets represented a further increase that need monitoring."4 Chart 8No Damage Yet To European##BR##Exports From The Euro Rally The ECB is correct that the rising euro has not yet impacted Euro Area exports, the growth rate of which remains solid at 8% (bottom panel). This contrasts sharply with the performance the last time the trade-weighted euro was at current levels in 2014, when exports were barely growing at all. The difference is a much stronger global economy that is demanding far more European goods and services now compared to four years ago. For now, the ECB can look to the stability of export demand as a sign that the euro has not become a drag on the economy, but some warning signals may be flashing. Euro Area economic data surprises have plunged sharply, and the manufacturing PMI data has been softer in the past couple of months (Chart 8). While the absolute levels of the PMIs suggest an economy that is still growing at an above-trend pace, a continuation of the recent drops could pose a problem for the ECB as it tries to communicate its next policy move to the markets. The surging euro has done very little to drag down overall Euro Area headline inflation, given the strength in global oil prices over the past year (3rd panel). Core inflation has struggled to stay much above 1% over the past year or so, but our core inflation diffusion index - which measures the number of core Euro Area HICP sectors with rising inflation rates versus those with falling inflation rates - has surged in the past couple of months, which typically leads to a faster rate of core inflation (bottom panel). As long as the Euro Area export growth data holds up, the ECB is likely to focus more on rising core inflation than a stronger euro and should begin signaling an end to the asset purchase program by year-end. The Bank Of England: "Will Faster Wage Growth Offset Brexit Uncertainty?" The Bank of England (BoE) has surprised markets with its more hawkish commentary of late, particularly given the reason for the change - faster wage growth. The BoE had previously been cautious on its outlook for the U.K. economy, which was suffering from two powerful drags. First, the uncertainty over the Brexit negotiations was dampening business confidence and restraining capital spending. Second, the surge in realized inflation following the post-Brexit collapse of the British Pound triggered a period of contracting real wages that would be a drag on consumer spending. Until these were resolved, the BoE would be cautious with its future policy moves. Next month's European Union (EU) summit can provide some news on Brexit, as the U.K. government will be seeking a transition agreement that would give U.K. businesses a firm timeline for the separation of the U.K. from the EU. The U.K. government is reported to be seeking a two-year period for the agreement, but it may take longer than that to hammer out all the deals involved with the contentious issues of trade, immigration, etc. The longer the Brexit transition period, the more likely that U.K. firms will hold back on long-term investment spending because of uncertainty. As for the wage side of the story, the annual growth rate of Average Weekly Earnings has increased from 1.7% to 2.6% since the April 2017 low, but this is still below the headline CPI inflation rate of 3% (Chart 9, bottom panel). With the U.K. unemployment rate at a cyclical low of 4.4% - far below the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU rate of 5.1% - additional increases in wage growth are possible if hiring demand does not begin to slow. Yet with U.K. data surprises rolling over (top panel), and with the OECD's U.K. leading economic indicator decelerating (middle panel), there is a growing risk that economic growth will slow in the coming quarters, to the detriment of hiring activity and wages. The current market pricing shows that there remains a wide gap between U.K. inflation expectations and nominal Gilt yields (Chart 10). The real 10-year Gilt yield is -1.84% (deflated by CPI swaps), while the market-implied neutral real interest rate is -1.94%. While such a deeply negative interest rate is unlikely to be a permanent state of affairs in the U.K., such an accommodative policy setting is required to prevent the economy from falling into a deep slump. Chart 9Is The BoE More Worried About##BR##Wage Pressures Than Growth? Chart 10Real Gilt Yields Rising,##BR##But Still Very Low As we noted back in January, we do not see the BoE being able to raise rates much at all this year given the likelihood of prolonged sluggishness of the U.K. economy and some reversal of the currency-fueled surge in inflation seen in 2017.5 The BoE choosing to tackle rising wage inflation while growth was decelerating would be a huge policy error that would eventually benefit the performance of U.K. Gilts. The Bank Of Japan: "Will A Stronger Yen Tip Japan Back Into Deflation?" The extraordinary monetary policy accommodation provided by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) makes an analysis of Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yields far less interesting. After all, when the central bank is actively intervening in large quantities to hold the level of the 10-year JGB around 0%, do the signals sent from money market and bond yield curves have any meaning vis-à-vis the actual Japanese economy? Right now, the pricing of the real 10-year JGB yield (deflated by CPI swaps) is just below 0%, as is the real terminal rate proxy from the Japanese OIS curve (Chart 11). Keeping JGB yields at such low levels is part of the BoJ's attempt to raise Japanese inflation back towards the central bank's 2% yield target. The mechanism by which that should happen is through a weaker Japanese yen. Yet the yen has been showing surprising strength in recent weeks, most notably the USD/JPY exchange rate that has been falling in the face of rising U.S.-Japan interest rate differentials (Chart 12, top panel). Chart 11Negative Real Rates Still Necessary In Japan Chart 12An Unwelcome Rise In The Yen The risk going forward is that the strengthening yen will create a drag on headline Japanese inflation that has recently accelerated back to 1% (middle panel). Given that both core CPI and nominal wages barely growing at all (bottom panel), the odds are increasing that Japanese inflation could begin to move lower without getting anywhere close to the BoJ's 2% target. As we discussed in our recent Special Report, a much weaker yen (i.e. USD/JPY between 115 and 120) is the first necessary precondition before the BoJ would consider raising its yield target on the 10-year JGB.6 We had placed odds of no more than 20% that the BoJ would raise its yield target in 2018, but if the yen continues to hold firm or even strengthen further from current levels, those odds fall to zero. Bank Of Canada & Reserve Bank Of Australia: "How Much Spare Capacity Truly Exists?" We are lumping the Bank of Canada (BoC) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) together in this report, as both are facing the same critical question. The BoC has already raised its policy rate three times since last summer, in response to accelerating growth and diminished spare capacity in Canada. Canadian bond yields have risen in response through higher inflation expectations, rising real yields and greater expected rate increases from the BoC (Chart 13). The real 10-year Canadian yield has risen back to the highs last seen in late 2013, while inflation expectations are not quite back to those levels - a similar story to that seen in the U.S. The BoC's own estimate of the Canadian output gap flipped into positive territory at the end of 2017, signifying that there was no longer any spare capacity in the Canadian economy (Chart 14, top panel). The signal from the Canadian labor market is similar, with the unemployment rate now at 5.9% - well below the OECD NAIRU estimate of 6.5% (middle panel). Yet Canadian inflation rates, both for headline and core CPI, are only at 1.7% and 1.5%, respectively - both not even at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band (bottom panel). At the same time, wages have been accelerating, with the annual growth rate of Average Hourly Earnings now up to a two-year high of 3.3%. Chart 13All Bond Yield Components Rising In Canada Chart 14Where's The Inflation? Such a wide gap between price inflation and wage growth does throw into the question if the BoC's own output gap estimate is correct. We expect Canadian price inflation to eventually begin to close the gap with wage inflation, which will keep the BoC on its current expected rate hiking path in 2018 as long as the economy does not begin to slow meaningfully. The CPI inflation reports will be the most important data to watch in Canada over the next few months to determine if our view will pan out. In Australia, the market pricing is nowhere near as hawkish as in Canada, with inflation expectations (10-year CPI swaps) having been stuck in a range between 2.2-2.4% for the past two years (Chart 15, 2nd panel). The market-implied neutral real interest rate is stuck at 0% and has not been sustainably above that level since 2014 (bottom panel). Yet, like Canada, there are questions about the true degree of slack in the economy. The Australian unemployment rate is currently at 5.5%, well below NAIRU (Chart 16, top panel). The last time that the Australian economy ran for so long beyond full employment was in 2010-11, when headline inflation breached the upper limit of the RBA's 1-3% target band (bottom panel). Yet the so-called "underemployment rate" - essentially, those working part-time that would like to work full-time - has been much higher in recent years and now sits at 8.3%. This also fits with the IMF's estimate of the Australian output gap, which is still a very large -1.8%. Chart 15Australian Yields Are Stuck In A Range Chart 16Very Different Than 2011-12 Given these signs of excess capacity in both the labor market and the overall economy, it is no surprise that Australian inflation has struggled to surpass even the 2% midpoint of the RBA target band. The implication is that the Australian NAIRU is much lower than the official OECD estimate, and that the RBA is under no pressure to contemplate any interest rate increases for at least the rest of 2018. Net-net, while both the BoC and RBA are facing questions over the true amount of spare capacity in their economies, the situation is much more bullish for Australian government bonds than Canadian equivalents given the greater slack Down Under. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 These are average quarterly growth rates of U.S. real GDP for the full calendar year of 2013 and 2017, respectively. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20180131.pdf 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20th, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/accounts/2018/html/ecb.mg180222.en.html 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Melt Up In Equities AND Bond Yields?", dated January 23rd, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?", dated February 13th 2018, 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 Fed: The Fed is getting more optimistic on growth and continues to forecast a rebound in inflation. Nevertheless, the March FOMC meeting is probably too soon to expect an upward revision to the Fed's rate hike expectations. Inflation: The headwinds working against inflation are set to fade this year. The core goods and medical care sectors will lead the way, but there are even tentative signs that the deceleration in shelter inflation might start to ease. Spread Product: A survey of investment grade bond sectors shows that municipal bonds, Foreign Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds are all attractively valued relative to corporates. In contrast, USD-denominated Sovereign bonds are expensive. At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, Consumer ABS offer good value but deteriorating credit fundamentals. Feature One byproduct of this year's increase in Treasury yields is that market expectations for the near-term path of Fed rate hikes have converged with the Fed's most recent median projection (Chart 1). At present, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a fed funds rate of 2.19% by the end of this year and 2.54% by the end of 2019. The Fed's most recent median projection calls for a fed funds rate between 2% and 2.25% by the end of 2018, and of 2.75% by the end of 2019.1 Chart 1Market Expectations Have Converged With The Fed Dots This convergence makes the next few Fed meetings particularly interesting. Will the Fed revise up its rate projections, giving the market permission to push short-dated yields even higher? Or will the Fed continue to signal three hikes this year and 2-3 more in 2019, restraining the bear market in short-dated bonds? Fortunately, last week we received a lot of information to help us answer these questions. Several FOMC members made noteworthy public remarks and the Fed released the minutes from the January FOMC meeting. What To Expect From The March FOMC Meeting The Fed's Rosy Growth Outlook The minutes from the January FOMC meeting showed a great deal of optimism about the U.S. recovery, from both the Fed staff and FOMC participants. Chart 2Substantial Stimulus In The Pipeline The minutes noted that the Fed staff submitted stronger economic projections at the January meeting than at previous meeting, noting that: [T]he forecast for real GDP growth was revised up, reflecting a reassessment of the recently enacted tax cuts, along with higher projected paths for equity prices and foreign economic growth and a lower assumed path for the foreign exchange value of the dollar. It's important to note that while these projections include the impact of recent changes to the tax code, they do not include the potential impact from the newly proposed two-year appropriations bill that is poised to pass through Congress in the next few weeks. This bill is significant with large outlays for disaster relief ($45 billion), the military ($165 billion) and non-defense discretionary items ($131 billion), spread over the next two years. Chart 2 demonstrates how much this spending bill and the recent tax cuts have altered the growth outlook. It shows two estimates of fiscal thrust, the initial economic impulse of changes in government tax and spending policies.2 One estimate is the IMF's baseline forecast that was made before the tax legislation was passed. That estimate showed that fiscal policy would have been contractionary this year, trimming about 0.5% from GDP, and only slightly expansionary in 2019. The second estimate, which incorporates both the tax legislation and the proposed spending bill, shows that the fiscal impulse will be +0.8% this year and +1.3% next year. A major turnaround, and the most stimulative fiscal policy since the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. Staying The Course On Inflation At the January FOMC meeting the Fed saw a presentation on the performance of different inflation models, an exercise that is particularly important given that the Fed's traditional expectations-augmented Phillips curve model was not able to explain why prices decelerated last year. The staff concluded that while the prediction errors from Phillips curve-style models have been larger in recent years than during the 2001-07 period, they were not completely out of line with history. This synchs up with our own analysis. We re-created the Fed's expectations-augmented Phillips curve model using details from a speech given by Janet Yellen in 2015 (Chart 3).3 That model certainly shows a large prediction error in 2017, but one that is not inconsistent with past errors. The message is that 2017 was not an outlier in terms of the Fed's ability to forecast inflation, but rather that inflation is quite often difficult to forecast. The Fed staff did provide a couple reasons for why inflation lagged the model's predictions last year: [S]tructural changes in the price setting for some items, such as medical care, and the effects of idiosyncratic price shocks, such as the unusual drop in prices of wireless telephone services. And also forecast that inflation would reverse course in 2018: [C]ore PCE prices were forecast to rise notably faster in 2018, importantly reflecting both the expected waning of transitory factors that held down 12-month inflation measures in 2017 as well as the projected further tightening in resource utilization. We agree with this assessment. In fact, both CPI and PCE inflation measures have formed tentative troughs in the past few months and should see further near-term upside from both the core goods and medical care components (Chart 4). Core goods inflation has still not caught up with accelerating import prices (Chart 4, panel 2) and the PPI data show a recent large jump in health-care prices (Chart 4, panel 3). Chart 3The Fed's Inflation Model Chart 4Inflation Headwinds Will Fade On medical care, research from the San Francisco Fed has shown that a major reason for lower inflation in recent years has been the slower growth of Medicare payments to physicians and hospitals as mandated by the Affordable Care Act. But these payments are also forecast to grow 2% this year, much higher than the 0.6% growth seen last year and the 0.9% growth seen in 2016.4 It is even possible that the deceleration in shelter inflation could moderate in the months ahead, given the renewed decline in the rental vacancy rate (Chart 4, panel 4). Meanwhile, we continue to expect that stronger wage growth will eventually pressure core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) higher (Chart 4, bottom panel). But What Are They Saying? Even though the minutes conveyed a decidedly optimistic tone with regards to both growth and inflation, Fed speakers were much more cautious last week. Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker said that "based on the relatively strong economy, but the continued stubbornness of inflation, I've penciled in two hikes for 2018." Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said he is "comfortable continuing with a slow removal of policy accommodation" but also that "that doesn't necessarily mean as many as three or four moves per year." St. Louis Fed President James Bullard also said that 100 basis points of rate hikes in 2018 "seems like a lot." At the very least it appears that upward revisions to GDP growth forecasts are not sufficient for these three members to revise their rate projections higher. But these three members also already projected shallower paths for rate hikes than the median FOMC member (Table 1). Table 1Composition Of The FOMC More important is whether FOMC members whose projections are consistent with the median - those with a "neutral" policy bias in Table 1 - are inclined to get more hawkish. One of those members is San Francisco Fed President John Williams who said last week that "it makes sense to think about three or four rate increases in 2018." Chart 5Still Not Back To Target At the moment, the median Fed projection calls for three rate hikes in 2018, and that median will only move higher in March if four out of the six members who currently forecast three hikes this year decide to increase their dots. Given the cautious tone struck by most Fed speakers last week, we think the odds of an upward revision to the Fed's 2018 rate hike forecasts at the March meeting are low. Bottom Line: The Fed is getting more optimistic on growth and continues to forecast a rebound in inflation. Nevertheless, the March FOMC meeting is probably too soon to expect an upward revision to the Fed's rate hike expectations. Our own assessment is that the headwinds working against inflation are set to fade this year and that 3-4 Fed rate hikes are likely. In either case, bond yields are still biased higher given that they are still not priced for an eventual return of inflation to the Fed's target (Chart 5). Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Searching For Late-Cycle Value In Spread Product As we have noted repeatedly in recent reports, we anticipate that we will start to de-risk the spread product side of our U.S. bond portfolio sometime in 2018, possibly quite soon depending on the future path of inflation.5 So this week we perform a survey of investment grade spread product sectors, with an eye towards identifying sectors that look attractively valued and also present a low risk of spread widening. Our primary tool for identifying value is the 12-month breakeven spread. The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for a sector to earn zero excess returns versus a duration-equivalent position in Treasury yields.6 Table 2 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for each sector split by credit rating. Table 212-Month Breakeven Spreads By Credit Rating The first thing we notice is the attractive spreads offered by municipal bonds after adjusting for the tax advantage. In fact, for investors exposed to the top marginal tax rate, the 12-month breakeven spread on a Aaa-rated municipal bond exceeds the spread offered by a Baa-rated corporate bond. We have previously noted that when the tax-adjusted spread on a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond exceeds the spread offered by the duration-matched investment grade corporate bond index, it has historically been a signal that the credit cycle is very late. We are not seeing this signal yet, but it is getting very close (Chart 6). The second observation that jumps out is that USD-denominated Sovereign debt is not attractive compared to U.S. corporate debt. This is true across the entire investment grade credit spectrum. Further, Chart 7 shows that Sovereign bonds typically exhibit greater excess return volatility than U.S. corporate bonds. Chart 6Positive Muni/Corporate Spreads##br## Are A Late-Cycle Indicator Chart 712-Month Breakeven Spread Versus ##br##Excess Return Volatility We anticipate getting an opportunity to shift out of corporate bonds and into Sovereign debt at some point during the next 12 months, but expect some poor performance from Sovereign bonds first. A quicker expected pace of Fed rate hikes has historically coincided with Sovereign bond underperformance (Chart 8), and if that plays out while growth outside the U.S. starts to moderate - a risk that has been flagged by both our leading indicators for the Chinese economy and the performance of EM/JPY currency carry trades - then this would further exacerbate the underperformance of Sovereign bonds by putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar.7 A third observation from Table 2 is that Foreign Agency bonds look very attractive, and Chart 7 also shows that the sector has historically exhibited quite low volatility. Foreign state-owned energy companies make up a large portion of the Foreign Agency index, and this sector's performance closely tracks the price of oil (Chart 9). With our commodity strategists now calling for average 2018 crude oil prices of $74/bbl and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI respectively, the Foreign Agency sector should stay well supported.8 Local Authority bonds are also attractively valued, though to a lesser extent than Foreign Agencies, and also tend to exhibit relatively low excess return volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in this sector that is comprised principally of taxable municipal debt and USD-denominated Canadian provincial bonds. Chart 8Underweight Sovereigns Chart 9Overweight Foreign Agencies Finally, we notice that credit card and auto loan backed Consumer ABS offer very attractive spreads and relatively low volatility. While we retain a neutral allocation to Consumer ABS, we note that credit trends are starting to shift against the sector. Bank are now tightening lending standards on both credit cards and auto loans, and the delinquency rate has made a cyclical bottom (Chart 10). Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS also offer an attractive breakeven spread, though this sector has historically been much more volatile. Here too we see that banks are tightening lending standards, but the tightening has moderated in recent quarters. If this continues then delinquencies could start to roll over and property prices could start to accelerate (Chart 11). We remain underweight non-agency CMBS for now, but note the tentative improvement in credit quality. Chart 10Neutral Consumer ABS Chart 11A Nascent Improvement In Credit Quality Bottom Line: A survey of investment grade bond sectors shows that municipal bonds, Foreign Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds are all attractively valued relative to corporates. In contrast, USD-denominated Sovereign bonds are expensive. At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, Consumer ABS offer good value but deteriorating credit fundamentals. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 We exclude the forecast provided by the St. Louis Fed President as an outlier and calculate the median from the remaining forecasts. 2 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget balance, expressed as a percentage of GDP. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 4 https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2017/november/contribution-to-low-pce-inflation-from-healthcare/ 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the 12-month breakeven spread as the average index option-adjusted spread divided by the average index duration. We ignore the impact of convexity. 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices", dated February 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification