Policy
Highlights A partial reinvasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The constraints on Russia are not prohibitive, especially amid global energy shortages. On this issue, it is better to be alarmist than complacent. We would put the risk of a partial re-invasion of Ukraine as high as 50/50, albeit with an uncertain time frame over 12-36 months. The negative impact of conflict may not stay contained within Russian and eastern European markets. The US and EU are now threatening major retaliatory sanctions if Russia invades. In response Russia could reduce energy exports, exacerbating global shortages and damaging Europe’s overall economy. Investors should stay short Russian assets and overweight developed European equities over emerging European peers. Stay long gold and GBP-CZK. The dollar will be flat-to-up. Feature Chart 1Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Geopolitical tensions surrounding Russia remain unresolved and investors should continue to reduce holdings of assets exposed to any renewed conflict in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. The ruble has dropped off its peaks since early November when strategic tensions revived (Chart 1). Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin held their second bilateral summit on a secure video link on December 7 to discuss the situation in Ukraine, where Russia has amassed 95,000-120,000 troops on the border in a major show of force. Russia also mustered troops in April and only partially drew them down after the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva where the two sides agreed to hold talks to address differences. The two presidents agreed to hold consultations regarding Ukraine. Putin accused NATO of building up Ukraine’s military and demanded “reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding the expansion of NATO in the eastern direction and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia.”1 President Putin’s red line against Ukraine joining NATO is well known. Recently he said his red line includes the placement of western military infrastructure or missile systems in Ukraine. Biden refused to accept any limits on NATO membership in keeping with past policy. After the summit National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “I will tell you clearly and directly [Biden] made no such commitments or concessions. He stands by the proposition that countries should be able to freely choose who they associate with.” 2 Biden, who had conferred with the UK, France, Germany, and Italy prior to the call, outlined the coordinated economic sanctions that would be leveled against Russia if it resorted to military force, as well as defense aid that would go to Ukraine and other eastern European countries. Thus Putin gave an ultimatum and Biden rebuffed it – and yet the two agreed to keep talking. The Russians have since said that they will present proposals to the Americans in less than a week. Talks are better than nothing. But neither side has given concrete indication of a change in position that would de-escalate strategic tensions – instead they have both raised the stakes. Therefore investors should proceed with the strong presumption that tensions will remain elevated or escalate in the coming months. Clearing Away Misconceptions Before going further we should clear away a few misconceptions about the current situation: Ukraine has unique strategic value to Russia. Like Belarus, but unlike Central Asia, Ukraine serves as critical buffer territory protecting Moscow and the Russian core from any would-be invaders. Russia lacks firm geological borders so it protects itself by means of distance and winter. This grand strategy succeeded against King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia shorn of much of its buffer territory. Ukraine also offers access to the Black Sea. Russia has long striven to gain access to warm-water ports. The loss of control over Ukraine resulted in a loss of access. Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 only partially rectified the situation. Ukraine’s southern coastline around Crimea is the territory at risk today (Map 1). It is Ukraine’s physical existence and unique strategic value – not its democratic leanings or ideological orientation – that ensures perpetual tensions with post-Soviet Russia. Russia has a strategic imperative to reassert control or at least prevent control by foreign powers. Ideological opposition may make things worse but an anti-Russian Ukrainian dictator would also face Russian coercion or aggression, perhaps even more than the current weak democracy. In fact Russia is trying to force Ukraine to revise its constitution and adopt a federal structure so as to grant greater autonomy to separatist regions Donetsk and Luhansk that Russia helped break away in 2014. But Ukraine has not relented to Moscow’s demands of political reform. It is not authoritarianism but a permanent foreclosure of Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO that Moscow is after. Yet it is highly unlikely that Russia would try to invade and conquer all of Ukraine. Ukraine is the largest country by territory in Europe and has 255,000 active soldiers and 900,000 reserves (contra Russia’s 1 million active and 2 million reserves) who would defend their freedom and sovereignty against an invader.3 Russia would not be able to stage a full-scale invasion with the 175,000 maximum troop buildup that US intelligence is warning about. It would have to mobilize fully, dangerously neglecting other vast dimensions of its national security, and would inevitably get bogged down fighting a vicious insurgency backed by the NATO powers. It would save blood and treasure by paralyzing Ukraine’s politics and preventing it from allying with western militaries, which is what Putin is attempting to do today. Putin uses foreign adventures to strengthen his grip at home but an adventure of this nature would impose such burdens as to threaten his grip at home. A limited re-invasion of Ukraine could yield historic strategic advantages to Russia. Moscow could focus on a partial military incursion that would annex or shore up Donbass, or extend its control from Donbass to the Black Sea, conceivably all the way to the Dnieper river. This pathway would yield Russia maritime access and a buffer space to fortify Crimea. Naval warfare could also yield control of deep-water ports (Yuzhne, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Chornomorsk), control of the mouth of the Dnieper, control of the canal that supplies water to Crimea, and a means of bottling up the Ukrainian navy and preventing foreign maritime assistance. Ukraine would be further weakened and Russia would have a larger beachhead in Ukraine for future pressure tactics. Russia is not bluffing – its military buildup poses a credible threat. If there is anywhere Russia’s threats are credible, it is in taking military action against former Soviet republics like Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014) that have pro-western leanings yet lack the collective security of the NATO alliance. At very least, given that Russian forces did deploy in Ukraine in 2014, Russian action in Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The military balance has not changed so significantly in that time and strongly favors Russia (Chart 2). The US has provided around $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2014, and has sent lethal weapons including Javelin anti-tank missiles and launchers since 2017-18, including $450 million worth of military aid under the Biden administration (and $300 million just authorized by Congress on December 7). NATO allies have also provided defense aid. This is part of Putin’s complaint but these new arms are not game changers that would prevent Russia from taking military action. Thus if the West rejects Moscow’s core demands, war is likely. This is true even if Russia would prefer to achieve its aims through political and economic rather than military means. Russia does not deem the West’s threat of sanctions as prohibitive of invasion. The West’s sanctions since 2014 have failed to change Russia’s government, strategy, or posture in Ukraine. Yes, European nations joined the US in imposing sanctions. But Germany also pursued the Nord Stream II pipeline as a means of bypassing Ukraine and working directly with Russia to preserve economic engagement and energy security. Former Chancellor Merkel forced the pipeline through despite the objections of eastern Europeans and the United States. The allies also formed the “Normandy Quartet,” excluding the US, to force Ukraine to accept the Minsk agreements on resolving the conflict. Thus the lesson of 2014-21 is not that NATO allies stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but rather that Germany and the EU, and the EU and the US, have major differences in interests and risk-tolerance in dealing with Russia. Russia does not face, or may think it does not face, a united front among the western powers. A partial reinvasion of Ukraine would bring the western allies together initially but probably not for long. Russia determines the timing of any new military incursion in Ukraine. Winter is not the ideal time to invade Ukraine, though it is possible. Russia could act in spring 2022, as the US has warned, but it could also act in the summer of 2023, the spring of 2024, or other times. From a strategic point of view, Russia has enjoyed a historic window of opportunity since 2001 when the US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the US and the EU got bogged down in economic and financial crisis. Given that the American political establishment is withdrawing from foreign quagmires, reactivating fiscal policy, bulking up the military-industrial complex, and making a dedicated effort to revitalize its global alliances, Russia may believe that its historic window is closing. Russia’s domestic fundamentals are deteriorating over time. Putin could decide it is necessary to seize strategic ground in Ukraine sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: Ukraine offers unique and irreplaceable buffer space and maritime access to Russia. Russia’s military actions in 2014 led to stalemate, such that Russia remains insecure, Ukraine remains defiant, and the West is still entertaining defense cooperation or even NATO membership with Ukraine. Yet the Crimea conflict also revealed a lack of concert among western powers exemplified by Germany’s Nord Stream II pipeline. Today Russia has the military capability to seize another slice of Ukrainian territory. Western retaliatory actions would be painful but may not be deemed prohibitive. Investors cannot rule out a partial re-invasion of Ukraine. Nord Stream Pipeline Is Not The Sole Factor Is Russia not making a show of military force merely to ensure that Nord Stream II pipeline goes into operation? Will Russia not back down if the pipeline is guaranteed? A common view in Washington and the financial industry is that Russia’s military buildup is just a bluff, i.e. Moscow’s aggressive way of demanding that Germany’s new government and the European Union approve Nord Stream. The pipeline finished construction in September but now awaits formal regulatory certification. Approval was originally expected by May 2022 but has now been delayed. The pipeline would carry 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas into Europe, about half of Russia’s current export capacity outside of Ukraine. Ukraine’s total capacity is around 150 billion cubic meters. The pipeline enables Russia and Germany to bypass Ukraine, whose conflicts with Moscow since 2004 have threatened Germany’s energy security. About 18% of EU’s total energy imports come from Russia, whilst this figure is 16% for Germany. That is about 0.5% and 0.2% of EU and German GDP, respectively. Meanwhile Russian energy exports to Germany and the EU make up 0.8% and 5.6% of GDP, respectively (Chart 3). The problem with this reasoning is that the US conceded Nord Stream to Russia over the summer. The US initially raised the threat of sanctions because the pipeline strengthened Russo-German ties, diminished Ukraine’s leverage, and deprived the US of a chance to sell liquefied natural gas to Europe. But the Biden administration proved unwilling to take this aggressive approach. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has a long history of arguing that the US should prioritize strong relations with its European allies rather than punitive measures to try to block Russian gas sales. Biden met with outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel in July and agreed to let Nord Stream go forward. The only proviso was that Russia not “weaponize natural gas,” i.e. withhold supplies for geopolitical purposes, as it has done in the past.4 Before Russia’s military threats, Germany and the EU were expected to certify the pipeline by no later than May 2022 and an earlier certification looked possible because of Europe’s low natural gas supplies. Yet Russia, fresh off parliamentary elections, did precisely what Germany said it was not supposed to do. The pipeline was completed in September and reports of Russian limitations on natural gas supply surfaced in October. Moscow not only weaponized the gas but also mustered its army on the Ukrainian border again. Putin may have feared that the new German government, which officially took office on December 8, would change policy and refuse to certify the pipeline. He also could have feared that the US Congress would pass a Republican-backed provision that would require Biden to impose sanctions that would halt the pipeline. But these explanations are not satisfactory. First, the German government was not likely to halt Nord Stream. Quite the opposite, Berlin has pushed against all opposition to speed the pipeline into action. It only delayed the regulatory approval when Russia did the one thing that Germany had expressly prohibited, which was weaponize natural gas. Second, the US Congress was never likely to pass mandatory sanctions on Nord Stream operators. The Democrats opposed it, as it would have tied Biden’s hands, whereas presidents always retain discretion over foreign policy and national security. Even moderate Republicans opposed the measure, for the same reason. If either of these were the reason for Putin’s latest buildup, then the buildup will probably dissipate in the coming months. Putin also wants to force Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. But the Biden administration adopted the Minsk framework in June for the first time, which was a concession to Russia. So the latest military threats are not solely about coercing Europe to approve the pipeline or Ukraine to implement Minsk. Putin is driving at something else. Putin’s Focus On Ukraine And NATO Putin used military pressure on Ukraine’s border to force the US to accept the pipeline and the Minsk agreements. He is now using the same tactic to raise the stakes and demand that the US and its allies permanently rule out NATO membership and defense cooperation with Ukraine. Biden rejected the first demand during the summit, as mentioned. There is no way that the US or NATO will forswear any and all eastward expansion. Even on Ukraine specifically, Biden cannot give Russia a legal guarantee because it would require a 60-seat majority in the Senate (not likely). Any future president would retain prerogative over the matter anyway and Putin knows this. Moreover Ukraine is never going to join NATO. Russia would attack. And NATO members would not be unanimous (as is required for new members) because the collective defense treaty would require them to defend Ukraine. They would be signing up for a war with Russia. Still Biden is unlikely to disavow Ukrainian NATO membership because to do so would be to deny the self-determination of nations, capitulate to Russian coercion, and demoralize the Ukrainians, whom the US hopes will maintain a plucky resistance against Russian domination. It would also demoralize US allies and partners – namely Taiwan, which also lacks a formal defense treaty and would be forced to sue for peace with China in the face of American abandonment. Biden’s refusal to ban Ukraine from NATO is encapsulated in Diagram 1, an exercise in game theory that exemplifies why the risk of war should not be dismissed. Diagram 1Game Theory Suggests Russia Will Keep Applying Military Pressure Biden may give private or executive assurances on Ukraine and NATO but Putin will know that these mean nothing since Biden may be out of office as early as January 2025 and then Putin would have to renegotiate. America is not a credible negotiator because partisanship has resulted in extreme foreign policy vacillations – the next president could revoke the deal. Even after Putin is gone Russia would have to negotiate with the US to prevent the US from arming Ukraine. Hence Moscow may decide to reduce Ukraine and improve Russia’s strategic position by force of arms. This is true even if Biden forswears the NATO option, as Diagram 1 illustrates. Putin’s second demand – that the US not provide offensive weapon systems in countries adjacent to Russia – is more material. This is what the new round of talks will focus on. This new Ukraine line of talks is separate, more urgent and important, than the other bilateral dialogues on the arms race, and cyber-war. US-Russia talks on Iran are also urgent, however, and Russia’s cooperation there may be contingent on US concessions regarding Ukraine. The US may be willing to stop its defense cooperation with Ukraine but not with other allies and partners, however. It is also not clear what Putin will accept. These negotiations will have to be watched. Biden cannot make major concessions with a gun to his head. It is unclear how far the US is willing to concede on defense cooperation with countries around Russia. The US may quietly abandon Ukraine but then it would need to reinforce its other defense relationships. If Putin draws down the troops, and Biden calls a stop to defense aid to Ukraine, then a crisis may be averted. What Could Go Wrong? Economic sanctions under consideration in Washington are significant: the US could freeze bank transactions, expand restrictions on trading Russian sovereign and corporate debt, and lobby Belgium to kick Russia off the SWIFT financial messaging system. However, these sanctions may not be effective in preventing Russia from using military force. Russia has weathered US sanctions since 2014, and the smaller and weaker Iranian economy has weathered maximum pressure sanctions since 2019. Energy producers like Russia and Iran have maximum geopolitical leverage when global energy inventories draw down, as is the case today. Even in the face of Russian military aggression, the Biden administration is vacillating on sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector that would contribute to global shortages and ultimately raise prices at the pump for voters in a midterm election year.5 Germany’s new government also hesitates to declare unambiguously that it will discontinue the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine. True, Germany signaled that the pipeline would be halted. Its energy regulator declared that the pipeline’s ownership must be unbundled, which pushes back the certification date to sometime after May 2022 – this was a geopolitical not a legalistic decision. But construction is completed, the pipeline physically exists, which will vitiate Germany’s commitment to sanctions whenever natural gas shortages occur, as is the case this winter (Chart 4). Shortages will continue to occur and Russia controls a large share of supply. It would take a catastrophe to drive Germany to restart coal and nuclear plants, so natural gas will continue to be in demand. Germany does not have liquefied natural gas import capability yet. If Europe imposes crippling sanctions on Russia, Russia could reduce energy supplies and harm Europe’s economy (Chart 5). The Russian economy and society would suffer which is one reason any military action in Ukraine would be limited in scope. Still, Moscow may believe that Germany would restrain the EU, and the EU would restrain the US, thereby preventing sanctions from being fully, uniformly, and durably implemented. Prior to Russia’s aggression, public opinion polls showed that the German public strongly supported Nord Stream. Even a majority of Green Party members supported it despite the fact that the Greens were the most critical of increasing Germany’s dependency on fossil fuels and an authoritarian petro-state. While public approval of the pipeline has surely suffered in the face of Russian aggression, a majority probably still favors the pipeline. Germany has a national consensus in support of engagement with Russia and avoiding a new cold war, given that the original Cold War cut Germany in half. For that reason invasion may only temporarily unite the western powers – it could ultimately drive a wedge between Germany and other EU members, namely in the former Soviet bloc. It would also divide the more risk-averse EU from the US in terms of how to deal with Russia. And it would weaken the Biden administration at a time when it is extremely vulnerable, exacerbating America’s internal divisions. Russian domestic patriotism would rally, at least initially. Note that Russia could miscalculate on this issue and that is one reason for high level of risk. Perhaps the West would prove far more unified and aggressive in its sanctions enforcement than it was after 2014. A falling ruble and rising inflation could cause Russian social unrest. But Russia could misread the situation. Unless the US and Europe escalate the sanctions threat massively to better deter Russia, their lack of concert is another reason for investors not to be complacent about renewed conflict. Bottom Line: The threat of sanctions may prove insufficient to deter renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine. Germany favors engagement with Russia and Europe’s energy dependency on Russia makes it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Russia has leverage given tight global energy markets, Europe’s low natural gas inventories, and US domestic political considerations ahead of the 2022 midterms. Investment Takeaways The point of this report argues that a partial re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. Russia has the capability to reinforce de facto control of Donbas, or expand its footprint in southern Ukraine, though not to invade the whole country. The threat of economic sanctions is not yet so overwhelming as to warrant overconfident predictions of de-escalation. In this case it is better to be alarmist than complacent. Russia would want to maintain an element of surprise so the timing of any belligerence is hard to predict. For de-escalation, investors should watch for Russia to withdraw troops from the Ukrainian border, US-Russia consultations to begin promptly and proceed regularly, and for the US and allies to delay or halt defense cooperation and arms transfers to Ukraine. While global investors would quickly become de-sensitized to conflict that is entirely contained in Ukraine, the trans-Atlantic threat of major sanctions now raises the stakes and suggests that global energy shocks could negatively affect the European or global economy in the event of conflict. Any conflict could also spill outside of Ukraine’s borders, as with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down by Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists in July 2014. The Black Sea has seen a dangerous uptick in naval saber-rattling and that strategic situation would become permanently more dangerous if Russia seized more of coastal Ukraine. Russian military integration with Belarus is also a source of insecurity for EU and NATO members. Global financial markets have only started to price the geopolitical risk emanating from Russia. Our Russian GeoRisk Indicator has ticked up (Chart 6). But Russian equity performance relative to broad emerging markets is only arguably underperforming what is implied by Brent crude oil prices. Chart 6Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets This relatively muted reaction suggests more downside lies ahead if we are right that strategic tensions will be flat-to-up over the coming months. Sell the RUB-USD on any strength. Stay long GBP-CZK. Tactically short Russian equities versus EM-ex-Asia (Chart 7). They are exposed to further correction as a result of escalating geopolitical risk. Chart 7Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia Chart 8Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions Stick to long DM Europe versus EM Europe – our main trade this year to capture rising geopolitical risk between Russia and the West (Chart 8). Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 President of Russia, "Meeting with US President Joseph Biden," December 7, 2021, kremlin.ru. 2 White House, "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, December 7, 2021," whitehouse.gov. 3 Dan Peleschuk, "Ukraine’s military poses a tougher challenge for Russia than in 2014," Politico, April 14, 2021, politico.eu.; see also Gav Don, "LONG READ: Russia looks poised to invade Ukraine, but what would an invasion actually look like?" Intellinews, November 24, 2021, intellinews.com. 4 US Department of State, "Joint Statement of the United States and Germany on Support for Ukraine, European Energy Security, and our Climate Goals," July 21, 2021, state.gov. 5 Kylie Atwood and Natasha Bertrand, "US likely to hold off for now on energy sanctions for Russia, fearing impact on global prices," CNN, December 9, 2021, cnn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
Highlights 1. How will the pandemic resolve? 2. Will services spending recover to its pre-pandemic trend? 3. Will we spend our excess savings? 4. How will central banks react to inflation? 5. Will cryptocurrencies continue to eat gold’s lunch? 6. How fragile is Chinese real estate? 7. Will there be another shock? Fractal analysis: Personal goods versus consumer services. Feature Chart of the WeekWill Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? “Judge a man by his questions, not by his answers” The quotation above is often misattributed to Voltaire instead of its true author, Pierre-Marc-Gaston de Lévis. Irrespective of the misattribution, we agree with the maxim. Asking the right questions is more important than finding answers to the wrong questions. In this vein, this report takes the form of the seven crucial questions for 2022 (and our answers). 1. How Will The Pandemic Resolve? As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arrived like clockwork, the number of new global cases of infection and the virus reproduction rate have formed a near-perfect mathematical ‘sine wave’. This near-perfect sine wave will propagate into 2022 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 But how will this sine wave of infections translate into mortality, morbidity, and stress on our healthcare systems? As we explained in RNA Viruses: Time To Tell The Truth, the answer depends on the specific combination of contagiousness, immuno-evasion, and pathogenicity of each variant. Yet none of this should come as any surprise. Flus and colds also come in waves, which is why we call them flu and cold seasons. And the morbidity of a given flu and cold season depends on the aggressiveness of that season’s flu and cold variant. So, just like the flu and the cold, Covid will become an endemic respiratory disease which comes in waves. The trouble is that our under-resourced health care systems can barely cope with a bad flu season, let alone with an additional novel disease that can be worse than the flu. Hence, until we add enough capacity to our healthcare systems, expect more disruptions to economic activity from periodic non-pharmaceutical interventions such as travel bans, vaccine passports, and face-mask mandates. 2. Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? The pandemic has given us a crash course in virology and epidemiology. We now understand antigens, antibodies, and ‘reproduction rates.’ We understand that a virus transmits as an aerosol in enclosed unventilated spaces, and that singing, and yelling eject this viral aerosol. We understand that vaccinations for RNA viruses have limited longevity, do not prevent reinfections, and that certain environments create ‘super-spreader’ events. Armed with this new-found awareness, a significant minority of people have changed their behaviour. Services which require close contact with strangers – going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments, going to the cinema or to amusement parks, or using public transport – are suffering severe shortfalls in demand. Given that this change in behaviour is likely long-lasting, demand for these services is unlikely to regain its pre-pandemic trend in 2022 (Charts I-3 - I-6). Chart I-3Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-6Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods will have to stay above its pre-pandemic trend. This will be a tough ask. Durables, by their very definition, last a long time. Even clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurables, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can own before reaching saturation. If, as we expect, spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, but spending on services does not recover to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall in 2022 (Chart of the Week). 3. Will We Spend Our Excess Savings? If spending falls short of income – as it did through the pandemic – then, by definition, our savings have gone up. Many people claimed that this war chest of savings would unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it didn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-7). The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. The theory states that we segment our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental, and that our willingness to spend money depends on which mental account it occupies. This contrasts with standard economic theory which assumes that money is perfectly fungible, meaning that a dollar in a current (checking) account is no different to a dollar in a savings or investment account. In practice, money is not fungible, because we attach different emotions to our different mental accounts. A dollar in our current account we will gladly spend, but a dollar in our savings account we will not spend. Hence, the moment we move the dollar from our current account into our savings account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption trends have no connection with windfall income receipts once those income receipts end up in our savings mental or physical account. Pulling all of this together, the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to change the overall trend in spending. 4. How Will Central Banks React To Inflation? The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is that while goods and commodity prices have surged exactly as expected in a positive demand shock, services prices have not declined as would be expected in the mirror-image negative demand shock. The result is that aggregate inflation has surged even though aggregate demand has not (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Chart I-9...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock Why have services prices remained resilient despite a massive negative demand shock? One answer, as explained in question 2, is that much of the shortfall in services demand is due to behavioural changes, which cannot be alleviated by lower prices. If somebody doesn’t go to the dentist or use public transport because he is worried about catching Covid, then lowering the price will not lure that person back. In fact, the person might interpret the lower price as a signal of greater risk, and might become more averse. In technical terms, the price elasticity of demand for certain services has flipped from its usual negative to positive. This creates a major problem for central banks, because if the price elasticity of services demand has changed, then surging aggregate inflation is no longer a reliable indicator of surging aggregate demand. To repeat, inflation is surging even though aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend. Hence in 2022, central banks face a Hobson’s choice. Choke demand that does not need to be choked, or turn a blind eye to inflation and risk losing credibility. 5. Will Cryptocurrencies Continue To Eat Gold’s Lunch? Most of the value of gold comes not from its economic utility as a beautiful, wearable, and electrically conductive metal, but from its investment value as a hedge against the debasement of fiat money. The multi-year investment case for cryptocurrencies is that they are set to displace much of gold’s investment value. Still, to displace gold’s investment value, cryptocurrencies need to match its other qualities: an economic utility, and limited supply. A cryptocurrency’s economic utility comes from its means of exchange for the intermediation services that its blockchain provides. For example, if you issue a bond or smart-contract using the Ethereum blockchain, then you must pay in its cryptocurrency ETH. Which gives ETH an economic utility. Furthermore, the number of blockchains that will succeed as go-to places for intermediation services will be limited, and each cryptocurrency has a limited supply. Thereby, the supply of cryptocurrencies that have a utility is also limited. With an economic utility, a limited supply, and drawdowns that are becoming smaller, cryptocurrencies can continue to displace gold’s dominance of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market. Therefore, the cryptocurrency asset-class can continue its strong structural uptrend, albeit punctuated by short sharp corrections (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value The corollary is that the structural outlook for gold is poor. 6. How Fragile Is Chinese Real Estate? A decade-long surge in Chinese property prices has lifted Chinese valuations to nosebleed levels. According to global real estate specialist Savills, prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are now barely above 1 percent, and the world’s five most expensive cities are all in China: Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai (Chart I-11). Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price only goes up. With the bulk of people’s wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a modest decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is. Therefore, in contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the Chinese government will ensure that its property market adjustment does not come from a collapse in home prices. Rather, it will come from a collapse in property development and construction activity. This will have negative implications for commodities, emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials, and machinery stocks worldwide. 7. Will There Be Another Shock? Most strategists claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are unpredictable. We disagree. Yes, the timing and source of an individual shock is unpredictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent.1 Using this definition through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). This means that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-12). Therefore, on a multi-year horizon, another shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its source or precise timing. The question is, will it be net deflationary, or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that it is not just Chinese real estate that is fragile. Through the past ten years, world prime residential prices are up by 70 percent while rents are up by just 25 percent2 (Chart I-13). Meaning that the bulk of the increase in global real estate prices is due to skyrocketing valuations. The culprit is the structural collapse in global bond yields – which, in turn, is due to persistently ultra-low policy interest rates combined with trillions of dollars of quantitative easing. Chart I-13Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation This means that bond yields have very limited scope to rise before pulling the bottom out of the $300 trillion global real estate market. Given that this dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, it would constitute a massive deflationary backlash to the initial inflationary shock. Some people counter that in an inflationary shock, property – as the ultimate real asset – ought to perform well even as bond yields rise. However, when valuations start off in nosebleed territory as now, the initial intense headwind from deflating valuations would obliterate the tailwind from inflating incomes. Investment Conclusions To summarise, 2022 will be a year in which: Covid waves continue to disrupt the economy; a persistent shortfall in spending on services is not fully countered by excess spending on goods; China’s construction boom comes to an end; inflation takes time to cool, pressuring central banks to raise rates despite fragile demand; and the probability of another shock is an underestimated 30 percent. We reach the following investment conclusions: Overweight the China 30-year bond and the US 30-year T-bond. There will be no sustained rise in long-duration bond yields, and the risk to yields is to the downside. Long-duration equity sectors and stock markets that are least sensitive to cyclical demand will continue to rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits Overweight the US versus non-US. Underweight Emerging Markets. Underweight old-economy cyclical sectors such as banks, materials, and industrials. Commodities will struggle. Underweight commodities that haven’t corrected versus those that have (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Overweight the US dollar versus commodity currencies. Cryptocurrencies will continue their structural uptrend at the expense of gold. Goods Versus Services Is Technically Stretched Finally, this week’s fractal analysis corroborates the massive displacement from services spending into goods spending, highlighted by the spectacular outperformance of personal goods versus consumer services. This outperformance is now at the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has signalled previous reversals (Chart I-16). Therefore, a good trade would be to short personal goods versus consumer services, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12.5 percent. Chart I-16Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. 2 Based on Savills Prime Index: World Cities – Capital Values, and World Cities – Rents and Yields, June 2011 through June 2021. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Indian stocks need more time to digest and consolidate the significant gains from earlier this year. However, the country’s medium and long-term growth outlook remains positive. Indian firms’ profit margins will likely settle at a higher level than usual. That will also put a floor on its equity multiples. With an imminent topline recovery, the main driver of Indian stocks next year will be profits, in contrast with multiple expansions during the last year and a half. India is beginning a cyclical expansion with a cheap rupee. Stay neutral Indian stocks in an EM equity basket for now. Investors should overweight India in an EM domestic bond portfolio. Feature Chart 1Indian Stocks Are Overbought We tactically downgraded Indian stocks from overweight to neutral in EM and emerging Asian equity portfolios in early October this year. This call has worked out well so far as India’s absolute and relative share prices seem to have peaked. The primary reason for our tactical “neutral” call on Indian equities was this market’s vertical rise earlier this year, both in absolute and relative terms. Similar spikes – in terms of magnitude and duration back in 2007 and in 2014 – were followed by a period of underperformance (Chart 1). Yet, we recommended downgrading to only a neutral allocation. The reason is that the country’s cyclical outlook remains constructive, and the profit expansion cycle has further to run. That forbade us from turning too bearish on this bourse. A neutral stance on India also makes sense for the next several months as this bourse digests and consolidates its previous gains. In this report, we detail the various nuances of our analysis. Meanwhile, the Indian currency is cheap versus the greenback and will likely be one of the best performing currencies in the EM world over the next year. A positive currency outlook also makes Indian government bonds attractive for foreign investors, as Indian bonds also offer a high yield amid a benign domestic inflation backdrop. Dedicated EM domestic bond portfolios should stay overweight India. Equity Multiple Compression Ahead? Chart 2India's Profit Margin Expansion Has Led To Its Equity Re-Rating An upshot to the steep equity rally earlier this year has been India’s stretched valuations. That made many investors question the sustainability of the outperformance. A pertinent question, therefore, is how overvalued have Indian stocks become? And how much multiple compression can investors expect in this bourse? Before we answer this question, it’s useful to understand what drove the cyclical re-rating of Indian markets in the first place. The solid black line in Chart 2 shows the gross profit margins of all Indian listed non-financial firms. They have risen substantially since spring 2020 to reach decade-high levels. Margin expansions of this magnitude are indicative of material efficiency gains; and are usually rewarded with an equity re-rating. This is indeed what happened since spring 2020: stock multiples rose following the expanding margins. The same can be said if we only consider the major non-financial corporations’ EBITDA margins (Chart 2, bottom panel). If one looks at the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE) instead, we see a very similar thing: the CAPE ratio has also risen in line with rising profit margins (Chart 3). Chart 3Profit Margins Have A Bearing On Equity Valuations Charts 2 and 3 show that the positive correlations between profit margins and stock multiples held steady over past several cycles. Hence, it will be reasonable to expect that should Indian firms hold on to wide margins, they will not suffer a significant de-rating going forward. Can Margins Stay Wide? Chart 4Indian Firms' Borrowing Costs Will Likely Stay Low Before we delve into the question of whether margins can stay wide, we need to understand what caused such a margin expansion in the first place. That cause is cost cutting: wage bills have gone down as businesses slashed employees. Data from Oxford economics show that there had been 9% fewer workers in India as of September 2021 compared to March 2020, just before the pandemic. Interest expense has also gone down – both relative to sales and profits (Chart 4) – as interest rates were cut aggressively. In our view, the latest rollover in profit margins will likely be temporary and limited. It is probably due to hiring back of some employees. Beyond a near-term limited drop in margins, the more relevant question to ask is, can Indian corporations maintain high margins? Our bias is that, to a large extent, they can. The main reason is that firms’ costs are slated to stay under control: Chart 5Indian Companies Do Not Face Any Wage Pressures Wage expectations are low. Going forward, as millions of new job seekers and workers temporarily discouraged by the pandemic enter the job market, wages have little chance of much of an increase. The top panel of Chart 5 shows salary expectations from an industrial survey by RBI. Both the assessment for the current quarter and expectations for the next quarter have been a net negative for a while. Rural wages are also similarly timid (Chart 5, bottom panel). Notably, companies’ hiring back of employees is slow. It seems they prefer to substitute labor by capital by investing in new machines and equipment. This will boost productivity and cap wages. Overall, high productivity growth will keep companies’ profit margins wide and excess labor will suppress wages. Higher margins and low inflation are bullish for the stock market. Critically, headline inflation is within the central bank target bands, and our model shows that it will likely remain as such (Chart 6, top panel). Core inflation is also likely to stay flattish (Chart 6, bottom panel). This means the odds are that the central bank will not raise rates anytime soon. Flattish inflation and policy rates mean firms’ borrowing costs, in both nominal and real terms, are slated to stay approximately as low as they are now. Low real borrowing costs are usually a tailwind for stocks (Chart 7). Chart 7Low Borrowing Costs Are Bullish For Stocks All put together, Indian companies will likely see their costs largely under control. That, in turn, should keep profit margins wider than usual. Wide profit margins should limit multiple compression. Can The Topline Rise Further? Wider margins will boost total profits if and once the topline (revenues) recovers. So, the next question is, how much topline recovery is in the cards? Chart 8Indian Economy Is In A Rapid Expansion Mode There are already signs that sales will likely accelerate in the months to come: PMI indexes for both the manufacturing and services sectors have recovered strongly since the Delta variant-induced lockdowns in spring. They are now hovering around a very high level of close to 60. This indicates that the economy is in a rapid expansion mode (Chart 8). The Industrial Outlook survey (conducted by the RBI) shows that the order books for the September quarter was already at a decade-high level. The expectation for the next few quarters is even more elevated – indicating strong momentum (Chart 9, top panel). In other surveys, such as the PMI and Business Expectation survey (from Dun & Bradstreet), we see similar strong order books (Chart 9, bottom panel). While orders are strong, inventory of finished goods is low. Not surprisingly, businesses are expecting very high-capacity utilization in the next few quarters (Chart 10, top two panels). Chart 9Firms' Order Books Are Quite Robust Chart 10Low Inventories Mean Stronger Economic Activity Ahead They are expecting to hire more people. Companies also believe consumer demand will revive which will enable wider profit margins. In sum, firms are optimistic about accelerating economic activity (Chart 10, bottom two panels). Chart 11A Positive Bank Credit Impulse Is Bullish For Industrial Activity This, in turn, is encouraging them to make capital investments. Finally, the commercial banks’ credit impulse has also turned positive. Rising bank credit impulses usually signal stronger industrial production (Chart 11). To summarize, chances are that firms’ top lines are set to rise materially. Coupled with high margins, this will translate into strong profit acceleration in the next several quarters. Put differently, over the past year and a half, Indian firms witnessed rising margins. Going forward, they will likely see rising profits. Higher profits, in turn, will propel Indian share prices cyclically beyond any short-term consolidation. A Sustainable Expansion? In a notable departure from most developed countries, India’s recovery from the pandemic-induced recession has been more capex-led, rather than consumption-led (Chart 12). One reason for that is the Indian government did not supplement the lost household incomes during the lockdowns nearly as much as developed countries did. That, in turn, kept household demand low. And it also contributed to keeping inflation in check – even though India’s supply side was also paralyzed due to strict lockdown measures. On the other hand, firms’ profits soared owing to rigorous cost-cutting. Higher profits in turn have encouraged firms to expand their production capacity. Companies are ramping up capital spending as they expect sales to accelerate in the future (Chart 13). Chart 12A Capex-Led Recovery Will Prolong The Economic Expansion Chart 13Strong Profits Are Encouraging Firms To Ramp Up Capital Spending Notably, the combination of curtailed household demand and robust capital expenditure has set India’s inflation dynamics apart from many other countries in Latin America and EMEA. While India’s inflation remains largely contained, countries in those regions are witnessing accelerating inflation. Also, over a cyclical horizon, a capex-led expansion is very crucial for India as this will determine the duration and magnitude of the cycle. Strong investment expenditures do not only boost firms’ competitiveness and profitability, but they also help keep inflationary pressures at bay. Lower inflation for a longer period means the central bank need not raise rates as soon and/or as much as otherwise would be the case. That in turn allows the economic and profit expansion to continue for longer. An extended period of expansion is also positive for multiples as investors extrapolate profit growth over many years ahead. India’s current dynamics are a case in point. Given the country is facing no imminent interest rate hikes, stock multiples can stay higher for longer. This is because multiple de-rating commences only after meaningful rate hikes have already been accorded (Chart 14). Since that is quite far off, valuations are not facing any immediate and considerable headwinds. Finally, India is beginning the new cycle with a rather inexpensive currency. Chart 15 shows that the rupee is currently cheaper by about 10% than what would be its “fair value” vis-à-vis the US dollar. The fair value has been derived from a regression analysis of the exchange rate on the relative manufacturing producer prices of India and the US. Chart 14It Takes Several Rate Hikes Before It Hurts Stock Multiples Chart 15India's Cyclical Expansion Has A Tailwind From Cheap Currency Investment Conclusions Equities: Given the vertical rise earlier this year, Indian stocks would likely need a few more months to digest previous gains and consolidate. Hence, even though the country’s cyclical outlook remains constructive, we recommend that dedicated EM and Asian equity portfolios stay neutral on this market for now. Absolute return investors should stay on the sidelines and wait for a better entry point. Currency and Bonds: The rupee is cheap and could be one of the best performers within the EM world over a cyclical horizon. Indian government bonds also offer a good value with a rather high yield (6.4% for 10-year securities) amid a benign inflation outlook. A positive rupee outlook also makes Indian bonds more appealing for foreign investors. Investors should stay overweight India in an EM local currency bond portfolio. Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Footnotes
Highlights Omicron vs. The Fed: The new COVID variant has thrown a growth scare into markets, but the bigger concern is the Fed belated playing catch up to high inflation and low unemployment. Fade the Omicron bond rally, and position for higher US Treasury yields over the next year with the Fed threatening to taper faster, and potentially hike sooner, than markets expect. New Zealand: Underlying growth and inflation fundamentals, soaring house prices, and the central bank’s historical reaction function indicate that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will lift the cash rate to 2% by the end of 2022. However, markets are already priced for this, leaving little room for New Zealand debt to continue underperforming on a relative basis. We are upgrading New Zealand sovereigns to neutral and initiating a long NZ/short US 10-year spread trade. A Year-End Bout Of Uncertainty Chart of the WeekMarkets Have Been Worried About The Fed Since September Over the past two weeks, we have published Special Reports and thus have not had an opportunity to comment on market moves and news. Needless to say, it has been an eventful period! The emergence of the new Omicron variant, and the hawkish shift in the Fed’s guidance on future policy moves, have injected fresh uncertainty and volatility into global financial markets. Since the existence of Omicron was revealed to the world on Nov 26, 30-year US Treasury yields have fallen by as much as -23bps and the S&P 500 index has been down by as much as -4.4%. Yet the evolving Fed stance, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell hinting last week that the end of tapering and start of rate hikes could begin sooner than expected next year, is having a more lasting influence on risk asset performance. Dating back to the September 23 FOMC meeting, when the Fed first signaled an imminent tapering of bond purchases and pulled forward the timing of liftoff into 2022, the 2-year US Treasury yield has gone up from 0.22% to 0.63%. Importantly, there has been little pullback on the pricing at the front-end of the US Treasury curve due to the Omicron shock. That pre-September-FOMC low in the 2-year Treasury yield also marked the peak in riskier fixed income market performance for 2021, with the Bloomberg Global High-Yield and Emerging Market USD-Denominated Sovereign total return indices down -2.0% and -1.8%, respectively, since Sept 23 (Chart of the Week). Other risk assets also appear to be responding more to news about the Fed than Omicron. Equity markets stopped climbing since the Fed announced the first taper of bond purchases at the November 3 FOMC meeting – three weeks before the world knew of Omicron - which also coincided with troughs in the VIX index and corporate credit spreads, not only in the US but in Europe and emerging markets as well (Chart 2). Of course, it is difficult to disentangle which is having a greater impact, the variant or the Fed, when details on both are evolving at the same time. Omicron Investors are understandably right to be nervous about a new COVID variant that can reportedly evade existing vaccines and even infect those who have had COVID previously. The whole idea of “putting COVID in the rearview mirror’ that has helped fuel booming equity and credit markets was predicated on vaccines being both effective and widely available. However, when investors see COVID case numbers start to pick up in the US and Europe, with vaccination rates twice that of South Africa where Omicron was first detected (Chart 3), this raises concern about a return to pre-vaccine economic restrictions and uncertainty. Chart 2A Typical Risk-Off Response To The Emergence Of Omicron Chart 3Omicron Putting A Dent In Vaccine Optimism The “Omicron effect” on fixed income markets has been most evident in the repricing of interest rate expectations. Since the presence of Omicron was revealed on November 26, there has been a reduction in the cumulative amount of tightening discounted to the end of 2024 in the overnight index swap (OIS) curves of the major developed economies (Table 1). The moves were most evident in the US (32bps of hikes priced out), Canada (37bps) and Australia (37bps). Table 1Pricing Out Some Rate Hikes Because Of Omicron Much is still unknown about the dangers of the Omicron variant. The admittedly very early data out of South Africa, however, indicates that there has not been a major surge in hospitalizations related to Omicron cases. A new COVID strain that proves to be more virulent, but that does not strain health care systems, should help allay investor concerns over a major economic hit from Omicron. This presents an opportunity to put on positions that will profit from a rebound in global bond yields led by higher US Treasury yields. The Fed The Omicron threat to date has not been enough to move the Fed off its plans to rein in the monetary accommodation put in place in 2020 to fight the pandemic. If Omicron is to have any impact on the US economy, it will do so at a time when the economy continues to grow well above trend. The November reading on the ISM Manufacturing survey showed strength in the overall index, with a stabilization of the New Orders/Inventory ratio that leads overall growth, and only a very modest reduction in the still-elevated Prices Paid and Supplier Deliveries indices (Chart 4). The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is suggesting that US real GDP growth could come in at a whopping 9.7% in Q4. As further evidence that the US economy is growing at a pace well above trend, just look to labor market data. New US jobless claims are at the lowest level since 1969. The November US Payrolls report showed that the headline unemployment rate fell 0.4 percentage points on the month to 4.2% - within the range of full employment estimates of the FOMC - even with actual job growth falling short of consensus forecasts (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Nothing Bond-Bullish In US Manufacturing The improving health of the labor market is being felt more broadly, with big declines seen in unemployment rates for minorities and less-educated Americans (second panel). That point is of critical importance to the Powell Fed that has emphasized reducing racial and educational gaps in US unemployment as part of reaching its goal of “maximum employment”. Chart 5Nothing Bond-Bullish In US Labor Markets Tightening labor markets are also evident in accelerating wage momentum. Excluding the 2020 spike driven by labor force compositional effects related to COVID lockdowns, the year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings reached a 39-year high of 5.9% in November (third panel). The Fed now seems willing to finally confront high US inflation and strong economic growth with some tightening of monetary policy. Chart 6A Near-Term Break From Supply-Fueled Inflation? Powell caused some investor agita last week when he indicated that the taper could end before mid-2022, the previous FOMC guidance, which would open the door for rate hikes. We see Powell’s comments as less about signaling an intensifying hawkishness and more about giving the Fed optionality on when to start lifting rates next year in the event the US economy continues to overheat. The Fed strongly believes that tapering must end before rate hikes can begin, so a more accelerated taper allows for an earlier liftoff date, if necessary. To that end, the supply fueled surge in inflation this year, which has lingered for far longer than the Fed anticipated, may be showing some signs of easing. Several indices of global shipping container prices are off the highs, while there is a reduced backlog of container ships off key US ports like Los Angeles. Overall commodity price momentum has peaked, in line with slower, but still strong, global industrial activity (Chart 6). An easing of supply-driven price pressures would be welcome by the FOMC. It would allow time to evaluate both the Omicron threat and evolving US labor market dynamics, instead of being forced to fight a rearguard action against accelerating inflation. However, a shift away from goods/commodity inflation to more domestically driven inflation would not lessen the need for the Fed to begin lifting rates next year – in fact, it could even strengthen the case for the Fed to hike rates faster, and by more, than currently discounted in markets. Importantly, forward looking indicators are still pointing to solid US growth next year (Chart 7): The Conference Board’s leading economic indicator continues to grow at a pace signaling above-trend growth US financial conditions remain highly accommodative even with the recent market turbulence The New York Fed’s yield curve based recession probability model is indicating that the spread between the 10-year US Treasury yield and the 3-month US Treasury bill rate, currently 138bps, is consistent with only a 9% chance of a US recession over the next year (bottom panel) We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance within US fixed income portfolios, with a yield target on the 10-year benchmark US Treasury yield of 2-2.25% to be reached by the end of 2022. We also continue to recommend positioning in Treasury curve steepening trades. This is admittedly a counter-intuitive suggestion given that the Fed is moving towards a rate hiking cycle, but we see too much flattening priced into the Treasury forward curve over the next year (Chart 8). Chart 7A Positive Message From US Leading Growth Indicators Chart 8Our Favorite Bearish US Rates Trades For global bond investors, our favorite trade that will benefit from higher US bond yields next year is to position for a wider 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread (bottom panel). We expect the ECB to avoid any rate increases until at least mid-2023, well after the Fed has begun to tighten. Forward curves in the US and Germany currently discount a relatively stable Treasury-Bund spread in 2022, thus there is no negative carry incurred by positioning for a wider spread. Bottom Line: Omicron has thrown a growth scare into markets, but the bigger concern is that the Fed is belated starting to play catch up to high inflation and low unemployment. Fade the Omicron bond rally, and position for higher US Treasury yields over the next year. New Zealand: How Much Further Can The Bond Selloff Go? Chart 9NZ Sovereign Underperformance Has Been Driven By RBNZ Hawkishness Over the past year, New Zealand bonds have sold off much faster than developed market peers (Chart 9). Markets correctly recognized the Reserve Bank Of New Zealand (RBNZ) as a central bank that would move more aggressively to tamp down on inflation and manage the financial stability and political risks arising from soaring house prices. The RBNZ has already delivered back-to-back hikes at its October and November meetings, after its plans to hike at the August meeting were thrown off by the Delta variant. Markets are now pricing in a further 172bps of tightening over the coming year, having largely faded any downside growth risk from the Omicron variant. Expectations of continued tightening have been buoyed by the response of New Zealand policymakers, who are largely looking past the Omicron variant. Restrictions have already begun to ease, with the country having entered its “Traffic Light” COVID-19 Protection Framework. The new variant is also unlikely to affect the RBNZ’s tightening path, with Chief Economist Yuong Ha stating that, given the lifting of restrictions, the RBNZ would have raised rates even if Omicron had become known before its November 24 meeting. Given the bond-bearish backdrop, New Zealand government bonds have underperformed substantially this year. On a relative hedged and duration-matched basis, New Zealand sovereigns have underperformed by -6.6% year-to-date with -4.0 percentage points of that underperformance coming after July 21 when we formally moved to an underweight stance on New Zealand debt within global government bond portfolios (Chart 9, bottom panel). However, with monetary policy entering a new phase, led by an increasingly hawkish Fed, we believe it is appropriate to re-assess our New Zealand call and judge whether this underperformance can continue into 2022. The growth picture is broadly supportive of the RBNZ’s stated policy path. Real GDP as of Q2 was above its pre-Covid trend and 2.6% over the RBNZ’s own estimate of potential GDP, supported by an easing of travel restrictions and strong consumer spending (Chart 10). On a forward-looking basis, however, the risk is now that the economy is running too hot, jeopardizing future growth. Consumer and business sentiment has been worsening as inflation expectations soar, with consumers fearing a hit to purchasing power and businesses concerned about the impact of rising input costs on profit margins. Household and business inflation fears also have a strong basis in the realized inflation data, which has soared to a 10-year high of 4.9% (Chart 11). More troublingly, underlying inflation measures such as the trimmed mean and core (excluding food and energy) are now at series highs of 4.8% and 4%, respectively, indicating that higher inflation could prove to be sticky. The RBNZ now sees headline inflation peaking at 5.7% in Q1/2022 before settling to 2% by the end of its forecast horizon in 2024. Chart 10The NZ Economy Is Overheating Chart 11The RBNZ Will Welcome A Slight Growth Slowdown The RBNZ clearly attributes higher inflation to an economy running above longer-term capacity rather than short-term supply factors. The Bank’s measure of the output gap is now at the most positive level since 2007, and survey measures of capacity utilization remain elevated. In contrast to the Fed, which is still nominally focused on maximum employment, the RBNZ actually believes that employment is above its maximum sustainable level, and sees a rising unemployment rate as necessary to ease capacity constraints. Given that the RBNZ is clearly comfortable with, and will likely welcome, a gradual rise in unemployment, it will take much more than a slight growth shock to deter the RBNZ from its tightening path. Chart 12Higher Rates Necessary To Stabilize The NZ Housing Market The newest, and most politically potent, part of the RBNZ’s remit—house prices – has further supported a bias to tighten monetary policy. However, while still dramatically elevated, house price growth looks to have peaked (Chart 12). The central bank’s hawkish shift earlier in the year has made a clear impact, with house price growth peaking shortly after mortgage rates started picking up in April of this year. Overall household mortgage credit has also begun to decelerate, indicating that the passthrough from monetary policy to credit demand and housing via the mortgage rate is working as intended. However, there is likely further to go. The last time house price growth was somewhat stable around 6.6% in the 2012-2019 period, benchmark 5-year mortgage rates averaged 6.1%. Assuming the spread between the 5-year mortgage and policy rates remains around 4%, history indicates that we would need to see the policy rate rise to at least 2% to cool down the housing market. That 2% level is also the RBNZ’s mean estimate of a “neutral” cash rate—a level at which policy would be neither accommodative nor restrictive (Chart 13). Current market pricing is quite consistent with the RBNZ’s own projected path of rates as of the November meeting—both of which are set to exceed the neutral rate by the end of 2022. Historical experience from the pre-crisis period indicates that this is not uncommon, and that a bout of restrictive policy might be needed to cool down an overheating economy. Indeed, if the RBNZ’s historical reaction to inflation is any guide, it seems likely that policymakers will want to push rates above inflation. The top two panels of Chart 14 show how anomalous deeply negative real policy rates are in New Zealand. Even if we make the case that developed market real rates are in a structural downtrend, as realized real rates have peaked out at successively lower levels with each tightening cycle, the current gap between the cash rate and core inflation seems obviously unsustainable and requires a tightening of policy. Chart 14NZ Real Rates Are Too Low Chart 15Go Long The 10-Year NZ Government Bond/US Treasury Spread Another way to think about where policy rates are in relation to a “neutral” level is to look at the yield curve (Chart 14, bottom panel). Typically, the yield curve inverts when markets judge that monetary policy is too restrictive and that short rates are too high relative to a long-run average. However, the New Zealand government bond curve has historically remained inverted for extended periods of time, troughing at around -100bps. This again indicates that the RBNZ is comfortable raising rates above neutral and keeping policy restrictive when needed. Putting together the four factors we have looked at—growth, inflation, asset prices, and the RBNZ’s reaction function—it looks likely that the RBNZ will continue along the tightening path it has set out and chances of any dovish surprise seem slim. At the same time, markets are priced to perfection in terms of the pace and amount of tightening discounted. For New Zealand sovereigns to continue underperforming, however, we will need to see markets price in, on the margin, even more tightening from the RBNZ relative to its peers. With the Fed and other central banks having become more focused on responding to US inflation dynamics, bond-bearish upside shocks to market rate expectations will increasingly come from outside New Zealand. At the same time, in the event of a negative global growth shock, perhaps relating to COVID-19, there is relatively more room for hikes to be priced out in New Zealand. Given our view that bond and rates markets have appropriately priced in the extent of the RBNZ’s likely tightening cycle, we are upgrading New Zealand sovereign debt to neutral, taking profits on our current underweight stance. While we do not include New Zealand debt in our model bond portfolio, we are expressing our view via a new tactical cross-country spread trade: long New Zealand 10-Year government bonds vs. US 10-Year Treasuries (Chart 15). Forwards are currently pricing in a flat spread between the two countries, meaning that any future spread tightening will put our trade in the black. Given that there is more space for markets to price in increased hawkishness from the Fed, we believe that spread compression is likely. We are implementing this trade by going long New Zealand cash bonds and shorting 10-year US Treasury futures. Details can be found on Page 18. Bottom Line: Underlying growth and inflation fundamentals, soaring house prices, and the central bank’s historical reaction function indicate that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will lift the cash rate to 2% by the end of 2022. However, markets are already priced for this, leaving little room for New Zealand debt to continue underperforming on a relative basis. We are upgrading New Zealand sovereigns to neutral and initiating a long NZ/short US 10-year spread trade. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades
The RBA kept monetary policy unchanged at its Tuesday meeting. Governor Philip Lowe sounded cautiously optimistic in his policy statement. He noted that the Australian economy is on track towards recovery following the Delta-induced setback and that although…
Highlights Chart 1Curve Flattening Is Overdone Fed Chair Jay Powell made big news last month. During Senate testimony, Powell not only signaled that the Fed is likely to accelerate the pace of asset purchase tapering when it meets in December, he also suggested that the Fed won’t necessarily wait until “maximum employment” is achieved before lifting rates. Powell’s comments suggest that the first Fed rate hike could come as early as June 2022 and as late as December 2022, and the exact timing will depend on how inflation and inflation expectations move during the next few months. The front-end of the Treasury curve is fairly priced for either scenario. The 2-year Treasury yield is currently 0.60%. If we assume that the Fed eventually lifts rates at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a 2.08% terminal rate, we calculate a fair value range for the 2-year yield of 0.39% to 0.74%, depending on whether Fed liftoff occurs in June or December. In contrast, the same assumptions give us a fair value range of 1.69% to 1.79% for the 10-year Treasury yield, well above its current level of 1.40% (Chart 1). The investment implications are clear. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and put on Treasury curve steepeners, overweight the 2-year note and underweight the 10-year. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 89 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +102 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 12 bps on the month and our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread is now at its 7th percentile since 1995. This indicates that valuations remain stretched even after the recent widening (Chart 2). The back-up in spreads was driven by the combination of the Fed’s shift toward a more hawkish policy stance and concerns about the new omicron COVID variant. This led to a large flattening of the yield curve in addition to wider corporate bond spreads. The slope of the yield curve is a critical indicator for our corporate bond call. We are very comfortable owning corporate bonds when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps, but our work suggests that returns to credit risk take a significant step down once the slope flattens into a range of 0 – 50 bps.1 The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope currently sits at 49 bps, just below our 50 bps threshold. However, our range of fair value estimates suggests that the 3/10 slope should be between 63 bps and 86 bps today, and that it should only break below 50 bps between March and September of next year (bottom panel). All in all, we expect the pace of Treasury curve flattening to abate during the next couple of months and this will allow spreads to tighten back to their recent lows. We will turn more cyclically defensive on corporate bonds next year when the break below 50 bps in the 3/10 slope is confirmed by our fair value readings. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 121 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +444 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 50 bps on the month, leading to a significant rise in the spread-implied default rate. The spread-implied default rate is the 12-month default rate that is priced into the junk index, assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps. At present, the spread-implied default rate sits at 3.8% (Chart 3). For context, defaults have come in at an annualized rate of 1.6% so far this year and we showed in a recent report that corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape.2 Specifically, the ratio of total debt to net worth for the nonfinancial corporate sector has fallen to 41%, the lowest ratio since 2010 (bottom panel). We conclude that the default rate will be comfortably below 3.8% during the next 12 months, allowing high-yield bonds to outperform duration-matched Treasuries. We recommend that investors favor high-yield over investment grade corporate bonds, and we expect that last month’s spread widening will reverse in relatively short order. However, as noted on page 3, we will turn more defensive on credit risk (including high-yield bonds) next year once we are confident that the 3/10 Treasury curve has sustainably moved into a flatter regime (0 – 50 bps). MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 46 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -90 bps. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS widened 13 bps on the month, driven by an 11 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread and a 2 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in last week’s report that MBS’ recent poor performance is attributable to an option cost that is too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index has been slow to fall this year despite the back-up in yields.3 The robust pace of home price appreciation has been an important factor boosting refis, as homeowners have been increasingly incentivized to tap the equity in their homes. With no indication that cash-out refi activity is about to slow, we expect refi activity will remain sticky going forward. This will put upward pressure on MBS spreads. We recommend adopting an up-in-coupon bias within an overall underweight allocation to MBS. Higher coupon MBS exhibit more attractive option-adjusted spreads and higher convexity than lower coupon MBS. This makes high-coupon MBS (4%, 4.5%) more likely to outperform low-coupon MBS (2%, 2.5%, 3%) in an environment where bond yields are flat or rising (bottom panel). Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-neutral Treasury index by 35 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +33 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 157 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -220 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 9 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. Local Authority bonds underperformed by 16 bps in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +406 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +18 bps. The investment grade Emerging Market Sovereign bond index outperformed the equivalent-duration US corporate bond index by 42 bps in November. The Emerging Market Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 16 bps (Chart 5). Both EM indexes continue to offer significant yield advantages versus US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We continue to recommend overweighting USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates versus investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration.4 Within EM sovereigns, attractive countries include: Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Municipal Bonds: Maximum Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +371 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will support state & local government coffers for some time. A recent report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuation.5 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 12-17 year maturity Revenue Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 14% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 22% versus corporates (panel 2). High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive compared to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve flattened dramatically in November. Increasingly hawkish rhetoric from the Fed pushed front-end yields higher as news about the omicron COVID strain pressured long-dated yields lower. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 16 bps on the month, it currently sits at 75 bps. The 5-year/30-year Treasury slope flattened 11 bps on the month, it currently sits at 56 bps. As noted on the front page, long-dated Treasury yields have fallen to well below levels consistent with a reasonable Fed rate hike cycle. This drop in long-maturity yields has pushed the 2/5/10 butterfly spread to extremely high levels, both in absolute terms and relative to our model’s fair value (Chart 7). This signals that 2/10 yield curve steepeners are incredibly cheap. Indeed, we observe that the 2/10 slope has already flattened to below the levels that were witnessed on the last two Fed liftoff dates in 2015 and 2004 (panel 4). A trade long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell does indeed look attractive in this environment. However, we note that the 2/5 Treasury slope has also flattened to below levels seen on the prior two Fed liftoff dates (bottom panel). In other words, the 2/5 slope also has room to steepen during the next 6-12 months, and we prefer to focus our long positions on the 2-year Treasury note rather than the 5-year. This leads us to recommend a position long the 2-year note and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. We also advise investors to own a position long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. This latter position offers a very attractive duration-neutral yield advantage of 24 bps. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS performed in line with the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index in November, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at +739 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps on the month while the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 17 bps. The 10-year and 2-year rates currently sit at 2.44% and 3.24%, respectively. The Fed’s preferred 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month. It currently sits at 2.16%, below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Our valuation indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are slightly expensive compared to 10-year nominal Treasuries (Chart 8), and we retain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the long-end of the curve. We acknowledge the risk that a prolonged period of high inflation could lead to a break-out in long-dated TIPS breakevens, but this now looks less likely given the Fed’s increasing hawkishness. We see better trading opportunities at the front-end of the TIPS curve, where the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s target range (panel 4). Short-maturity breakevens are more sensitive to swings in CPI than those at the long-end. Therefore, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has considerable downside during the next 6-12 months, assuming inflation moderates as we expect it will. We recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the front-end of the curve. Given our view that CPI inflation will be lower in 6-12 months, we recommend shorting 2-year TIPS outright, positioning in 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners (bottom panel) and 2/10 TIPS (real) yield curve flatteners. All three trades will profit from falling short-maturity inflation expectations. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +26 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 11 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +13 bps. Non-Aaa ABS performed in line with Treasuries in November, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at +93 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). The result is that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS is exceptionally high. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +155 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 30 bps in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +63 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 70 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +469 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong this year and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +58 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 9 bps on the month. It currently sits at 40 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of -62 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 62 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of November 30th, 2021) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of November 30th, 2021) Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021.
The PBoC’s decision to cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 bps is unlikely to be a game changer for the Chinese economy. The more important drivers of China’s business cycle and financial markets are credit growth and investment. Both these variables…
Highlights Economy: Chair Powell retired the term “transitory” last week, signaling that the Fed may take a harder line on inflation in the coming year: The Fed coined the transitory term to describe the current inflation backdrop, and publicly throwing in the towel on the idea allows the FOMC to open the door to a more hawkish approach in 2022. Markets: Financial markets continued their post-Thanksgiving gyrations, but the Omicron variant was a more meaningful driver than Fedspeak: Powell’s hints simply brought the Fed’s liftoff date closer to the markets' estimate. Omicron was the main force behind the fall in interest rates, as evidenced by the swoon in oil and pandemic-exposed equities. Strategy: Don’t fight the crowd in the near term, but position for a higher-than-expected terminal rate down the road: We expect rates will remain well behaved in 2022, but we do not share the seeming market conviction that rates will be permanently lower. Feature A US investor who called it a week the day before Thanksgiving may think twice about leaving his/her desk for even a day going forward. Stocks and other risk assets were hammered in the abbreviated Black Friday session on concerns about Omicron, COVID’s latest variant. The S&P 500 recovered much of its losses last Monday, only to be jolted again on Tuesday, as Fed Chair Powell testified before a Senate committee. Stocks duly surged on Wednesday, leaving the S&P off just over 1% from its pre-Thanksgiving close, until news that the Omicron variant had been discovered in California sparked a sharp intra-day reversal. They then came back very strong on Thursday – lather, rinse, repeat. The action was a reminder that volatility often picks up as a perceived inflection point nears. The VIX, which measures implied volatility on S&P 500 index options, spent the week ensconced above the 20 level that has mostly contained it since the financial crisis faded and effective COVID vaccines became widely available (Chart 1). Despite the recent gyrations, our base-case cyclical outlook, as described in last week’s report, remains in place. We expect US growth will come in well above trend for this quarter and all of 2022, monetary policy settings will likely remain easy for another two years, and the accumulated monetary and fiscal stimulus that’s already been injected into the economy will keep the expansion going at least through 2023. Chart 1An Eventful Stretch What The Chair Said Fed Chair Powell testified before the Senate and the House Tuesday and Wednesday last week, respectively. His comments on the pace of tapering, the economy’s progress in meeting the Fed’s inflation criteria for hiking rates, the way inflation might thwart employment gains and the word "transitory" captured the attention of investors and the financial media. On tapering: “At this point, the economy is very strong, and inflationary pressures are high. It is therefore appropriate in my view to consider wrapping up the taper of our asset purchases, which we … announced at our November meeting, perhaps a few months sooner.” On the inflation criteria for hiking rates: “The test that we’ve articulated clearly has been met [.] … Inflation has run well above 2% for long enough now [given recent data releases].” On inflation as a threat to full employment: “What I am taking on board is it is going to take longer to get labor force participation back. … That means to get back to the kind of great labor market we had before the pandemic, we’re going to need a long expansion. To get that we’re going to need price stability, and in a sense, the risk of persistent high inflation is also a major risk to getting back to such a labor market.” On “transitory” inflation: Though some people interpreted it as short-lived, we used “transitory” to “mean that it won’t leave a permanent mark in the form of higher inflation. I think it’s probably a good time to retire that word and try to explain more clearly what we mean.” How Powell’s Comments Might Shift Monetary Policy Table 1The Liftoff Checklist The taper timetable will be sped up. It seems clear that the FOMC will vote to accelerate the taper at its meeting ending December 15th. Given how carefully the Fed has telegraphed its asset purchase actions, Powell would not have raised the issue unless it were a done deal. Instead of ending in June upon the purchase of an additional $420 billion of Treasury and agency securities, as per the November FOMC meeting's guidance, this round of QE will end sometime sooner after buying somewhat less. While we do not think that the parameters of the taper matter all that much in themselves, Powell has stated that the FOMC will not begin hiking rates until it has stopped purchasing securities and accelerating the tapering pace will afford it the flexibility to bring the liftoff date forward if it so chooses. Chart 2Hikes May Not Wait For Full Employment The economic prerequisites for hiking rates are closer to being met. Our US Bond Strategy service has maintained a checklist of the three criteria the FOMC laid out as preconditions for hiking rates (Table 1). With consumer prices rising by more than the 2% target for several months, our bond colleagues checked the inflation boxes a while ago and noted that the full employment1 criterion would become the swing factor for rate hikes. Per the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections, it has been reasonable to assume that full employment would entail an unemployment rate at or below 4% (Chart 2, top panel), with the prime-age participation rate near its pre-pandemic level (Chart 2, middle panel), even if overall participation continues to lag (Chart 2, bottom panel). Powell’s Senate testimony indicated that the criterion has been relaxed, as his comments calling out too-high inflation as a threat to the labor market countered the Fed’s previously firm resolve to let the economy run hot until the economy achieved maximum employment. The bottom line is that Powell’s testimony has given the Fed some flexibility to raise rates sooner than the second half of next year if it sees fit. As Cleveland Fed president Loretta Mester, a 2022 FOMC voter, said after Powell wrapped up his appearances on Capitol Hill, “Making the taper faster is definitely buying insurance and optionality so that if inflation doesn’t move back down significantly next year we’re in a position to be able to hike if we have to. Right now, with the inflation data the way it is and with the job market as strong as it is, I do think we have to be in a position that if we need to raise rates a couple times next year, we’re able to do that.” The Fixed Income Market Reaction Chart 3What A Difference A Week Makes Ahead of Powell’s testimony, the overnight index swap curve took out almost an entire hike for the next twelve months, falling from 66 basis points ("bps") (two hikes and a 64% chance of a third) on Thanksgiving to 43 bps on Monday (one hike and a 72% chance of a second). The same went for the next twenty-four months, which fell from 140 bps to 117 bps, or five hikes and a 60% chance of a sixth to four hikes and a 68% chance of a fifth by Thanksgiving 2023. Rate hike odds regained some ground on Powell’s remarks, though the ultimate rebound was half-hearted – at press time, the probability of a third hike in the next twelve months stood at just 8% (Chart 3, top panel); only two hikes were priced in for the following twelve months, with an 80% chance of a third hike (Chart 3, middle panel); and the chances of getting the fed funds rate above 1.5% by November 2024 were judged to be slim (Chart 3, bottom panel). How can it be that a hawkish shift in Fed rhetoric would coincide with a decline in fed funds rate expectations? The bulk of the decline resulted from the emergence of the Omicron variant and the toll it might take on economic activity. If Omicron fears prove to be overstated, fed funds rate expectations likely will as well, but as we showed last week, market terminal rate expectations were in line with the FOMC’s guidance – they just foresaw a sooner liftoff date. Powell’s comments and the increased tapering pace suggest that the Fed’s expectations are moving closer to market expectations. The other aspect is the fact that markets were on board with the transitory inflation narrative. Sharply downward sloping inflation expectations curves indicated that fixed income markets agreed that high near-term inflation would not leave a lasting mark on longer-run inflation. Since Thanksgiving, the curves derived from TIPS (Chart 4) and CPI swap prices (Chart 5) have put a new spin on Operation Twist, with the front end shifting in while the back end has stood pat. Omicron aside, if retiring the transitory term means the Fed will be more vigilant about upward inflation pressures, it increases the probability they will turn out to be transitory, as the Fed will give them less of a chance to take root. Investment Implications In our view, adaptive expectations will keep long-end interest rates on a fairly tight leash over the next year. It seems that investors are unable to shake what they perceive to be the central lesson of the post-crisis era: rates will be permanently lower. That view rests on a conviction that inflation is kaput and the widely shared sense that the Fed can’t hike rates beyond 2% because it would be: a) too disruptive for a fundamentally fragile economy, b) too disruptive for financial markets weaned on ZIRP, and/or c) too disruptive for a prodigally indebted federal government. We don’t think those views will hold up over the next few years – encouraging inflation would seem to be the easiest way to wriggle out from c) – but we do not advise challenging them head-on in the near term. We also push back – rhetorically for now – on the view that long maturity Treasury yields are low, and the yield curve has flattened, because the Fed is on track to make a policy mistake by unnecessarily tightening into a recession. Monetary policy affects the economy with long and variable lags – our rule of thumb is somewhere from six to twelve months – and if the neutral fed funds rate is north of 2% (an admittedly out-of-fashion view), it appears as if it will take at least two years to get there. Under our rule-of-thumb lag, then, the economy will be subject to a tailwind from monetary accommodation at least until the middle or end of 2024. Given the additional consumption support from households' remaining $2.2 trillion of pandemic excess savings, we are confident that a recession is not on the horizon. We are therefore staying the course, overweighting equities and high yield while underweighting Treasuries, and remaining vigilant for threats to our base-case macro backdrop of strong growth and easy monetary policy. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Full employment” is a somewhat ambiguous concept that turns on estimates of the natural slack that results from structural frictions in the labor market, like geographic and skills mismatches.
Highlights Our theme for the year, “No Return To Normalcy,” is largely vindicated. Inflation is back! The geopolitical method still points to three long-term strategic themes: multipolarity, hypo-globalization, and populism. All are inflationary in today’s context. Our three key views for 2021 produced two hits and one miss: China sold off, oil prices held up, but the euro fell hard. Our view on Iran is still in flux. COVID-19 proved more relevant for investors than we believed, though we took some risk off the table before the Delta and Omicron variants emerged. Our biggest miss was long Korea / short Taiwan equities. Our geopolitical forecast was spot on but our trade recommendation collapsed. Our biggest hit was long India / short China equities. China’s historic confluence of internal and external risk drove investors to India, the most promising strategic EM play. Feature Every year we conduct a review of the past year’s geopolitical forecasts and investment recommendations. The intention is to hold ourselves to account, prepare for our annual outlook, and improve our analytical framework. Our three key views for 2021 were: 1. China’s historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk = bearish view of Chinese equities; 2. The US pivot to Asia runs through Iran = neutral-to-bullish view of oil prices; 3. Europe wins the US election = bullish view of the euro and European equities. The first view on China was a direct hit. The second view is in flux. The third view was initially right but then turned sour. A crude way of assessing these views would be to look at equity performance relative to long-term trends: China sold off, the UAE rallied, and Europe sold off (Chart 1). Chart 1Three Key Views For 2021: Two Hits, One Miss This is not the whole story. We modified our views over the course of the year as new information came to light. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar, with negative implications for the euro. In June we adjusted our position on Europe overall, arguing that European political risk had bottomed and would rise going forward. In August we adjusted our position on Iran, warning of an imminent crisis due to the Biden administration’s refusal to lift sanctions and Iran’s pursuit of “breakout” uranium enrichment capacity. We stayed bearish on China throughout the year. Going forward, given that a near-term crisis is necessary to determine whether Iran will stay on a diplomatic track, we would short UAE or Saudi equities. We would expect oil to remain volatile given upside risks from geopolitics but downside risks from the new Omicron variant and China’s slowdown. China’s slowdown was also a controlling factor for the Europe view. The energy crisis and showdown with Russia can also get worse before they get better. So we prefer US assets for now and will revisit this issue in our annual strategic outlook due in the coming weeks. Before we get to the worst (and best) calls of the year, we have a few words on our analytical framework in the context of this year’s signal developments. The Geopolitical Method: Lessons From 2021 As with any method rooted in practice, the geopolitical method has many flaws. But it has the advantage of being systematic, empirical, probabilistic, and non-partisan. How do we check ourselves on the thorny problem of partisanship? First, geopolitics requires practicing empathetic analysis, i.e. striving to understand and empathize with the interests of each nation and nation-state when analyzing their behavior. For example: China: China’s ruling party believes it is necessary to have an all-powerful leader to deal with the urgent systemic risks facing the country. We refrain from criticizing single-party rule or China’s human rights record. But we do see compelling evidence that the Communist Party’s shift from consensus rule to personal rule will have a negative impact on governance and relations with the West.1 China obviously rejects foreign diplomatic and military support for Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a renegade province, and hence the odds of a war in the Taiwan Strait are high over the long run. Russia: Russia is threatening its neighbors on multiple fronts not because it is an evil empire but because of its insecurity in the face of the US and NATO, and particularly its opposition to western defense cooperation with Ukraine. Its unproductive domestic economy and vulnerability to social unrest are additional reasons to expect aggression abroad. Second, we take very seriously any complaints of bias we receive from clients. Such complaints are rare, which is encouraging. But we treat all feedback as an opportunity to improve. At the same time, the need to draw clean-cut investment conclusions for all clients will always override the political sensitivities of any subset of clients. Geopolitics is based in the idea that politics is rooted in structural forces like geography and demography, i.e. forces that limit or constrain individual actors and only change at a glacial pace. Geopolitical analysts focus on measurable and material factors rather than ever-changing opinions and ideas. It is impossible for investors today to ignore the global political environment, so the important thing is to analyze it in a cold and clinical manner. To combine this method with global macroeconomic and investment research, one must assess whether and to what extent financial markets have already priced any given policy outcome. The result will be a geopolitically informed macro conclusion, which should yield better decisions about conserving and growing wealth. This is the ideal for which we aim, even though we often fall short. Over the years our method has produced three primary strategic themes: Great Power struggle (multipolarity); hypo-globalization; and domestic populism (Table 1). Table 1Our Major Themes Point To Persistent Inflation Risk The macro impact of these themes will vary with events but in general they point toward a reflationary and inflationary context. They involve a larger role of government in society, new constraints on supply, demand-side stimulus, and budget indiscipline. Bottom Line: Nation-states are mobilizing, which means they will run up against resource constraints. A Return To Normalcy? Or Not? As the year draws to a close, our annual theme is vindicated: “No Return To Normalcy.” The term “normalcy” comes from President Warren G. Harding’s election campaign in 1920. It was an appeal to an American public that yearned to move on from World War I and the Spanish influenza pandemic. A hundred years later, in December 2020, the emergence of a vaccine for COVID-19 and the election of an orthodox American president (after the unorthodox President Trump) made it look as if 2021 would witness another such return to normalcy. We foresaw this narrative and rejected it. Primarily we rejected it on geopolitical grounds – global policy will not revert to the pre-Trump status quo. We also argued that the pandemic and the gargantuan fiscal relief designed to shield the economy would have lasting consequences. Specifically they would create a more inflationary context. Chart 2No Return To Normalcy In 2021 The most obvious sign that things have not returned to normal in 2021 is the “Misery Index,” the sum of unemployment and headline inflation. Misery Indexes skyrocketed during the crisis and today stand at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% in 2019, respectively (Chart 2). Unemployment rates are falling but inflation has surged to the highest levels since the 1990s. For investors to be concerned about inflation at the beginning of a new business cycle is unusual and requires explanation. It suggests that inflation will be a persistent problem going forward, as the unemployment rate falls beneath NAIRU and participation rates rise. While we expected inflation, we did not expect the political blowback to come so quickly. President Biden’s approval rating collapsed to 42.2% this fall. Approval of his handling of the economy fell even lower, to 39.6%, below President Trump’s rating at this stage. Consumer confidence has fallen by 15.1% since its post-election peak in June 2021. Republicans are automatically favored to win the House of Representatives in the 2022 midterm elections – but if the economy does not improve they will also win the Senate. Despite Biden’s unpopularity, we argued that his $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill and his $1.75 trillion partisan social spending bill would pass Congress. So far this view is on track, with infrastructure signed into law and the Senate looking to vote on the social bill in December (or January). These bills illustrate the strategic themes listed above: the US is reviving public investments in civil and military sectors, reducing global dependencies, and expanding its social safety net. However, large new government spending when the output gap is virtually closed will tend to be inflationary. Russia and China also have high or rising misery indexes, which underscores that political and geopolitical risks will rise rather than fall over the coming 12 months. Unemployment rates are not always reliable in authoritarian states, so the Misery Index is if anything overly optimistic regarding social and economic conditions. China is not immune to social unrest but Russia is particularly at risk. Quality of life and public trust in government have both deteriorated. Inflation will make it worse. Russians remember inflation bitterly from the ruble crisis of 1998. President Putin is already ratcheting up tensions with the West to distract from domestic woes. While we were positioned for higher inflation in 2021, we were too dismissive of the global pandemic. We expected vaccination campaigns to move faster, especially in the US, and we underrated the Delta variant as a driver of financial markets, at least relative to politics. A close look at Treasury yields, oil prices, and airline stocks shows that the evolution of the pandemic marked the key inflection points in the market this year (Chart 3). Chart 3COVID-19 Stayed Relevant In 2021 ... Now Omicron Variant Emerging Bottom Line: Tactically the market impact of the newly discovered Omicron variant of the virus should not be underrated. It is critical to find out if it is more harmful to younger people than Delta and other variants. Cyclically inflation will remain a persistent risk even if it abates somewhat in 2022. Worst Calls Of 2021 We now proceed to our main feature. As always we begin with the worst calls of the year: Chart 4Taiwan Rolled Over ... But Not Against Korea 1. Long Korea / Short Taiwan. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. US-China conflict is a secular trend and contains elements of all our major themes: Great Power struggle, hypo-globalization, and populism. Taiwan is the epicenter of this conflict and a war is likely over the long run. For 2021 we predicted a 5% chance of war but a 60% chance of a “fourth Taiwan Strait crisis,” i.e. a diplomatic crisis, and our contrarian short of Taiwanese equities was premised on this expectation. Investors are starting to respond to these self-evident geopolitical risks, judging by the TWD-USD exchange rate and the relative performance of Taiwanese equities, which have peaked and are lagging expectations based on global semiconductor stocks. But our choice of South Korean equities as the long end of the pair trade was very unfortunate and the trade is down by 22% (Chart 4). Korea is suffering from a long de-rating process in the face of China’s industrial slowdown and a downgrade to Korean tech sector earnings, as our Emerging Markets Strategy has highlighted. 2. Short CNY Versus USD And EUR. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. This year we argued that President Biden would be just as hawkish on China as President Trump and would not remove tariffs or export controls. We also argued that the SEC would punish US-listed China stocks and that bilateral relations would not improve despite a likely Biden-Xi summit. These views proved correct. But our neutral view on the dollar and bullish view on the euro betrayed us and the trade has lost 4% so far. The euro collapsed amid its domestic energy crisis and China’s import slowdown (Chart 5). China’s exports boomed while the People’s Bank kept the currency strong to fend off inflation. Chart 5China Tensions Sure, But Don't Fight The People's Bank Chart 6Value Surged Then Fell Back Against Growth Stocks 3. Long Value Versus Growth. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. We have long favored value over growth stocks, expecting that our strategic themes would lead to more muscular fiscal spending, government intervention in the economy, and a return of inflation. In 2021 we bet that rising inflation expectations and higher bond yields would favor value over growth. This was only one aspect of our larger pro-cyclical view that tech-heavy US equities would underperform their global peers and emerging markets would outpace developed markets. These expectations came true during the first part of the year when exuberance over the “reflation trade” led to a big pop in value (Chart 6). By the second quarter we had pared back our pro-cyclical leanings but we maintained value over growth, ultimately at a loss of 3.75%. The reality nowadays is that value is a byword for low quality, as our colleagues Juan Correa-Ossa and Lucas Laskey have shown. Growth stocks continue to provide investors with innovation and robust earnings amid a lingering pandemic. 4. Long Aerospace And Defense Stocks. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. We are perennially bullish on defense stocks given our strategic themes. We expected aerospace and defense stocks to recover as vaccines spread and travel revived. We successfully played the rebound in absolute terms. But the slow pace of vaccination and the emergence of the Delta variant dealt a blow to the sector relative to the broad market. And now comes Omicron. As for defense stocks specifically, investors are downplaying Great Power struggle and worried that government defense budgets will be flat or down. Significant saber-rattling is occurring as expected in the major hotspots – the Taiwan Strait, the Persian Gulf, and Russia’s periphery – but investors do not care about saber-rattling for the sake of saber-rattling. Geopolitical tensions went nowhere so far this year and hence defense stocks floundered relative to the broad market (Chart 7). Still we would be buyers at today’s cheap valuations as we see geopolitical risk rising on a secular basis and the odds of military action are non-negligible in all three of the hotspots just mentioned. 5. Long Safe Havens. Geopolitical view mixed, market view incorrect. Measured geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty collapsed over the second half of 2020. By early 2021 we expected it to revive on US-China, US-Russia, and US-Iran tensions. As such we expected safe-haven assets to catch a bid, especially having fallen as the global economy reopened. We stayed long gold (up 22.6% since inception, down 5.2% YTD) and at various times bought the Japanese yen and Swiss franc. Some of these trades generated positive returns but in general safe havens remained out of favor (Chart 8). As with defense stocks, we are still constructive on the yen and franc. Chart 7Market Ignored Saber-Rattling 6. Long Developed Europe / Short Emerging Europe. Geopolitical view correct, market view incorrect. Our pessimistic view of Russia’s relations with the West, and hence of Russian currency and equities, clashed with our positive outlook on oil and commodity prices this year. To play Russian risks we favored developed European equities over their emerging peers (mainly Russian stocks). But emerging Europe has outperformed by 5% since we initiated the trade and other variations on this theme had mixed results (Chart 9). Of course, geopolitical tensions are escalating in eastern Europe we go to press. Chart 8Safe Havens Fell After US Election, Insurrection Chart 9Refrain From The Russia Rally We do not think investors can afford to ignore the US-Russia conflict, which has escalated over two decades. President Putin has not changed his strategy of building a sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. The US is internally divided and distracted by a range of challenges, while it continues to lack close coordination with its European allies. Western responses to Russian aggression have failed to change Russia’s cost-benefit analysis. Thus we continue to expect market-negative surprises from Russia, whether that means a seizure of littoral territory in Ukraine, a militarization of the Belarussian border, more disruptive cyber attacks, or some other big surprise. Bottom Line: While our geopolitical forecasts generally hit the mark this year, global financial markets ignored most geopolitical risks other than China. The global recovery, inflation, and the pandemic, vaccines, variants, and social distancing remained the key dynamics. This threw many of our trades off track. However, we are sticking with some of our worst calls this year given the underlying geopolitical and economic forces motivating them beyond a 12-month time frame. Best Calls Of 2021 1. Long India / Short China. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Our number one view for 2021 was that China would suffer a historic confluence of political and geopolitical risk that would be negative for equities. This view contrasted with our bullish view on India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had won another single-party majority in the 2019 elections and stood to benefit from the attempts of the US and other democracies to diversify away from China. We favored Indian stocks and local currency bonds – both trades saw a sharp run-up (Chart 10). Unfortunately, we took profits too soon, only netting 12% on the long India / short China equity trade. Some of our other India trades did not go so well. Going forward we expect a tactical reset given India’s tremendous performance this year. 2. Booking Gains At Peak Biden. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. We closed several of our reflation trades in the first quarter, when exuberance over vaccines and the Democrat’s election sweep reached extreme levels (Chart 11). We captured a 24% gain on our materials trade and a 37% gain on energy stocks. We turned a 17% profit on our BCA Infrastructure Basket relative trade. We were prompted to close these trades by dangers over Taiwan and Ukraine that soon dissipated. But we also believed that markets were priced for perfection. By the second quarter we had taken some risk off the table, which served us well throughout the middle of the year when the Delta variant struck. While global energy and materials rose to new highs later in the year, the Fed and Omicron interrupted their run. Chart 10Call Of The Year: Long India, Short China 3. Long Natural Gas On Russia Risks. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. All year we held the contrarian view that the new Nord Stream II pipeline linking Russia and Germany would become a major geopolitical flashpoint and that it was much less likely to go into operation than consensus held. Chart 11Reflation Trade' Peaked Early, Peaked Again, Then Omicron We also fully expected Russia to act aggressive in its periphery. In March we argued that while Russia probably would not re-invade Ukraine, long-term risk was substantial (and accordingly a new military standoff began in the fall) We also noted that Russia had other tools to coerce its neighbors. As a result we went long natural gas futures, following our colleagues at Commodity & Energy Strategy. While the trade returned 20%, we took profits before the European energy crisis really took off (Chart 12). 4. The “Back To War” Trade. Geopolitical view correct, market view correct. Cyber warfare is one of the ways that the Great Powers can compete without engaging in conventional war. We have long been bullish on cyber-security stocks. However, the pandemic created a unique tactical opportunity to initiate a pair trade of long traditional defense stocks / short cyber stocks that returned 10%. It was a geopolitical variation on the “back to work” trades that characterized the revival of economic activity after pandemic lockdowns. Cyber stocks will enjoy a tailwind as long as the pandemic persists and working from home remains a major trend. But over the cyclical time frame defense stocks should rebound relative to their cyber peers, just as physical geopolitical tensions should begin to take on renewed urgency with nations scrambling for territory and resources (Chart 13). Chart 12Hold Onto The Good Ones: Long Natural Gas Chart 13The 'Back To War' Trade Chart 14Rare Earths Revived On Commodity Surge 5. Long Rare Earth Metals. Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We have long maintained that rare earth metals would catch a bid as US-China tensions rose. The pandemic stimulus galvanized a new capex cycle with a focus on strategic goals like supply chain resilience, military-industrial upgrades, and de-carbonization that will boost demand for rare earths. Our trade made a 9% gain, despite difficulties throughout the year arising from our homemade BCA Rare Earth Basket, which proved to be an idiosyncratic instrument. Going forward we will express our view via the benchmark MVIS Rare Earth Index (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Our successful trades hinged on broad geopolitical views: China’s confluence of internal and external risk, Biden’s reflationary agenda, persistent US-Russia conflict, and India’s attractiveness relative to other emerging markets. The change in 2022 is that Biden’s legislative agenda will be spent so the market will shift from American reflation to the Fed and global concerns. If China does not stabilize its economy, more bad news will hit China-related plays and global risk assets. Honorable Mentions: For Better And For Worse Short EM “Strongmen.” Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. We shorted the currencies of Turkey, Brazil, and the Philippines relative to benchmark EM currencies. Though we closed the trade too early, earning a paltry sum, the political analysis proved correct and the market ultimately responded in a major way (Chart 15). Upcoming elections for these countries in 2022-23 will ensure that their dysfunctional politics remain negative for investors, while other emerging market currencies continue to outperform. Chart 15Short EM 'Strongman' Leaders ¡Viva México! Geopolitical view correct, market view mixed. Mexico benefited from US stimulus, the USMCA trade deal, the West’s economic divorce from China, and the resumption of tourism, immigration, and remittances. In general Latin America stands aloof from the Great Power struggles afflicting emerging markets in Europe and East Asia. But Latin America’s perennial problem with domestic populism and political instability undermines US dollar returns. Mexico looks to be a notable exception. Chart 16¡Viva México! Mexico suffered the biggest opportunity cost from the West’s love affair with China over the past 40 years. Now it stands to gain from the US drive to relocate supply chains, onshore to North America, and diversify from China. Two of our Mexico trades were ill-timed this year, but favoring Mexico over other emerging markets, particularly Brazil, was fundamentally the right call (Chart 16). Bottom Line: Cyclically Mexico is an emerging market with a compelling story based on fundamentals. Tactically disfavor emerging market “strongmen” regimes. Investment Takeaways Our batting average this year was 65%. 2021 will be remembered as a transitional year in which the world tried but did not quite return to normal amid a lingering pandemic. Inflation reemerged as a major concern of consumers, governments, and central banks. Developed markets adopted proactive fiscal policy but global cyclicals faced crosswinds as China resumed its monetary, fiscal, and regulatory tightening campaign. Our bearish call on China was a direct hit. China’s political risks will persist ahead of the twentieth national party congress in fall 2022. Cyclically stay short CNY-USD and TWD-USD. Our worst market call was long Korean / short Taiwanese equities. But the world awoke to Taiwan risk and Taiwanese stocks peaked relative to global equities. Over the long run we think war is likely in the Taiwan Strait. Re-initiate long JPY-KRW as a strategic trade. Our best market call was long Indian / short Chinese equities. Tactically this trade will probably reverse but strategically we maintain the general thesis. The US and Iran failed to rejoin their nuclear deal this year as we originally expected. In August we adjusted our view to expect a short-term Persian Gulf crisis, which in turn will lead either to diplomacy or a new war path. Oil shocks and volatility should be expected over the next 12 months. Tactically go short UAE equities relative to global. European equities and the euro disappointed this year, even though we were right that Scotland would not secede from the UK, that Italian politics would not matter, and that Germany’s election would be an upset but not negative for markets. In March we turned neutral on the US dollar and in June we argued that European political risk had bottomed and would escalate going forward. We remain tactically negative on the euro, though we are cyclically constructive. We still prefer DM Europe over EM Europe due to Russian geopolitical risks. Re-initiate long CAD-RUB and long GBP-CZK as strategic trades. We are waiting for a tactical re-entry point for the following trades: long CHF-USD, CHF-GBP, GBP-EUR, short EM ‘Strongman’ currencies versus EM currencies, long US infrastructure stocks, long European industrials, and long Italian versus Spanish stocks. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 While autocracy is agreed to be negative for governance indicators, the connection between regime type and economic growth is debatable. Suffice it to say that the determinants of total factor productivity, such as human capital, trade openness, and effectiveness of the legislature, are often difficult to sustain under autocratic or authoritarian regimes. On this point see United Nations Industrial Development Organization, "Determinants of total factor productivity: a literature review," Staff Working Paper 2 (2007). For further discussion, see Carl Henrik Knutsen, "A business case for democracy: regime type, growth, and growth volatility," Democratization 28 (2021), pp 1505-24; Ryan H. Murphy, "Governance and the dimensions of autocracy," Constitutional Political Economy 30 (2019), pp 131-48. For a skeptical view of the relationship, see Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, "Political Regimes and Economic Growth," Journal of Economic Perspectives 7:3 (1993), pp 51-69. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)