Economía
The drag on global dollar liquidity created by the Fed’s balance sheet runoff will soon end. The Fed’s balance sheet peaked just above US$4.5 trillion in early 2015 and has been falling since. A severe contraction in the U.S. monetary base ensued as…
Dollar liquidity shortages tend to be vicious because they trigger negative feedback loops. As offshore dollar rates begin to rise, they lift the cost of capital for borrowing countries. Debt repayment replaces capital spending and the ensuing slowdown in…
Puntos destacados
La economía del Reino Unido se ha mantenido bastante bien, a pesar de la carga de la incertidumbre política.
Sin embargo, incluso antes de que se haya producido la salida efectiva del Reino Unido de la UE, el Brexit ha dejado una huella duradera en la economía británica a través de una incertidumbre elevada, una fuerte debilidad en la inversión empresarial y una productividad anémica.
El resultado neto es una economía con un crecimiento de tendencia inferior, un tipo de cambio estructuralmente más débil y una inflación interna relativamente alta.
El Brexit se retrasará más allá del 31 de octubre. El riesgo de un Brexit sin acuerdo está sobrevalorado a menos que unas elecciones anticipadas fortalezcan la posición de Boris Johnson. Eso es improbable.
Las perspectivas de inversión para la libra esterlina y los gilts del Reino Unido son muy binarias: un Brexit “suave” es alcista para la libra y bajista para los gilts, mientras que un Brexit sin acuerdo haría caer aún más tanto la libra como los rendimientos de los gilts.
Análisis
Desde que el Reino Unido votó en 2016 salir de la Unión Europea, las perspectivas para la economía y los activos financieros han estado ligadas al resultado binario de si la salida sería ordenada o no. Esto ha sido una enorme fuente de incertidumbre, colocando al Banco de Inglaterra (BoE) en una de las posiciones más incómodas que haya enfrentado jamás un banco central.
En el informe de esta semana intentamos responder algunas preguntas de alto nivel. Primero, ¿la desaceleración de la economía del Reino Unido ha sido ordinaria, dado el retroceso manufacturero global? ¿O ha sido indebidamente prolongada debido al aumento de la incertidumbre política? Si se trata de lo último, ¿cuáles son las perspectivas de una recuperación si prevalece cualquier escenario que no sea un Brexit “sin acuerdo”? Finalmente, ¿se ha causado ya un daño irreparable a la economía por la inversión retrasada, con ramificaciones a más largo plazo independientemente del resultado de la relación con la UE?
Un auge del empleo
El Reino Unido está experimentando actualmente la mejor recuperación de empleo desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Se han creado 4,2 millones de nuevos empleos en la última década, elevando la proporción de empleo respecto a la población al nivel más alto en casi 50 años. Lo notable es que esta recuperación parece incluso más impresionante que la de Estados Unidos, donde las condiciones del mercado laboral han sido muy sólidas. Por ejemplo, en EE. UU. la tasa de empleo se sitúa en 60,9%, apenas por debajo de la del Reino Unido pero aún casi cuatro puntos porcentuales por debajo de su máximo previo a la crisis (Gráfico 1). En comparación con la zona euro, el mejor desempeño del mercado laboral del Reino Unido ha sido muy evidente.
A pesar de esta recuperación, el aumento de los salarios ha sido el más débil desde la Guerra de los Bóeres.
La calidad de los empleos también ha sido excelente: la creación de empleos a tiempo completo ha superado a la de tiempo parcial y las tasas de participación femenina se están disparando. El bonanza de empleo también ha sido amplio en regiones e industrias. Sí, el sector manufacturero ha experimentado cierta volatilidad, pero aparte de la región de East Midlands, las tasas de desempleo continúan convergiendo a la baja en todo el Reino Unido (Gráfico 2)
Gráfico 1
Un auge del empleo
Un auge del empleo
Un auge del empleo
Gráfico 2
La recuperación es amplia
La recuperación es generalizada
La recuperación es generalizada
A pesar de esta recuperación, el aumento de los salarios ha sido el más débil desde la Guerra de los Bóeres. En un discurso de julio, el economista jefe del BoE, Andy Haldane, señaló con acierto que la década perdida de los salarios ha sido un desastre de igualdad de oportunidades en las principales regiones del Reino Unido. Desde la década de 1950 hasta la Gran Recesión, la remuneración real en el Reino Unido creció alrededor de un 2% anual. Desde la Gran Recesión, la remuneración real se ha estancado a una tasa de -0,4% anual (Gráfico 3).1
Gráfico 3
Los salarios se estancaron hasta hace poco
Los salarios se estancaron hasta hace poco
Los salarios se estancaron hasta hace poco
Ha habido varias razones para esto. En primer lugar, ha habido un fuerte crecimiento del trabajo por cuenta propia, los contratos de cero horas y el trabajo a través de agencias. Así, aunque la proporción de empleo a tiempo completo ha ido aumentando en el periodo posterior a la crisis, sigue estando muy por debajo de sus máximos previos a la crisis. Esto ha incrementado la fluidez del mercado laboral, reduciendo el coste de hacer negocios en el proceso. La compensación de los trabajadores por cuenta propia o con contratos de cero horas está significativamente por debajo de la de sus homólogos permanentes. El lado positivo es que este fenómeno no es específico del Reino Unido, sino que está ocurriendo en todo el mundo, especialmente en Europa, donde las reformas estructurales han eliminado rigideces en el mercado laboral.
La cuestión clave de cara al futuro es si el incipiente aumento de los salarios continuará. A un horizonte cíclico, nuestra postura es que si continúan las tendencias positivas de empleo, el Reino Unido podría empezar a experimentar presiones salariales significativamente más fuertes. Hay cuatro razones fundamentales para ello:
Las ofertas de trabajo siguen superando al número de demandantes. Según la medida utilizada, hay entre un 20% y un 40% más de puestos que solicitantes (Gráfico 4). Este estancamiento no se puede resolver fácilmente con una mayor tasa de empleo (está en un máximo secular) ni con un desempleo más bajo.
El BoE estima que el NAIRU en el Reino Unido está en el 4,4%, lo que significa que la tasa de desempleo está claramente por debajo de su nivel estructural. Las encuestas empresariales siguen sugiriendo que la escasez de mano de obra cualificada es uno de los principales problemas que enfrentan las empresas.
La curva de Phillips en el Reino Unido se ha aplanado en los últimos años, pero el crecimiento salarial ha empezado a inclinarse al alza recientemente. Como en muchos otros países, la curva de Phillips en el Reino Unido está doblada, de modo que la convexidad del crecimiento salarial aumenta a medida que se cierra la brecha de desempleo.
La velocidad de circulación en el mercado laboral, también conocida como flujo de trabajo a trabajo, ha aumentado. Históricamente esto ha sido positivo para el crecimiento salarial (Gráfico 5). Esto también se refleja en la tasa de renuncias, que se ha acelerado desde 2012.
Gráfico 4
Las presiones salariales deberían aumentar
Las presiones salariales deberían intensificarse
Las presiones salariales deberían intensificarse
Gráfico 5
Aumento de la velocidad del empleo en el Reino Unido
Aumenta el ritmo del empleo en el Reino Unido
Aumenta el ritmo del empleo en el Reino Unido
En este momento, el mecanismo de transmisión desde un mercado laboral ajustado hacia salarios más altos está siendo obstaculizado por la incertidumbre política, que seguirá proyectando una sombra a corto plazo sobre los planes de contratación a más largo plazo. Por ejemplo, pese a todo el discurso sobre el Reino Unido como centro financiero, la pérdida de empleo en la banca y los seguros sigue estando asentada (Gráfico 6). El Reino Unido continúa atrayendo una cantidad significativa de actividad financiera, especialmente en el mercado de divisas, pero hubo una caída clara en los volúmenes en 2016, el año del referéndum del Brexit (Gráfico 7). Mientras tanto, en el sector manufacturero, llevará tiempo reavivar los “animal spirits” y volver a atraer inversión extranjera directa.
Gráfico 6
Pérdida de empleo en manufactura y finanzas
Rotación de personal en los sectores de manufactura y finanzas
Rotación de personal en los sectores de manufactura y finanzas
Gráfico 7
El Reino Unido es un importante centro financiero
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Dicho esto, la economía del Reino Unido sigue estando impulsada principalmente por los servicios, lo que significa que los salarios aún sufrirán cierta presión al alza. El crecimiento salarial del sector servicios ha sido sólido y, a menos que la recesión manufacturera se profundice y empiece a contagiar a otros sectores de la economía del Reino Unido, la trayectoria de menor resistencia para los salarios sigue siendo al alza.
Conclusión: La economía del Reino Unido se ha mantenido bastante bien, a pesar de la carga de la incertidumbre política.
Círculo virtuoso del gasto
Si bien el pastel de ingresos del Reino Unido podría crecer, la falta de confianza sigue limitando el gasto. Gráfico 8 muestra que la confianza del consumidor en el Reino Unido ha divergido negativamente respecto a las tendencias tanto en EE. UU. como en la zona euro. Han intervenido algunos factores compensatorios que sugieren que una vez que se disipen las nubes de la incertidumbre del Brexit, el gasto podría volver a acelerarse.
El mecanismo de transmisión desde un mercado laboral ajustado hacia salarios más altos está siendo impedido por la incertidumbre política, que seguirá proyectando una sombra a corto plazo.
Un gran impulsor de las ventas minoristas en el Reino Unido son las llegadas de turistas y la libra debilitada probablemente seguirá atrayendo un influjo de visitantes (Gráfico 9).
Gráfico 8
La confianza será clave para ##br##cualquier recuperación
La confianza será clave para cualquier recuperación
La confianza será clave para cualquier recuperación
Gráfico 9
La libra barata animará a ##br##los compradores extranjeros
La libra barata animará a los compradores extranjeros
La libra barata animará a los compradores extranjeros
El Reino Unido alberga muchas de las principales marcas mundiales que se beneficiarán de una moneda barata.
El proceso de desapalancamiento de los hogares está muy avanzado, y la recuperación tentativa del crédito y de las solicitudes hipotecarias está ayudando a amortiguar la caída de los precios de la vivienda en el Reino Unido. Esto está respaldado por el hecho de que los costes de préstamo hipotecario en el Reino Unido se han desplomado junto con los rendimientos (Gráfico 10). Dicho esto, cualquier aumento en el endeudamiento se verá mitigado por el hecho de que la deuda de los hogares respecto al PIB en el Reino Unido sigue siendo más alta que en muchas otras economías desarrolladas.
Gráfico 10
Las bajas tasas deberían ayudar a la vivienda
Las tasas bajas deberían ayudar a la vivienda
Las tasas bajas deberían ayudar a la vivienda
Gráfico 11
Inflación de origen costos
Inflación por costos
Inflación por costos
Las expectativas de inflación están disparándose, en parte en respuesta a la moneda más débil. Lo notable es que la libra ha caído mucho más de lo justificado sobre una base fundamental de PPP. Esto provocará inflación importada (Gráfico 11).
Conclusión: El gran riesgo para la economía del Reino Unido es que entre en estanflación. Una encuesta del BoE sitúa la pérdida de producción en caso de un Brexit sin acuerdo en torno al 3% del PIB, pero estas son estimaciones ya que gran parte del ajuste económico podría producirse a través del tipo de cambio. El rango de estimaciones del impacto económico de un no-acuerdo (Tabla 1), quizás no por coincidencia, refleja el rango de recesiones británicas del siglo XX (Gráfico 12). Esto coloca al BoE en un modo particularmente incómodo de “esperar y ver”. Por ejemplo, si una salida dura conduce a una caída de la libra y a un aumento de las expectativas de inflación, no está claro que el Comité de Política Monetaria del BoE recortaría las tasas si tuviera que cumplir su mandato de inflación.
Tabla 1
Amplio rango de estimaciones del impacto ##br##de un Brexit sin acuerdo
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Gráfico 12
Las recesiones británicas pasadas ofrecen pautas ##br##para el impacto de un no-acuerdo
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
La incertidumbre del Brexit ya ha causado un daño duradero al crecimiento del Reino Unido
Un lastre importante para el crecimiento económico del Reino Unido en los últimos tres años ha sido el colapso de la confianza empresarial y la contracción asociada en el gasto de capital (Gráfico 13).
Desde la votación del Brexit de 2016, la inversión empresarial ha sido sustancialmente más débil que en puntos similares de ciclos empresariales previos del Reino Unido: de forma acumulada, un 26% menos, según el BoE (Gráfico 14). Si bien parte de la debilidad observada en 2019 también puede atribuirse a la desaceleración del crecimiento económico global y a la incertidumbre relacionada con la guerra comercial entre EE. UU. y China, el gasto de capital del Reino Unido ha sido mucho más débil que el de otras economías avanzadas (Gráfico 15).
Desde la votación del Brexit de 2016, la inversión empresarial ha sido sustancialmente más débil que en puntos similares de ciclos empresariales previos del Reino Unido – de forma acumulada, un 26%.
Este es un punto crítico a considerar al juzgar el daño a largo plazo que ya se ha infligido a la economía del Reino Unido solo por la incertidumbre del Brexit. La mejor manera de evaluar este daño es a través de la lente del gasto de capital, cuyo crecimiento está altamente correlacionado con los cambios en la productividad y el crecimiento económico potencial (Gráfico 16).
Gráfico 13
Empresas británicas sombrías han dejado de invertir
Las sombrías empresas del Reino Unido han dejado de invertir
Las sombrías empresas del Reino Unido han dejado de invertir
Gráfico 14
Gran subrendimiento del gasto de capital del Reino Unido comparado con la historia ...
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Gráfico 15
...y comparado con ##br##pares globales
...Y en comparación con pares globales
...Y en comparación con pares globales
Gráfico 16
Un golpe duradero a la economía del Reino Unido por la incertidumbre del Brexit
Un impacto duradero en la economía del Reino Unido por la incertidumbre del Brexit
Un impacto duradero en la economía del Reino Unido por la incertidumbre del Brexit
Un importante artículo de investigación publicado por el BoE el mes pasado – coescrito por dos miembros actuales del Comité de Política Monetaria del BoE, Ben Broadbent y Silvana Tenreyro – analiza los vínculos entre la incertidumbre del Brexit, el gasto de capital y la productividad del Reino Unido.2 Los autores concluyeron que los efectos económicos del resultado del referéndum del Brexit pueden categorizarse como una respuesta a una anticipada y persistente caída del crecimiento de la productividad para los sectores comerciables de la economía del Reino Unido. En ese marco, la siguiente cadena de eventos ocurriría después de que se anuncie la “noticia” de una productividad esperada más débil (es decir, el resultado del referéndum del Brexit):
Gráfico 17
Una mala asignación de recursos
Una mala asignación de recursos
Una mala asignación de recursos
Una caída inmediata y permanente en el precio relativo de la producción no comerciable respecto a la comerciable, es decir, el tipo de cambio real.
Los recursos se desplazan hacia el sector comerciable para aprovechar el precio relativo más alto, lo que lleva a un aumento de la producción y a un aumento de las exportaciones.
El crecimiento de la productividad en el sector comerciable luego cae, tal como anunciaba la “noticia” del voto del Brexit, lo que provoca un desplazamiento de recursos económicos de nuevo hacia los sectores no comerciables de mayor productividad.
Las tasas de interés del Reino Unido caen respecto al mundo, ya que los mercados financieros descuentan la senda relativamente más lenta de productividad del Reino Unido prevista.
El crecimiento agregado de la inversión empresarial se ralentiza, pero en general el crecimiento del empleo permanece
resiliente.
Así es exactamente como ha evolucionado la economía del Reino Unido desde la votación del Brexit de 2016:
El índice del BoE ponderado por el comercio para la libra ha caído tanto en términos nominales como reales.
La cuota de exportaciones del PIB real del Reino Unido aumentó del 27% al 30%, mientras que la cuota de inversión del PIB real disminuyó del 10% al 9% (Gráfico 17, panel superior).
El crecimiento anual del empleo en los servicios del Reino Unido (no comerciables) cayó del 2,1% a cero a finales de 2018, pero desde entonces ha comenzado a recuperarse; el crecimiento del empleo en manufactura (comerciable) aumentó inicialmente del 0,5% al 2,7% dentro del año posterior al voto del Brexit, antes de desacelerarse hasta el 0% en 2018, y también está empezando a moverse al alza (Gráfico 17, tercer panel).
El crecimiento de la productividad ha caído del 1,9% a cero, incluso cuando el crecimiento salarial se ha acelerado debido al ritmo sostenido de la demanda de trabajo en un momento de bajo desempleo (Gráfico 17, panel inferior).
A nivel sectorial, las peores tasas de crecimiento de la productividad realizada se están produciendo en industrias comerciables como productos metálicos y servicios financieros, mientras que las tasas más altas de crecimiento de la productividad se observan en industrias no comerciables como los servicios profesionales y el comercio minorista (Gráfico 18).3
Gráfico 18
Últimas tasas de crecimiento de la productividad del Reino Unido, por industria
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Resumiendo, según el marco analítico del artículo de investigación del BoE, el resultado del referéndum del Brexit esencialmente creó una señal, manifestada por la caída de la libra esterlina, para la mala asignación de recursos del Reino Unido alejándolos de industrias no comerciables de mayor productividad hacia sectores comerciables de menor productividad. Si esto fuera cierto, también esperaríamos ver lo siguiente:
Gráfico 19
Consecuencias inflacionarias de la incertidumbre del Brexit
Consecuencias inflacionarias de la incertidumbre en torno al Brexit
Consecuencias inflacionarias de la incertidumbre en torno al Brexit
Tasas de inflación mucho más altas en medidas más centradas en lo doméstico, como los servicios y los salarios.
Un crecimiento más rápido del coste unitario del trabajo como resultado de la brecha entre salarios que se aceleran y productividad estancada.
Expectativas de inflación estructuralmente más altas.
Tasas de interés reales más bajas en el Reino Unido que en otras economías avanzadas.
Debilidad prolongada en el tipo de cambio.
Nuevamente, todo esto se ha concretado en el Reino Unido (Gráfico 19):
La inflación del IPC de servicios está ahora en 2,2%, en comparación con solo 1,7% para la inflación general del IPC.
El crecimiento del coste unitario del trabajo se ha acelerado desde niveles negativos antes del referéndum del Brexit hasta un rango del 2%-3% desde finales de 2016.
El rendimiento real del gilt a 10 años (deflactado por la swap de CPI a 10 años) es ahora -3,1%, en comparación con un rendimiento real del 0% en los bonos del Tesoro estadounidense a 10 años.
La libra esterlina ponderada por el comercio se mantiene cerca de sus mínimos posteriores al referéndum del Brexit.
Está claro que la incertidumbre del Brexit ha dado lugar a una economía del Reino Unido estructuralmente más débil y más inflacionaria, un resultado que puede no revertirse rápidamente en caso de que se evite un Brexit sin acuerdo. Esto tiene importantes implicaciones para las futuras decisiones de política monetaria del BoE y las perspectivas de inversión para la libra y los gilts del Reino Unido.
Conclusión: Incluso antes de que se haya producido la retirada efectiva del Reino Unido de la UE, el Brexit ha dejado una marca duradera en la economía británica a través de una incertidumbre elevada, una severa debilidad en el gasto de inversión empresarial y una productividad anémica. El resultado neto es una economía con un crecimiento de tendencia más bajo, un tipo de cambio estructuralmente débil y una inflación interna relativamente alta.
Predomina la incertidumbre política
Gráfico 20
El público se opone a un Brexit sin acuerdo
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Incluso tras considerar el estado cíclico y estructural de la economía del Reino Unido, tal como lo hemos hecho en este informe, las perspectivas a corto plazo siguen dependiendo por completo del resultado del Brexit.
El estado del Brexit es más incierto que nunca debido al caso del Tribunal Supremo contra la suspensión del Parlamento por parte del gobierno y a la negativa del primer ministro Boris Johnson a obedecer una orden del Parlamento para solicitar una prórroga del plazo de salida del 31 de octubre. Lo que no está en duda es que el parlamento se opone a un Brexit desordenado y sin acuerdo. Y las mejores encuestas sugieren que la opinión pública también se opone a un Brexit sin acuerdo (Gráfico 20).
Los miembros rechazaron rotundamente la estrategia de negociación del primer ministro Boris Johnson en septiembre: prohibieron tanto un Brexit sin acuerdo como votaron en contra de celebrar unas elecciones anticipadas en dos ocasiones separadas (Gráfico 21). Johnson perdió su mayoría de coalición y, sin embargo, no puede ir a nuevas elecciones, dejándolo paralizado hasta que el Parlamento se reúna.
Lo que es probable independientemente del resultado es un aumento sustancial del gasto fiscal,
El Reino Unido no es una monarquía Estuardo del siglo XVII: el Parlamento es el órgano político supremo en la constitución y sus decretos no pueden ser ignorados o desobedecidos de forma permanente. Siempre que el Parlamento se reúna de nuevo, probablemente el 14 de octubre, tendrá la capacidad de asegurar que se extienda el plazo del Brexit. La UE probablemente concederá una prórroga porque le interesa demorar o cancelar el Brexit y demostrar a todos los miembros que abandonar el bloque no es ni deseable ni práctico. El resultado sería entonces unas elecciones.
Gráfico 21
La estrategia de negociación de Boris Johnson fracasó
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Gráfico 22
El resultado probable es un Parlamento en minoría
Es probable que el resultado sea un parlamento sin mayoría.
Es probable que el resultado sea un parlamento sin mayoría.
Las encuestas electorales muestran a los Conservadores despegar, a los Liberal Demócratas adelantando a Labour y al Brexit Party manteniendo una ventaja (Gráfico 22). Traducir estas encuestas a escaños parlamentarios no es sencillo porque el sistema electoral mayoritario significa que un partido más pequeño puede robar votos cruciales al partido más popular, dejando al segundo o tercer partido más popular para ganar el escaño.
El punto clave es que el Brexit Party es un partido de una sola cuestión y los tories bajo Johnson ahora monopolizan esa misma cuestión. Si esta dinámica persiste, los Lib Dems suponen una mayor amenaza de dividir los votos de Labour que el Brexit Party de dividir los votos conservadores. El resultado es que todavía es posible que los conservadores obtengan una mayoría, aunque parece improbable dado que necesitan más de 325 escaños y han caído a 288 escaños tras purgar a miembros indisciplinados y perder liderazgo en Escocia. Un Parlamento en minoría es un resultado más probable.
Un Parlamento en minoría prolongará la indecisión y la incertidumbre, pero también es probable que permanezca unido contra un Brexit sin acuerdo. Un gobierno de coalición de la oposición impedirá un Brexit sin acuerdo. Incluso una mayoría conservadora de un solo partido no sería un resultado desastroso, ya que aumentaría la influencia de Johnson con la UE y aumentaría la probabilidad de que la UE ofreciera algunas concesiones para que se apruebe un acuerdo de retirada, resultando en un trato del Brexit y una salida ordenada (específicamente, una limitación para Irlanda del Norte al backstop, o una cláusula de caducidad o mecanismo de retirada para lo mismo). Dicho acuerdo interesa a Johnson para no presidir una recesión desde el momento en que vuelva al cargo. Todos estos resultados apuntan hacia un acuerdo de salida o a un nuevo capítulo en el que el parlamento busque un nuevo referéndum.
Gráfico 23
Espere un aumento del gasto fiscal
Espere un aumento en el gasto fiscal
Espere un aumento en el gasto fiscal
El peor resultado para los mercados sería una débil mayoría conservadora de coalición que no pueda ponerse de acuerdo sobre Irlanda ni aprobar un acuerdo de salida, ya que esto podría conducir a la parálisis, como le ocurrió a Theresa May, en un momento en que el primer ministro está decidido a lograr una salida cueste lo que cueste. Este es el escenario en el que el no-acuerdo vuelve a convertirse en un riesgo real. Subjetivamente hemos estimado que el riesgo de no-acuerdo es de alrededor del 30%, pero esto actualmente está disminuyendo, no aumentando, como resultado de las amplias mayorías del parlamento contra ese resultado en septiembre, y solo unas elecciones pueden cambiar eso.
Es infructuoso tratar de predecir el panorama político futuro del Reino Unido sin conocer la conclusión de la saga del Brexit. Lo que es probable independientemente del resultado es un aumento sustancial del gasto fiscal, revirtiendo la “austeridad” de la pos-Gran Recesión. Esta tendencia ya es evidente en el intento actual de Johnson de presentar un paquete generoso de gasto social en la conferencia del partido tory este otoño, que, si se confirma con unas nuevas elecciones, representaría un giro en la política fiscal conservadora (Gráfico 23).
Se necesitará más gasto fiscal para contrarrestar el impacto negativo de un Brexit desordenado, o para aplacar a la clase media una vez que quede claro que salir de la UE no es una panacea para los problemas del Reino Unido, o para cumplir la agenda de un gobierno de la oposición cuando llegue al poder.
En caso de que ocurra un Brexit sin acuerdo, el Reino Unido no solo afrontará unas consecuencias económicas tumultuosas, sino que las luchas constitucionales entre los tres reinos se reavivarán debido al impacto negativo en Irlanda del Norte y a la probable revivificación de los esfuerzos por la independencia de Escocia.
Conclusión: El Reino Unido no es una dictadura y el primer ministro no puede negarse a obedecer la voluntad del Parlamento. El Parlamento ha votado claramente para retrasar un Brexit sin acuerdo y continuará haciéndolo. Una salida desordenada sigue siendo un riesgo porque unas elecciones eventuales podrían devolver a los tories al poder. Pero en ese caso, la UE tendrá más incentivos para ofrecer una concesión que permita al Parlamento aprobar un proyecto de ley de retirada. Las probabilidades de un no-acuerdo no son superiores al 30%. La conclusión estructural, independientemente del resultado, es que el gasto fiscal aumentará.
Conclusiones de inversión
Los episodios en torno al colapso de la libra en 1992 contienen lecciones importantes para hoy.4 De manera crucial, la mayor parte del ajuste de la libra ocurrió rápidamente, pero una diferencia clave con respecto a hoy es que una salida del Mecanismo de Tipo de Cambio Europeo fue inesperada, a diferencia del Brexit. Los mercados de divisas son extremadamente fluidos y se ajustan a las expectativas con bastante rapidez. Del máximo al mínimo, la libra ya ha caído en torno al 30%, lo que sugiere que la mayor parte del ajuste a la baja está hecho.
Gráfico 24
Un resultado binario del Brexit para los gilts
Un resultado binario del Brexit para los gilts
Un resultado binario del Brexit para los gilts
La moneda británica es de libre flotación, lo que significa que hay menos “pecados ocultos” en comparación con el período de tipo de cambio fijo. Dicho esto, el valor razonable de la libra se ha debilitado estructuralmente. Nuestra inclinación es que si hay un Brexit duro, la libra podría caer fácilmente hasta la zona 1.10-1.15. Parte de este movimiento será un submuestreo a la baja. En el caso de un Brexit suave (o ningún Brexit), la libra debería converger hacia el punto medio de su rango histórico de tipo de cambio efectivo real, lo que la situaría un 15%-20% más alta, o en torno a 1.50. Desde una perspectiva riesgo-recompensa, esto parece atractivo.
Para los gilts del Reino Unido, la dirección de los rendimientos también depende del resultado del Brexit, ya que esencialmente no hay cambios en las tasas de política descontados en la curva OIS del Reino Unido (Gráfico 24).
Un Brexit “suave” permitiría al BoE volver a centrarse en combatir las elevadas expectativas de inflación en el Reino Unido. Eso probablemente resultaría en rendimientos de gilts más altos y un aplanamiento de la curva de rendimientos de los gilts, a medida que el mercado valore futuras subidas de tipos del BoE, y en expectativas de inflación a más largo plazo más bajas. Una libra al alza también moderaría las expectativas de inflación. Ni los gilts ni los bonos vinculados a la inflación del Reino Unido rendirían bien en este escenario.
Un Brexit “sin acuerdo”, por otro lado, llevaría al BoE a recortar los tipos de interés para compensar el posible golpe a la confianza empresarial y del consumidor. Esto podría ocurrir incluso si las expectativas de inflación se mantienen altas o aumentan más por la debilidad de la libra. Eso significaría rendimientos de gilts más bajos y un empinamiento de la curva de gilts. Sobrerponderar gilts y estar largo en bonos vinculados a la inflación sería la mejor manera de posicionarse para este resultado.
Los escenarios de relajación fiscal descritos anteriormente también influirían en la forma de la curva de gilts, resultando en cierto grado de empinamiento bajista a medida que la curvaprecio mayores déficits y una inflación futura más alta, todo lo demás constante.
Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com
Chester Ntonifor, Estratega de divisas chestern@bcaresearch.com
Matt Gertken, Estratega geopolítico mattg@bcaresearch.com
Ray Park, CFA, Analista de investigación ray@bcaresearch.com
Notas al pie
1 Andrew G Haldane, “Subiendo la escalera del empleo,” Banco de Inglaterra, 23 de julio de 2019
2 Documento de discusión de la Unidad Externa del MPC del Banco de Inglaterra No. 51, “El voto del Brexit, el crecimiento de la productividad y los ajustes macroeconómicos en el Reino Unido”, agosto de 2019
3 El papel de Londres como un importante centro financiero global convierte a la industria de servicios financieros del Reino Unido en un sector “comerciable”, en el sentido de que una proporción significativa de su producción se “comercializa” a usuarios fuera del Reino Unido.
4 Mathias Zurlinden, “La vulnerabilidad de los tipos de cambio anclados: la libra esterlina en el MTC,” Investigación Económica, Vol. 75, No. 5 (septiembre/octubre de 1993).
Operaciones y previsiones
Resumen de previsiones
Cartera principal
Operaciones tácticas
Órdenes limitadas
Operaciones cerradas
Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference in New York City next week, we will not be publishing a report on Friday, September 27. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Friday, October 4, when we will be sending out our quarterly Strategy Outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The spike in oil prices underscores the vulnerability of key Saudi oil facilities. The fact that OPEC spare capacity is on the low side is an added source of concern. Fortunately, if oil prices do rise again, the impact on the global economy will be mitigated by the following: 1) the amount of oil necessary to produce one unit of real GDP is much lower than in the past; 2) oil prices are currently nowhere near restrictive levels; 3) higher oil prices will boost investment in the energy sector; and 4) unlike in the past, central banks will not need to hike rates to quell oil-induced inflationary pressures. The Federal Reserve is likely to cut rates once more in October and then keep rates on hold through 2020. The Fed will also begin expanding the size of its balance sheet to alleviate tensions in funding markets. Investors should remain overweight equities relative to bonds and start tilting exposure towards EM assets and cyclical stocks later this year. Feature All Aboard The Crude Oil Roller Coaster Chart 1A Price For The Books After gapping up by nearly 20% to $72/barrel on Monday morning – the biggest one-day spike in history – Brent oil prices have retreated to the $64-$65 range, representing a markup of around 7% over last Friday’s close (Chart 1). The near-term direction of oil prices will be governed by how quickly the Saudis are able to restore lost output. Brent fell by over $3/barrel on Tuesday following news reports quoting key Saudi sources saying that state-run Saudi Aramco would be able to bring production back to normal in the next two-to-three weeks. Bob Ryan, BCA’s chief commodity strategist, is skeptical of this reassurance. He notes that the drone attacks destroyed highly sophisticated “one-of-a-kind” equipment that had been specially built for the Abqaiq facility. Beyond the near-term impact, the longer-term question is whether Sunday’s pre-dawn strike is the start of a new violent trend. The fact that much of Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure is densely concentrated in the eastern part of the country makes it vulnerable to further attacks. The proliferation of drone technologies is also a source of concern since such devices can be used to wreak significant havoc at minimal cost. Chart 2Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Chart 3Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Iran’s apparent involvement in the attack further complicates matters. As Matt Gertken, BCA’s chief geopolitical strategist, has argued, the drone strike may have been orchestrated by hardliners in Iran who regard President Rouhani’s efforts to restart negotiations with the United States as evidence of appeasement (some of these hardliners are also profiting from the sanctions by smuggling crude out of the country). President Trump’s decision to sack John Bolton over Bolton’s opposition to making any deal with the Iranians may have created a sense of urgency among the hardliners. In this respect, attacking Iran would probably give the hardliners what they want. All this has occurred at a time when OPEC spare capacity – the difference between what the cartel is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is below its historic average (Chart 2). Crude oil reserves have also been trending lower within the OECD. Saudi Arabia’s own reserves have fallen by over 40% since peaking in 2015 (Chart 3). Oil And The Economy: How Big A Risk? While a major spike in oil prices is not our base case, it cannot be ruled out completely. If the price of crude were to increase significantly, how much damage would this do to the global economy? History is certainly not encouraging: Every single U.S. recession since 1970 has been preceded by a large jump in oil prices (Chart 4). Chart 4Oil Spikes And Recessions Chart 5The Global Economy Is Less Oil Intensive The fact that we are dealing with a potential supply disruption only makes things worse. It is one thing if oil prices are rising in response to stronger global growth; it is quite another if prices rise at a time, such as the present, when global growth is under pressure. Despite these concerns, there are four reasons to be optimistic that higher oil prices will not precipitate a major global economic downturn. First, the global economy is less reliant on oil than in the past. Chart 5 shows that the amount of oil necessary to produce one unit of real GDP has fallen by half since 1990. Second, oil prices are still quite low by historic standards. Even after this week’s jump, Brent is still 24% below where it was last October (Chart 6). In real terms, both Brent and WTI are more than 60% below their 2008 highs. Chart 6Oil Prices Are Well Off Their 2008 Peak Third, if oil prices do stay elevated, this will encourage investment in the oil patch, which will eventually bring prices back down. It is worth remembering that rising oil prices reduce aggregate demand in part by shifting wealth from oil consumers, who tend to spend most of their disposable income, to oil producers, who are often inclined to save the windfall from higher oil prices in such entities as sovereign wealth funds. However, if higher oil prices cause producers to expand production, the positive “investment effect” could offset much of the negative “consumption effect” on aggregate demand. Ironically, this means that a transfer of production from easily accessible oil deposits, such as those in Saudi Arabia, to less accessible shale or deep-sea deposits has the effect of increasing overall energy-sector capital spending, even if it does entail a loss of average efficiency. Fourth, higher oil prices today are unlikely to dislodge long-term inflation expectations. This represents a critical difference between the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s when central banks often felt the need to hike rates in the face of rising oil prices (Chart 7). These days, central banks are more likely to see oil price increases – especially those due to supply-side disruptions – as negative income shocks. Such shocks warrant looser, rather than tighter, monetary policy. Chart 7Core Inflation No Longer Driven By Oil Prices FOMC Cuts Rates As Expected This brings us to this week’s Fed meeting. As widely expected, the Fed cut rates by 25 basis points. It also lowered the projected policy rate path. Compared to the Summary of Economic Projections released in June – which suggested no rate change in 2019, one rate cut in 2020, and one rate hike in 2021 – the median dots in the September Summary of Economic Projections released this week show two cuts in 2019, no rate change in 2020, one rate hike in 2021, and one rate hike in 2022. Seven out of 17 participants penciled in a projected third cut for 2019. Judging from the tone of his post-meeting press conference, Jay Powell, dressed in his trademark bipartisan purple tie, was likely among those advocating for further easing. While it is far from a done deal, an additional rate cut in October appears more likely than not. In total, we expect 75 basis points in cuts, equivalent to the amount of easing orchestrated during both the 1995/96 and 1998 mid-cycle slowdowns (Chart 8). The Fed appears to be using these two episodes as a template for its current thinking. Chart 8Will The Fed Follow The 1990s Template Of 75 Bps Of Mid-Cycle Easing? The Fed is also likely to start expanding the size of its balance sheet starting in November. The spike in funding rates this week, while not at all related to the sort of counterparty risk that prevailed during the financial crisis, still underscored the fact that bank reserves are becoming increasingly scarce. To the extent that the Fed creates bank reserves when it purchases assets, this would help alleviate funding pressures. We are assuming that rate cuts beyond 75 basis points in total are possible. However, this would require a significant deceleration in U.S. growth, which looks unlikely. Real personal consumption spending is on track to increase by 3.1% in Q3, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow (Chart 9). While business capex spending continues to be weighed down by the manufacturing recession, rays of light are emerging. Industrial production rose by 0.6% in August, well above the consensus forecast of 0.2%. Despite an ongoing drag from the auto sector, manufacturing output rose by a solid 0.5%. Chart 9Inventories And Net Exports Have Subtracted From Growth Chart 10Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Globally, the growth picture remains shaky. Looking out, the sharp easing in financial conditions should boost activity (Chart 10). The nascent de-escalation in trade tensions, if sustained, should also help. As such, we continue to expect global growth to stabilize in the coming months and accelerate into year-end. Investment Conclusions Oil prices are likely to rise over the next 12 months. Geopolitical tensions could contribute to any upward pressure on the price of crude, but most of the increase in prices will probably be driven by stronger global growth. If global growth does pick up, the dollar will probably weaken (Chart 11). A weaker dollar will further boost oil prices, along with other commodity prices (Chart 12). Chart 11The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 12A Weaker Dollar Bodes Well For Commodities Stronger global growth, rising commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will hurt safe-haven government bonds but boost stocks. EM and cyclical equity sectors should gain disproportionately. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Analyses on Indonesia and South Africa are available below. The slowdown in Chinese domestic demand has been the main culprit behind the global trade contraction - not the U.S.-China trade confrontation. China’s economy is not reliant on exports to the U.S. and there has been little damage to Chinese total exports. In contrast, Chinese imports have been contracting, dampening global trade. A recovery in the former is contingent on credit stimulus. Feature Chart I-1Chinese Imports Are Contracting Yet U.S. Ones Are Not With odds of a potential trade deal between the U.S. and China rising, the question now becomes whether an imminent acceleration in global trade will occur, sparking a rally in EM risk assets and currencies. We believe the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China has not been the main culprit behind the global trade contraction and manufacturing recession. The latter has primarily been due to a slowdown in Chinese domestic demand. Chart I-1 illustrates that Chinese imports for domestic consumption (excluding processing trade) are shrinking at 6% while U.S. total imports are still growing at 2% from a year ago. Consequently, an improvement in the global business cycle due to a potential trade agreement between the U.S. and China will be limited. Provided the global business cycle is the main factor driving EM risk assets and currencies, there is no sufficient reason to turn bullish on EM at the current juncture. Origin Of The Global Trade Slowdown Tariffs have mainly affected global growth indirectly (via dampening business confidence) rather than directly – by derailing Chinese exports to the U.S. or by affecting American consumer spending. First, U.S. household spending is still reasonably robust, and U.S. imports from the rest of the world have slowed but have not contracted (Chart I-2). Hence, the trade confrontation has not derailed U.S. household spending, and the latter’s impact on global trade has been mildly positive rather than negative. An improvement in the global business cycle due to a potential trade agreement between the U.S. and China will be limited. Second, Chinese exports have been more resilient than those of other Asian economies (Chart I-3). If the tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. were the main cause of the global trade slump, Chinese exports would be shrinking the most. Yet Chinese exports are not contracting – their growth rate is close to zero while Korean and Japanese exports have been plummeting (Chart I-3). Chart I-2U.S. Consumer Spending And Imports Have Not Been A Drag On Global Trade Chart I-3Exports In China Are Faring Better Than Those In Japan And Korea While China’s shipments to the U.S. have certainly plunged, there is both anecdotal and empirical evidence that mainland-produced goods have been making their way to the U.S. via Taiwan, Vietnam and other economies (Chart I-4). This is why Chinese aggregate exports are not contracting. Third, Chinese exports are doing better than imports (Chart I-5). This tells us that the underlying reason for the slowdown both in China and globally is not tariffs, but rather the weakness in Chinese domestic demand. Chart I-4China's Exports To U.S. Have Been Re-Routed Via Rest Of Asia Chart I-5Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Its Exports Importantly, ongoing contraction in Chinese imports excluding processing trade (i.e., excluding imports of inputs that are assembled and then re-exported) is a clear indication of a slump in Chinese domestic demand (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 1). Capital outlays in general and construction activity in particular remain very weak (Chart I-6). This is consistent with shrinking import volumes of capital goods, base metals, chemicals and lumber (Chart I-7). Chart I-6China: Capex Is In Doldrums Chart I-7China: Capex-Exposed Imports Are Shrinking Chart I-8China's Economy Is Not Reliant On Exports To The U.S. Finally, Chart I-8 shows that Chinese exports to the U.S. before the commencement of the trade war represented less than 4% of Chinese GDP. In contrast, capital spending in China is 42% of GDP. Hence, China’s economy is not reliant on exports to the U.S. This is why in our research and strategy we emphasize the mainland’s money/credit cycle – which leads capital spending – much more than its exports. To be clear, we are not implying that the U.S.-China trade confrontation has had no bearing on global growth. It has certainly affected business and consumer sentiment in China and hurt confidence among multinational companies. Hence, a trade deal could boost sentiment among these segments, leading to some improvement in their spending. Nevertheless, odds are that businesspeople in China and multinational CEOs around the world will realize that we are witnessing a secular rise in the U.S.-China confrontation, and that any trade deal will be temporary. The basis is that the genuine interests of the U.S. go against China’s national interests, since the U.S. has an interest in preventing the formation of a regional empire that can then challenge it for global supremacy. Conversely, whatever is in the long-term interests of China will not be acceptable for the U.S., particularly China’s rapid military and technological advancement. As such, global CEOs may see through a trade deal and any improvement in their confidence will likely be muted. In fact, if a China-U.S. trade détente leads Chinese authorities to resort to less stimulus going forward, odds are that China’s domestic demand revival will be delayed. Hence, the positive boost to global trade will not be substantial. The underlying reason for the slowdown both in China and globally is not tariffs, but rather the weakness in Chinese domestic demand. In such a case, global manufacturing and trade contraction will likely last longer than financial markets are presently pricing in. Asset prices will need to be reset in this scenario before a new cyclical rally begins. Bottom Line: The trade confrontation has not been the main reason behind the global trade slowdown. Consequently, its temporary resolution may not be enough to produce a cyclical recovery in global trade. Given financial markets have already bounced back in recent weeks, they may follow a “buy the rumor, sell the news” pattern regarding the trade deal. Investors should continue to underweight EM equities, sovereign credit and currencies within respective global portfolios. In absolute term, risks to EM assets and currencies are still tilted to the downside too. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Relapsing Growth Risks Foreign Outflows Indonesian stocks and the rupiah have been benefiting from falling U.S. interest rate expectations. This has been occurring even though domestic fundamentals, namely economic growth and the outlook for corporate profits, have been deteriorating. The Indonesian economy is undergoing a sharp slowdown: The private credit impulse is declining (Chart II-1, top panel). Retail sales volume of various goods are heading south (Chart II-1, middle panel). Mirroring the weakness in investment expenditures, capital goods imports are shrinking (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Passenger car sales are shrinking and sales of other types of vehicles have stalled. The real estate sector has entered a weak spot as well. House prices are only growing at 2% in nominal local currency terms according to data from the central bank. Growth in rail freight transport has stalled and the manufacturing PMI has dipped below the critical 50 level (Chart II-2, top and middle panels). Domestic cement consumption is contracting (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Chart II-1Indonesia: Domestic Demand Is Slumping Chart II-2Indonesia: Business Activity Is Anemic Finally, exports are dwindling at an annual rate of -8% from a year ago. Chart II-3Borrowing Costs Are Elevated Relative To Nominal Income Growth This growth deceleration is due to the ongoing contraction in exports, slowing domestic loan growth and somewhat conservative fiscal policy. These factors have altogether hit nominal incomes and hurt spending. Meanwhile, Indonesia’s lending rates remain elevated and well above nominal growth (Chart II-3). Such a gap between nominal income growth and borrowing costs is exerting deflationary pressures on the Indonesian economy. Consistent with worsening growth dynamics, non-financial stocks have been struggling and small cap stocks have been in a bear market since 2013 (Chart II-4). The basis is poor and deteriorating profitability among non-financial firms (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Indonesia: Poor Profitability Among Non-Financial Companies Chart II-4Non-Financial & Small Caps Stocks: Dismal Performance Only shares prices of three banks - Bank Central Asia, Bank Rakyat and Bank Mandiri - have been in a genuine bull market. These three stocks now account for 40% of the overall Indonesia MSCI Index and their rally has prevented an outright decline in the bourse. Chart II-6Indonesian Banks: Higher Provisions, Lower Profits We agree that these three banks are well provisioned and extremely well capitalized. Nevertheless, at a price-to-book value ratio of 4.7 for Bank Central Asia, 2.8 for Bank Rakyat and 1.8 Bank Mandiri, they are expensive. Given the ongoing economic slowdown and still high real borrowing costs, these three banks as well as all commercial banks in Indonesia will face higher NPLs and will be forced to provision for them. As NPL provisioning rise, banks’ profits will slow (Chart II-6). Such a scenario will likely lead to a 10-15% decline in these banks’ share prices in local currency terms. In U.S. dollars terms, the decline will be larger. Finally, as foreign investors in Indonesia begin digesting the magnitude of the country’s ongoing growth slump, their expectations for Indonesia’s return on capital will decline and they will likely reduce their exposure. This will trigger a selloff in the rupiah. Historically, foreign investors in Indonesia have cumulatively pumped $175 billion into debt securities and $105 billion into equity and investment funds. Indonesia’s lending rates remain elevated and well above nominal growth. Moreover, foreign ownership of local currency bonds and equities is high at 38% and 45%, respectively. Therefore, a decline in the rupiah will likely intensify the selloffs in the bond and equity markets. Bottom Line: For now, we continue recommending EM dedicated investors to remain underweight Indonesian equities, local currency bonds and U.S. dollar sovereign credit within their respective portfolios. We continue to recommend a short position in the IDR versus USD trade. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com South Africa: On An Unsustainable Path The backdrop for South African financial assets remains poor, despite the recent surge in precious metals prices and Federal Reserve easing. The rand will continue to depreciate, even if precious metals prices continue to rise. Such a decoupling will not be historically unprecedented. Chart III-1 shows the long-term relationship between gold and the rand. The rand has failed to rally on several occasions during periods of rising gold prices. Chart III-1Rand Has Diverged Historically From Gold Prices What’s more, contrary to popular narrative, the rand and the majority of EM currencies do not typically appreciate when U.S. interest rate expectations drop. We have elaborated on this topic in depth in previous reports. Ultimately, widening twin deficits, dwindling growth and declining return on capital will continue to depress the rand and risk assets. Supply constraints are preventing South Africa from capitalizing on rising gold prices – gold mining output is plummeting (Chart III-2). In fact, the trade deficit has been widening, despite surging gold prices (Chart III-3). Chart III-2Contracting Mining Output Chart III-3Rising Gold Prices ≠ Improving Trade Balance The overall and primary fiscal deficits are also widening, as government revenues are slumping (Chart III-4). On top of this, the government recently announced a $4.2 billion (ZAR 59 billion) bailout for state-owned utility company Eskom, further worsening the country’s debt sustainability position. The combination of plummeting nominal GDP growth and still-high borrowing costs (Chart III-5) have also worsened debt dynamics among private borrowers, hurting private consumption and investment. Chart III-4Fiscal Deficit Will Widen Further Chart III-5Interest Rates Are Restrictive For Growth Both business and household demand remain lackluster. South African non-financial companies’ return on assets (RoA) has been declining and has dropped below EM for the first time in the past 20 years (Chart III-6). Falling RoA has been due not only to cyclical growth headwinds but also structural issues such as lack of productivity growth. The falling RoA explains South African financial assets’ underperformance versus their EM counterparts. Finally, the rand is not very cheap (Chart III-7). Given poor fundamentals, including but not limited to a lack of productivity growth and a low and falling return on capital, the currency may need to get much cheaper. Chart III-6Non-Financials: Return On Assets Chart III-7The Rand Needs To Get Cheaper! Overall, South Africa’s current macro dynamics are unsustainable. On the one hand, widening twin deficits will augment the country’s reliance on foreign funding. FDI inflows have been rather meager and are likely to stay that way. Hence, South Africa remains extremely dependent on volatile foreign portfolio inflows. Historically, foreign investors have cumulatively pumped $100 billion into debt securities and $120 billion into equity and investment funds. In turn, foreign portfolio inflows are contingent on a firm currency and high interest rates. Widening twin deficits, dwindling growth and declining return on capital will continue to depress the rand and risk assets. On the other hand, the economy is choking and public debt dynamics are worsening at a torrid pace due to high interest rates. Much lower domestic interest rates and a cheaper currency are necessary to reflate the economy and stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Ultimately, financial markets will likely push for a resolution of these contradictions. In the medium to long run, international capital flows gravitate towards countries that offer a high or rising return on capital. Provided return on capital in South Africa is very low and falling, foreign portfolio inflows will at some point diminish or grind to a halt. This will likely coincide with a negative global trigger for overall EM. Reduced inflows or mild outflows of foreign portfolio capital will cause sizable rand depreciation. Bottom Line: The economy requires a cheaper rand and much lower interest rates to grow. The rand will likely act as a release valve: it will depreciate a lot, improving the trade balance, which in turn will ultimately allow interest rates to decline - although local bond yields will spike initially on rand weakness. Investment recommendations: Remain short the rand versus the U.S. dollar, and underweight stocks and sovereign credit in respective dedicated EM portfolios. Concerning bonds, a depreciating rand will initially cause a selloff in local currency government bonds, warranting an underweight position for now. In the sovereign credit space, we are maintaining the following trade: sell CDS on Mexico / buy CDS on South Africa and Brazil. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
If expanding payrolls and increasing compensation can keep consumption growing at 2%, the probability of a U.S. recession, of an equity bear market and a new default cycle, is fairly slim. The second quarter monthly employment situation reports have revealed…
Dear Client, BCA’s New York conference takes place next week on September 26-27, and I look forward to meeting some of you there. Because of the conference, our next report will come out on October 3. Dhaval Joshi Highlights If the WTI crude oil price breached $70, Germany’s net export growth would suffer a short-term relapse. If the WTI crude oil price breached $90, Germany’s economic growth would suffer a much longer setback. The WTI crude oil price is now trading at $59, well below even the first pain threshold. Hence, at the moment, the oil price ‘spike’ is a minor irritant rather than a major risk to a German (and European) economic rebound in the fourth quarter. Stay overweight the Eurostoxx50 versus the Shanghai Composite and Nikkei225. If the WTI price stabilises well below $70, we intend to initiate an overweight to the DAX versus global equities. German bunds are a structural short relative to U.S. T-bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekOil Price Oscillations Have Explained German Growth Oscillations With A Spooky Precision It is touch and go whether Germany suffered a technical recession through the second and third quarters.1 We will know in about six weeks’ time, once the statisticians have finished crunching the numbers. But for the financial markets, this is old news. A technical recession in Germany during the second and third quarters is already baked in the market cake. The economy and financial markets are entwined in a perpetual dance. In a dance, sometimes one person decides the steps and sometimes the other person does, but the couple always moves together. And so it is with the economy and markets. The ZEW indicator of (German) economic sentiment recently hit its lowest level since 2011, and the performance of the DAX versus global equities has moved in near perfect lockstep (Chart I-2). Chart I-2A German Recession Is Already Baked In The Market Cake Some people try to predict the movement of markets based on the releases of backward-looking economic data or even supposedly real-time economic data, such as sentiment surveys. Good luck with that. The markets instantaneously discount those releases. To predict the markets, the key question is: what will the future releases look like? If the German economy rebounds in the fourth quarter, then the stark underperformance of the DAX constitutes a compelling buying opportunity versus other equity markets. That said, a new potential risk has emerged: the spike in the crude oil price. Germany Is Highly Sensitive To The Oil Price Europeans are large importers of energy, with 55 percent of all energy needs met by net imports. Moreover, the volume of energy they import tends to be price inelastic. Hence, when energy prices plunge, it boosts net exports and thereby it boosts growth. Conversely, when energy prices soar – as they have recently – it depresses net exports and thereby it depresses growth.2 98 percent of Germany’s consumption of oil depends on imports. This is especially true for Germany whose energy import dependency, at 65 percent, is well above the European average. The most important energy source is still oil which accounts for over a third of Germany’s primary energy use (Chart I-3). Moreover, 98 percent of Germany’s consumption of oil depends on imports.3 Chart I-3Germany Is Highly Sensitive To The Oil Price Most of Germany’s oil consumption is for transport. On a timeframe of decades, the planned decarbonisation of all sectors by 2050 should all but eliminate fossil oil from German energy consumption. However, on a timeframe of quarters, oil consumption for transport is highly inelastic and non-substitutable. Hence, in recent years, swings in the oil price have always caused swings in Germany’s net exports (Chart I-4). Based on this excellent relationship, a likely rebound in German net exports in the fourth quarter would be threatened if the WTI crude price reached and stayed in the mid $70s. Chart I-4Swings In The Oil Price Cause Swings In Germany's Net Exports For Economic Growth, The Oil Price Impulse Is What Matters Empirically, we have found that the German economy is much more sensitive to the oil price than other European economies (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). This could be because other drivers of the economy such as credit developments are less significant in Germany. Chart I-5Germany Is More Sensitive To The Oil Price... Chart I-6...Than Other European ##br##Economies Most analysts argue that it is the change in the oil price that is relevant for the economy. This is obviously correct for the impact on inflation, which is, by definition, the change in a price. However, it is incorrect to argue that the change in the oil price drives economic growth. Instead, it is the impulse of the oil price – the change in its change – that drives economic growth. To understand why, consider a simplified example. Let’s say a 20 percent drop in the oil price added to Germany’s net exports, causing the economy to grow 1 percent. In the following period, another 20 percent drop in the oil would cause the economy to grow again by 1 percent, so growth would stay unchanged. On the other hand, if the oil price dropped by 10 percent, the economy would still grow, but now at a reduced rate of 0.5 percent. Therefore somewhat paradoxically, though the oil price has declined by 10 percent, growth has slowed. This is because the second drop in the price (10 percent) is less than the first (20 percent) – which means the tailwind impulse has faded. Now let’s put in the actual numbers for the oil price’s 6-month impulse. The period ending around June 2019 constituted a severe headwind impulse. This is because a 30 percent increase in the oil price followed a 40 percent decline in the previous period, equating to a headwind impulse of 70 percent.4 Allowing for typical lags of a few months, this severe headwind impulse is a likely culprit, or at least a contributing culprit, for Germany’s slowdown during the second and third quarters. As the Chart of the Week compellingly illustrates, oscillations in the oil price’s 6-month impulse have explained the oscillations in Germany’s 6-month economic growth with a spooky precision. Empirically, other explanatory factors are not needed. The period ending June 2019 constituted a severe headwind impulse from the oil price. Now the good news. Until the last few days, the oil price’s severe headwind impulse had eased – and this fading of the headwind strongly suggested a rebound in German economic growth during the fourth quarter and beyond. This raises a crucial question: to what level would the crude oil price have to spike for the maximum headwind impulse to return, and thereby extinguish the chance of such a rebound? By reverse engineering the price from the maximum headwind impulse, the answer is the WTI crude price at $90. Pulling all of this together, the first pain threshold is WTI breaching $70, at which Germany’s net export growth could suffer a short-term relapse. The second and greater pain threshold is WTI breaching $90, at which Germany’s economic growth could be stifled for much longer. Having said all that, WTI is now trading at $59, well below even the first pain threshold. Hence, at the moment, this is a minor irritant rather than a major risk to a German (and European) economic rebound. Stay overweight the Eurostoxx50 versus the Shanghai Composite and Nikkei225. And in the coming week or so, if the WTI price stabilises well below $70, we intend to initiate an overweight to the DAX versus global equities. The ECB Fired A Dud So much for the ECB’s promise to ‘shock and awe’ the markets. The bazooka ended up firing a dud! Unlimited QE is not really unlimited when the ECB’s asset purchase program is running close to its individual issuer limit, and its country composition cannot deviate too far from the ECB’s capital key. QE is nothing more than a signal of intent to keep policy interest rates ultra-low for a protracted period. In any case, QE is nothing more than a signal of intent to keep policy interest rates ultra-low for a protracted period. But once the markets have fully discounted this intent – as they have in the euro area and Japan – the monetary policy armoury is effectively out of ammunition (Chart I-7-Chart I-10). So it is not surprising that the ECB fired a dud. Chart I-7Monetary Policy Is Exhausted In The Euro Area... Chart I-8...But The U.S. Still Has ##br##Ammunition Chart I-9Monetary Policy Is Exhausted In Japan... Chart I-10...But China Still Has Ammunition Some people counter that there are even more exotic monetary policy options in the pipeline, such as ‘helicopter money’. However, as Mario Draghi correctly pointed out, “giving money to people in whatever form is not a monetary policy task, it’s a fiscal policy task.” Helicopter money might be a step too far, but its notion encapsulates the shape of things to come in Europe. With euro area monetary policy exhausted, the baton is passing to fiscal policy. The upshot is that in a bond portfolio, German bunds are a structural short relative to U.S. T-bonds. Fractal Trading System* Although we are structurally overweight Italian long-dated BTPs, the 130-day fractal dimension is signalling that the pace of the rally is now technically extended and therefore vulnerable to a countertrend correction. This week’s trade recommendation is to express this via a short position in the Italian 10-year BTP, setting a profit target of 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short the U.S. 10-year T-bond quickly achieved its profit target, while short financial services versus market reached the end of its holding period in slight loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We define a technical recession as two consecutive quarters of contraction in real GDP. 2 Energy dependence = (imports – exports) / gross available energy. 3 According to the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources. 4 The 6-month steps in the WTI crude oil price were $74.15, $45.21, and $58.24. The first change equated to a 40 percent decrease and the second change equated to a 30 percent increase. So the 6-month impulse was 70 percent. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - 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
Dear Client, Owing to BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference at the Grand Hyatt in New York City next week, there will be no report on Wednesday, September 25. We will return to our regular publication schedule on Wednesday, October 2. I look forward to meeting China Investment Strategy clients in person at our conference. Please do not hesitate to say hello. Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Highlights China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in the coming few months if the economy slows further, but policymakers will be reactive rather than proactive. Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark in currency hedged terms, but the risk of further underperformance over the near-term is high. Feature Chinese economic growth continues to weaken. The Caixin manufacturing PMI for August, along with the New Export Orders component of the manufacturing PMI released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics, registered small gains in August from July. However, any hopes pinned on this being an emerging sign of turnaround in the Chinese economy soon faded. A slew of August data showed continued sluggishness in exports, an even worse domestic-demand picture, and further deflation in ex-factory producer prices. Most importantly, we continue to witness “half-measured” stimulus. In explaining past and existing economic weakness, many investors point to the trade war with the U.S. However, Charts 1 and 2 serve as an important reminder that domestic weakness predates U.S. protectionism. The trade war tensions and tariffs are magnifying this weakness, but China’s slowdown is, at its core, policy driven. Chart 1Weakness In Chinese Economy Predates The Trade War... Chart 2…And Has Been A Byproduct Of Financial De-Risking Campaign Given this, investors should be more focused on identifying signs of a major reversal in policy. So far Chinese policymakers have been firmly holding their line in keeping credit growth somewhat in check. Policy-Induced Economic Stabilization: A Tough Forecast To Make Our baseline view is that the current scale of stimulus should be sufficient to stop economic growth from decelerating further. Two factors support our baseline view: The direct impact from tariffs on the Chinese economy is limited. Growth in China’s exports to the U.S. in 2019 is likely to be somewhere close to a 9% contraction, down from the 10.8% increase registered in 2018. Based on a simple calculation with all else being equal, this is likely to shave 1.6 percentage points off China’s total export growth and 0.3 percentage points off nominal GDP growth in 2019. This is not trivial, but arguably not devastating to China’s aggregate economy either. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting some Chinese exports have been re-routed to peripheral countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan in order to avoid the U.S. import tariffs on Chinese goods (Chart 3). This suggests that real growth in Chinese exports to the U.S. could be stronger than the current data suggests. Chart 3Exports Finding Alternative Routes? Chart 4Bottoming in the economy In Sight? Credit growth has picked up since the beginning of this year. Based on the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse (measured by the 12-month change in BCA’s adjusted total social financing as a percentage of nominal GDP) and domestic demand, the economy should bottom out at some point before the end of the year (Chart 4). Although, import growth, a key measure of China’s domestic demand, remains in deep contraction, some of its components that usually lead industrial activities are showing signs of improvement (Chart 5). Chart 5Early Signs of Improved Domestic Demand Chart 6Manufacturing Investment Growth In Contraction However, our level of confidence that the existing stimulus will be sufficient to stabilize economic growth is lower than it otherwise would be. This is due to the fact that the challenges facing the Chinese economy are unprecedented in nature. For one, the indirect impact of the trade war on China’s economy through business sentiment and manufacturing investment has yet to be fully revealed in the data. As Chart 6 shows, manufacturing investment is already deteriorating, particularly in export-intensive sectors. The ultimate impact on investment from the trade war is still uncertain, and can pose significant downside risks to the Chinese economy in the coming year. More importantly, as Chart 7 suggests, a weak credit impulse will at best lead to a very subdued economic recovery even if growth does indeed bottom. In terms of the link between policy and the economy, Chart 8 points out a key difference between the current slowdown and previous down cycles: Monetary conditions have been ultra-loose for more than a year, but current economic conditions remain on a downward trend – much more so than in the previous cycles. This huge gap and lag in economic response to monetary stance can only be explained by an impaired policy transmission mechanism. An expansionary monetary stance has not proportionally translated into credit expansion or economic recovery. This challenges the effectiveness and timeliness of future monetary loosening in terms of its ability to revive the Chinese economy. Chart 7Current Pace Of Credit Growth Will Lead To A Fragile Recovery, At Best Chart 8An Impaired Monetary Policy Transmission The scale and timing of the current stimulus measures have been “behind the curve.” Therefore, the historical relationship between China’s credit impulse and the turning points in the economy may not apply to the current cycle. Bottom Line: China’s economy should bottom as a result of the pickup in credit that occurred earlier this year, but the circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown are unprecedented in nature. This raises the risk that policymakers will have to do more in order to stabilize growth. An Unusually Prudent Policy Bias For some, the recent slew of announcements on upcoming stimulus qualified as a major shift in policy bias. Our analysis suggests otherwise. The bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts announced late in August have been among the most cited policy announcements, with the PBoC stating that the new cuts will release RMB 900 billion of fresh liquidity.1 In our view, this measure is more about maintaining liquidity in China’s large commercial banks than adding to it (on a net basis). Chart 9RRR Cuts May Not Be That Stimulative Chart 9 shows that, in previous episodes of meaningful RMB depreciation against the U.S. dollar, in order to prevent the RMB from falling at an undesirable pace, PBoC has had to intervene in the spot market by selling U.S. dollars. The selling of U.S. dollars in this round of RMB depreciation has been much more muted than in 2015-2016, but we suspect some intervention has taken place following each bout of escalation in the trade war. This has had a liquidity tightening effect on banks, as selling central bank foreign-exchange reserves reduces liquidity in the banking system. It is very likely that following the PBoC’s defense of the RMB in the last two months, the RRR cuts were a measure aimed at preventing a liquidity crunch ahead of the September tax season. If true, this hardly qualifies as net new stimulus for the economy. There were also two important announcements that came out of the September 5th State Council meeting: The entire 2019 quota for local government special project bonds must be issued by the end of September, and all money raised from the bonds must be disbursed to projects by the end of October. This too is not exactly “stimulative,” as over 90% of the 2019 local government special-project bond quota has already been issued. This leaves less than 10% of the quota outstanding, an 80% decline from what was issued last September. On a quarterly basis, special-bond issuance in the third quarter of 2019 will end up being 30% lower than the same period last year. It was also announced that, in order to meet the local needs for construction of key projects, part of 2020’s special bonds quota will be allocated in advance to ensure that the funds are available for use at the beginning of next year.2 While the announcement did not indicate how much in the way of special-purpose bonds local governments are allowed to frontload through the remainder of this year, we maintain our view that this is not a policy shift towards materially larger stimulus than we have seen so far this year: Without an additional quota, local government special-purpose bond issuance would essentially fall to zero in the fourth quarter as the 2019 target would be hit by the end of September. Thus, the frontloading of next year’s bond issuance will only “fill the gap” between now and year-end. As special-purpose bond issuance only accounts for 15% of total funding for local governments’ infrastructure spending, the new measure alone is unlikely to meaningfully accelerate investment growth.3 We have noted in previous reports that in order for local governments to accelerate spending within the current fiscal budget framework, one of three things must occur: more direct funding from the central government, an acceptance by policymakers of more shadow bank lending, or a larger quota for bond issuance. So far we have not seen any of the above-mentioned shifts in policy. Chart 10Local Governments Tightening Belt This Year The only positive sign for local government spending has been a pickup in land sales in Q2, which makes up more than 70% of local government revenues. But, it is far from making up the shortfalls in local governments’ budgets (Chart 10). Local governments are facing considerable fiscal pressure as annual tax revenue growth has fallen to near zero. Critically, the government’s regulatory stance on local government budgets has continued to tighten: Local governments have been ordered by the Ministry of Finance to liquidate state-owned assets to fund their budget deficits this year.4 This austerity measure is also being met with explicit reiteration from the Ministry of Finance on the central government not bailing out local governments, and that local government officials are held responsible for their own borrowing and spending.5 Bottom Line: Optimism surrounding recent Chinese policy announcements is misguided. For now, Chinese policymakers are not upping the pace of stimulus, which underscores the risk to our forecast that growth will soon stabilize. A more meaningful shot of reflation will occur in early 2020 if the economy slows further in Q4, but policymakers will most likely continue their reactive approach rather than proactive. RMB Depreciation: A Plus Or Peril? The RMB’s renewed depreciation since August initially raised fears among global investors that an uncontrolled decline might occur, but these fears have subsided over the past several weeks. Even though the USD-CNY exchange rate has broken the psychological 7 threshold, it is not forming a linear downward trend. Unlike after the August 2015 devaluation, it appears that the PBoC can successfully enact countercyclical measures to guide the RMB’s value higher following each large depreciation (Chart 11). Chart 11PBoC Not Panicking Over RMB Depreciation Fears of uncontrolled capital outflows following the depreciation are also abating. We presented a dashboard for monitoring short-term capital outflows from China in our March 20 Special Report,6 and an update of these indicators suggests that China’s heightened capital controls are holding – i.e., outflows have not escalated as they did in 2015 (Chart 12). Chart 12No Major Capital Outflow Chart 13RMB Depreciation Partially Offsets Tariffs Thus, the conclusion is that Chinese policymakers appear to be in control of the currency. The reduced risk of an uncontrolled decline has allowed policymakers to (passively) provide meaningful stimulus to the domestic economy via depreciation. Indeed, the RMB has not only depreciated against the USD, but also against many Asian currencies including direct trade competitors such as Vietnam and Taiwan (Chart 13). This is helping offset the negative impact of U.S. tariffs on Chinese exporters. But currency devaluation can come with a price tag – in particular for corporations that have borrowed heavily in U.S. dollar-denominated debt. We estimate that $440 billion of U.S. dollar debt will be maturing over the coming two years, for Chinese companies and banks in the aggregate.7 A 12% depreciation in the RMB since April 2018 means that debt servicing costs will be 12% higher for unhedged debtors. This is particularly painful for real estate and financial services companies, two of the largest holders of U.S. dollar-denominated loans, and the weakest sectors in the current economic downturn. Most importantly, while currency devaluation ease the slowdown, it cannot be counted on to stabilize Chinese economic activity on its own. For example, while our earnings recession model suggests that the decline in the RMB since May has reduced the odds of a major decline in economic activity by roughly 20%, the model also shows that such an event is still highly probable (current odds are roughly at 70%). Bottom Line: Barring a successful (even if temporary) trade deal, we expect more weakness in the RMB as a passive source of reflation to aid the economy. But currency devaluation is a double-edged sword, and cannot be counted on to single-handedly stabilize China’s economy if a further slowdown occurs. An Update On Corporate Earnings Against a backdrop of what may turn out to be insufficient policy support, the earnings picture is providing one modest positive for equity investors. While the growth rate in investable earnings per share has slowed significantly over the past year (Chart 14), it has merely fallen to zero and not deeply into negative territory, as what seemingly occurred in 2015-2016. In our view, the risk of a similar collapse in earnings per share (EPS) has been an important factor weighing on Chinese investable equities’ relative performance since June 2018. In reality, a closer examination of MSCI China Index earnings reveals that a huge decline in EPS this year was never really a threat, because the apparent collapse in 2015-2016 did not actually transpire. Changes to the composition in the MSCI China Index that took effect in November 2015 and June 2016 had the effect of depressing index EPS, due to the sizeable inclusion of a set of richly valued stocks. Chart 15 presents BCA’s calculation of “break-adjusted” EPS for Chinese investable stocks, which shows that EPS growth bottomed out at -10% in late-2016, as opposed to the -28% implied by the unadjusted series. Chart 14Investable EPS Has Yet To Contract Meaningfully Chart 15The Potential Downside For Earnings Is Less Than Many Fear Chart 16A Cyclical Recovery In Earnings Has Not Yet Begun The existence of less downside potential for earnings is certainly positive for investable stocks at the margin, but it does not alter the outlook for equity fundamentals over the coming year. We have shown in several previous reports that there is a strong and reliable link between investable EPS growth and China’s coincident economic activity,8 and the continued slowing in the latter does not suggest that a bottom in earnings is imminent. In addition, Chart 16 highlights that while net earnings revisions have recovered from their early-year lows, they remain in negative territory and have stopped rising over the past few weeks. Twelve-month forward EPS momentum, also presented on a break-adjusted basis, is modestly negative, and has recently weakened (panel 2). Bottom Line: The downside risk to earnings for Chinese investable equities is less than many investors fear. But absent stronger credit growth, it remains too early to confidently project a cyclical earnings recovery. Investment Conclusions The historical relationship between credit growth and economic activity suggests that the latter should soon stabilize, which is our base case view for the coming few months. Still, the risk of a further, meaningful deceleration in growth is elevated, given the unprecedented circumstances surrounding the ongoing slowdown. For equity investors, less potential downside risks to earnings than previously feared is a positive at the margin, but the fundamental outlook still hinges on a durable pickup in economic activity. Over a 6-12 month time horizon, this implies that one of two scenarios will unfold: The economy will stabilize in response to the easing that has already occurred (i.e. our base case view). The economy slows further in the near-term, prompting a more significant policy response that leads to an even sharper pickup in activity. Chart 17Investable Stocks: An Overshoot To The Downside? In the first scenario, investable stocks have probably overshot to the downside versus the global benchmark and thus will very likely outperform from current levels. Near-term performance is likely to be flat-to-down, as investors await hard evidence of a sequential improvement in growth (Chart 17). In the second scenario, investable stocks are at potentially acute near-term risk, but will likely eventually outperform global stocks once activity begins to pick up sharply. In this scenario, the outperformance of Chinese equities will commence later, but would likely still occur by the tail end of our cyclical investment horizon (6-12 months). As a final point, we are not ruling out the possibility of a temporary trade deal between the U.S. and China, as both sides have the incentive to avoid a further escalation and are now showing goodwill towards constructive negotiations. This may change our tactical view on Chinese stocks, but our cyclical view remains focused on China’s domestic policy and economic fundamentals. Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 PBC Official: The RRR Cut Aims at Bolstering Real Economy, September 6, 2019 2 China to accelerate the issuance and use of special local government bonds to catalyze effective investment, China State Council, September 4, 2019 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Chinese Infrastructure Investment: A Ramp-Up Ahead?”, dated August 1, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 China’s Local Governments Sell Assets to Make Up for Revenue Loss, Caixin, September 3, 2019 5 http://www.mof.gov.cn/zhengwuxinxi/caizhengxinwen/201909/t20190906_3382239.htm?mc_cid=eb2b199651&mc_eid=9da16a4859 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Monitoring Chinese Capital Outflows”, dated March 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China’s Foreign Debt, And A Secret Weapon”, dated September 12, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2):Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Following up from last week’s ISM-related analysis, we turn our attention to the labor market that is beginning to reveal some minor cracks. While the ISM debate has centered around the steep divergences between services and manufacturing on the headline number and the new orders subcomponents, the labor components have gone nearly unnoticed. Worrisomely on the employment front, the surveys are in agreement (bottom panel), warning that the labor market will have trouble standing on its own two feet. Tack on the latest NFIB survey, and the news gets grimmer. The top panel shows that an equally-weighted index of small business job openings and hiring plans is quickly losing momentum. Given that roughly 2/3 of job creation originates in small and medium businesses, non-farm payroll growth will likely continue to lose steam in the coming months, which is a bearish sign for the broad equity market (second & third panels). Bottom Line: Remain cautious on the prospects of the overall equity market. Please see the most recent Weekly Report for more details.