Estados Unidos

Informe especial

Highlights Below-Benchmark Duration: Below-benchmark duration positions will continue to pay off in 2019 as the Fed delivers more than the 32 bps of rate hikes that are priced into the curve for the next 12 months. While tighter financial conditions will probably necessitate a pause in the Fed’s gradual rate hike cycle at some point next year, this is already more than discounted in current market prices. A further deterioration in housing starts and new home sales, or a significant uptick in initial jobless claims would call our below-benchmark duration view into question. Neutral Corporate Credit: In an environment where the yield curve is quite flat but still positively sloped, excess returns to corporate bonds also tend to be quite low, but still positive on average. Investors should be looking for low, but positive, excess returns from credit on a 12-month investment horizon. However, credit spreads will probably widen further in the near-term and then tighten once the Fed signals a pause and global growth improves. Overweight Munis and Local Authorities: Tax-exempt municipal bond yields are very attractive relative to corporate bonds and both municipal and Local Authority bonds are relatively insulated from the weakness in global growth that will threaten the corporate profit outlook in the coming quarters. Both of these sectors should perform well in 2019. Overweight TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have shifted down in recent weeks, but will move higher in 2019, eventually stabilizing in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. The rebound in oil prices that our commodity strategists expect will help, but TIPS outperformance will largely be driven by investor expectations slowly adapting to the new reality that inflation will remain much closer to the Fed’s target than it has in recent years. Yield Curve Inversion In Late 2019: Below-target TIPS breakeven inflation rates and an inverted yield curve cannot coexist. As such, investors should not worry about a sustained inversion of the yield curve until later in 2019. To profit from this view, investors should position for steepeners at the front-end of the curve. We recommend going long the 2-year bullet and short a duration-matched 1/5 barbell. The belly (5-7 year) part of the curve has become very expensive and should be avoided at all costs. Feature BCA published its 2019 Outlook two weeks ago.1 That report lays out the macroeconomic themes that our strategists think will drive markets next year. In this Special Report, we specify how investors should implement those views in the context of a U.S. bond portfolio. Key Views The main conclusions from the 2019 Outlook are: Overall, we expect the pace of U.S. economic growth to slow from its recent strong level, but it should hold above trend, currently estimated to be around 2%. […] that means capacity pressures will intensify, causing inflation to move higher. With the U.S. unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it will take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. […] Ultimately, the Fed will deliver more hikes next year than discounted in the markets. This will push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to peak sometime in 2019 or early 2020 in the 3.5%-to-4% range, before the next recession sends yields temporarily lower. In the verbiage of monetary policymakers, the BCA view is that U.S. interest rates remain below the neutral level that is consistent with trend GDP growth and stable inflation. This means that the Fed’s rate hike cycle will continue in 2019, and that monetary policy will not turn restrictive until later in the year. It is this view of U.S. interest rates remaining below neutral until late 2019 that drives our portfolio recommendations. Key Risks Given our main premise, the biggest risk to our recommended portfolio allocation is that interest rates move above neutral sooner than we anticipate. We will be monitoring three main risks in the coming months to help us decide whether our main premise needs to be re-evaluated. Risk #1: Housing Since a large amount of leverage is employed in the acquisition of new homes, there is good reason to believe that housing is the main channel through which interest rates impact the real economy. This is validated by the empirical data which show that residential investment, housing starts and new home sales all provide a good indication of when monetary policy turns restrictive and of when Treasury yields peak for the cycle.2 With that in mind, the housing data have clearly deteriorated during the past 6-9 months. However, with the 12-month moving averages of housing starts and new home sales still trending higher, it is too soon to say that housing has peaked for the cycle (Chart 1). Our sense is that the recent deterioration is a result of the sharp move higher in mortgage rates that occurred earlier this year. Now that rates have moderated, the housing data should improve.3 Chart 1The Housing Market Predicts Recessions A decisive breakdown in the 12-month moving averages of housing starts and new home sales would cause us to question our premise that U.S. interest rates remain below neutral. Risk #2: Jobless Claims With the unemployment rate at 3.7%, the U.S. labor market is in rude health. That being said, a move higher in the unemployment rate would be a clear sign that monetary policy is restrictive and that a recession is right around the corner. In the post-war era, there has never been a case where the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without a recession taking place. Often, a turn higher in the unemployment rate is preceded by an increase in initial jobless claims, and the 4-week moving average in claims has increased for four consecutive weeks (Chart 2). So far, that increase is no cause for concern. Historically, the 6-month change in jobless claims needs to reach +75k before a recession occurs (Chart 2, bottom panel). Nevertheless, the recent upturn in claims will bear monitoring in the months ahead. Chart 2Initial Jobless Claims Are Worth Monitoring Risk #3: Weak Foreign Growth & A Strong Dollar It is a bit misleading for us to include weak foreign growth and a strong dollar in the “key risks” section. In fact, our base case outlook involves weak foreign economic growth migrating to the U.S. via a stronger dollar and leading to a mild slowdown in U.S. economic activity during the next few quarters (Chart 3).4 This will probably even cause the Fed to pause its gradual rate hike cycle, but will not bring it to an end. This report also contains our recommendations for how to tactically position for this pause. Chart 3Weak Global Growth Will Drag The U.S. Lower The Awkward Middle Phase When constructing U.S. bond portfolios on a cyclical (6-12 month) investment horizon, we find it useful to split the economic cycle into phases based on the slope of the yield curve. Our economic view informs what phase (or phases) of the cycle will reign during the next 6-12 months, and the phase of the cycle informs our investment posture. We define three phases of the cycle as follows (Chart 4): Chart 4The Three Phases Of The Cycle Phase 1: From the end of the prior recession until the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2: When the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps. Phase 3: From when the 3-year/10-year Treasury curve inverts until the start of the next recession.5 Table 1 shows how each U.S. fixed income asset class has performed in each phase. We use excess returns from the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index versus cash to track the returns earned from taking portfolio duration risk. For other fixed income sectors we display excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries. We also include the performance of the S&P 500 versus the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index. Table 1Risk Asset Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes As should be clear from the macro view discussed above, we believe that we will remain in Phase 2 of the cycle for the bulk of 2019. With the 3/10 Treasury slope a mere 13 bps at present, temporary curve inversions might occur earlier in the year, but they will not be sustained (see Key View #5 below). The first implication of being in Phase 2 is that corporate bond excess returns (both investment grade and high-yield) are likely to be positive on average, but will be very low. The bulk of corporate bond excess returns are earned in Phase 1 of the cycle when the yield curve is very steep. Excess returns don’t turn decisively negative until after the curve inverts and we enter Phase 3. Like corporate credit, Treasury excess returns are also lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. This makes Phase 2 an awkward one for portfolio positioning. The expected return from taking an extra unit of credit risk is quite low, as is the expected return from taking an extra unit of duration risk. In fact, cash tends to be one of the best performing asset classes in Phase 2. The excess returns from most other spread products present a similar pattern to those from corporate bonds. Elevated excess returns in Phase 1, much lower – though typically still positive – excess returns in Phase 2, negative excess returns in Phase 3. One exception to this pattern is tax-exempt municipal debt which, outside of the mid-1990s cycle, has performed similarly or better in Phase 2 than it has in Phase 1. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals also stick out as being very defensive sectors. They both almost always provide a small positive excess return versus Treasuries, but never provide a large reward. In the remainder of this report we discuss the five key implications for U.S. bond portfolio positioning that follow from remaining in Phase 2 of the cycle for most of 2019. Key View #1: Below-Benchmark Duration We think below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will continue to pay off in 2019. We have already shown that Phase 2 of the cycle tends to coincide with relatively low excess Treasury returns, but the slope of the yield curve is not the best indicator for Treasury returns versus cash. For that, we turn to our Golden Rule of Bond Investing which says that Treasuries tend to underperform (outperform) cash on a 12-month investment horizon when the Fed delivers more (fewer) rate hikes than what was discounted at the beginning of the 12-month period (Chart 5).6 Chart 5The Golden Rule's Track Record At present, the market is priced for only 32 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months. More specifically, the market is pricing-in a rate increase this month, followed by one more in 2019 and then rate cuts in 2020 (Chart 6). Chart 6Market's Rate Expectations Are Too Low This extremely depressed market pricing makes us reluctant to increase duration, even tactically. While we do expect U.S. growth to slow during the next few quarters, probably by enough to necessitate a pause in the Fed’s tightening cycle, this pause is already more than reflected in current market prices. Key View #2: Neutral Corporate Credit Cyclical Horizon (6-12 Months) Being in Phase 2 of the cycle warrants a relatively defensive posture toward credit risk. For now, we recommend a neutral allocation to corporate bonds with an up-in-quality bias. We will further reduce exposure to underweight when we transition to Phase 3 of the cycle, likely late in 2019. We also recommend looking at the long-end of the credit curve to increase the average spread of your portfolio.7 Table 2 makes the importance of correctly identifying the phase of the cycle even more apparent. It shows the excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds for different investment horizons directly after the 3/10 Treasury slope flattens into a given range. For example, the median excess return to investment grade corporate bonds in the 12 months after the 3/10 slope breaks below 25 bps is -1.02%. Table 2Corporate Bond Performance Given The Slope Of The Yield Curve (1975-Present) As in Table 1, Table 2 shows that excess returns are much higher when the yield curve is steep and that they tend to turn negative after the curve inverts. But unlike the results in Table 1, the analysis in Table 2 includes recessionary periods and makes no attempt to split the cycle into different phases. It is a purely forward looking rule that calculates excess returns after different “trigger points” are reached. For example, the 12-month median excess return of -1.02% after the 3/10 slope breaks below 25 bps is biased downward because of periods when the slope broke below 25 bps and then continued to flatten until it inverted. An environment where the slope stayed range-bound between 0 bps and +25 bps for an extended period – closer to what we expect in 2019 – will deliver somewhat better excess returns. Tactical Horizon (< 6 Months) The phase of the cycle helps us specify our excess return expectations for the next 12 months, and based on our outlook, we expect excess returns will be positive, but close to zero. However, as we write this report, corporate spreads are widening at a fairly rapid clip. We expect the carnage will continue in the near-term, but are monitoring catalysts to initiate a tactical overweight recommendation on corporate credit.8 As they were in 2015, corporate spreads are widening at the moment due to the toxic combination of slowing global growth and relatively hawkish monetary policy. We expect that sometime in early 2019, Fed policy will ease at the margin and this will coincide with a near-term peak in credit spreads and a period of improved global growth. To determine when spreads peak we are monitoring several indicators of global growth and Fed policy that successfully called the last peak in early-2016. On the global growth side, the key indicators are (Chart 7A): The CRB Raw Industrials Index The BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator9 The price of global industrial mining stocks On the monetary policy front, the key indicators are (Chart 7B): The 12-month Fed Funds Discounter The gold price The trade-weighted dollar Chart 7AKey Indicators: Global Growth Chart 7BKey Indicators: Monetary Policy All in all, our conviction that we will remain in Phase 2 of the cycle for most of 2019 suggests we should maintain a neutral allocation to corporate bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon, looking for small positive excess returns. In the near-term, we expect spreads will continue to widen in the next few weeks, but will peak once the Fed signals a pause in its rate hike cycle and global growth indicators show some improvement. We are monitoring several catalysts that will help us decide when to initiate a tactical overweight position in corporate bonds. Key View #3: Overweight Munis And Local Authorities The analysis in Table 1 showed that tax-exempt municipal bonds often provide strong excess returns in Phase 2 of the cycle. This makes them an attractive place to position in the current environment, especially given the relative attractiveness of muni yields. Table 3 shows that the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Index is 2.75%. If we assume even a 30% effective tax rate, the taxable-equivalent yield becomes 3.93%, well above the average yield offered by the Aa-rated Corporate index. Table 3Municipals Are Attractive Another reason to like munis in the current cycle is that state & local government revenues are relatively insulated from weakness in the global economy. As foreign growth weakens and drives up the dollar, corporate profits will suffer much more than state & local government tax revenues. A similar case can be made for the Local Authority sub-index of the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate. This index is comprised largely of taxable municipal debt (and some Canadian provincial debt), and while the average yield is lower than for tax-exempt munis, it is still competitive compared to corporate bonds. But most importantly, the sector is relatively insulated from weak foreign growth and a strong dollar. Municipal bonds and the Local Authority sub-index are important overweights in our recommended portfolio as we head into 2019. Key View #4: Overweight TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries Though long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have fallen in recent weeks, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. We believe that both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates will reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% in 2019. At present, TIPS breakevens are caught between being pulled down by weakening global growth and pushed up by mounting U.S. inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Most recently, weaker global growth has been winning and breakevens have moved lower alongside the plunge in oil prices. Chart 8TIPS Breakevens Face Opposing Forces Taking a step back, it is very unlikely that global growth and commodity prices will continue to fall at their current rates throughout 2019. At some point, a dovish turn from the Fed will lead to some depreciation of the dollar and global growth will stage a rebound. Our commodity strategists also expect a rebound in the oil price. They target an average of $82/bbl for Brent crude oil in 2019.10 In the meantime, core U.S. inflation will continue to print close to the Fed’s 2% target, and maybe even a bit higher in late 2019. At some point, inflation expectations will need to adapt to the new reality of inflation being near the Fed’s target. Historically, this suggests a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for TIPS breakeven inflation rates. Inflation expectations can be slow to adapt to a changing environment, and after several years of the Fed missing its inflation target from below, many investors remain trapped in a deflationary mindset. To get an idea of how long it takes inflation expectations to adjust to changes in the economy, we use our Adaptive Expectations Model of TIPS breakevens (Chart 9).11 The model is based on three factors: Chart 9The Adaptive Expectations Model Of The 10-Year Breakeven Rate The 12-month rate of change in headline CPI The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge The 120-month rate of change in core CPI Of the three factors, the 120-month rate of change in core CPI carries the largest weight in the model. In other words, the catalyst for moving TIPS breakeven rates higher will simply be core U.S. inflation continuing to print near the Fed’s target for a prolonged period of time. All in all, investors should maintain overweight allocations to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in 2019, targeting a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates. The current slowdown in global growth and commodity prices will not last for the entire year, and U.S. inflationary pressures will continue to mount as the U.S. economy grows at an above-trend pace with a very tight labor market. Key View #5: No Yield Curve Inversion Until Late 2019 The final key view that falls out of our main macro premise, which is that the fed funds rate will remain below neutral for the bulk of 2019, is that the yield curve will not sustainably invert until late 2019. This is also probably the most contentious of our key views, given recent market moves. The main reason why we think the slope of the yield curve will remain quite flat, but positive, for most of 2019 is that sustainable yield curve inversion cannot coexist with below-target TIPS breakeven inflation rates. An inverted yield curve is a signal that the market views monetary policy as overly restrictive. It means that investors expect U.S. growth and inflation to fall in the future, necessitating rate cuts. However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations signal that the market believes that inflation will not sustainably return to the Fed’s target. In other words, for an inverted yield curve and below-target TIPS breakeven inflation rates to coexist, we would have to believe that the Fed would tighten monetary policy into restrictive territory without sufficient inflationary pressures to meet its target. It is difficult to envision the Fed committing such an egregious policy error. In the event that the yield curve does invert while TIPS breakevens are below target, it is much more likely that either the Fed will adopt a more  dovish policy stance, leading to a bull-steepening of the curve; or, inflation will rise leading to higher TIPS breakevens and causing the curve to bear-steepen. In either scenario, it is hard to see how yield curve inversion will last very long without significantly higher TIPS breakevens. We will call an end to Phase 2 of the cycle only when the yield curve is inverted and long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are above 2.3%. Curve Positioning As for how to position on the yield curve in 2019, the biggest change since the end of last year is that the belly (5-7 year) of the curve is now very expensive (Chart 10). In fact, the 2/5 slope is slightly inverted as we go to press, meaning there is actually negative rolldown in the 5-year note. Chart 10Par Coupon Treasury Curve By far, the best place to position on the curve is the 2-year maturity point.12 Our model of the 1/2/5 butterfly spread (2-year bullet over duration-matched 1/5 barbell) shows that the 2-year is cheap relative to the 1/5 slope. Conversely, our model of the 2/5/10 butterfly spread shows that the 5-year bullet has become expensive relative to the 2/10 slope (Chart 11). Chart 11Favor The 2-Year Bullet Butterfly trades where you favor the bullet maturity versus the barbell perform well when the curve steepens. For example, the 2-year tends to outperform the 1/5 barbell when the 1/5 slope steepens. At present, the cheapness of the 2-year suggests that the butterfly spread is priced for significant 1/5 flattening in the coming months. Even stability in the 1/5 slope will cause the 2-year to outperform, and our key yield curve recommendation at the moment is to go long the 2-year bullet and short a duration-matched 1/5 barbell.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "OUTLOOK 2019: Late-Cycle Turbulence”, dated November 27, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners”, dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads”, dated November 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope because it closely approximates the 2-year/10-year slope, but with more back-data. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “What Kind Of Correction Is This?”, dated October 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads”, dated November 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 A combination of 17 different financial market variables that are highly levered to Chinese growth. Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “The Third Man At OPEC 2.0’s Meeting”, dated November 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Sweet Spot On The Yield Curve”, dated November 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

An infrastructure bill has been the focus of economists and strategists as the next leg in fiscal easing to sustain the economy. On the face of it, such a thesis appears eminently believable. Despite historically low unemployment, 2018 has seen tremendous fiscal easing, both via the tax cuts at the end of 2017 and through the bipartisan spending agreement in early 2018, implying the current administration fears neither inflation nor deficits in its pursuit of economic growth. The logical investment conclusion from infrastructure stimulus would be to position overweight in infrastructure stocks. We created a basket of such equities to test this hypothesis. When compared to the historic U.S. federal budget deficit (top panel), we found that, while a correlation exists, there are prolonged periods where fiscal largesse has not translated into infrastructure stock outperformance. Drilling down, we found that EM stock performance (second panel) in general and capital spending in China (bottom panel)in particular have taken over as the principal drivers of these stocks. Please see this week’s Special Report for our deep dive into infrastructure stock performance and drivers as well as our sister Geopolitical Strategy Service’s take on why they believe an infrastructure bill worth $200-$400 billion over ten years has a greater than 50% chance of passing.

Informe especial

Feature An infrastructure bill has been the focus of economists and strategists as the next leg in fiscal easing to sustain the economy. On the face of it, such a thesis appears eminently believable. Despite historically low unemployment, 2018 has seen tremendous fiscal easing (Chart 1), both via the tax cuts at the end of 2017 and through the bipartisan spending agreement in early 2018, implying the current administration fears neither inflation nor deficits in its pursuit of economic growth. Further, after the Republicans’ shellacking in the midterm elections, it is also logical to expect the GOP to double down on their Trump card through the 2020 presidential election cycle. Chart 1An Already-Strong Fiscal Thrust As such, much hope has been placed in the passage of an infrastructure bill, which began in late 2016 following the election of the Trump administration and its promise “to invest $550 billion to ensure we can export our goods and move our people faster and safer”. The excitement surrounding infrastructure diminished following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the implied much lower probability of an infrastructure bill in light of the debt implications of the unfunded tax cut. Further, the White House released their infrastructure plan in February, 2018 which sought only $200 billion in funding, but planned to stimulate $1.5 trillion in new investment via the multiplicative effect of public-private partnerships (PPP). However, the midterm elections have made infrastructure a hot topic once again for our clients. Is passage of an infrastructure bill likely? Would such a bill prolong the business cycle? At first glance, the market’s dimmed hopes of an infrastructure bill seem justified, in the context of the already-powerful fiscal thrust. Still, our sister Geopolitical Strategy service believes the odds of passage are above 50%.   BOX 1 Will Trump And The Democrats Pass An Infrastructure Bill? President Donald Trump, laser focused on reelection in 2020, faces a big decision about how to conduct domestic policy in the wake of the midterm election. Will he negotiate and compromise with the opposition in the House, like President Bill Clinton did after 1994? Or will he become mired in disagreements, like President Barack Obama after 2010? Infrastructure spending is one of the few areas where Trump and the Democrats have a clear basis for passing a major piece of legislation. It is much harder for these two to agree on immigration – given Trump’s demand for funding the border wall – or health care – given Trump’s opposition to Obama’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). By contrast, Trump campaigned vociferously on the need for more infrastructure and proposed a $1.5 trillion spending plan ($200 billion in federal funds) in February.1 Democrats are fully in support of infrastructure investment. The likeliest next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has been saying “build, build, build” both before and after the midterms, and her lieutenant, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), has recently emphasized his eagerness to work with Trump on this issue. There is no doubt whether the public will approve – infrastructure spending always receives high levels of support, and it is one of the few policy areas unaffected by partisanship and polarization (Chart 2). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Pelosi have begun negotiations and Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR), likely the next head of the House Transportation Committee, has already outlined a plan. Chart 2U.S. Public Wants Infrastructure Spending The chief constraint is funding, obviously. Republicans want to use a limited amount of federal seed money in order to spur public-private partnerships but Democrats want direct federal funding sourced through indexing the federal fuel tax to inflation and issuing government bonds. There will have to be a new Democratic-authored bill, which may or may not merge with aspects of Trump’s plan.  How much money are we talking about? Trump’s plan called for $1.5 trillion over 10 years, of which $200 billion would be federal. Hence $20 billion in federal spending per year, but with cuts to existing programs. Some analysts have argued that Trump’s plan would actually have seen a net reduction in federal infrastructure spending over the long run due to its cuts to existing federal programs (which happen to be infrastructure-oriented) in order to offset his proposed spending increases. Democrats will insist on no cuts to existing programs, plus funding for new building.2   The mainstream Democrats are proposing $100 billion in new spending per year for 10 years, but this number includes zero cuts to existing programs. Mainstream Democrats are therefore asking for less in actual new spending than meets the eye, but are unlikely to go for less than Trump’s $20 billion. As a reference, President Obama’s last budget proposal was looking at $32 billion in federal infrastructure increases per year.3 An agreement on $20-$40 billion per year in new spending is not insurmountable given that both sides agree that they could raise the $0.18 per gallon tax on gasoline, which has not been raised since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation. Trump has proposed raising it by $0.25 per gallon, and this is more than other proposals (at $0.15 per gallon) or than merely indexing to inflation. This would raise an estimated $375 billion over 10 years.4 In addition, the Democrats are looking to revise aspects of Trump’s tax cuts to fund infrastructure. While Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin says no one in the administration is considering paring back the recent sharp reductions in the corporate rate, Trump has already signaled willingness to negotiate on the corporate rate to provide for a middle-class tax cut. This suggests that modifications to his 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act are not out of the question as infrastructure funding. Signature pieces of major legislation help presidents get reelected. The tax cuts were a product of traditional conservative policy, with limited popularity, whereas a populist compromise to the tax cuts in order to fund an infrastructure package (as long as it is still a net tax cut from pre-2017) could produce a signature piece of legislation from Trump “the builder” going into 2020. In other words, Trump can refrain from vetoing a federal gasoline tax hike or an adjustment to his own corporate tax cuts in order to pass a popular infrastructure initiative. The Democratic opposition will have written the bill, so both parties would “share the blame.” And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given popular and presidential support, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget spending blowout in early 2018, we think that more than enough Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. The bill will come at a time when other major legislative options are on ice and when both Trump and the Democrats will need at least one achievement to sell to voters in 2020. Might the Democrats sabotage such a bill in order to deny the president any fiscal help ahead of the 2020 election? Possibly. But they would have to pretend to negotiate before pulling out of the deal. It could backfire mightily. Whereas passing a big infrastructure bill would demonstrate their ability to govern and would help them win over voters in the vital Midwestern battleground states, where collapsing bridges and poisonous water systems have made headlines. Bottom Line: There is a greater than 50% chance that a bill will pass. As a baseline estimate, a bill worth $200-$400 billion over ten years is a reasonable estimate for a bill that could pass in late 2019 or (less likely) early 2020. Needless to say, $200-$400 billion over 10 years is a far cry from headline numbers like $1.5 trillion. It is an even farther cry from the progressive Democrats’ “People’s Infrastructure Plan” which calls for $2 trillion over ten years. Net new spending of $20-$40 billion per year is about 10%-20% of existing annual infrastructure spending and only 0.1%-0.20% of American GDP.   In our examination, we will frequently reference the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the most recent major infrastructure bill aimed at stimulating the economy. This bill cost $787 billion, of which $500 billion was cash outlays (the remainder was tax incentives). However, only $105 billion of the ARRA was targeted at infrastructure spending ($20 billion per year). Still using the 2009 ARRA as an analogy, the midpoint of high and low estimates from the CBO’s post-mortem of the ARRA’s efficacy, the ARRA added 1.1% to real GDP in 2009, followed by 2.4% in 2010. If we assume the goal of this bill is truly to prolong the business cycle to align with the election cycle, it stands to reason that time is of the essence. Further, the PPP requirements to achieve the $1.5 trillion in new investment envisaged by the White House raise a host of issues. Buy-in from private partners, the associated incremental planning and an assumed dearth of shovel-ready PPP-appropriate projects lead us to believe that a Q1 passage of a bill would be necessary for it to achieve its goals. Lastly, when the 2009 ARRA became effective, the unemployment rate was 8.3%. It is 3.7% now (Chart 3). We would anticipate an inflation-fearing Fed to deliver a monetary response to this fiscal slack in the form of interest rate hikes that would at least partially offset the stimulus. With two opposing forces pushing on the economy, it is ambiguous to us whether the stimulus would, in fact, stimulate. Chart 3Historically Low Unemployment What Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Anyway? As equity strategists, our role is to offer clients insights into the best way to play the anticipated fiscal largesse. Accordingly, we have created an index from a range of industrials and materials GICS3&4 indexes that should see a positive reaction to a spur in infrastructure demand; we present the BCA Infrastructure Basket in Chart 4 with details of its constituents included in an appendix following this report. Chart 4BCA's Infrastructure Basket… Much like the initial excitement surrounding the prospect of an infrastructure bill following Trump’s election, our infrastructure basket leapt in November 2016. However the diminishing hopes of a bill, especially of the size discussed on the campaign trail, are reflected in the basket’s mostly steady decline from its late 2016 peak. This decline accelerated following the passage of the tax cuts at the end of 2017. A reasonable assumption would be that the price of our basket of equities would track in line, by and large, with most leading economic indicators as they are broadly a reflection of the industrial economy. Testing this hypothesis over the past 30 years is revealing: we found no material correlation between domestic leading indicators, even capital expenditures and planned capital expenditures that should be significant top line drivers (Chart 5). The upshot is that domestic private sector sentiment is unrelated to infrastructure stock performance. Chart 5...Is Not Correlated With Leading Indicators When plotted against the historic budget deficit and government debt levels, a better picture emerges (Chart 6). Our inference is that public spending and the infrastructure basket tend to move together, which is corroborated by the aforementioned recent moves around rising and falling hopes for a Trump infrastructure bill. Still, this analysis is incomplete as the infrastructure basket and fiscal growth were inversely correlated between 2004 and 2009 before reestablishing a positive relationship and even then the relationship is relatively loose. Chart 6Fiscal Expansion And Infrastructure Stocks Mostly In Sync Accordingly, we widened our analysis to global indicators excluding the U.S., where we found a significantly tighter correlation (Chart 7), though only post-2001. We ascribe the close post-2001 relationship to China’s joining of the WTO and their resulting ascendency in driving equity returns in the emerging market space. Chart 8 confirms our hypothesis; our infrastructure basket and the EM equity index overlap. Chart 7Global Leading Indicators Are Better Chart 8EM And Infrastructure Go Hand In Hand Drilling down on China seems appropriate in this context and further corroborates our assertion that China is increasingly the driver of U.S. domestic infrastructure stock performance. Particularly in the post-GFC era, the slowdown in Chinese capex and money supply growth appear to be the principal drivers of these stocks (second and bottom panels, Chart 9). This message is echoed when we compare the infrastructure basket to the Chinese credit growth impulse and the Keqiang index (Chart 10). Chart 9Chinese Growth Drives Domestic Infrastructure Stocks Chart 10Slowing Growth In China Points To A Down Leg Bottom Line: Domestic private sector sentiment has little impact on the BCA Infrastructure Basket, though U.S. government spending clearly has a significant impact on the performance of the stocks. Still, it appears that Chinese growth is at least as important as domestic government spending to the relative performance of the infrastructure basket. In light of BCA’s view of flat or slowing growth in China, at least for the year ahead, we would wait for a positive catalyst before adding this basket as a holding.  A Value Trap In The Making Investors may correctly point out that our infrastructure basket has already been beaten up and the stage may be set for a relief rally. In fact, the basket has already notched two months of outperformance, lifting it off its decade low relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 11). However, as shown in the middle panel of Chart 12, this rally has come while forward EPS growth estimates have trailed the broad market, meaning that the rally has been exclusively a valuation rerating rather than a fundamental turning point in earnings (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Fairly Valued Over Long Term... Chart 12...And A Value Trap In The Short Term Further, while the bear market for this basket of stocks is set to enter its second year, we would caution that a turning point may be further off in the distance than optimists may hope. Witness the six year period from 1995 to 2001 when the infrastructure basket dramatically underperformed the market (Chart 11). Valuations in the infrastructure basket were only a third of the broad market before a rally occurred, a far cry from where they are now. As well, the relative rally likely had more to do with the souring of the tech sector than a particular affection for infrastructure stocks; it took another five years for the basket to reach its average valuation. We would further note that on a longer-term basis, while still a discount to the broad market, valuations remain roughly in line with their historical average (Chart 11). Bottom Line: History has shown bear markets for infrastructure stocks can be deep and prolonged. Thus while the infrastructure basket is relatively cheap compared to the recent past, looking further back in history tells us that this may not be the case. Accordingly, we think the BCA Infrastructure Basket has all the markings of a value trap. So What Does It All Mean The passage of an infrastructure bill seems likely, though the form it will take remains subject to debate. As well, the timing and efficacy of such a bill may mean that it both undershoots expectations with respect to its size and eventual economic impact. The BCA Infrastructure Basket has tended to trade off of domestic fiscal expansion but EM in general and China in particular appear to have taken over as the core drivers of relative stock performance. While bearishness has reigned in this basket for the past year, we caution that this still looks like the early stages of underperformance. We would wait for a positive catalyst in the EM and/or China before chasing the BCA Infrastructure Basket. Details on the composition of this basket are in an appendix that follows.   Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Footnotes 1      Please see the White House, “Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America,” 2018, available at www.politico.com. 2      Please see Jacob Leibenluft, “Three Key Questions About The Trump Infrastructure Plan,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, January 30, 2018, available at www.cbpp.org. 3      Please see Senate Democratic Caucus, “Senate Democrats’ Jobs & Infrastructure Plan For America’s Workers,” March 7, 2018, available at www.democrats.senate.gov. 4      Please see Lauren Gardner, Tanya Snyder, and Brianna Gurciullo, “Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say,” Politico, February 14, 2018, available at www.politico.com.