Estados Unidos
Highlights The real culprit for the mushrooming U.S./euro area trade imbalance is the ECB, and specifically its post-2014 experiment with ultra-loose monetary policy. There could be a major sea-change in ECB policy after November 2019 when Draghi's Presidency ends - just as there was after the last two changes in the ECB Presidency in November 2003 and November 2011. The yield spread between 30-year U.S. T-bonds and German bunds has much more scope to tighten than to widen. The euro's undervaluation - as calculated by the ECB itself - will ultimately correct. European exporters and equity markets heavily exposed to exporters - such as Sweden's OMX - will find the going tough, one way or another. If a stronger currency doesn't hit them, then President Trump surely will. Feature Chart of the WeekThe U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance Is A Near-Perfect Function Of Relative Monetary Policy Here in London last week President Trump trumpeted one of his biggest gripes: "The European Union treats the United States horribly. And that's going to change. And if it doesn't change, they're going to have to pay a very big price... Last year, we lost $151 billion with the European Union. We can't have that. We're not going to have that any longer, okay?" 1 President Trump is absolutely right about the size of the U.S. trade imbalance with Europe. But he is wrong to place the blame entirely on "trade barriers that are beyond belief". At least half of the imbalance - including with Germany - has appeared since 2014 (Chart I-2). Therefore, by definition, this part of the bilateral deficit is neither a structural issue, nor about trade barriers. Chart I-2Half of Germany's Export Surplus Appeared After 2014 The Real Culprit For The Mushrooming U.S/Euro Area Trade Imbalance As we have identified on these pages many times, the real culprit for the mushrooming U.S./euro area trade imbalance is the ECB, and specifically its post-2014 experiment with ultra-loose monetary policy. This experiment has resulted in a significantly undervalued euro, which has made the euro area grossly over-competitive vis-à-vis the United States, as calculated by the ECB itself. The Chart of the Week provides the damning and incontrovertible evidence: the U.S./euro area bilateral deficit is a near-perfect function of relative monetary policy. Of course, the ECB is targeting neither the euro nor the trade imbalance; the ECB is targeting its definition of price stability. The trouble is that the ECB definition of price stability omits owner-occupied housing costs, and thereby understates true euro area inflation by 0.5 per cent. To the extent that the ECB thinks in terms of real interest rates based on its own (faulty) definition of inflation, this means that the ECB is setting real interest rates that are far too low for the euro area's true economic fundamentals, resulting in the significantly undervalued euro and the associated trade imbalance (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3Relative Monetary Policy Has Driven The Euro's Undervaluation... Chart I-4...And The Euro's Undervaluation Has Driven The U.S./Euro Area Trade Imbalance The bilateral deficit, by definition, is based on a true cross-border comparison, so it is tracking the 'apples for apples' real interest rate differential almost tick for tick, as our charts compellingly show. This true real interest rate differential is stretched relative to the fundamentals. In effect, while incorrectly measured inflation is deceiving the ECB, the mushrooming trade imbalance tells us that something is seriously awry. That something is not trade barriers that are too high; that something is ECB monetary policy that is too loose. The Target2 Imbalance Reaches €1.5 Trillion The ECB's ultra-loose policy has spawned another huge distortion: the euro area Target2 banking imbalance, which now amounts to an unprecedented €1.5 trillion (Chart I-5). What is the Target2 imbalance (Box 1), and why should we care about it anyway? Chart I-5ECB Policy Has Lifted The Target2 Banking Imbalance To Euro 1.5 Trillion BOX 1 What Is Target2? Target2 stands for Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system. It is the settlement system for euro payment flows between banks in the euro area. These payment flows result from trade or financial transactions such as deposit transfers, sales of financial assets or debt repayments. If the banking system in one member country has more payment inflows than outflows, its national central bank (NCB) accrues a Target2 asset vis-à-vis the ECB. Conversely, if the banking system has more outflows than inflows, the respective NCB accrues a Target2 liability vis-à-vis the ECB. Target2 balances therefore show the cumulative net payment flows within the euro area. The ECB has delegated its QE sovereign bond purchases to the respective national central banks within the Eurosystem. In the case of Italian bonds, Italian investors have offloaded their BTPs to the Bank of Italy and deposited the received cash cross-border in countries with healthier banking systems - like Germany. Strictly speaking, this flow of Italian investor cash to German banks is not the same as the deposit flight during the depths of the euro debt crisis in 2012. Rather, we might call it precautionary cash management. Nevertheless, in Eurosystem accounting terms it still means that the Bundesbank has a new liability to German banks denominated in 'German' euros, while the Bank of Italy has a new asset - the BTP - denominated in 'Italian' euros (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). The Target2 imbalance is the aggregate of such mismatches between Eurosystem liabilities denominated in 'German and other core' euros and assets denominated in 'Italian and other periphery' euros. Chart I-6The Target2 Imbalance Reflects The##br## Cross-Border Flow Of Italian Investor Cash... Chart I-7...To German Banks Does any of this Target2 accounting gymnastics really matter? No, so long as a 'German' euro equals an 'Italian' euro, the imbalance is just an accounting identity within the Eurosystem. But if Germany and Italy started using different currencies, then suddenly all hell would break loose. The Bundesbank liability to German banks would be redenominated into deutschemarks, while the Bank of Italy asset would be redenominated into lira. Thereby the ECB would end up with much greater liabilities than assets, and a solvency shortfall potentially equivalent to hundreds of billions of euros would end up on the shoulders of the ECB's shareholders - largely, German taxpayers. Some people might argue that by increasing the cost of a divorce, an actual split becomes less likely. But this reasoning is weak. As we have seen in recent election and referendum outcomes, the biggest risk comes from a populist backlash against the status quo. And populist backlashes do not stop to do a detailed cost benefit analysis. A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? Although the ECB is unlikely to broadcast the undesired side-effects of its ultra-loose policy, it must by now be acutely aware that it is spawning huge imbalances. The costs are rising while the benefits are becoming questionable. The irony is that the one euro area economy that arguably does need stimulus - Italy - has a dysfunctional banking system which makes ultra-loose monetary policy largely ineffective anyway. Despite record low interest rates through the past four years, Italian bank credit growth has been virtually non-existent (Chart I-8). As we pointed out last week in Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle, the M5S/Lega coalition government is right to say: Italy would be better off with fiscal stimulus, not monetary stimulus.2 Chart I-8Italian Banks Have Not Been Lending The ECB will end its QE purchases at the end of this year, though the central bank has promised to maintain its current constellation of negative and zero interest rates "at least through the summer of 2019". However, it might be problematic to extend this forward guidance much beyond that. This is because Mario Draghi's eight year term as ECB President ends on October 31 2019, and it would be difficult both politically and operationally to tie the steering hands of his successor, especially if he/she comes from outside the current Governing Council. Interestingly, the last two changes in the ECB Presidency marked major sea-changes in policy direction: in 2003, Jean-Claude Trichet immediately stopped the rate cutting of his predecessor, Wim Duisenberg; and in 2011, Mario Draghi immediately reversed the rate hikes of his predecessor, Trichet. We would not bet against another major sea-change at the end of 2019 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9A Sea-Change For The ECB In 2019? If the end of 2019 does mark a turning point in relative monetary policy, investors should plan for three medium-term repercussions: The yield spread between 30-year U.S. T-bonds and German bunds has much more scope to tighten than to widen. The euro's undervaluation - as calculated by the ECB itself - will ultimately correct. European exporters and European equity markets heavily exposed to exporters - such as Sweden's OMX - will find the going tough, one way or another. If a stronger currency doesn't hit them, then President Trump's vow that "they're going to have to pay a very big price" surely will (Chart I-10). Chart I-10If A Stronger Currency Doesn't Hit European Exporters, Then President Trump Surely Will! 1 At the joint press conference with Theresa May. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Monetarists Vs Keynesians: The 21st Century Battle' July 12 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade is to go long gold, whose 65-day fractal dimension is close to the lower bound that has reliably signaled previous tradeable trend reversals. Set a profit target of 3% with a symmetric stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - 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
Refiners have taken it to the chin over the past six weeks, underperforming both the SPX and the broad energy complex, and deteriorating industry fundamentals signal that more pain lies ahead. Crack spreads have given way recently, and as the Brent/WTI crude oil spread closes in on the zero line, refining margins will remain under intense downward pressure (second panel). Not only is demand faltering (not shown), but the news is equally grim on refining inventories. In fact, there is no apparent supply side offset: gasoline stocks are rising (gasoline inventories shown inverted, third panel). This supply/demand backdrop will weigh on industry profitability. Adding insult to injury, relative valuations do not offer any cushion in case of any profit mishaps as they are hovering near previous cyclical peaks and significantly higher than the historical mean (bottom panel). Netting it out, decreasing refining margins, a deteriorating supply/demand backdrop and extended relative valuations suggest that refiners are a sell. Bottom Line: We trimmed the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to underweight; please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, ANDV and HFC.
Highlights President Trump is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric - there is more trade tension and volatility to come; China's depreciation of the RMB can go further - and will elicit more punitive measures from Trump; Gasoline prices are a constraint on Trump's Maximum Pressure campaign against Iran, but only until midterm elections are done; Brexit woes are keeping us short GBP/USD, but Theresa May has discovered the credible threat of new elections - we are putting a trailing stop on this trade at 2%; The EU migration "crisis" is neither a real crisis nor investment relevant. Feature General Hummel: I'm not about to kill 80,000 innocent people! We bluffed, they called it. The mission is over. Captain Frye: Whoever said anything about bluffing, General? The Rock, 1996 As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has expected since November 2016, the risk of trade war poses a clear and present danger for investors.1 The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods on July 6, with tariffs on another $16 billion going into effect on July 20. President Trump announced on July 10 that he would levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31 and then on another $300 billion if China still refused to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than China exported to the U.S. last year (Chart 1)! Chart 1President Trump Magically Threatens ##br##Even Non-Existent China Imports Table 1Market's Couldn't Care##br## Less About Tariffs The S&P 500 couldn't care less. Trade-related events - and other geopolitical crises - have thus far had a negligible impact on U.S. equities (Table 1). If anything, stocks appear to be slowly climbing the geopolitical wall of worry since plunging to a low of 2,581 on February 8, which was before any trade tensions emerged in full focus (Chart 2A and Chart 2B).2 Chart 2AStocks Climbing The 'Wall Of Worry' On Trade Tensions... Chart 2B...And On Military Tensions Speaking with clients, the consensus appears to be that President Trump is "bluffing." After all, did he not successfully create a "credible threat" amidst the tensions with North Korea, thus forcing Pyongyang to stand down, change its bellicose rhetoric, free U.S. prisoners, and freeze its nuclear device and ballistic tests? This was a genuinely successful application of his "Maximum Pressure" tactic and he did not have to fire a shot!3 Yes, but the Washington-Pyongyang 2017 brinkmanship caused 10-year Treasuries to plunge 35bps from their July 7 peak to their September 7 low.4 Our colleague Rob Robis - BCA's Chief Fixed Income Strategist - assures us that this move in Treasuries last summer was purely North Korea-related, which suggests that not all investors were relaxed and expecting tensions to resolve themselves.5 President Trump may be bluffing on protectionism, on Iran, and on the U.S.'s trade and geopolitical relationship with its G7 allies. However, we should consider two risks. The first is that his opponents might not back down. Yes, we agree with the consensus that China will ultimately lose a trade war with the U.S. It is a trade surplus country fighting a trade war with its chief source of final export demand (Chart 3). Chart 3China Has More To Lose Than The U.S. Forecasting when China backs down, however, is difficult. If Beijing backs down in 2018, investors betting on stocks ignoring trade risks will be proven correct. We do not see this happening. Instead, we expect Beijing to continue using CNY depreciation to offset the impact of tariffs, likely exacerbating the ongoing USD rally in the process, and eventually putting pressure on U.S. corporate earnings in Q3 and Q4. China does not appear to be panicking about the threat of a 10% tariff. In fact, Beijing may decide to double-down on its structural reform efforts, which have negatively impacted growth in the country thus far, blaming President Trump's protectionist policies for the pain. The other question is whether the U.S. political context will allow President Trump to end the trade war. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the financial industry seem to have collective amnesia about the "trade truce" orchestrated by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on May 20. The truce lasted merely a couple of days, with the U.S. ultimately announcing on May 29 that the tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese imports would go forward. President Trump may have wanted to present the Mnuchin truce as a big victory ahead of the midterm elections. His tweets the next day were triumphant.6 However, once the collective American establishment (Congress, pundits, and even Trump's ardent supporters in the conservative media) got hold of the details of the deal, they were shocked and disappointed.7 Why? The American "median voter" is far more protectionist than the political establishment has wanted to admit. Now that this public preference has been elucidated, President Trump himself cannot move against it. He is a prisoner of his own mercantilist rhetoric. President Trump may be dealing with a situation similar to the one General Hummel faced in the iconic mid-1990s action thriller The Rock. Hummel, played by the steely Ed Harris, holed up in Alcatraz with VX gas-armed M55 rockets, threatening to take out tens of thousands in San Francisco unless a ransom was paid by the Washington establishment. Unfortunately for Hummel, the psychotic marines he brought to "The Rock" turned against him when he suggested that the entire operation was in fact a bluff. As such, we reiterate: Whoever said anything about bluffing? China: Beware Beijing's Retaliation Since 2017, we have cautioned investors that Beijing was likely to retaliate to the imposition of tariffs by weakening the CNY/USD.8 June was the largest one-month decline in CNY/USD since the massive devaluation in 1994 (Chart 4). BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar.9 Chart 5 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar until very recently. However, CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by a magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the greenback, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 4The Biggest One-Month Yuan Drop Since 1994 Chart 5The CNY Is Much Weaker Than The DXY Implies BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that currency depreciation is also a way to stimulate the economy in the face of the central government's ongoing deleveraging policy.10 Not only does a weaker CNY dull the impact of Trump's tariffs, it also insulates China against a slowdown in global trade volumes (Chart 6). Moreover, China's current account fell into deficit last quarter (Chart 7). A weaker RMB helps deal with this issue, but the PBoC may be forced to cut Reserve Requirement Ratios (RRRs) further if the deficit remains in place, forcing the currency even lower. Chart 6China Needs A Buffer Against Slowing Trade Chart 7Supportive Conditions For A Lower CNY There is no silver lining in this move by Beijing. Evidence that China is manipulating its currency would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China. On one hand, a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters. On the other hand, it may invite further protectionist action from the U.S., including a threat by the White House to increase the tariff levels on the additional $500 billion of imports from the current 10% rate, or to enhance export restrictions on critical technologies, or to add new investment restrictions. Several of our clients have pointed out that China does not want a trade war, that it cannot win a trade war, and that it is therefore likely to offer concessions ahead of the U.S. midterm election. We agree that China is at a disadvantage.11 But we also reiterate that the concessions have already been offered, in mid-May following the Mnuchin negotiations with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. China and the U.S. may of course resume negotiations at any time, but it will likely take months, at best, to arrange a deal that reverses this month's actual implementation of tariffs. We think that the obsession with "who will win the trade war" is misplaced. Of course, the U.S. will "win." The problem is that what the Trump administration and what investors consider a "victory" may be starkly different: victory may not include a rip-roaring stock market. In fact, President Trump may require a stock market correction precisely to convince his audience, including those in Beijing, that his threats are indeed credible. Bottom Line: President Trump's promise of a 10% tariff on $500 billion of Chinese imports can easily be assuaged by a CNY/USD depreciation. If we know that Beijing is depreciating its currency, so does the White House. The charge against Beijing for currency manipulation could occur as late as the Treasury Department's semiannual Report to Congress in October, or informally via a presidential tweet at any time before then. While the formal remedies against a country deemed to be officially engaged in currency manipulation are relatively benign in the context of the ongoing trade war, we would expect President Trump to up the pressure on China regardless. Iran: Can Midterm Election Stay President Trump's Hand? We identified U.S.-Iran tensions in our annual Strategic Outlook as the premier geopolitical risk in 2018 aside from trade concerns.12 We subsequently argued that President Trump's application of "Maximum Pressure" against Iran would likely exacerbate tensions in the Middle East, add a geopolitical risk premium to oil prices, and potentially lead to a military conflict in 2019 (Diagram 1).13 Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tension Decision Tree The Brent crude oil price has come off its highs just below $80/bbl in late May and appears to be holding at $75/bbl. Is the market once again ignoring bubbling U.S.-Iran tensions or is there another factor at play? We suspect that investors are placing their hopes on White House pressure on producers to bring massive amounts of crude online to offset the impact of "Maximum Pressure" on Iran. First, Trump tweeted in April that "OPEC is at it again," keeping oil prices artificially high. He followed this with another tweet at the end of June, directly requesting that Saudi Arabia increase oil production by up to 2 million b/d so that he may continue to play brinkmanship with Tehran. Second, the Libyan media leaked that President Trump sent letters to the representatives of Libya's warring factions, imploring them to restart oil exports or face international prosecution and potential U.S. military intervention.14 The pressure on the Libyan authorities appears to have worked, with the Tripoli-based National Oil Corporation (NOC) ending its force majeure, a legal waiver on contractual obligations, on the ports of Ras Lanuf, Es Sider, Zueitina, and Hariga. Third, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled on July 10 that the U.S. would consider granting waivers to countries seeking to avoid being sanctioned for buying oil from Iran. On July 15, however, the administration clarified the comment by stating that it would only grant limited exceptions based on national security or humanitarian efforts. The White House is realizing that, unlike its brinkmanship with North Korea, "Maximum Pressure" on Iran comes with immediate domestic costs: higher gasoline prices (Chart 8). The last thing President Trump wants to see is his household tax cut trumped by the higher cost of gasoline. Chart 8How Badly Do Americans Want A New Iran Deal? Chart 9Iran Is Not Yet At Peak North Korean Levels Of Threat Applying Maximum Pressure on Iran is tricky. Politically, the upside is limited for President Trump. First, a majority of Americans (62%) do not want to see the U.S. withdraw from the deal, and do not consider Iran to be as critical of a threat as North Korea (Chart 9). That said, 40% believe that Iran is a "very serious" threat - up from just 30% in October, 2017 - and 62% of Americans believe that "Iran has violated the terms" of the nuclear agreement. These are numbers that President Trump can "work with," but not if gasoline prices rise to consumer-pinching levels. As such, the question is whether we should stand down from our bullish oil outlook given President Trump's active role in eking out new supply. We should, if there were supply to be eked out. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy believes that global supply capacity will not be sufficient to keep prices below $80/bbl in the event that Venezuela collapses in 2019 or that Iranian export losses are greater than the 500,000 b/d we are currently projecting.15 The U.S. EIA estimates there is only 1.8mm b/d of spare capacity available worldwide this year, to fall to just over 1 mm b/d next year (Chart 10). Our commodity strategists believe that the idle and spare capacity of KSA, Russia, and other core OPEC 2.0 states that can actually increase production would be taxed to the extreme to cover losses of Iranian exports, especially if the losses reached 1 mm b/d. In fact, many secondary OPEC 2.0 producers are struggling to produce at their 2017-2018 production quota, suggesting that lack of investment and natural depletion have already taken their toll (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Spare Capacity##br## Stretched Thin Chart 11OPEC 2.0's Core Producers Would##br## Struggle To Replace Lost Exports Could President Trump back off from the threat of brinkmanship with Iran due to the risk of rising oil prices? Yes, absolutely. We have argued in the past that President Trump appears to be an intensely domestically-focused president. We also see little logic, from the perspective of U.S. interests broadly defined or President Trump's "America First" strategy specifically, in undermining the Obama-era nuclear agreement. As such, domestic constraints could stay President Trump's hand. On the other hand, these constraints would have the greatest force ahead of the November 2018 midterm and the 2020 general elections. This gives President Trump a window between November 2018 and at least the early summer of 2020 to put Maximum Pressure on Iran. As such, we think that investors should fade White House attempts to shore up global supply. Once the midterm election is over, the pressure will fall back on Iran. What about Iran's calculus? Tehran has an interest in dampening tensions ahead of the midterms as well. However, if the U.S. actually enforces sanctions, as we expect it will, we are certain that Iran will begin to ponder the retaliatory action we describe in Diagram 1. In fact, Iran's population appears to be itching for a confrontation, with an ever-increasing majority supporting the restart of Iranian nuclear facilities in response to U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement (Chart 12). Iranian officials have also already threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz as we expected they would. Chart 12Iranians Supported Ending Nuclear Deal If The U.S. Did (And It Did!) Bottom Line: Between now and November, U.S. policy towards Iran may be much ado about nothing. However, we expect the pressure to rise by the end of the year and especially in 2019. Our subjective probability of armed conflict remains at an elevated 20%, by the end of 2019. This is four times greater than our probability of kinetic action amidst the tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Brexit: Has Theresa May Figured Out How Credible Threats Work? We have long argued that a soft Brexit is incompatible with Euroskeptic demands for increased sovereignty (Diagram 2). And, indeed, sovereignty was one of the main demands - if not the main demand - of Brexit voters ahead of the referendum. A large percent, 32% of "leave" voters, said they would be willing to vote "stay" if a deal with the EU gave "more power to the U.K. parliament," an even greater share than those focused on migration (Chart 13). As such, since March 2016, we have expected the U.K. Conservative Party to split into factions regardless of the outcome of the vote on EU membership.16 Diagram 2The Illogic Of ##br##Soft Brexit Chart 13Sovereignty Topped The##br## List Of Brexit Voter Concerns U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May has fought against the inevitable by inviting notable Euroskeptics into her cabinet and by trying to pursue a hard Brexit in practice. The problem with this strategy is that it won't work in Westminster, where a whopping 74% of all members of parliament, and 55% of all Tory MPs, declared themselves as "remain" supporters ahead of the 2016 referendum (Chart 14). Given that the House of Commons has to approve the ultimate U.K.-EU deal, a hard-Brexit deal is likely to fail in Parliament. While such a defeat would not automatically bring up an election, May would be essentially left without any political capital with which to continue EU negotiations and would either have to resign or call a new election. Chart 14Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Theresa May therefore has two options. The first is to trust the political instincts of David Davis and Boris Johnson and try to push a hard Brexit through the House of Commons. But with a slim majority of just one MP, how would she accomplish such a feat? Nobody knows, ourselves included, which is why we shorted the GBP as long as May stubbornly listened to the Euroskeptics in her cabinet. However, it appears that May has finally decided to ditch her Euroskeptic cabinet members and establish the "credible threat" of a new election. While May has not uttered the phrase directly, she hinted at a new election when she suggested that "there may be no Brexit at all." The message to hard-Brexit Tory rebels is clear: back my version of Brexit or risk new elections. From an economic perspective, retaining some semblance of Common Market membership is obviously superior to the hard-Brexit alternative. It is so superior, in fact, that Boris Johnson himself called for it immediately following the referendum!17 From a political perspective, it is also much easier to persuade less than two-dozen committed Tory Euroskeptics that a new election would be folly than it is to convince half of the party that the economic risks of a hard-Brexit are inconsequential. The switch in May's tactic therefore warrants a cautionary approach to our current GBP/USD short. The recommendation is up 5.55% since February 14. However, the GBP could be given a tailwind if investors sniff out fear amongst hard Brexit Tories. We still believe that downside risks exist in the short term. First, there is no telling if the EU will accept the particularities of May's Brexit strategy. In fact, the EU may want to make May's life even more difficult by asking for more concessions. Second, Euroskeptic Tories in the House of Commons may be willing martyrs, rebelling against May regardless of the economic and political consequences. Bottom Line: We are keeping our short GBP/USD on for now, which has returned 5.55% since February 14, but we will tighten the stop to just 2%. We think that Theresa May has finally figured out how to use "credible threats" to cajole her party into a soft Brexit. The problem, however, is that she still needs Brussels to play ball and her Euroskeptic MPs to act against their ideology. Europe: Will The Immigration Crisis End The EU? Chart 15European Migration Crisis Is Over No. There is no migration crisis in the EU (Chart 15). Despite the posturing in Europe over the past several months, the migration crisis ended in October 2015. As we forecast at the time, Europe has since taken several steps ovet the succeeding years to increase the enforcement of its external borders, including illiberal methods that many investors thought beyond European sensibilities.18 Today, EU member states are openly interdicting ships carrying asylum seekers and turning them away in international waters. Chancellor Angela Merkel has become just the latest in a long line of policymakers to succumb to her political constraints - and abandon her preferences - by agreeing to end the standoff with her conservative Bavarian allies. Merkel has agreed to set up transit centers on the border of Austria from where migrants will be returned to the EU country where they were originally registered, or simply sent across the border to Austria. The idea behind the move is to end the "pull" that Merkel inadvertently created by openly declaring that Germany was open to migrants regardless of where they came from. Why wouldn't migrants keep coming to Europe regardless? Because if the promise of a job and a legal status in Germany or other EU member states is no longer available, the cost - in treasure, limb, and life - of the journey through the Sahara and unstable states like Libya, and the Mediterranean Sea will no longer make sense. As Chart 15 shows, potential migrants are capable of making the cost-benefit calculation and are electing to stay put. Bottom Line: The EU migration crisis is not investment-relevant. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the Appendices for the detailed description of events. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 6 His tweets in the immediacy of the deal suggest that this was the case. He tweeted, immediately following Mnuchin's Fox News appearance, "China has agreed to buy massive amounts of ADDITIONAL Farm/Agricultural Products - would be one of the best things to happen to our farmers in many years!" He then tweeted again, suggesting that his deal was superior to anything President Obama got, "I ask Senator Chuck Schumer, why didn't President Obama & the Democrats do something about Trade with China, including Theft of Intellectual Property etc.? They did NOTHING! With that being said, Chuck & I have long agreed on this issue! Trade, plus, with China will happen!" His third tweet suggested that the deal being negotiated was indeed a big compromise, "On China, Barriers and Tariffs to come down for first time." All random capitalizations are President Trump's originals. 7 We reacted to the truce by arguing that it would not "last long." It lasted merely three days! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Some Good News (Trade), Some Bad News (Italy)," dated May 23, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and "Are You 'Sick Of Winning' Yet?" dated June 20, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Now What?" dated June 27, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "What Is Good For China Doesn't Always Help The World," dated June 29, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "Trump's letter to rivals allegedly results in resumption of oil exports in Libya," Libyan Express, dated July 11, 2018, available at libyanexpress.com. 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf," dated July 5, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Johnson stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market." Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix 2A Appendix 2B Appendix 2B (Cont.) Geopolitical Calendar
Overweight Disbelief in the longevity of the increase in oil prices is the likely culprit weighing on exploration & production (E&P) stocks along with a bottleneck-induced steep shale oil price discount to WTI. Nevertheless, the sizable recovery in underlying commodity prices has restored some semblance of normality in the E&P space. The second panel of the chart at the side shows that shale oil production is rising at a healthy clip following a long bottoming phase on the heels of reaccelerating WTI crude oil prices. Similar to the broad energy complex that integrateds dominate, oil & gas E&P producers are a capital expenditure upcycle play, which remains a key BCA theme for the year (third panel). Rising oil prices are conducive to additional energy-related investments (bottom panel). Adding it up, there are high odds that E&P stocks will continue to outpace the broad energy complex and the SPX on the back of firming capex budgets and sustained oil inflation. Bottom Line: We lifted the S&P oil & gas E&P index to an overweight stance; please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, DVN, CXO, MRO, APA, HES, NBL, EQT, COG, XEC and NFX.
Highlights Duration: Weakening global growth is unlikely to derail the Fed, which must also contend with mounting domestic inflationary pressures. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. MBS & CMBS: Non-Agency CMBS offer attractive return potential, but remain too risky for the current environment. Agency MBS are unattractively valued but should remain insulated from negative shocks. Agency CMBS offer an alluring combination of risk and potential reward. Monetary Policy: The effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of the Fed's target band, signaling that bank reserves are becoming scarce. If the situation persists the Fed will be forced to cease the shrinking of its balance sheet. Feature Crosscurrents Two opposing forces are acting on financial markets at the moment and U.S. Treasury yields are caught in the middle. One the one hand, rising U.S. inflation and the gradual tightening of monetary policy are pressuring yields higher. But on the other hand, cyclical indicators point to a slowdown in global economic growth at a time when protectionist trade policies already have investors on edge. The end result is that U.S. Treasury yields are aimless, awaiting a catalyst that will push the prevailing winds in one direction or the other. On the domestic front, inflationary pressures are clearly mounting. The year-over-year core consumer price index rose to 2.23% in June while the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge moved up to 3.33%, its highest level since 2005 (Chart 1). The Fed's preferred core PCE deflator grew 1.96% during the 12 months ending in May, only a hair below the 2% target. Meanwhile, our Boom/Bust Indicator - a composite of global metals equities, commodity prices and U.S. unemployment insurance claims - has rolled over and investor expectations as measured by the Global ZEW survey have collapsed. Both indicators correlate strongly with long-maturity bond yields (Chart 2). Chart 1Inflation Picking Up Steam Chart 2Global Growth Slowdown The plunge in Global ZEW investor expectations is particularly interesting because the same survey shows that investors continue to describe current economic conditions as incredibly strong (Chart 3). Clearly, investors view the current state of global demand as constructive but are worried about threats to the global economy from trade barriers and the persistent removal of monetary accommodation. Oftentimes, negative readings from the Global ZEW expectations survey precede similar drops in the current conditions survey, such as prior to the 2008 and 2001 recessions. But other times, such as in 1998, the drop in expectations sends a false signal that is quickly unwound. Chart 3ZEW Expectations Vs. Current Conditions Only time will tell which outcome will occur, but we think global growth will slow further before finding a floor.1 The implication for U.S. bond portfolios is that investors should maintain only a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Weakening foreign growth and the resultant upward pressure on the U.S. dollar will negatively impact corporate bond spreads, as will persistent Fed tightening. Investors should also maintain below-benchmark overall portfolio duration, as rising inflation will make it difficult for the Fed to pause its rate hike cycle for any significant length of time. Picking Up Yield In MBS And CMBS? The combination of weakening global growth and rising domestic inflation makes finding attractive U.S. fixed income plays difficult. This week we consider the risk/reward proposition in residential mortgage-backed securities (Agency only) and commercial mortgage-backed securities (both Agency and non-Agency). We conclude that non-Agency CMBS offer attractive return potential, but remain too risky for the current environment. Agency MBS are unattractively valued but should remain insulated from negative shocks. Agency CMBS offer an alluring combination of risk and potential reward. Chart 4 shows our excess return Bond Map, a good place to start when considering the risk/reward trade-off between the different spread sectors of the U.S. fixed income universe. The horizontal axis shows the number of months of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus an equivalent-duration position in Treasury securities. The vertical axis shows the number of months of average spread tightening required to earn 100 bps. Sectors plotting closer to the bottom-left are less likely to lose 100 bps, but are also less likely to gain 100 bps. Sectors plotting closer to the top-right are more likely to gain 100 bps, but are also more likely to lose 100 bps. In Chart 4 we use an interval from 2000-present to estimate monthly spread volatility. Since the Agency CMBS index only begins in 2014, it is excluded from this chart. Chart 4Excess Return Bond Map (Spread Volatility Estimated From 2000 - Present) The Bond Map shows that neither Agency MBS nor non-Agency CMBS offer an attractive risk/reward proposition. Non-Agency CMBS carry a similar risk of losses as the riskiest corporate bonds while offering less return potential. Agency MBS offer only slightly greater return potential than Consumer ABS, but with considerably more risk. Chart 5 shows the same Bond Map but using a post-2014 time interval to estimate monthly spread volatility. This allows us to include Agency CMBS. Chart 5 shows that Agency CMBS clearly dominate Agency MBS, offering similar reward with less risk. It also makes non-Agency CMBS look much more attractive, since spread volatility in the CMBS sector has been much lower in the post-2014 period. Chart 5Excess Return Bond Map (Spread Volatility Estimated From May 2014 - Present) Macro Environment Favors Residential MBS Despite the poor valuation picture painted by the Bond Map, the macro environment casts Agency MBS in a more favorable light. The two main factors that influence MBS spreads are residential mortgage lending standards and mortgage refinancing activity. Neither factor is likely to send MBS spreads wider during the next 6-12 months. Extension risk can also influence MBS spreads from time to time, but we have shown in prior research that the required yield increase is massive and unlikely to occur.2 The shaded regions in Chart 6 correspond to periods when banks are tightening lending standards on residential mortgage loans. We can see that lending standards tightened sharply during the financial crisis and have generally been easing since then. More important, however, is that the post-crisis easing in lending standards has been extremely modest. The median FICO score for new mortgage borrowers has barely come down, and remains well above pre-crisis levels (Chart 6, panel 3). The Urban Institute's Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, is also extremely low (Chart 6, panel 4). In addition, the household debt-service ratio remains incredibly healthy (Chart 6, bottom panel). With such high borrower quality, banks are much more likely to ease lending standards going forward. Mortgage refinancing activity has also been very low, and this should continue to be the case for some time. A good predictor of refinancing activity is the percentage of the MBS index (by par value) that carries a coupon above the current mortgage rate (Chart 7). At present, only 5% of the index carries a coupon above the current 30-year mortgage rate of 4.53%. We calculate that even if the mortgage rate fell to below 4% the percentage of the MBS index with the incentive to refinance would only rise to 38%, still consistent with muted refi activity. Only a drop in the mortgage rate to below 3.5% would cause the refinanceable percentage to spike significantly, reaching 73%. Chart 6MBS: The Macro Environment Chart 7Refi Risk Is Non-Existant Or course, mortgage rates are much more likely to rise during the next 6-12 months as the Fed continues to tighten monetary policy. In other words, the risk that an increase in refi activity will drive MBS spreads wider is very low. All in all, valuation is not attractive in the Agency MBS sector, but the macro environment is favorable and should ensure that spreads remain tight on a 6-12 month horizon. We recommend a neutral allocation to Agency MBS, and could upgrade the sector further at the expense of corporate bonds as we approach the turn in the credit/default cycle. Fading Headwinds In CMBS? Chart 8CMBS: The Macro Environment Non-Agency Aaa-rated CMBS appear relatively unattractive in Chart 4 and somewhat attractive in Chart 5. The latter chart uses a post-2014 time interval to estimate monthly spread volatility and this period flatters the CMBS sector. The macro picture for the sector is also decidedly mixed. A typical negative environment for CMBS spreads is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans, falling demand for CRE loans and decelerating CRE prices (Chart 8). CRE lending standards were tightening throughout 2016 and 2017, while demand remained reasonably strong and CRE prices decelerated. But CMBS spreads performed quite well during this period, taking cues from the rally in corporate bonds rather than the slightly negative message from CRE fundamentals. More recently, we are receiving very mixed signals from our CRE indicators. Lending standards are no longer tightening, but CRE prices continue to decelerate and demand is close to unchanged. It is possible that a renewed easing in lending standards will cause CRE prices to accelerate, but that is far from certain. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service recently flagged numerous risks in the CRE space, including the fact that occupancy rates have already begun to contract.3 A possible signal that demand is waning. While the return of CRE lending standards to "net easing" territory is a positive development, it remains to be seen whether the easing will help spur a rebound in CRE prices in the face of weakening demand. The uncertain macro picture and the unattractive valuation shown in Chart 4 cause us to maintain an underweight allocation to non-Agency CMBS. In contrast, we remain overweight Agency-backed CMBS based on the attractive risk/reward profile presented in Chart 5. A Note On Monetary Policy Operations While we maintain that the expected pace of Fed rate hikes is by far the most important monetary policy question for investors, some technical issues related to the implementation of monetary policy have come to light during the past few months that merit a mention. These issues will likely gain even more attention later this summer when they are discussed at the Jackson Hole Monetary Policy Symposium where the chosen theme is "Changing Market Structure and Implications for Monetary Policy". The main problem that has emerged during the past few months is that the effective fed funds rate has begun to creep toward the upper-end of the Fed's target channel (Chart 9). While the Fed currently targets a range of 1.75% to 2% for the effective fed funds rate, the rate itself currently sits at 1.91%, dangerously close to the top. Chart 9Is The Fed Losing Control? IOER Is A Treatment, Not A Cure The Fed tried to push the effective fed funds rate back toward the middle of its target range following the June FOMC meeting when it lifted the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER) by only 20 bps instead of 25 bps. Previously, the IOER had been set at the upper-bound of the Fed's target range, now it is 5 bps below. At best, this manipulation of IOER is a stop-gap measure that will not permanently solve the Fed's problem. This is because the Fed's problem is that the effective fed funds rate is rising because bank reserves are once again becoming scarce. The Fed currently controls interest rates using a "floor system". In order for such a system to work the Fed must ensure that the banking system is supplied with more bank reserves than it wants. The excess supply of bank reserves then pressures the effective funds rate lower, toward a "floor" interest rate set by the Fed. The Fed currently uses two different interest rates to act as the "floor", the IOER and the overnight reverse repo rate (ON RRP).4 The problem is that if banks are not over-supplied with reserves then the floor is not binding and the fed funds rate could break above the Fed's target range. Several factors have conspired to drain reserves from the banking sector during the past few months. First and foremost is that the Fed is allowing the securities to run off its balance sheet. Table 1 shows a simplified version of the Fed's balance sheet as of July 5 and as of September 28 of last year, just before the Fed started to shrink its bond portfolio. The change in each balance sheet item between the two dates is also shown. Table 1A Simplified Federal Reserve Balance Sheet Changes in the Fed's securities holdings are the main driver of bank reserves, and Table 1 shows that the Fed has reduced its portfolio holdings by $156 billion since last September. This has drained $156 billion of reserves from the banking system. Reserves appear as a liability on the Fed's balance sheet, but as an asset on the banking sector's consolidated balance sheet. But Table 1 also shows that the U.S. Treasury's General Account at the Fed has increased by $170 billion since last September, draining bank reserves by the same amount. This occurred because the Treasury department has been rebuilding its cash holdings which had become very low due to repeated encounters with the debt ceiling. But this process is largely complete. The Treasury department was targeting a cash balance of $360 billion by the end of June and that target has essentially been met. Table 1 also shows that reverse repos declined significantly since September, offsetting some of the reserve drain from the run-off of the Fed's securities holdings and the increase in the Treasury's cash balance. As reserves become scarcer it becomes less necessary for banks to engage in reverse repos with the Fed, so reverse repo balances should continue to decline as long as the Fed is shrinking its securities holdings. There Is Only One Cure The key point is that if the Fed continues to shrink its balance sheet and drain reserves from the banking system, then at some point bank reserves will no longer be over-supplied and the Fed will lose control of interest rates if the situation is not rectified. What makes things particularly confusing is that nobody (including the Fed) is quite sure what level of bank reserves constitutes "scarcity" in the new post-crisis environment. Chart 10 shows that if the Fed's planned shrinking of its balance sheet continues un-interrupted then bank reserves will reach zero by March 2022. But under the stricter post-crisis regulatory regime, banks will desire reserve balances that far exceed what they demanded before the financial crisis. Unfortunately, the only way to find out at what point bank reserves become scarce is for the Fed to drain reserves from the system and wait for signs that interest rates are starting to rise above its target range. At that point, the Fed will be forced to stop shrinking its balance sheet in order to maintain control over interest rates. Based on the current behavior of the fed funds rate, we cannot rule out this situation arising within the next year. Some Notes On Treasury Operations Many have blamed sizeable T-bill issuance for the creep higher in the fed funds rate, and this is somewhat true. The Treasury department has been issuing T-bills in large amounts and parking the proceeds in its cash account at the Fed. As explained above, this has drained reserves from the banking system and put upward pressure on the effective fed funds rate. But the focus should be on the Treasury's cash balance and not T-bill issuance itself. This is important because going forward T-bill issuance will remain elevated. The Treasury must finance the increasing deficits mandated by Congress and has pledged to concentrate a large portion of this financing in bills. Specifically, the Treasury is targeting a range of 25% to 30% for the proportion of bills in the outstanding funding mix. At present, bills make up only 15% of the mix (Chart 11). But while bill issuance will stay strong, as long as the Treasury maintains its cash balance near current levels, then there will be no impact on bank reserves or the effective fed funds rate. Chart 10The Pace Of Balance Sheet Reduction Chart 11Gross T-Bill Issuance The Treasury department will also increase coupon issuance to finance the rising fiscal deficit (Chart 12), and has decided to do so by increasing issuance for every coupon but with a focus on the 2-year, 3-year and 5-year notes. Gross issuance in the 2-year and 3-year notes has already started to increase, and it will soon exceed 5-year and 7-year note issuance (Chart 13). Because so much of the Treasury's new issuance will be concentrated at the front-end of the curve (and in bills), it has dropped its prior stated goal of increasing the weighted-average maturity (WAM) of the funding mix. Its current policy states that "the WAM is just an outcome of an issuance strategy and not a goal in and of itself." Chart 12Gross Coupon Issuance Chart 13Gross Coupon Issuance By Maturity Bottom Line: The effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of the Fed's target band, signaling that bank reserves are becoming scarce. If the situation persists the Fed will be forced to cease the shrinking of its balance sheet. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The Move", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "UnReal Estate Opportunity", dated July 9, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 4 A detailed explanation of the floor system and its alternative "corridor system" can be found in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood", dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Firming crude oil prices and recovering capex budgets suggest that energy E&P stocks are in a sweet spot and primed for outperformance. Decreasing refining margins, a deteriorating supply/demand backdrop and extended relative valuations suggest that refiners are a sell. Recent Changes Lift the S&P oil & gas exploration & production index to overweight today. Downgrade the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to underweight today. Table 1 Feature Equities broke out of their recent trading range last week on the eve of earnings season despite protectionist rhetoric. While Q2/2018 EPS euphoria may serve as a catalyst to catapult the SPX to fresh all-time highs in the coming months, especially given the collapse in stock correlations (CBOE implied correlation index shown inverted, Chart 1), sell-side analysts have now revised down Q1/2019 EPS growth estimates by 300bps to 7%. We view Q1/2019 earnings as critically important, as they will give us the first clean read on trend EPS growth. By that time the one-off impact of tax reform will be filtered out of the data. At present, Q1/2019 EPS estimates are likely suffering for two reasons: delayed P&L FX translation effects from a year-to-date rise in the U.S. dollar and difficult year-over-year comparisons with a blowout Q1/2018 quarter. In recent research, we have been flagging the currency as the single biggest risk to our sanguine equity market view. In other words, a sustainable breakout in equities requires a sideways-to-lower move in the greenback (trade-weighted U.S. dollar shown inverted, Chart 2). Chart 1All-Time Highs Ahead... Chart 2...But Watch The Greenback Drilling beneath the surface, Charts 3 & 4 show net earnings revisions (NER) per sector as a four week average and Chart 5 summarizes the latest data points for an easier comparison. Industrials NER have taken a hit on the back of Trump's tariff rhetoric and recent implementation. Nevertheless, the tech sector shows no signs of infiltration either from a rising currency or Trump's protectionist actions. As a reminder, the IT sector garners 60% of its sales from abroad and remains the most important sector to monitor for any broad market EPS inflection points.1 Chart 3Sector... Chart 4...Net EPS Revisions On the economic front, a softening U.S. dollar would be synonymous with a reacceleration in global growth. We are currently in the seventh month of the economic soft patch and there are high odds that by early fall the tide will turn. The global non-manufacturing PMI is already signaling that a pick up in growth is forthcoming. Historically, the global services PMI has been an excellent leading indicator of its sibling, the global manufacturing PMI, and the current message is to expect an end to the global growth deceleration sometime in the autumn (Chart 6). Chart 5Watch Tech Stocks Chart 6Longest Uninterrupted Payrolls Expansion On Record!!! In the U.S., the ISM manufacturing survey reaccelerated last month despite Trump's protectionist rhetoric with both trade subcomponents of the survey - new export orders and imports - rising smartly. Even the latest employment report came in above expectations, and confirmed that the U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and remains a key global growth engine. Importantly, non-farm payrolls have been expanding on a month-over-month basis for the longest period on record hitting 93 consecutive months as of June (Chart 7). Similarly, the yield curve has remained positively sloped for a record 134 straight months (please see Chart 2 from our April 16th Special Report titled 'Sector Winners & Losers When Fiscal Easing Offsets Monetary Tightening'). Tack on China's recent easing in monetary conditions, as evidenced by both a depreciating currency (steepest month-over-month depreciation since 1994) and falling interest rates (Chart 8), and the likelihood of additional easing measures in the pipeline, and the world's two largest economies will likely lead global growth out of its recent mini-slump. Chart 7Can Services Pull Up Manufacturing? Chart 8China Is Easing Monetary Conditions This week we are refining our energy sector sub-surface positioning that sustains the broad energy complex in the overweight column, and we reiterate its high-conviction status. E&P Is Flaring Up... Exploration & production (E&P) stocks have significantly trailed crude oil prices since the latter broke out roughly a year ago (Chart 9). There are high odds that a catch up phase looms and we recommend to boost exposure to this late-cyclical energy sub-index to overweight. Disbelief in the longevity of the increase in oil prices is the likely culprit weighing on E&P stocks along with a bottleneck-induced steep shale oil price discount to WTI. Keep in mind that as oil prices were collapsing during the global manufacturing recession of late-2015/early-2016, the U.S. E&P industry went through a clean-up phase where a plunge in free cash flow (FCF) caused a spike in bankruptcies on the back of extreme balance sheet degradation (Chart 10). Chart 9Most Vulnerable Gap Has To Be Filled Chart 10Balance Sheets Getting Repaired Chart 11No Longer Stressed In more detail, E&P FCF got squashed, dropping by 66% from peak to trough as net debt ballooned by 30% during the same time frame. And, in response, independent energy producers' junk bond spreads skyrocketed to over 20%, surpassing even the Great Recession peak (Chart 11). Nevertheless, the steep recovery in underlying commodity prices along with the forgiving debt and equity markets that lent a helping hand to this extremely fragmented industry, has restored some semblance of normality in the E&P space. The second panel of Chart 9 shows that shale oil production is rising at a healthy clip following a long bottoming phase on the heels of reaccelerating WTI crude oil prices. Not only is OPEC 2.0 supporting oil price gains, but sustained domestic inventory draws are also underpinning crude prices. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service remains positive on the oil price backdrop with oil price risks skewed to the upside. The upshot is that the recovery in E&P cash flow growth will continue in the coming months (second & third panels, Chart 10). Similar to the broad energy complex that integrateds dominate, oil & gas E&P producers are a capital expenditure upcycle play, which remains a key BCA theme for the year (middle panel, Chart 12). Rising oil prices are conducive to additional energy-related investments (bottom panel, Chart 9). Importantly, there is a sizable divergence between the oil & gas rig count and relative share prices that will likely narrow via a catch up phase in the latter (top panel, Chart 12). National data confirm the Baker Hughes weekly rig count that has been in a V-shaped recovery. Energy related investment has doubled from the depths of the manufacturing recession (bottom panel, Chart 12), and if oil prices even stand pat at current levels, additional drilling will most likely take place in the biggest shale plays (Permian, Eagle Ford, Marcellus and Bakken) where breakeven costs are roughly 30% lower. All of this suggests that U.S. producers will continue to pump oil at a brisk pace, and earnings will likely overwhelm. Sell side analysts have taken notice and relative EPS estimates are following crude oil prices higher. Similarly, S&P oil & gas E&P net EPS revisions are also in positive territory (Chart 13). Chart 12Capex Upcycle Beneficiary Chart 13Following Oil Higher Adding it up, there are high odds that E&P stocks will continue to outpace the broad energy complex and the SPX on the back of firming capex budgets and sustained oil inflation. Bottom Line: We are boosting the S&P oil & gas E&P index to an overweight stance. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, DVN, CXO, MRO, APA, HES, NBL, EQT, COG, XEC and NFX. ...But Refiners Are Flaming Out While we are warming up to the S&P oil & gas E&P index, the opposite is true for the pure play S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index, and recommend to trim exposure below benchmark. Refiners have taken it to the chin over the past six weeks underperforming both the SPX and the broad energy complex, and deteriorating industry fundamentals signal that more pain lies ahead. The middle panel of Chart 14 shows that crack spreads have given way recently, and as the Brent/WTI crude oil spread closes in on the zero line, refining margins will remain under intense downward pressure. Already, margins are contracting on a six-month rate of change basis and that will continue to weigh on relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 14). This is an ominous sign for relative profits that will likely follow crack spreads lower. The refining supply/demand backdrop is also waning. Refined products consumption has sunk recently, and the year-to-date steep momentum reversal of 13 percentage points suggests that relative profits will underwhelm (top & middle panels, Chart 15). Not only is demand faltering, but the news is equally grim on refining inventories. In fact, there is no apparent supply side offset: gasoline stocks are rising (gasoline inventories shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 15). This supply/demand backdrop will weigh on industry profitability. Worrisomely, the sell side's analyst community is extremely optimistic with regard to 12-month forward relative EPS growth estimates (north of 20%, not shown). On a 5-year forward relative EPS basis Wall Street's exuberance is unprecedented: analysts expect refiners to double the SPX's 16% long-term EPS growth rate (Chart 16). We would lean against these great expectations. Chart 14Refiners Rally Has Cracked Chart 15Mind The Supply/Demand Backdrop Chart 16Too Much Optimism Adding insult to injury, relative valuations do not offer any cushion in case of any profit mishaps as they are hovering near previous cyclical peaks and significantly higher than the historical mean (bottom panel, Chart 16). Netting it out, decreasing refining margins, a deteriorating supply/demand backdrop and extended relative valuations suggest that refiners are a sell. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, ANDV and HFC. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Unwavering," dated June 4, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps
Highlights Upside risks on base metals are being ignored. The U.S. labor market continues to tighten and businesses face escalating labor and input costs. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Feature Chart 1Core Inflation Creeping Higher Along With Wages Last week, U.S. equity prices reached their highest level since early February. The 1% drop in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar contributed to weakness in both oil and gold prices. 10-year Treasury yields were little changed, despite higher U.S. inflation readings. Base metal prices continued to decline, linked to escalating trade tensions between the U.S. and China and concerns over the health of China's economy. Comments from Fed Chair Powell late in the week on the benefits of fiscal policy for the U.S. economy were welcomed by markets. We discuss base metal prices, trade, inflation, the Fed and the implication of the U.S.'s precarious fiscal position in this week's report. We examine BCA's view on base metals in the context of disruptions to global trade and a slowdown in Chinese economic activity in the next section. The June CPI report suggests U.S. inflation is drifting towards the Fed's target. However, with no serious inflation outburst occurring at the moment, there is no need for the Fed to deviate from its path of gradual rate hikes in the near term. U.S. core CPI rose by 0.16% m/m in June, which is not quite consistent with a 2% annual inflation rate. Nonetheless, the underlying trend still shows a steady creep higher in inflation (Chart 1). The year-over-year core CPI rate ticked up to 2.3% from 2.2%. Core CPI inflation of about 2.5% is consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the core PCE deflator. The main source of upward pressure on U.S. inflation will come from core services (ex-shelter and medical care). We find that this subcomponent of core CPI is the most correlated with the tightness in the labor market and wage pressures. However, it accounts for only 25% of core CPI and, while improving, the acceleration in wages is mild (panel 4). Inflation, the labor market and trade were all discussed at the June FOMC meeting. Below, we assess the central bank's mid-June discussion on these topics as markets brace for the Fed's latest Beige Book (July 18) and the late July FOMC meeting. Fiscal policy was also discussed at the June FOMC meeting. The final section of this week's report examines the long term budget outlook and its implication for the economy and financial assets. Base Metals Update BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service notes1 that the London Metal Exchange Index (LMEX) will remain under significant downward pressure until fears of an escalating Sino - U.S. trade dispute are allayed. If this dispute evolves into a full-blown trade war, as our geopolitical strategists expect,2 emerging markets (EM) economies embedded in global supply chains could be hard hit. This would have ramifications for commodity prices in general and base metals in particular. Alternatively, if this trade dispute develops into a more open and free global trading system, EM income growth will significantly drive up commodity demand, especially for metals (Chart 2). However, a more open trading system would take time to develop and is beyond a 6-12 month investment horizon. BCA's view is that the dollar will continue to climb as the Fed boosts rates more than the market expects and as U.S. domestic economic growth outpaces global growth (Chart 3). Moreover, the ongoing trade row will put upward pressure on the dollar. We remain long on the dollar.3 Chart 2EM Macro Variables##BR##Drive LMEX Chart 3Divergent Paths For Growth And##BR##Rates To Drive U.S. Dollar Higher Bottom Line: Fears of a global trade war are punishing the EM economies and weighing on the prices of base metals. However, upside risks, for the most part, are being ignored, according to BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service. As a result, our commodity team sees some tactical long trading opportunities in copper, but the prospect of a worsening trade war is not kind for base metals. Oil is a different story.4 The Disappearing Act Data from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in June and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) in May support our stance that the slack in the U.S. labor market is disappearing and will ultimately lead to higher wage inflation and a peak in profit margins. Job openings and hiring plans at small businesses are at an all-time high (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 4 also shows that small business owners' compensation plans (panel 2) remained near record levels in April and that concerns about "quality of labor" have never been higher (panel 3). Moreover, 7% of small firms say that the cost of labor is their most critical problem (panel 4). This concern has more than doubled since 2013. Job openings according to the JOLTS data also hit a new zenith in April, but ticked down a bit in May, which created an even wider gap between openings and hires (Chart 5, panel 1). Moreover, quits minus layoffs, another indicator of labor market slack, reached a record high (panel 2). The implication is that businesses of all sizes face a much tighter labor market. Chart 4Labor Market Slack Is Disappearing... Chart 5... Putting Pressure On Margins Moreover, the robust labor situation is widespread. Charts 6A and 6B show the ratio of job openings to the number of unemployed in 10 sectors of the economy. The ratio is at an all-time high in nine of the sectors. The exception is the information segment, which includes newspapers and magazines, broadcasting and telecommunications. Chart 7 shows that businesses are increasingly worried about the impact of escalating input costs on margins. Firms in the Atlanta Fed region expect a 2% bump in their input costs in the next 12 months; in early 2016, those same firms saw only a 1.3% rise (panel 1). Nearly 80% of managements expect their unit costs to climb by at least 1.1% in the next year. More than 20% of firms expect their input costs to jump at least 3.1% in the same period. Chart 6AStrength In The Labor Market... Chart 6B... Is Broad-Based Chart 7Businesses Worried About Input Costs Small businesses are increasingly able to pass on prices to consumers (Chart 5, panels 3 and 4). At 14%, having rolled over slightly, the percentage of small businesses reporting price changes remains near a 10-year high in June (panel 2). Moreover, 24% of small businesses planned price hikes in June, also a 7-year high. In late 2016, only about 4% of these entities expected to boost prices in the next 12 months (panel 3). Moreover, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge5 hit a 13-year high in June (not shown). Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market continues to tighten and businesses face escalating labor and input costs. The implication is that margins may soon reach a top. In last week's report,6 we showed that the performance of a broad range of U.S. and global risk assets falters after margins peak late in the business cycle. Moreover, shortages of labor and some raw materials will push up inflation and keep the Fed on track to tighten two more times this year. BCA's view is that by mid-2019, the central bank will find itself behind the curve on inflation and begin to tighten more aggressively. Shortages and capacity constraints in the important trucking industry support our view. Keep On Trucking The trucking industry exemplifies the robust labor market, with strong demand for trucking services and shortages of drivers. Wage inflation remains muted in the trucking industry, despite strong demand for trucking services and shortages of drivers. Nonetheless, anecdotal data suggest that wages are understated in the trucking industry. Freight costs, which are key components in firms' input costs, affect the economy as a whole. Table 1 shows that trucking is one of many industries with labor shortages according to the 2018 Beige Books. However, the JOLTS data show that trucking has labor constraints, but very little wage inflation. The PPI for truck transportation services7 (a good proxy for what trucking firms charge customers) is up 7.7% year-over year (Chart 8). Some of that increase is linked to higher gasoline prices. However, it is difficult to split out the impact of wage costs from the gasoline costs in the PPI. Table 1Labor 'Shortages' Identified##BR##In The Beige Book Chart 8Margin Pressure In##BR##The Trucking Industry A Cass Freight Index that tracks full-truckload prices, but excludes fuel and fuel surcharges, rose 9% year-over-year in May (not shown).8 The broad Cass Freight Index climbed 17.3% year-over year in May, and suggests further gains are ahead for U.S. capital spending (Chart 9). Moreover, the latest survey by the FTR Transport Intelligence for June surged for orders of heavy trucks, with June being the highest on record at 140% year-over-year (not shown).9 Chart 9Supply Constraints In The Freight Business Will Erode U.S. Profit Margins The implication is that demand for trucking services remains vigorous and will ultimately push up wages. Higher wages in trucking mean higher shipping costs, and portends a peak in U.S. corporate margins later this year. A Divided FOMC The labor market, wages and inflation were key topics at the June 12-13 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. Trade and fiscal policy were also discussed. Policymakers noted that some firms have responded to a lack of qualified workers by offering training, introducing automation and boosting wages. This is typical late-cycle behavior. Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of the FOMC's meeting minutes.10 The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper and Table 2) to the number of quantitative descriptors (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We use this rubric to assess the FOMC's latest views. Table 3 evaluates the Fed's latest thinking on the labor market and wages, while Table 4 assesses the FOMC's discussion of inflation and inflation expectations. Table 2FOMC Minutes Rubric Table 3FOMC Assessment Of The Labor Market And Wages At June 2018 Meeting FOMC participants generally expected the unemployment rate to either remain below or decline further below their estimates of the longer run normal rate. Only several FOMC members thought that the unemployment rate overstated the labor market's strength. Furthermore, a number of members anticipated wage inflation to pick up (Table 3) given that the unemployment rate is expected to stay below the committee's view of NAIRU. Table 4 shows that FOMC members generally agreed that inflation was on track to meet the Fed's 2% target. However, many participants saw downside risks to inflation linked to political and economic turmoil in Europe and the emerging markets. A number noted that it was premature to conclude that the Fed had achieved its 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, some members worried that a prolonged stretch of economic activity above the economy's long-term potential could "give rise to inflationary pressures or financial imbalances." Only a few noted that inflation expectations were not consistent with the Fed's 2% objective. Only one member argued that the postponing rate hikes would help push up inflation expectations. Table 4FOMC Assessment Of Inflation And Inflation Expectations At June 2018 Meeting On trade, most FOMC participants noted that the uncertainty and risks associated with trade policy had intensified and expressed concern over the potential negative effects on business sentiment and investment spending. The committee continued to see fiscal policy as a plus for economic growth in the next few years. Nonetheless, a few participants worried that fiscal policy is not on a sustainable path (See next section, "An Unprecedented Macro Experiment"). Financial stability was not on the agenda at the latest FOMC meeting, although Fed Chair Powell discussed the topic at his mid-June news conference.11 Moreover, in a radio interview12 last week, Powell also mentioned financial stability. Our view is that the Fed will continue to focus on vulnerabilities in the U.S. and overseas financial markets in upcoming meetings.13 Bottom Line: So far, Fed policymakers have maintained their gradual approach to tightening policy (i.e. 25 basis points per quarter) as they try to balance the risk of a major inflation overshoot against the hazards of prematurely ending the economic expansion. Several policymakers reiterated that long-term inflation expectations are still not high enough to be consistent with meeting the 2% inflation target over the medium term. That is why we expect the Fed to become more aggressive in targeting an economic slowdown when the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate moves back into its 2.3-2.5% range.14 Stay tuned. An Unprecedented Macro Experiment15 Congress is conducting an extra-ordinary economic experiment: substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind. However, the celebration could be followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely spill far more red ink than during any other economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart 10). Moreover, the debt ratio, which swelled to 106% in 1946 after WWII, could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession (Chart 11). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart 10U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Chart 11U.S. Debt In Historical Context Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Politicians are following the voters shift to the left. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as in the past. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.16 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle-class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block in the 2020s. President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning (i.e. jobs rather than cultural factors). Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to have high approval ratings among his supporters. Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect that there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake up voters and the political establishment into making tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will be on the rise than entitlements will be cut. We do not foresee a crisis in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas (Chart 12). U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by the S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies will probably follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds. Chart 12An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation Chart 13Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Taxes will eventually rise to service the government debt and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential (Chart 13). Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because imports will be more expensive. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Escalating Trade Disputes Pressuring Base Metals", published July 12, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The U.S. And China: Sizing Up The Crisis", published July 11, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Housing Will Drive The Global Business Cycle... Again", published July 6, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf", published July 5, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Revisiting The Late Cycle View", published July 9, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 See Table 10 https://www.bls.gov/ppi/ppidr201806.pdf 8 https://www.cassinfo.com/transportation-expense-management/supply-chain-analysis/cass-freight-index.aspx 9 https://ftrintel.com/news/ftr-reports-north-american-class-8-orders-for-june-at-historic-highs 10 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm 11 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20180613.pdf 12 https://www.marketplace.org/2018/07/12/economy/powell-transcript 13 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "The Deflationary Mindset", published July 10, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Publication, "July 2018", published June 28, 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Overweight - Downgrade Alert We put the S&P banks index on downgrade alert in mid-May and removed it from the high-conviction overweight list for a relative gain of 6%, on the back of budding evidence that the bank/yield curve correlation was getting re-established as the one with the 10-year Treasury yield was getting shattered. We also warned that were banks not to participate in the next bond market selloff we would pull the trigger and downgrade to neutral. On the eve of Q2 earnings season there is hope for a reversal of fortunes in this key financials sub-index. The U.S. economy is overheating and pricing pressures are making their way through to the CPI. This should be fertile ground for bank equities as they represent the nervous system of the economy by providing much needed credit. Indeed, commercial & industrial (C&I) loans - the largest credit segment in bank balance sheets - have soared; not only are they making new all-time highs in level terms, but momentum is gaining steam (middle panel). This is not only centered on C&I loans, but other categories are also expanding nicely, especially residential mortgage loans. Loan origination is synonymous with profit growth at a time when the regulatory noose is getting relaxed and banks anew passed the Fed's strict stress tests. Tack on shareholder friendly activities and there is much to like about banks this earnings season. Bottom Line: Stay overweight banks, but stay tuned.
Highlights Investors are too complacent about the risks of a trade war. Standard economic models understate the potential economic damage that a trade war could cause. Global equities would suffer mightily from a trade war. Deep cyclical sectors would be hardest hit. Financial equities would also fare poorly. Regionally, European and EM stock markets would underperform. A trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. A contained trade war would likely be somewhat dollar-bearish. In contrast, a full-out war could send the greenback soaring. Feature From Phony War To Real War? After months of posturing, Trump's trade war is starting to heat up. The U.S. imposed tariffs of 25% on $34 billion of Chinese goods last Friday. Tariffs on another $16 billion of goods are set to go in effect on July 20th. China has stated that it will retaliate in kind. On Tuesday, Trump further upped the ante, announcing that he will levy a 10% tariff on an additional $200 billion of Chinese imports by August 31. He also threatened tariffs on another $300 billion on top of that if China still refuses to back down. That would add up to $550 billion in Chinese goods and services that could be subject to tariffs, more than what China exported to the U.S. last year! China is not the only country in Trump's crosshairs. The Trump administration levied tariffs of up to 25% on steel and aluminum from the EU, Canada, Mexico, and other U.S. allies on June 1, 2018. The affected regions have retaliated with their own tariffs. As Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, has repeatedly stressed, there is little reason to think that trade tensions will ease over the coming months. Protectionism is popular with the American public (Chart 1). Trump ran on a protectionist platform and now he is trying to fulfill his campaign promises. It does not help that Trump is accusing foreign governments of doing things they are not doing. Chart 2 shows that U.S. tariffs are actually higher than in most other G7 economies. As we have argued in the past, the U.S. runs a persistent current account deficit because it has a higher neutral real rate of interest - otherwise known as r-star - than most other countries.1 Standard interest rate parity equations imply that a country with a relatively high neutral rate will have an "overvalued" currency that is expected to weaken over time, whereas a country with a low neutral rate will have an "undervalued" currency that is expected to strengthen over time. Intuitively, this must happen because investors will only hold low-yielding bonds if they expect a currency to strengthen. The result is a current account deficit for countries with overvalued currencies such as the U.S., and a current account surplus for regions with undervalued currencies such as the euro area (Chart 3). Chart 1Free Trade Is Not In Vogue In The U.S. Chart 2Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Chart 3Interest Rates And Current Account Balances The Economic Costs Of A Trade War How much damage could a trade war do to the global economy? As it turns out, this is a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Standard economic theory offers little guidance on the matter. By definition, global exports are always equal to imports. In a conventional Keynesian model, countries with trade deficits would gain some demand from a trade war, while countries with surpluses would lose some demand. However, the contribution of net exports to global demand would always be zero. Granted, there would be some efficiency losses, but in the standard Ricardian model of comparative advantage, they would not be that large. As Box 1 explains, the deadweight loss from a tariff can be computed as one-half times the change in the tariff rate multiplied by the percentage-point decline in imports that results from the tariff. Suppose, for example, that a trade war leads to a 10% across-the-board increase in U.S. tariffs, which causes U.S. imports to fall by 30%.2 Given that imports are 15% of U.S. GDP, the resulting deadweight loss would be 0.5*0.1*0.3*15=0.225% of GDP. That's obviously not a lot. The True Cost Of A Trade War Is Likely To Be High Our sense is that the true cost of a trade war would be much greater than these simple models suggest. There are at least six reasons for this: Most simple models assume that labor and capital are completely fungible and that the economy is always at full employment. In practice, it is doubtful that workers could easily move to companies that would benefit from tariff protection from those that would suffer from retaliatory measures. Workers have specialized skills. Likewise, a piece of machinery that is useful in one sector of the economy may be completely useless in another. Industries are often concentrated in particular regions. As such, a trade war could severely degrade the value of the existing stock of human and physical capital. This would result in lower potential GDP. It would also result in temporarily higher unemployment as workers, laid off from firms which have been adversely affected by tariffs, are forced to scramble for a new job elsewhere. Comparative advantage is not the only source of trade gains. Arguably more important are economies of scope and scale. A firm that has access to a global market can spread fixed costs over a larger quantity of output, thus lowering average costs (and ultimately prices). The existence of large global markets also allows companies to offer niche products that might not be worthwhile to develop for smaller markets. Modern trade is dominated by the exchange of intermediate goods within complex supply chains (Chart 4). This arrangement has many advantages, but it also harbors numerous fragilities. A small fire at a factory in Japan that manufactured 60 percent of the epoxy resin used in chip casings led to a major spike in RAM prices in 1993. Flooding in Thailand in 2011 wreaked havoc on the global auto industry. U.S. firms are particularly vulnerable to supply-chain disruptions because the Trump administration has dotardly chosen to levy tariffs mainly on intermediate and capital goods (Chart 5). This stands in contrast to China and the EU, which have raised tariffs mainly on final goods in a politically strategic manner (agricultural products in Trump-supporting rural areas and Harley Davidson bikes, which are manufactured in Paul Ryan's home district in Wisconsin). Chart 4Trade In Intermediate Goods Dominates Chart 5The U.S. Is Not Very Smart In ##br## Implementing A Protectionist Agenda Uncertainty over the magnitude and duration of a trade war could cause companies to postpone new investment spending. A vast economic literature pioneered by Avinash Dixit and Robert Pindyck has shown that firms tend to defer capital expenditure decisions when faced with rising uncertainty.3 Furthermore, as I discussed in an academic paper which was published early on in my career, business investment is typically higher when firms have access to larger markets.4 Higher tariffs could lead to an implicit tightening in fiscal policy. If the U.S. raises tariffs by an average of ten percentage points across all imports, a reasonable estimate is that this would imply a tightening in fiscal policy by around 1% of GDP - enough to wipe out the entire stimulus from Trump's tax cuts. Of course, the tariff revenue could be injected back into the economy through more tax cuts or increased spending. However, given the possibility that gridlock will increase in Washington if the Republicans lose the House of Representatives in November, it is far from obvious that this would happen. A trade war would lead to lower equity prices and higher credit spreads. This would translate into tighter financial conditions. Historically, changes in financial conditions have been highly correlated with changes in real GDP growth (Chart 6). Changes in financial conditions have, in turn, led the stock market. The S&P 500 index has risen at an annualized pace of 10% since 1970 when BCA's Financial Conditions Index (FCI) was above its 250-day moving average, while gaining only 1.5% when the FCI was below its 250-day average (Chart 7). Given today's elevated valuations across many asset markets, the risk is that a trade war triggers a sizable correction in asset prices. Chart 6Changes In Financial Conditions Have Been Highly Correlated With Changes In Real GDP Growth Chart 7The Link Between Financial Conditions ##br##And The Stock Market Protecting Your Equity Portfolio From A Trade War We think investors are understating the risks of a trade war. This, along with a host of other reasons, prompted us to downgrade global risk assets from overweight to neutral on June 20.5 As bad as a trade war would be for Main Street, it would be even worse for Wall Street. The mega- cap companies that comprise the S&P 500 have a lot more exposure to foreign markets and global supply chains than the broader U.S. economy. The "beta" of corporate profits to changes in GDP growth is also quite high (Chart 8). Chart 9 shows how U.S. equity sectors performed during days when the S&P 500 suffered notable losses due to heightened fears of protectionism. We identified seven separate days, including Wednesday's selloff, which was spurred by Trump's threat to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese imports. Chart 8Profits Are Much More Volatile Than GDP Chart 9This Is How Markets Trade When They Are Worrying About Trade Wars The chart shows that deep cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials, and energy fared badly during days of protectionist angst. Financials also underperformed, largely because such days saw a flattening of the yield curve. Tech, health care, and telecom performed broadly in line with the S&P 500. Consumer stocks outperformed the market, but still declined in absolute terms. Utilities and real estate were the only two sectors that saw absolute price gains. Considering that the sector composition of European and EM bourses tends to be more tilted towards cyclicals than the U.S., it is not surprising that the former have underperformed during days of increased protectionist worries. Bonds: Yields Likely To Rise, But A Trade War Is A Risk To That View In contrast to equities, a trade war would benefit Treasurys and other safe-haven government bonds. Admittedly, the imposition of tariffs would push up import prices. However, the effect on inflation would be temporary. Just as the Fed tends to disregard one-off increases in commodity prices, it will play down any transient boost to inflation stemming from a trade war. Instead, the Fed will focus on the growth impact, which is likely to be negative. To be clear, trade jitters are not the only thing affecting bond yields. Judging by numerous business surveys, the U.S. economy is starting to overheat (Chart 10). Last week's employment report does not alter this conclusion. While the unemployment rate rose by 0.2 percentage points, this was mainly because of a jump in the participation rate. Considering that the number of workers outside the labor force who want a job is near a record low, the ability of the economy to draw in additional workers is limited (Chart 11). Chart 10The U.S. Economy Is Overheating Chart 11A Small Pool Of People Want ##br##To Jump Into The Labor Market Historically, continuing unemployment claims have closely tracked the unemployment rate over time (Chart 12). The fact that continuing claims have dropped by 9% since the end of January, while the unemployment rate has dipped by only 0.1 percentage points, suggests that the unemployment rate will fall further over the coming months. On balance, we continue to maintain our bearish recommendation on Treasurys, but acknowledge that a trade war is a risk to that view. Trade Wars And Currencies Unlike safe-haven bonds, whose yields are likely to decline in proportion to the magnitude of the trade war, the impact on the dollar is more difficult to predict. On the one hand, a modest trade dispute is likely to be somewhat dollar bearish, inasmuch as it hurts U.S. growth and forces the Fed to slow the pace of rate hikes. Since most other major central banks are not in a position to cut rates, expected rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners would narrow. On the other hand, a severe trade war would probably be dollar bullish. As the dollar's behavior during the Global Financial Crisis illustrates, even major shocks that originate from the U.S. still tend to attract capital inflows into the safe-haven Treasury market. The U.S. is a fairly closed economy, and hence would be relatively less affected by a breakdown in global trade. Commodities are also likely to suffer if trade flows decline (Chart 13). Lower commodity prices tend to be bullish for the greenback. Moreover, as we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook, a tit-for-tat trade war with China could force the Chinese government to devalue the yuan. That would have a knock-on effect on other emerging market currencies. Chart 12Unemployment Can Fall Further Chart 13Commodities Are A Potential Victim Of Trade War Notably, the greenback has fared better recently than it did earlier this year during days when protectionist rhetoric intensified. On Wednesday, the broad trade-weighted dollar gained 0.3% while the DXY picked up 0.6%. This supports our view that the dollar will strengthen over the remainder of the year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?," dated April 6, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 This assumes an elasticity of import demand of 3, which is broadly consistent with most academic estimates. 3 Avinash K. Dixit, and Robert S. Pindyck, "Investment Under Uncertainty," Princeton University Press, (1994). 4 Peter Berezin, "Border Effects Within A Dynamic Equilibrium Trade Model," The International Trade Journal, 14:3 (2000), 235-282. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. BOX 1 The Deadweight Loss From A Trade War Box Chart 1Tariffs Increase Budget Revenues, But Lead To A Bigger Loss In Consumer Surplus In the simplest models of international trade, an increase in tariffs leads to higher prices, resulting in a loss of consumer surplus. This is depicted by the blue region (ABCE) in Box Chart 1. The government collects revenue from the tariff shown by the red-colored rectangle (ABDE). The difference between the loss in consumer surplus and the gain in revenue - often referred to as the "deadweight loss" from a tariff - is depicted by the green-colored triangle (BCD). Arithmetically, the area of the triangle can be calculated as: Deadweight loss = 0.5 x Tariff x (Pre-tariff level of imports - Post-tariff level of imports) If one divides both sides by GDP, the formula reduces to: Deadweight loss/GDP = 0.5 x Tariff x Percentage Point Change In Import Share of GDP Resulting From Tariff There are many things in the real world that are not captured by this equation. For example, if the country that imposes the tariff is sufficiently large, this could push down the international price of the goods that it imports. The country would then benefit from an improvement in its terms of trade. As Robert Torrens showed back in the 19th century, if a country has any degree of market power (i.e., it is not a complete price-taker on international markets), there will always be a level of tariffs that makes it better off. The caveat is that this "optimal tariff" only exists if other countries do not retaliate. If everyone retaliates against everyone else, everyone will be worse off from a trade war. Moreover, as discussed in the main text, there are many factors that this simple model does not capture which could result in significant economic damage from raising tariffs even when retaliation does not take place, especially in cases where the tariffs are imposed on intermediate and capital goods. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades