Estados Unidos
Overweight A key beneficiary of a tight job market are managed health care providers who see lifts in both employer-sponsored health plans and newly-affordable individual and family health plans. With the unemployment rate touching new lows and small-business hiring plans hitting new highs (unemployment rate shown inverted, second panel), the direction for premium revenue for this niche health care sub-index is clearly higher. At the same time as the top line is moving higher, cost inflation has dramatically decelerated, driven by collapsing pharma price inflation (third panel). The implication is outsized earnings growth this year. The market has clearly taken notice, rewarding the S&P managed health care index with a premium valuation (bottom panel). While this is an improvement from the discount multiple of much of the past decade, it remains a far cry from previous cyclical highs. We think an exceptional earnings growth phase should make this valuation expansion durable; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5MANH - UNH, AET, ANTM, CI, HUM, CNC.
As noted in the previous Insight, relative margin declines for small caps seem more likely than gains. Meanwhile, small cap balance sheets have never been less prepared for such a downturn than they are right now. The relative net debt-to-EBITDA ratio has gone parabolic and is making all-time highs (middle panel). Rising small cap indebtedness, at a time when cash flow growth is anemic, suggests that the S&P 600 is increasingly vulnerable. Not only are interest payments eating into income, but also refinancing risk is a threat in an era of rising interest rates. The recently passed tax reform legislation caps interest expense tax deductibility at 30% of EBITDA this year. Nearly 30% of Russell 2000 constituents had an interest expense greater than 30% of EBITDA, compared with 3% of the S&P 500. The upshot is that stretched small cap balance sheets are delivering an additional P&L headwind that large cap peers don't face. Bottom Line: Factors are starting to line up for small cap underperformance in 2018. We are adding a downgrade alert to small caps vs. large caps. Please see Monday's Weekly Report for more details.
Small businesses have been in an ebullient mood since the Trump administration took power as key concerns, including reducing regulation and lowering corporate taxes have been aggressively addressed. However, recent readings from the Atlanta wage growth tracker and a survey of small business planned wage increases have suddenly diverged (second panel). The implication seems to be that small businesses are struggling to retain talent to a degree the greater economy is not experiencing. This looks to be borne out by the relative operating margins of the S&P 500 and 600 where the former is nearing cyclical highs and the latter remains distantly below the levels of only 5 years ago (third panel). At the same time, small caps continue to trade at a premium valuation to their large cap peers (bottom panel). We think this understates the true valuation gap as nearly 15% of S&P 600 component firms have negative or no forward EPS estimates. Bottom Line: Small caps seem overvalued relative to large cap earnings growth potential. Please see the next Insight for more details.
Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Duration: The modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. Maintain below-benchmark duration. 10-Year Yield: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Risk Premiums & Treasury Returns: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Feature Chart 1The Long End Catching The Train The sell-off in U.S. bond markets continued last week with the 10-year yield breaking above its previous peak of 2.62%. Of course yields at the short end of the curve made new cyclical highs long ago and have increased even further during the past few weeks (Chart 1). In this report we look at both the long and short ends of the yield curve and ask whether yields are finally fairly priced. But first, a quick re-cap of our cyclical investment stance. In our prior two bulletins we noted that the cyclical outlook for bonds remains bearish, and this continues to be the case. The main reason is that, despite recent increases, the long-term cost of inflation protection is still below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. However, we have also warned that the message from some near-term technical indicators is starting to shift. Specifically, net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures are now 2% net short. Positioning at these levels has historically been consistent with a modest decline in the 10-year yield during the subsequent three months (Chart 2). Also, the U.S. Economic Surprise Index (ESI) sits at a lofty +65 and is poised to mean revert as investor expectations grow increasingly optimistic. Our simple auto-regressive model of the ESI projects that it will decline to +28 during the next month.1 A positive value on the ESI is consistent with a continued increase in Treasury yields (Chart 3), but we will be watching closely for signs that the ESI is about to break below zero. Chart 2Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (I) Chart 3Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (II) Taken together, the modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. We therefore maintain our below-benchmark duration bias. We also maintain our overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Though inflationary pressure in the economy is starting to build, it is still not sufficient to spur significant spread widening. We will elaborate further on our spread product views in next week's report. How High For The 10-Year? In the current environment we find it instructive to split the nominal 10-year yield into its two main components - the compensation for inflation protection and the real yield - and consider each in turn. Inflation Chart 4TIPS Breakevens Are Still Low As was mentioned in the first section of this report, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen a lot. From a trough of 1.66% last June to 2.05% as of last Friday. But this is still somewhat too low (Chart 4). Historically, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has traded in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% when realized inflation is well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. With inflation almost certain to move back to the Fed's target before the end of the cycle, and indeed our Pipeline Inflation Indicator shows that inflationary pressures continue to build (Chart 4, bottom panel), there is still another 35 bps to 45 bps of cyclical upside in the 10-year breakeven rate. Real Yield As for the 10-year real yield, a simple model introduced in a report last month shows that it is driven by a combination of: The fed funds rate. The expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months, as measured by our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. Implied rate volatility as measured by the MOVE index. Included as a proxy for the term premium embedded in 10-year yields. The model is shown in Chart 5, where we also incorporate very conservative assumptions for each of the three independent variables. We assume that: The fed funds rate is raised three times this year, in line with the FOMC's median projection (Chart 5, panel 2). The 12-month discounter falls to 25 bps by year end. In other words, we assume that by then investors will only be looking for one rate hike only in 2019 (Chart 5, panel 3). The MOVE volatility index stays flat at historically low levels (Chart 5, bottom panel).2 Chart 5A Simple Model Of The Real 10-Year Treasury Yield The key message from Chart 5 is that it is very difficult to craft a reasonable scenario where the 10-year real yield has meaningful downside from current levels. Even using the benign assumptions described above, our model projects that the 10-year real yield will increase 4 bps in the next 11 months. From current levels that suggests a 10-year real yield of 0.61% by the end of the year. Summing it all up, on a cyclical horizon we project another 35 bps to 45 bps of upside in the inflation component of the 10-year Treasury yield, and at least 4 bps of upside in the real component. This suggests that the 10-year nominal Treasury yield should move into a range between 3.01% and 3.11% by the time that inflation reaches the Fed's target. Bottom Line: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Is The Front End Fairly Priced? At this time last year the 1-year Treasury yield was 0.84% and the fed funds rate was 0.66%. During the past 12 months the fed funds rate rose from 0.66% to 1.42%, equating to an average fed funds rate of 1.10% during this period (using monthly compounding). An investor who bought a 1-year Treasury note last year and held to maturity would have earned a risk premium of -26 bps relative to a position in cash. Not a great return by any means, but yields have moved a lot since then. The 1-year yield is now 1.79% and the 2-year yield is 2.05%. Is it possible that front-end yields now provide adequate compensation for the path of rate hikes during the next 1-2 years? And more importantly, does the risk premium earned on short-maturity notes tell us anything about the total returns we can expect to earn from the overall Treasury index? These are the two questions we consider in this section. Calculating The Ex-Ante Risk Premium In Short-Maturity Yields Table 1 shows three different scenarios for the path of Fed rate hikes during the next two years. The median FOMC scenario assumes that the funds rate rises in line with the Fed's median projection. That is, the rate is lifted three times this year and twice next year. The hawkish scenario assumes that the funds rate is raised once per quarter between now and mid-2019, and the dovish scenario assumes that after hiking rates in March and June of this year the Fed is forced to go on hold. Table 1Fed Rate Hikes Scenarios & The Implied Risk Premium We see that the 1-year yield is priced exactly in line with the FOMC's median projection. That is, if the fed funds rate is hiked three times in 2018, then 12 months from now an investor will have been indifferent between a position in a 1-year note and a position in cash. In this same scenario an investor holding a 2-year note to maturity will end up losing 4 bps relative to a position in cash. Unsurprisingly, the hawkish scenario leads to much more negative realized risk premiums for both 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity trades. The dovish scenario leads to a small positive risk premium on a 2-year horizon, but a small negative risk premium on a 1-year horizon. This is because our dovish scenario still assumes there are two rate hikes this year. Our initial conclusion is that despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Especially since a position in a 1-year or 2-year note is somewhat riskier than a position in cash, due to the additional duration risk. Short-Maturity Risk Premiums And Treasury Returns But there is one more possible application for the above analysis. We calculated the actual risk premiums earned in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity positions going back to 1973, and found that these risk premiums correlate quite well with changes in the average yield for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index for the same time horizon. In other words, 12-month periods in which an investor in a 1-year note would have earned a positive risk premium relative to an investor in cash tend to coincide with a falling Treasury index yield, and vice-versa (Chart 6). The correlation is even stronger on a 2-year horizon (Chart 7). Chart 61-Year Risk Premium & 12-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Chart 72-Year Risk Premium & 24-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Using the relationships from Charts 6 & 7 we are able to calculate the expected change in the average index Treasury yield in each of our three scenarios for Fed rate hikes. We can then translate those yield changes into expectations for total returns from the Treasury index. Those projected total return figures are shown in the final column of Table 1. Our calculation shows that the median FOMC scenario translates into a projected Treasury index 1-year total return of 2.7%, and an annualized 2-year return of 1.7%. The annualized 2-year return in the hawkish scenario is only 84 bps, while it is 2.3% in the dovish scenario. Chart 8Very Low Returns On The Horizon Of course, these figures come with a good deal of uncertainty. Nowhere in the calculation do we consider possible price changes in longer-maturity bonds, which of course are a significant part of the index. In fact, Chart 8 shows that while the total return projections derived from this exercise give a good sense of the general direction in Treasury index returns, there is still considerable variability from year to year. Perhaps the most accurate statement we can make is that with 1-year and 2-year risk premiums likely to be negative - or at least very close to zero - during the next 1-2 years, we should also expect very low total returns from the overall Treasury index. Bottom Line: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
There is a once in a decade opportunity to prefer value over growth (V/G) stocks, and we recommend shifting our style bias in favor of value stocks. Typically, the V/G ratio moves in multi-year up and down cycles, and at the current juncture it is a screaming buy, if history at least rhymes (top panel). Relative sector composition implies a value over growth preference would equate to a positive interest rate and oil price correlation. Indeed, the 10-year Treasury yield moves in lockstep with the V/G ratio and similarly oil prices are joined at the hip with relative performance (second and third panels). One of BCA’s themes for 2018 is higher interest rates, with our bond strategists still expecting an inflation-driven rise in the 10-year Treasury yield near 3%. Similarly, BCA’ commodity strategists remain constructive on oil prices. Taken together, these BCA views warrant a value over growth preference. Bottom Line: Boost value stock exposure at the expense of growth equities. The V/G ratio offers an excellent entry point with limited downside risk.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Relative sector index composition, the macro backdrop, relative operating metrics along with compelling valuations and washed out technicals suggest that a value over growth style bias is warranted. Rising interest rates and a flattening yield curve, coupled with increasing relative indebtedness and lack of relative profit growth signal that the time is right to shift the capitalization bias to a neutral setting. Recent Changes Shift the style bias and favor value over growth today. Book profits in the small over large cap size bias of 2% since the mid-August 2016 inception. Table 1 Feature Equities catapulted to new all-time highs last week as earnings season got underway. Upbeat bank reports set the tone, and SPX profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher, on the back of the tax bill passage, rising from 12% to 16% in a mere three weeks, according to Thomson Reuters/IBES. Our SPX EPS growth model agrees that, cyclically, profits will continue to drift higher and a low-to-mid double-digit growth rate is likely for 2018, as we posited last week.1 While the synchronized and disinflationary global growth narrative continues to dominate, we are a bit uneasy. The eerie calm overtaking the markets, and headlines like this recent one from Bloomberg "The Stock Market Never Goes Down" give us cause for concern. As a reminder, the SPX is up 1000 points since the 1800 level registered in early-2016. Put differently, the SPX has been rising by roughly 25% per annum for the past two years. Such a breakneck pace is unsustainable. Our sense is that from a tactical perspective, equities are currently extremely stretched and warrant some caution. Therefore, this week we identify five key signposts we are closely monitoring that are sending clear warning signals (for a more comprehensive list please see the tactical section of our August 7th White Paper).2 First, our reflation gauge (RG) has taken a turn for the worse (Chart 1). At the margin, higher oil prices and interest rates may begin to bite. Historically, our RG has been an excellent leading indicator of both sentiment that has vaulted to multi-decade highs and CITI's economic surprise index. Our global reflation gauge emits a similar signal (not shown). Mean reversion is looming. Second, speculation runs rampant. Our Equity Speculation Index (ESI) is close to two standard deviations above the historical mean. Since the early-1960s, the ESI has only been higher during the dotcom bubble (Chart 2). While the ESI can rise further, it is at least waving a yellow flag. Investor sentiment has also gone parabolic with the bull/bear ratio reaching a level last seen right before the 1987 crash (third panel, Chart 2). Chart 1Yellow Flag Chart 2Extended Third, financial conditions are as good as they get. The St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index recently hit an all-time low level. Similarly, Goldman Sachs' and the Chicago Fed's National Financial Conditions indexes are also near uncharted territory. This should be cause for some trepidation (Chart 3). Fourth, extended EPS breadth, all time highs in net earnings revisions, stretched median valuations and overbought technical conditions are near levels that have marked previous temporary broad market pullbacks (Chart 4). Finally, gold is behaving strangely. While the U.S. dollar's selloff explains part of the recent jump in the shiny metal, we think bullion may be sniffing out some trouble as it remains a true safe haven asset. Either real rates have to come down or gold has to reverse course; such a steep divergence is unsustainable (gold shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Chart 3As Good As It Gets Chart 4Peak Euphoria? Chart 5What's Gold Sniffing Out? Since December 18th our strategy has been to book gains in tactical trades and to refrain from altering our cyclical over defensive portfolio positioning bent,3 as we do not foresee a recession in the coming 9-12 months.4 We continue to pursue this strategy and were a 5-10% selloff to materialize, we would "buy the dip". In addition, this week we introduce/apply a risk management measure to our recently revealed high-conviction 2018 calls.5 Almost all of our calls are in the black outperforming the broad market on average by 640bps (Chart 6). While we are not compelled to change our views just yet, our confidence is not as high as two months ago, especially in the two calls that are registering double-digit relative returns. Thus, we suggest that clients institute a tight stop in these trades (please see the "Stop" column in the "Top High-Conviction Calls For 2018" table on page 15). Going forward, we will introduce such risk management trailing stops once a call clears the 10% relative return mark. This week we shift both our style and size biases. Chart 6Time To Set Stops Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth There is a once in a decade opportunity to prefer value over growth (V/G) stocks, and we recommend shifting our style bias in favor of value stocks. Typically, the V/G ratio moves in multi-year up and down cycles, and at the current juncture it is a screaming buy, if history at least rhymes. Chart 7 shows that relative share prices are not only near previous troughs, but also 1.5 standard deviations below the six-decade time trend. Chart 7Compelling Entry Point In fact we already have a flavor of this style preference in one of our market-neutral pair trades, long financials / short tech (for additional details on this trade please refer to our "Disentangling Pricing Power" early-summer report). Table 2 depicts why this is so: financials stocks dominate value indexes, while IT comprises 40% of growth indexes. Sector composition also suggests that a long energy / short health care trade would mimic this V/G preference, as energy stocks offer a lot of value, whereas health care stocks sit prominently in growth indexes (Table 2 & Chart 8). While we do not have this pair trade on per se, as a reminder we are overweight the energy sector and underweight health care stocks; we are also overweight financials and underweight tech (please see page 14 for a complete picture of our current sector recommendations). Table 2Sector Composition With regard to macro variables, these sector preferences would equate to a positive interest rate and oil price correlation. Indeed, the 10-year Treasury yield moves in lockstep with the V/G ratio and similarly oil prices are joined at the hip with relative performance (Chart 9). Chart 8Value/Growth Replicas Chart 9Rising Oil And Rates = Buy Value / Sell Growth One of BCA's themes for 2018 is higher interest rates, with our bond strategists still expecting an inflation-driven rise in the 10-year Treasury yield near 3%. Similarly, BCA' commodity strategists remain constructive on oil prices. Taken together, these BCA views warrant a value over growth preference. Importantly, since the depths of the GFC, value has underwhelmed growth by a wide margin. Likely, this growth over value preference reflected central bank interest rate suppression, which boosted the multiple investors were willing to pay for perceived growth at a time when growth was scarce. Now that the Fed has lifted rates five times since December 2015 and is on track to do so three more times this year, value should take the reins (Chart 10). Moreover, the Fed is unwinding its balance sheet and that tightening in monetary conditions, at the margin, favors value over growth (Chart 11). Chart 10Avoid Growth Stocks During Fed Tightening Cycles... Chart 11...And During Quantitative Tightening On the currency front, the V/G ratio has had a tight positive correlation with the EUR/USD foreign exchange rate (Chart 12). Once again sector composition has been underpinning this relationship. However, sector composition is constantly shifting. Currently, a larger percentage of growth stocks have international sales (especially tech) compared with more domestically-oriented value stocks. Thus, the depreciating U.S. dollar is a risk to our value over growth preference On the operating metric front, value stocks have the upper hand versus their growth siblings. Our relative composite pricing power gauge has swung by eight percentage points from trough-to-peak and heralds a deflation exit for relative top line growth (middle panel, Chart 13). Chart 12Depreciating U.S. Dollar Is ##br##Typically A Boon To The V/G Ratio Chart 13Relative Pricing Power ##br##Favors Value Over Growth Sell-side analysts have taken notice and have been aggressively bumping their net earnings revisions in favor of value versus growth indexes. As mentioned earlier, rising oil price inflation and better credit pricing power are a boon to V/G profit prospects (bottom panel, Chart 13). Valuations and technicals also suggest that investors should overweight value at the expense of growth. Our relative Valuation Indicator (VI) has recently sunk to a level last hit in the early-2000s, approaching one standard deviation below the historical mean. Similarly, the V/G ratio is oversold and our relative Technical Indicator (TI) has fallen to a level that has marked previous bull market phases (Chart 14). Finally, over the past thirty years V/G price moves have been a mirror image of both junk bond yields and vol. In other words, a value over growth preference has been synonymous with a "risk on" backdrop (junk yield and the VIX shown inverted, Chart 15). However, these close correlations appear to have broken down since the Great Recession as the Fed's unconventional monetary policies functioned well in keeping a lid on vol and suppressing bond yields across the fixed income spectrum. Chart 14Value Vs Growth Stocks Are Cheap And Oversold Chart 15Bet On Convergence As the Fed winds down its balance sheet there are good odds that volatility will make a comeback and interest rates will also shoot higher. The upshot is that these inverse correlations get reestablished in the coming quarters via a rise in the V/G ratio, an increase in vol and a selloff in the junk corporate bond market (Chart 15). Adding it up, relative sector composition, the macro backdrop, relative operating metrics along with a compelling VI reading and our washed out TI suggest that a value over growth style bias is warranted. Bottom Line: Boost value stock exposure at the expense of growth equities. The V/G ratio offers an excellent entry point with limited downside risk. Book Profits In Small Caps Vs. Large Caps And Move To The Sidelines In August 2016, we recommended a small over large cap (S/L) bias, predating the Trump election victory, on the back of five key drivers: non-inflationary growth would persist allowing central banks to stay incredibly accommodative, emerging market tail risks had eased taming equity market vol, small/large sector composition differentials, relative EPS fundamentals and restored relative valuations. Given that most of these factors have moved in favor of small versus large caps and some are starting to shift against the S/L ratio, does it still pay to have a small cap size bias? The short answer is no, and we now recommend investors book profits and move to the sidelines. While the euphoric tailwind surrounding the new administration and its promise to slash red tape and taxes tripped us up and we failed to monetize 10%+ gains, better late than never. First, from a big picture perspective, the near two decade S/L outperformance phase is running on fumes and it has likely put in a secular top in late-2016 (Chart 16). Similar to the style bias, this ratio also tends to move in long cycles. We are clearly in extended territory hovering at one standard deviation above the historical time trend. Chart 16Major Top? Second, interest rates bear close attention. Rising interest rates on the back of an inflationary impulse is BCA's view for the coming year and, coupled with the yield curve narrowing, are a harbinger of small cap trouble. Chart 17 shows the tight positive correlation between the S/L ratio and the yield curve, and the current message is to avoid small caps. Small caps are mostly domestically exposed and are ultra-sensitive to interest rate moves as small and medium businesses rely more heavily on their bankers for credit, rather than debt markets. When the yield curve flattens late in the cycle it is typically because the Fed is aggressively tightening monetary policy. While such a monetary backdrop is neither conducive to small nor to large firms, small caps suffer more, at the margin. Third, we are perplexed by the lack of profit growth in the small cap complex. It has now been over a year since Trump came into power and small cap EPS underperformance has been extremely prominent (top panel, Chart 18). The 12-month forward profit growth delta has also widened considerably over the past year to the detriment of small caps (middle panel, Chart 18). While the U.S. dollar's sizable depreciation explains part of the profit divergence, i.e. as the currency falls foreign sales exposed large caps enjoy a significant translation gain, relative indebtedness is also likely playing a key role. The bottom panel of Chart 19 shows the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio for the small cap and large cap indexes. The relative ratio has gone parabolic and is making all-time highs. Rising small cap indebtedness, at a time when cash flow growth is anemic, suggests that the S&P 600 is increasingly vulnerable. Not only are interest payments eating into income, but also refinancing risk is a threat in an era of rising interest rates. Under such a backdrop, small cap stocks should not trade at a valuation premium (bottom panel, Chart 18). Chart 17Yield Curve Blues Chart 18Small Cap Profit Trouble Chart 19Mind The Small Cap Indebtedness Bottom Line: The time is ripe to take profits of 2% and move to the sidelines in the capitalization bias. Were our indicators to further deteriorate, we would not hesitate to fully reverse course and prefer large to small caps. Stay tuned. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "White Paper: U.S. Equity Market Indicators (Part I)," dated August 7, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "EPS And 'Nothing Else Matters'," dated December 18, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth and stay neutral small over large caps.
Highlights The Beige Book released on January 17 keeps the Fed on track to raise rates at least three times this year and highlights the impact of the tax bill on the economy. BCA's Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book highlights several of the positive trends supporting our view of the economy, the tax bill and the Fed. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 has the potential to generate significant supply-side benefits for consumers, shareholders and the broad economy. We decided to stay long the dollar after a lengthy internal debate, although we have revised down our view on the upside potential. Feature U.S. risk assets continued to outperform last week outside of the dollar, as S&P 500 firms started to report Q4 2017 results and provide guidance for Q1 2018 and beyond. BCA's Bank Lending Beige Book summarizes the most optimistic comments from the Big 5 banks. The Fed's Beige Book captured comments on the broad economy in December and early January that were equally ebullient. Both Beige books suggested that firms were planning to return their tax savings to shareholders in the New Year, and to continue to boost capex, which was stout even before the law was passed. Yet, despite the upbeat news, the dollar broke down last week, as the ECB sounded a hawkish note and the Japanese economy continued to improve. On balance, the Beige Book, the Q4 earnings season, the health of the U.S. economy (notably capital spending), all support BCA's stance on the U.S. stock-to-bond ratio, the Fed, duration and the dollar. However, the dollar has not behaved as we would have expected. Beige Book Barometer Bounces The Beige Book released on January 17 keeps the Fed on track to raise rates at least three times this year and highlights the impact of the tax bill on the economy. BCA's quantitative approach1 to the Beige Book's qualitative data points to underlying strength in GDP and a tighter labor market, but there is still a disconnect between the Beige Book's view of inflation and the market's stance. Moreover, references to the stronger dollar have disappeared from the Beige Book and business uncertainty is significantly reduced, reflecting the tax cut bill and President Trump's assault on regulation. Chart 1Latest Beige Book Supports##BR##The Fed's View On Rates, Economy Chart 1, panel 1 shows that at 66%, BCA's Beige Book Monitor stayed near its cycle highs in January, re-confirmation that the underlying economy was still upbeat in Q4 and early 2018. (The latest Beige Book covered the period from mid-November 2017 to January 8, 2018). The number of 'weak' words in the Beige Book returned to near four-year lows after ticking higher in the wake of last summer's hurricanes. Moreover, there were 12 mentions of the tax bill in the January Beige Book, up from only 3 in November (not shown). The tax bill was cast in a positive light in 75% of the remarks. In November, the references to either the tax bill (or tax reform) cited the consequent uncertainty as a constraint on growth. Based on the minimal references to a robust dollar in the past five Beige Books, the greenback should not be an issue in Q4 2017 or Q1 2018, which is in sharp contrast with 2015 and early 2016 when there was a surge in Beige Book mentions (Chart 1, panel 4). The last time that five consecutive Beige Books had so few remarks about a strong dollar was in late 2014. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) ticked up in the past few Beige Books as Congress debated the particulars of the tax bill. Nonetheless, comments of uncertainty in the Beige Book have dropped since Trump took office in early 2017. The implication is that the business community is correctly focused on policy and not politics in D.C. (Chart 1, panel 5). The disconnect with the Fed on inflation is evident in the Beige Book's number of inflation words (Chart 1, panel 3). Expressions regarding inflation rose to a four-month high in January and the disconnect persists between the still-elevated mentions of inflation and the soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The recent Beige Book backs BCA's view that the U.S. economy is poised to grow above its long-term potential in the first half of 2018. However, the Beige Book has done little to resolve the debate around why an economy growing above potential and a tightening labor market have not boosted inflation. Likewise, the latest Beige Book confirmed that at least initially, businesses and bankers across the U.S. welcomed the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Bankers' Beige Book Returns Chart 2Banking System Shipshape BCA's Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book highlights several of the positive trends supporting our view: Pristine credit quality, a positive U.S. credit impulse, loosening U.S. banking regulatory requirements, and pent up demand for shareholder friendly activities. We introduced the Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book2 in early 2014 to interpret the health of the banking system based on comments from leaders of the Big Five banks during earnings season. Managements were upbeat on loan demand and credit quality as they unveiled Q4 results in the past two weeks, and most expressed optimism that the positive credit trends would continue to improve in 2018. Several bank executives shared their Fed rate hike expectations for this year, with most forecasting three or four increases. One institution planned for a flatter curve, while another noted that rising rates on both the short and long ends will benefit their operations. Chart 2 shows key banking related variables cited in the Bank Lending Beige Book. Appendix Table 1 shows the Big 5 Bank Lending Beige Book for Q4 2017. All five banks were uniformly upbeat in their assessments of the tax bill's impact on their operations, their customers' businesses or the overall economy. One bank noted that it took a repatriation charge in Q4, and another said it would return capital to shareholders via buybacks and dividends. A third said the bill will provide "immediate and ongoing benefit to our employees, customers, communities and our shareholders, as we invest a portion of our tax savings in each of these important constituencies." Bottom Line: The banking system is shipshape as 2018 begins and lenders are ready to extend credit to businesses and consumers to boost the economy despite higher rates. BCA's U.S. Equity strategists recommend an overweight position in the S&P 500's financial sector, with a high conviction overweight on banks.3 A Different Lens On Earnings Chart 3Corporate Health Has Improved##BR##Since Start Of 2017 The early December release of the U.S. flow of funds report allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) (Chart 3). The CHM's level improved slightly between Q2 and Q3, but the overall reading remains in 'deteriorating health' territory. The marginal improvement in Q3 was driven by rising profit margins. In addition, profit growth surged while debt moved up modestly in Q3. The CHM is a reliable indicator of the trend in corporate bond spreads which supports our corporate bond overweight. Given that corporate balance sheets are declining, the sole supports for corporate spreads are low inflation and accommodative monetary policy. We anticipate spreads will start to widen later this year when inflation climbs and policy turns more restrictive. BCA's U.S. Bond strategists remain overweight the U.S. high-yield bond market.4 Although spreads appear a bit more attractive than for investment-grade corporates, there is still not much room for spread compression in high-yields. We calculate that if the high-yield index spread tightens by another 117 bps, then junk bonds will be the most expensive since 1995. In an optimistic scenario where the index spread tightens 100 bps, bringing it close to all-time expensive levels, then we would expect junk excess returns to be in the range of 600 bps (annualized). Nonetheless, in view of the trends in corporate leverage, it is unlikely that there will be another 100 bps of spread tightening. More realistically, we expect excess returns between 200 bps and 500 bps (annualized) between now and the end of the credit cycle. Bottom Line: BCA's indicators suggest that we are moving into the late stages of the credit cycle, but we retain an overweight cyclical stance on corporate bonds. A shift to a more restrictive monetary policy, tightening C&I bank lending standards and/or a continued uptrend in gross corporate leverage are the main catalysts we will monitor to gauge the end of the cycle. An abrupt end to the positive capex or earnings cycle would also be concerns for our upbeat view on credit. Repatriation Redux The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 has the potential to generate significant supply-side benefits for consumers, shareholders and the broad economy. There are several uses for corporate cash, including capital spending, M&A, increasing compensation to employees, paying down debt and returning capital to shareholders. Chart 4 shows that through Q3 2017, share buybacks and dividends ran slightly ahead of prior cycles, while capex was about average. Investors wonder how that mix may change under the new law. Corporate behavior in the wake of the 2004 overseas tax holiday5 provides some guidance. Chart 4Comparison Of Corporate Outlays Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Corporations used cash generated from the 2004 tax break to return capital to shareholders. However, we found scant evidence that firms who benefited from the tax holiday increased capital spending, raised wages or hired more workers. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) noted that a dollar increase in repatriations "was associated with an increase of almost $1 in payouts to shareholders."6 Moreover, a 2008 IRS paper7 concluded that nearly half of all the cash repatriated in 2004 and 2005 came from only the tech and pharma sectors. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that small firms tended to benefit less than large firms from the tax holiday.8 A paper9 by the left-leaning, U.S.-based think tank, the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), stated that several firms that benefitted the most from the 2004 law laid off workers soon after the tax law was enacted. In 2018, BCA expects firms to return capital to shareholders, boost capex and continue to bump up wages. Chart 5 shows that buybacks will probably augment S&P 500 EPS by around 2% this year, while panel 2 shows that there was a noticeable upswing to buyback announcements as 2017 ended. Aside from the post-recession bounce in buybacks in 2010, the last big swell in buyback announcements occurred in 2004 and 2005. That said, corporate balance sheets were in much better shape in 2004/2005 than they are today (Chart 3 again). The implication is that management teams may decide to pay down debt before returning the cash windfall back to shareholders. However, with rates still low, most firms will chose to distribute the cash to shareholders, despite high corporate debt levels. The positive reading on BCA's Capital Structure Preference Indicator supports our stance on buybacks (Chart 6, third panel). This Indicator is defined as the equity risk premium minus the default-adjusted yield in high-yield corporate bonds. When the indicator is above zero, there is financial incentive for firms to issue debt and buy back shares. Conversely, firms are incentivized to issue stock and retire debt when the indicator is below zero. The Indicator is currently positive, although not as high as it was in 2015. Moreover, Chart 7 shows that the dividend payout ratio rebounded from the 2007-2009 financial crisis, but has moved above its pre-crisis level. However, dividend distributions remain below their pre-crisis peak reached in the early 1990s. Chart 5Still Some Room##BR##To Run For Buybacks Chart 6Buybacks Adding Almost##BR##2 Percentage Points To EPS Growth Capital spending was already on a tear in late 2017, even before the tax bill passed. Industrial production, the PMI diffusion index and advanced-economy capital goods imports, all confirm strong underlying momentum in investment spending (Chart 8). Chart 7Corporations Poised To Return##BR##Capital To Shareholders Chart 8Capital Spending Helping##BR##To Drive Growth Both BCA's real and nominal capex models, driven by surging capital goods orders along with elevated ISM data, roaring global exports and soaring sentiment on business spending, indicate strong investment in plant and equipment in the next few quarters (Chart 9). CEO confidence soared to a 13-year high in Q4, according to the latest Duke's Fuqua School of Business/CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook (Chart 10, panel 1). Duke noted that "Among CFOs who responded to the survey after the Senate passed its version of the tax reform bill, optimism spiked to 73, which is the highest U.S. optimism ever recorded in the history of the survey."10 Chart 9Bright Outlook##BR##For Capital Spending Chart 10CEO Confidence And##BR##Capex Plans Surging Surveys by the Conference Board and Business Roundtable show a similar pattern. (panel 1 again). Notably, the soundings on all three surveys have climbed since Trump's election, but then retreated as his pro-business agenda stalled in the summer months. The dip in sentiment reflected the lack of legislative progress in Washington in the first 10 months of the Trump administration. The dip in CEO sentiment in Q2 and Q3 was in sharp contrast to the easing of policy concerns in the Fed's Beige Book (Chart 1, bottom panel). The upbeat numbers in the regional FRBs' surveys of capital spending intentions further support escalating capex spending in the next few quarters. The average readings from the New York, Philadelphia and Richmond Feds' capex survey plans are at an all-time high (Chart 10, panel 2). Moreover, the regional Feds' capex spending plans diffusion index is close to a cycle high, despite a modest pullback last summer (panel 3). Bottom Line: Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, and underweight duration. The tax bill will boost returns to shareholders via buybacks and dividends. In addition, rising capex will drive up GDP, employment and EPS in the coming quarters. Dollar View Revisited The dollar fell by 4% between mid-December and mid-January, amid a hawkish market interpretation of the ECB minutes, persistently strong growth in Japan and a key technical breakdown in the DXY index. The decline has some investors questioning BCA's bullish stance on the currency (Chart 11). We were correct on the direction of interest rate differentials vis-à-vis the other major economies, but this has not translated into a stronger dollar so far. We decided to stay long the dollar after a lengthy internal debate, although we have revised down our view on the upside potential. A lot of good news on the European and Japanese economies is now discounted and investors are quite pessimistic on the dollar (which is bullish the dollar from a contrary perspective) (Chart 12). Given this technical backdrop, we would expect at least a 5% rise in the trade-weighted dollar as expectations of Fed rate hikes rise this year. We are likely to exit our long dollar position if we get such an appreciation. Chart 11We Are Sticking With##BR##Our Long Dollar View Chart 12The Case For Crisis Era Monetary Stimulus##BR##In Europe And Japan Is Weakening Bottom Line: BCA's bullish dollar trade was initiated in October 2014 and although the DXY index is up 4% since that time, we are maintaining the trade. While downside risks remain, a unilateral decision by the Trump Administration to leave NAFTA will boost the U.S. dollar versus the Canadian dollar and the peso. Italy's upcoming spring Presidential election could prompt a rally in the dollar if the Eurosceptic parties outperform expectations. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Debate Continues", published on April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Commitments", published January 20, 2014. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "High Conviction Calls", published November 27, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "January Effect", published January 9, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/4520 6 http://www.nber.org/papers/w15023 7 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08codivdeductbul.pdf 8 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40178.pdf 9 https://www.cbpp.org/research/tax-holiday-for-overseas-corporate-profits-would-increase-deficits-fail-to-boost-the 10 http://www.cfosurvey.org/2017q4/press-release.html Appendix: Bankers Beige Book
Highlights Trade #1: Go Short The December 2018 Fed Funds Futures Contract. The trade has gained 64 bps since we initiated it. We are lifting the stop to 60 bps and targeting a profit of 75 bps. Trade #2: Go Long Global Industrial Stocks Versus Utilities. The trade is up 13.1%. We are targeting a profit of 15%, and are tightening the stop further to 12%. Trade #3: Go Short 20-Year JGBs Relative To Their 5-Year Counterparts. The trade is up 0.7%. We see this as a multi-year trade with significant upside potential. The unwinding of heavy short positions could cause the yen to strengthen temporarily. The euro is vulnerable to negative growth surprises. A retracement of some of its recent gains is likely. Feature Looking Back, Thinking Forward I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's Annual Investment Conference held in New York on September 27th of last year where I offered three "tantalizing" trade ideas. Chart 1 reviews their performance. They were the following: Trade #1: Go Short The December 2018 Fed Funds Futures Contract We argued last summer that U.S. growth was likely to accelerate, taking rate expectations higher. That has indeed happened. Aggregate hours worked rose by 2.5% in Q4 over the previous quarter. Assuming that productivity increased by 1.5% in Q4 - equal to the pace recorded in Q3 - real GDP probably increased by nearly 4%. A variety of leading indicators point to continued above-trend growth in the months ahead (Chart 2). Chart 1Three Tantalizing Trades: ##br##An Update Chart 2Leading Indicators Pointing ##br##To Above-Trend U.S. Growth We think the Fed will raise rates four times this year, one more hike than projected by the dots and roughly 35 bps more in tightening than implied by current market expectations. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. We have been saying for a while that above-trend growth will take the unemployment rate down to a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. If the unemployment rate falls this much, the Fed will probably turn more hawkish. Stronger inflation numbers should also give the Fed confidence to keep raising rates once per quarter. Core inflation surprised on the upside in December. We expect this trend to continue in the coming months, as the ISM manufacturing index, the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, and our own proprietary pipeline inflation index are already foreshadowing (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Inflation ##br##Should Accelerate Chart 4A Pick-Up In Wage Growth ##br##Would Put Upward Pressure On Service Inflation As we noted two weeks ago,1 service sector inflation should get a lift from faster wage growth this year (Chart 4). Goods inflation should also rise on the back of higher oil prices and the lagged effects of a weaker dollar (Chart 5). In addition, health care inflation is likely to pick up from its current depressed level, especially if the Congressional Budget Office is correct that insurance premiums will rise due to the elimination of the individual mandate (Chart 6). Housing inflation will moderate, but this is unlikely to stymie the Fed's tightening plans since excessively low interest rates could lead to even more overbuilding in the increasingly vulnerable commercial real estate sector. Chart 5Higher Oil Prices And A Weaker Dollar ##br##Are A Tailwind For Inflation Chart 6Health Care Inflation ##br##Should Move Higher Granted, four rate hikes equal four opportunities to defer raising rates. It is easy to imagine scenarios where the Fed stands pat, but hard to conjure scenarios where the Fed has to raise rates five times or more this year. Thus, the risk to our four-hike view is to the downside. As such, we will be looking to take profits of 75 bps on the trade, and are putting in a stop of 60 bps. Trade #2: Go Long Global Industrial Stocks Versus Utilities Capital spending tends to accelerate in the late innings of business-cycle expansions. We are in such a phase now, as evidenced by capital goods orders, capex intention surveys, and our global capex model (Chart 7). Increased capital spending will benefit industrial companies. Conversely, rising bond yields will hurt rate-sensitive utilities. Valuations in the industrial sector have gotten stretched, but are not at extreme levels (Chart 8). Based on enterprise value-to-EBITDA, industrials are still only slightly more expensive than utilities compared to their post-1990 average. Chart 7Capex Is Shifting Into ##br##Higher Gear Chart 8Industrial Stocks: Valuations Are Stretched, ##br## But Not Yet Extreme While we do think global growth will slow this year from the heady pace of 2017, it should remain firmly above-trend. A bigger-than-expected slowdown - especially if it is concentrated in China - would undoubtedly hurt industrials. A stronger dollar could also be a headwind. Thus, we are keeping this trade on a short leash, with a target of 15% and a stop of 12%. Trade #3: Go Short 20-Year JGBs Relative To Their 5-Year Counterparts The Japanese economy is on fire. Growth almost reached 2% in 2017 and leading indicators suggest a solid start to 2018 (Chart 9). The unemployment rate has fallen to 2.7%, a full point below 2007 levels. The ratio of job openings-to-applicants has surpassed its bubble peak. The Tankan Employment Conditions Index is pointing to an exceptionally tight labor market. Wages excluding overtime pay are rising at the fastest pace in twenty years (Chart 10). Chart 9Japanese Growth Momentum Is Positive Chart 10Signs Of A Tight Labor Market Inflation is low but is starting to edge up. The most recent release surprised on the upside. Inflation expectations moved higher on the news, benefiting our long Japanese 10-year CPI swap trade recommendation (Chart 11). A simple scatterplot between the unemployment rate and core inflation suggests the Phillips curve remains intact in Japan -- amazingly, it even looks like Japan (Chart 12)! Chart 11Inflation Expectations Have Edged Higher Chart 12The Phillips Curve In Japan Looks Like Japan Still, with core inflation excluding food and energy running at only 0.3%, there is a long way to go before inflation reaches the BoJ's target -- and even longer if the BoJ honours its promise to generate a meaningful overshoot to compensate for the below-target inflation of prior years. This suggests the BoJ will not meaningfully water down its Yield Curve Control regime anytime soon. As such, five-year yields are likely to stay put while yields with maturities in excess of ten years should move higher. Our "tantalizing trade" being short 20-year JGBs versus their 5-year counterparts still has a long way to run. Too Risky To Short The Yen The exceptionally strong correlation between USD/JPY and U.S. Treasury yields has broken down this year (Chart 13). Had the relationship held, the yen would have actually weakened against the dollar. Still, we are reluctant to get too bearish on the yen (Chart 14). The yen real effective exchange rate is close to multi-decade lows. Positioning on the currency is heavily short. The current account surplus has mushroomed from close to zero in 2014 to 4% of GDP at present. And even if the BoJ keeps the Yield Curve Control regime in place, investors may still anticipate its demise, leading to a temporary bout of yen strength. Chart 13Strong Correlation Is Broken Chart 14Too Risky To Short The Yen What's Propping Up The Euro? The euro has been on a tear since last week, egged on by the ECB minutes, which hinted at a faster pace of monetary normalization. Growing confidence that Angela Merkel will be able to form a grand coalition also helped the common currency, along with hopes that the new government will loosen the fiscal purse strings. The euro is often thought of as the "anti-dollar." And sure enough, the euro's strength has been reflected in a broad-based decline in the dollar index in recent days. BCA's Global Investment Strategy service went long the dollar on October 31, 2014. We "doubled up" on this call in the fall of 2016, controversially arguing that "Trump will win and the dollar will rally." Obviously, in retrospect, I should have rung the register and declared victory on our long dollar view when I had the chance. EUR/USD fell to 1.04 on December 2016, within striking distance of our parity target. Bullish dollar sentiment had reached unsustainably lofty levels. That was the time to sell the greenback. But hubris got the best of me. While our other currency trade recommendations have delivered net gains of 11% since the start of 2017, the long DXY trade has stuck out like a sore thumb. Hindsight is 20/20. The key question is what to do today. EUR/USD is still trading below the level it was at when we went long the DXY. Relative to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity exchange rate of 1.32, the euro is 7% undervalued. That said, PPP exchange rates may not be a reliable benchmark in this case. Given current market expectations, EUR/USD would need to strengthen to 1.41 over the next ten years just to cover the carry cost of being short the dollar. Even assuming lower inflation in the euro area, that would still leave the euro trading above its long-term fair value. It is possible, of course, that rate differentials will narrow further, but the scope for this is more limited than it might appear. The market currently expects policy rates ten years out to be 95 basis points higher in the U.S., down from a spread of nearly 180 basis points in late December (Chart 15). Given that euro area inflation expectations are 40-to-50 bps lower than in the U.S., this implies a real spread of about 50 bps - broadly in line with our estimate of the real neutral rate gap between the two regions. Ultimately, the fate of the euro in 2018 will rest on the same question that drove the currency in 2017: Will euro area growth surprise on the upside, prompting investors to price in a faster pace of monetary normalization? The bar for success is certainly higher at present. Chart 16 shows that euro area consensus growth estimates have risen significantly since the start of last year. The expected lift-off date for policy rates has also shifted in by more than a year to mid-2019. Considering that Jens Weidmann stated earlier this week that he thinks current market pricing is broadly consistent with when the ECB expects to hike rates, there is little scope for the lift-off date to move forward. Chart 15Little Scope For Rate Differentials ##br## To Narrow Further Chart 16Euro Area Growth Estimates Have Been Revised Up ##br##Since The Start Of 2017 Meanwhile, financial conditions have tightened significantly in the euro area relative to the U.S., the euro area credit impulse has turned negative, and the U.S. economic surprise index has jumped above that of the euro area (Chart 17). Euro area inflation has also dipped. Especially worrying is that core inflation in Italy has fallen back to a near record-low of 0.4% (Chart 18). How is Italy supposed to navigate its way out of its debt trap if nominal growth stays this weak? On top of all that, long speculative euro positions have soared to record-high levels (Chart 19). Given the choice of betting whether EUR/USD will first hit 1.30 or 1.15, we would go with the latter. If our bet turns out to be correct, we will use that opportunity to shift to neutral on the dollar. Chart 17The Euro Is Vulnerable ##br##To Negative Growth Surprises Chart 18Euro Area Core Inflation ##br##Has Dipped Chart 19Euro Positioning: From Deeply Short ##br##To Record Long Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades