Estados Unidos
Underweight Late-2013 saw all the right economic conditions moving in favor of insurers: the economy was entering a soft patch, the yield curve was flattening and the U.S. dollar was gaining momentum. The insurance market began hardening and the industry went on a hiring spree to capitalize on a much improved outlook (second panel). With the exception of the yield curve, those macro conditions reversed in 2017; the economy is booming, the dollar bull market has paused and BCA expects at least a modest yield curve steepening in the coming months (third panel). However, the insurers index has performed in line with the broad market so far this year (top panel). The hard pricing market of the past three years has recently turned flaccid (bottom panel) and organic revenue growth should soften. Meanwhile, sector employment remains elevated, implying weakening margins. In the context of the S&P 500 growing earnings by low-double digits, the insurers index should underperform. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INSU - AIG, CB, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, XL, AJG, UNM, TMK, AIZ.
Highlights Chart 1Too Close For Comfort The Fed is in the midst of tightening policy, but with inflation still below target it wants to ensure that overall policy settings remain accommodative. In the language of central bankers, the Fed wants to keep the real fed funds rate below its equilibrium level, the level that applies neither upward nor downward pressure to price growth. The equilibrium fed funds rate cannot be calculated with precision, but one popular estimate shows that policy settings are dangerously close to turning restrictive (Chart 1). While an announcement of balance sheet reduction is almost certain to occur next month, with the real fed funds rate so close to neutral, rate hikes are probably on hold until the gap widens. Higher inflation will widen the gap by causing the real fed funds rate to fall, and we are confident that core inflation will rise in the coming months (see page 11 for further details). This will permit the Fed to deliver more than the currently discounted 28 bps of rate increases during the next 12 months. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 60 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 209 bps. The financial press is littered with stories highlighting extremely unattractive corporate bond valuations, but we think this storyline is exaggerated. In fact, the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index is somewhat wider than is typically observed in the early stages of a Fed tightening cycle (Chart 2). We calculate that in the early stages of the prior two Fed tightening cycles (February 1994 to July 1994 & June 2004 to December 2005), the index option-adjusted spread averaged 86 bps and traded in a range between 66 bps and 104 bps.1 Viewed in this context, the current spread of 102 bps looks somewhat cheap. That being said, corporate balance sheet health is worse than is typically seen during the early stages of a tightening cycle and this will limit spread compression from current levels. But all in all, excess returns to corporate bonds should be consistent with carry during the next 6-12 months, with higher inflation and tighter Fed policy being pre-conditions for material spread widening. In a recent report2 we showed that bank bonds (both senior and subordinate) still offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors (Table 3). Banks also continue to make progress shoring up their balance sheets and the outlook for bank profits is starting to brighten. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 83 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 448 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 12 bps to end the month at 352 bps, 8 bps above the 2017 low. We calculate that in the early stages of the prior two Fed tightening cycles (February 1994 to July 1994 & June 2004 to December 2005), the index option-adjusted spread averaged 342 bps and traded in a range between 259 bps and 394 bps. This puts the current junk spread almost in line with the average witnessed during other similar monetary environments. In contrast, the VIX index, which co-moves with junk spreads (Chart 3), is well below levels seen during the early stages of the prior two tightening cycles. The VIX currently sits at 10, and its historical range in similar monetary environments is between 11 and 17, with an average of 13.3 In this way, there would appear to be more room for investment grade corporate bond spreads to tighten than junk spreads, especially on a volatility-adjusted basis. Despite somewhat more stretched valuations than in investment grade, high-yield still offers reasonable compensation relative to expected defaults. At present, our estimated default-adjusted spread is 206 bps, only slightly below its historical average (panel 3). This is based on an expected default rate of 2.8% during the next 12 months and an expected recovery rate of 48% (bottom panel). MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 4 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield declined 3 bps in July, as a small 1 bp increase in the rate component was offset by a 4 bps tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) held flat. Index OAS has been in a widening trend since bottoming at 15 bps last September (Chart 4). Since then, MBS have returned 43 bps less than duration-equivalent Treasury securities. The Bloomberg Barclays Aaa-rated Credit index has outperformed Treasuries by 71 bps during that same timeframe. The back-up in OAS reflects, in large part, the market pricing in the upcoming wind-down of the Fed's balance sheet, set to be announced next month. However, we think OAS still have further to widen to catch up with the rising trend in net issuance. According to Flow of Funds data, net MBS issuance totaled $83 billion in the first quarter. If that pace continues for the rest of the year, then 2017 will be the strongest year for MBS issuance since 2009. While higher mortgage rates since the end of 2016 present a drag, at least so far, home sales have not shown much weakness (bottom panel). This is unlike the 2013 taper tantrum when home sales fell sharply following the surge in rates. We are underweight MBS on the expectation that the housing market will remain resilient in the face of higher rates, allowing issuance to continue its uptrend. However, we are closely tracking the spread advantage in MBS compared to Aaa-rated credit which is finally starting to look attractive (panel 3). Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 42 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 149 bps. Sovereigns and Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 81 bps and 112 bps, respectively. The low-beta Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors each outperformed by 5 bps. The Foreign Agency sector outperformed the duration-matched Treasury index by 56 bps. USD-denominated sovereign bonds have underperformed the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate index (their closest comparable in terms of risk) during the past three months even though the U.S. dollar has continued its trend lower (Chart 5). But despite this recent underperformance, the Sovereign index still does not offer a spread advantage over the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate index (panel 3). Further, while our Emerging Markets Strategy service still looks favorably upon the Mexican peso relative to other emerging market currencies, it does not expect the peso to continue its recent appreciation versus the U.S. dollar.4 We share this opinion, and expect the broad trade-weighted dollar to appreciate as U.S. growth rebounds in the back-half of the year.5 In our cross-sectional model, which adjusts spreads for credit rating and duration. Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies continue to look attractive compared to most U.S. corporate sectors. In contrast, the Sovereign and Supranational sectors appear expensive. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in July (before adjusting for the tax advantage). Munis have outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 186 bps year-to-date. The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 2% in July, breaking below 85%. The average yield ratio remains extremely tight relative to its post-crisis trading range (Chart 6). There is more compensation available at the long-end of the muni curve than at the short-end (panel 2), and investors should continue to favor long maturities over short maturities on the Aaa Muni curve. Our early estimate, based on the recently released second quarter National Accounts data, shows that state & local government net borrowing probably moved higher in Q2 (panel 3), making the recent decline in yield ratios appear even more tenuous. The increase in net borrowing stems largely from a $21 billion drop in income tax revenues and a $20 billion decline in transfer receipts from the federal government. Income tax revenue should recover in the next two quarters,6 and we expect net borrowing will also start to decline. However, it is unlikely that net borrowing will fall by enough to justify current muni valuations. On July 6, the state House of Illinois overrode Governor Bruce Rauner's veto to finally pass a $36 billion budget. The move was sufficient for Moody's and S&P to both subsequently affirm the state's investment grade rating. The 10-year Illinois General Obligation bond yield declined 102 bps on the month, despite only a 1 bp drop in the 10-year Treasury yield. Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull steepened in July. The 2/10 slope steepened 3 bps and the 5/30 slope steepened 10 bps. We currently recommend two tactical trades designed to profit from movements in the Treasury curve. First, we have been recommending a short position in the July 2018 fed funds futures contract since July 11.7 From current levels, we calculate this trade will deliver an un-levered return of 28 bps if there are two hikes between now and then, and 53 bps if there are three hikes. Our second recommendation is a long position in the 5-year bullet versus a short position in a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, a trade designed to profit from a steepening of the 2/10 yield curve. It remains our view that inflation and inflation expectations, and not Fed tightening, are the main determinants of the slope of the yield curve. We expect the 2/10 slope to steepen as inflation rebounds during the next few months. Two weeks ago we published a Special Report 8 that explained our rationale for taking views on the slope of the curve using butterfly trades. It also explained our butterfly spread valuation model, and how we use that model to determine how much steepening/flattening is currently discounted in the yield curve. According to our model, the curve is priced for 9 bps of 2/10 steepening during the next six months (Chart 7). Our recommended butterfly trade will earn positive returns if the curve steepens by more than that. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 39 basis points in July. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 9 bps on the month and, at 1.8%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Core inflation has moved sharply lower since February, but the fact that our Phillips Curve model of core inflation has not rolled over makes us inclined to view the downtrend as transitory. Also, during the past few weeks we have seen some preliminary signs that inflation is on the cusp of rebounding. Year-over-year core PCE inflation ticked higher in June for the first time since January. The PCE diffusion index, which has a good track record capturing near-term swings in core PCE, moved sharply higher (Chart 8). The prices paid components of the ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys increased from 55 to 62 and from 52.1 to 52.7, respectively, in July. We expect stronger realized inflation will lead TIPS breakevens higher during the next few months. However, even in a scenario where core inflation fails to rebound, the downside in breakevens from current levels is limited. The reason is that if inflation remains very low, the Fed will most likely refrain from hiking rates in December. Such a dovish capitulation from the Fed would put upward pressure on breakevens at the long-end of the curve. We discussed this possible scenario in more detail in a recent report.9 ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 59 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS held flat on the month, and remains well below its average pre-crisis level. The Federal Reserve released its Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey last week. It showed that credit card lending standards moved back into "net tightening" territory after having eased the previous quarter (Chart 9). Auto loan lending standards tightened on net for the fifth consecutive quarter. Tightening lending standards are usually a response to deteriorating credit quality, and thus tend to correlate with higher losses and wider spreads. In that regard, net loss rates for auto loans continue to trend higher, and Moody's data show that the cumulative loss rate for prime auto loans originated in 2017 is worse than for any vintage since 2009, for loans with the same age. Conversely, the mild tightening in credit card lending standards has so far not translated into rising charge-offs (Chart 9), but the situation bears close monitoring. For now, we are content to remain overweight ABS given the attractive spread pick-up compared to other similarly risky sectors. However, we also recommend investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, even though auto loans now once again offer an attractive spread differential, after adjusting for differences in duration and spread volatility (panel 3). Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 39 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 96 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 4 bps on the month, and remains below its average pre-crisis level. The Fed's Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that lending standards for all classes of commercial real estate (CRE) loans tightened, on net, for the eighth consecutive quarter. The survey also reported that demand for CRE loans is on the decline (Chart 10). The combination of tighter lending standards and weak loan demand suggests that credit concerns continue to mount in the private CMBS space. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to 65 bps. The average option-adjusted spread for the Agency CMBS index held flat on the month but, at 49 bps, the sector continues to look attractive compared to other similarly risky alternatives.10 Not only does the sector offer attractive spreads, but the agency guarantee and the lower delinquency rate in multi-family loans compared to other CRE loans (panel 5) makes its risk/reward profile particularly appealing. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.62% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also includes the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.63%. The U.S. PMI bounced back in July, after having trended lower for most of this year. The Chinese PMI also increased last month, while the Eurozone reading moderated somewhat from a very high level (panel 4). Overall, the Global PMI came in at 52.7 in July, up from 52.6 in June. Bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar has also fallen sharply in recent weeks (bottom panel). Bearish dollar sentiment in an environment of expanding global growth sends a very bond-bearish signal. It means that the entire world is participating in the global expansion and any increase in Treasury yields is less likely to be met with an influx of foreign buying. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.26%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Range calculated using monthly data, specifically the final day of each month. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Ranges for junk spread and VIX calculated using monthly data, specifically the final day of each month. 4 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For A Major Top In EM", dated July 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 5 Mexico carries the largest weight in the Sovereign index, accounting for 23% of market cap. 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Fed Stick To Its Guns?", dated May 16, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)
This week's GDP report contained good news for domestic manufacturers; nonresidential fixed investment expanded at a 5.2% annualized rate in Q2, slower than the 7.2% expansion of Q1 but still well above the overall economy at 2.6%. The implication is that confidence in the U.S. economy is high enough that firms are increasingly deploying productive capital into their businesses. Loan growth cycles are typically synchronous with improved business sentiment which, in turn, coincides with firms feeling confident enough to expand the balance sheet. Accordingly, growth in capex and growth in bank loans move in lockstep (second, third and fourth panels). Pre-GFC, the financials index and capex/loan growth moved broadly together. The relationship has broken down, however, in the post-GFC world. We expect above-normal earnings growth in financials to eventually drive a renormalization of valuation multiples and the gap to close. We reiterate our overweight financials recommendation.
Highlights The neutral real rate of interest, R*, is low in most economies, and will only rise gradually over the coming years. Currency movements tend to dampen differences in neutral rates across countries. The fact that R* is higher in the U.S. will limit further downside risk for the dollar. While a variety of structural forces will cap the increase in the neutral real rate, the neutral nominal rate could rise more briskly as inflation picks up. As such, investors should reduce duration risk and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. We are closing our long GBP/JPY trade for a gain of 9.9% and opening a new trade going short EUR/GBP. EUR/USD will trade in a range of $1.10-to-$1.20 over the next 6-to-9 months before moving lower in the second half of next year. Feature Where Is Neutral? As the global economy continues to recover, central banks are increasingly turning to the question of how to best normalize monetary policy. A key issue in this debate concerns the level of the neutral real rate of interest, commonly referred to as R*. If central banks raise rates too far above the neutral rate, growth could stall. If they don't raise rates enough, inflation could accelerate. The concept of the neutral rate is somewhat difficult to grasp, and we apologize in advance that this report is more abstract than what we are normally accustomed to writing. However, we think that readers who stick with the logic of the piece will be well rewarded with the practical implications that it provides. A Conceptual Framework In thinking about the neutral rate, it is worthwhile to recall the familiar macro identity which states that the difference between what a country saves and what it invests is equal to its current account balance.1 Since one country's current account surplus is another's deficit, globally, the current account balance must equal zero. This, in turn, implies that globally, savings must equal investment. What happens when desired global savings exceed desired investment? The answer is that interest rates will fall.2 Lower rates will incentivize firms to undertake more investment projects, while discouraging household savings. Investment will rise and savings will decline by just enough to ensure that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. The discussion above aptly captures what happened to the global economy after the financial crisis. The desire of households to boost savings and firms to cut capital spending led to a sharp and sustained drop in the neutral rate. Those who understood this point back in 2010, when the 10-year Treasury yield briefly hit 4%, made a lot of money by being long bonds when most others were fretting about the inflationary effects of QE and large government budget deficits. The Exchange Rate As A Mitigating Force The ability of countries to export their excess savings abroad by running current account surpluses implies that the neutral rate has a large global component. To appreciate this point, consider a simple thought experiment. Suppose the global trading system completely breaks down and every country ends up with a trade balance of zero. For the sake of argument, let us ignore the immense economic dislocations that this would cause and focus simply on the arithmetic impact that this would have on aggregate demand. The U.S. trade deficit currently stands at $567 billion (3% of GDP). Getting rid of it would add about six million jobs. This would likely cause the economy to overheat, forcing the Fed to raise rates. In contrast, the German economy would fall into a deep recession if its €224 billion (7.1% of GDP) trade surplus vanished. The ECB would not be able to raise rates for years. Thus, in the absence of trade, the neutral rate would be higher in the U.S. and lower in the euro area. This simple thought experiment illustrates why the neutral rate partly depends on the value of a country's currency.3 If a country's currency strengthens, all things equal, its neutral rate will fall. The extent to which the currency appreciates will depend on how long the forces causing neutral rates to diverge across countries are expected to persist. In general, if the forces are more structural than cyclical in nature, currencies will adjust to a greater degree (Chart 1).4 Chart 1The Longer The Interest Rate Gap Persists, The Bigger The Exchange Rate Overshoot The discussion above helps make sense of currency movements over the past three years. A key reason the dollar began to strengthen against the euro in the second half of 2014 is that investors became convinced that the neutral rate in the U.S. would exceed that of the euro area for a very long period of time. The rally in the euro this year largely reflects a reappraisal of that view. Stronger euro area growth has convinced many investors that the neutral rate in the region may not be as low as previously imagined. The Outlook For The Neutral Rate The savings-investment balance provides a useful framework for thinking about how the neutral rate will evolve over the coming years. With this framework in mind, let us consider the various forces affecting the neutral rate and how they might change over time. The Debt Supercycle Today, almost 60% of Americans want to save more money according to a recent Gallop poll; before the financial crisis, that number was less than 50% (Chart 2). A slower pace of debt accumulation implies less spending and more desired savings. It is possible that households will become more willing to take on debt as the memories of the Great Recession fade. However, a return to the reckless lending standards of the pre-crisis period is unlikely. Thus, while the end of the deleveraging cycle in the U.S. will push up R*, it will remain low by historic standards. Globally, efforts to reduce leverage have been more halting. In fact, in many emerging markets, debt levels are higher today than in 2008 (Chart 3). This will weigh on R*. Chart 2Return To Thrift Chart 3EM Debt At All-Time Highs The "Amazonification" Of The Economy Chart 4Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Technological progress is nothing new, but unlike past inventions which typically replaced man with machine, many of today's innovations appear to be reducing the need for both labor and physical capital.5 Companies like Amazon are laying waste to America's retail sector. Uber and Airbnb are providing ways to use the existing stock of capital more efficiently. Fewer shopping malls, taxis, and hotels means less investment, and less investment means a lower neutral rate. Inequality One of the distinguishing features of the "Amazon economy" is that it is dominated by a few winner-take-all firms. This has generated huge payoffs for their owners, but paltry returns for everyone else. While this is not the only trend fueling income inequality, it has certainly exacerbated it. Rising inequality redistributes income from households that tend to live paycheck-to-paycheck to those who save a lot (Chart 4). This increases aggregate desired savings, leading to a lower neutral rate. However, rising inequality may also generate a political backlash. Donald Trump's ability to take over the Republican party was partly driven by the disillusionment of Republican voters over the GOP's pro-business positions on issues such as immigration and trade. Historically, populism has been associated with larger budget deficits. To the extent that budget deficits soak up savings, they lead to a higher neutral rate. Rising populism could also lead to stronger calls for anti-trust policies. Our sense is that we are slowly moving in this direction. Slower Population Growth Demographic shifts can be tricky to assess because they affect savings and investment in offsetting ways and over different time horizons (Chart 5). A decrease in the growth rate of the population will reduce the incentive to expand capacity. Less investment means a lower neutral rate. Slower population growth may also lead to higher savings for a while, as a larger fraction of the population enters its peak saving years (ages 30-to-50). This also means a lower neutral rate. Eventually, however, aging will push more of the population into retirement, increasing the number of people who are dissaving rather than saving. Rising government spending on health care and pensions could also lead to larger fiscal deficits, further depleting national savings. We may be approaching this outcome. Chart 6 shows that the global "support ratio" - defined as the number of workers relative to the number of consumers - has peaked globally and will start falling sharply over the coming years. Chart 5An Aging Population Eventually Pushes Up Interest Rates Chart 6The Ratio Of Workers To Consumers Have Peaked Slower Productivity Growth As with population growth, slower productivity growth is likely to depress R* at first, but could raise R* over time (Chart 7). Initially, slower productivity growth will prompt firms to curb investment spending. It could also lead to less consumer spending, as households react to the prospect of smaller gains in real incomes. All this implies a lower neutral rate. Eventually, however, chronically weak income growth is likely to deplete national savings, leading to a higher neutral rate. The U.S. and a number of other economies may be getting increasingly close to that inflection point (Chart 8). Chart 7A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Chart 8Weak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Lower Commodity Prices Swings in commodity prices may also generate offsetting pressures on the neutral rate that manifest themselves over different time horizons. At the outset, lower commodity prices tend to depress investment spending in the resource sector. This implies a lower neutral rate. Over time, however, lower commodity prices may generate new investment opportunities in downstream industries that use fuel as an input. Lower commodity prices also put money into the pockets of poorer households who are likely to spend it. This raises the neutral rate. Investment Implications Given the conflicting forces affecting R*, it is difficult to have much certainty over how it will evolve. Our best guess is that R* will increase over the next few years, as the scars from the financial crisis recede, deleveraging headwinds abate, fiscal deficits in some economies widen, and population aging and lower productivity growth make more of a dent in national savings. However, the rise in R* is likely to be gradual and from what is currently a very low base. Where we do have greater conviction is on two points: First, the neutral nominal rate will rise more quickly than the neutral real rate, as inflation picks up in most economies. As discussed last week, central banks have a strong incentive to try to engineer more inflation in situations where the economy needs a low real rate to maintain full employment.6 Getting inflation up has been a struggle ever since the financial crisis began, but now that spare capacity around the world is dissipating, central banks are likely to gain more traction over monetary policy. As such, investors should reduce duration risk and increase exposure to inflation-linked securities. Second, the forces pushing down R* outside the U.S. will remain more pronounced than those in the U.S. This, in turn, will provide some support to the beleaguered U.S. dollar. Investors, in particular, may be getting too optimistic about the ability of the ECB to engineer a full-fledged tightening cycle. The euro area is further behind the U.S. in the deleveraging process, suggesting that desired private-sector savings will remain higher there. The overall stance of fiscal policy is also much tighter in the euro area. The IMF estimates that the euro area's structural primary budget surplus currently stands at 0.7% of GDP, compared to a deficit of 1.9% in the U.S. Thus, fiscal policy is currently adding 2.6% of GDP more to aggregate demand in the U.S. than in the euro area. The Fund expects this relative contribution to increase to nearly 4% of GDP by the end of the decade (Chart 9). Furthermore, investment spending has more scope to fall in the euro area. According to the OECD, gross fixed capital formation is actually higher in the euro area than in the U.S. as a share of GDP, despite the fact that potential GDP growth is slower in the euro area (Chart 10). Chart 9Fiscal Policy Is More Stimulative In The U.S. Chart 10Euro Area Investment Spending: Higher Than In The U.S. The appreciation of the euro has led to a tightening in euro area financial conditions in recent weeks, whereas U.S. financial conditions have continued to ease (Chart 11). This will cause relative growth to shift back in favor of the U.S. later this year. Chart 11Diverging Financial Conditions##br## Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Chart 12The Neutral Rate Is Lowest In The Euro Area The 30-year U.S. Treasury yield is currently 95 basis points higher than the 30-year GDP-weighted euro area government bond yield. This gap in yields does not strike us as being especially large considering that both the neutral rate and long-term inflation expectations are lower in the euro area. We expect EUR/USD to trade in a range of $1.10-to-$1.20 over the next 6-to-9 months before moving lower in the second half of 2018, by which time the Fed will be forced to pick up the pace of rate hikes. The resurgent euro has approached all-time highs against the pound, abetted by a somewhat more dovish-than-expected BoE meeting this week. Yet, with U.K. inflation above target and the unemployment rate at the lowest level since 1975, the Bank of England may need to deliver more than the mere 36 basis points in rate hikes the market is expecting over the next two years. Holston, Laubach and Williams estimate that R* is 1.6 percentage points higher in the U.K. than in the euro area (Chart 12). As such, the balance of risks now favor a stronger pound over a cyclical horizon of 12 months. With that in mind, we are closing our long GBP/JPY trade for a gain of 9.9% and opening a new short EUR/GBP position (Note: The returns of all closed trades are displayed at the back of this report). Peter Berezin, Global Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The difference between what a country saves and what it invests is also equal to the difference between what it earns and what it spends. To see this, note that S=Y-C-G where S is national savings, Y is national income, C is personal consumption, and G is government spending. Hence, the identity S-I=CA can be re-written as Y-(C+G+I)=CA where CA is the current account balance. 2 An obvious question is what happens if desired savings exceed desired investment, but interest rates are already equal to zero. In that case, income will contract. Workers will lose their jobs, making it impossible for them to save. Firms will suffer lower profits or even incur losses in the face of flagging demand. Governments will see tax revenues dry up and spending on welfare programs escalate. This means that household, corporate, and government savings will all decline. Of course, since firms are likely to reduce investment in response to slower growth, this could usher in a vicious cycle where falling demand leads to higher unemployment and even less spending - in other words, a recession or even a depression. 3 Suppose, for example, that the interest rate in Country A were to rise above that of Country B for a period of say, ten years. Country A's currency would appreciate. This would reduce net exports in Country A, leading to a decline in aggregate demand. This, in turn, would prevent the neutral rate in Country A from rising as much as it otherwise would. On the flipside, the cheapening of Country B's currency would push up its neutral rate. 4 In the extreme case where the structural forces are expected to last forever, currencies will adjust to the point where the neutral rate across countries is equalized. Intuitively, this must happen because it is impossible for currency-hedged, risk-adjusted interest rates to be lower in one country than in another for an indefinite amount of time. 5 From a neoclassical economics perspective, one might imagine a "production function" that includes labor, physical capital, and digital capital. Many of today's innovations are raising the return on digital capital relative to those on labor and physical capital. This generates outsized rewards to the owners of this particular form of capital (i.e., internet companies), while potentially undercutting the income of workers and owners of physical capital. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Secular Bottom In Inflation,” dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Investors are becoming less concerned about China's growth outlook, but there is no sign of euphoria. Monitor three risk factors that could disrupt the positive growth outlook and the bull market in Chinese stocks. For now, the risks appear reasonably contained, and the lack of a complacency in the marketplace means it is too early to bet against the herd. Remain positive and stay invested. Feature The latest purchasing managers surveys released early this week confirm that the Chinese economy remains buoyant. The manufacturing and service PMIs from both official and private sources remain comfortably in expansionary territory, and there are no signs of a material deterioration from the readings of the sub-indices. Improving growth also appears to be reflected in the stock market. Chinese investable equities have rallied by over 30% so far this year, beating the major global and EM benchmarks (Chart 1). Despite the improvement in the growth numbers and the rally in stock prices, there is no sign of euphoria among investors with respect to China. On the contrary, Chinese stocks' multiples are still among the lowest of the major global bourses (Chart 2). Importantly, ETFs investing in Chinese assets are still witnessing net redemptions: China-focused ETFs listed in the U.S. and Hong Kong have been witnessing constant net capital outflows since 2013 (Chart 3). Even in the first half of this year, these ETFs have continued to lose capital despite rising stock prices - which means retail investors have not participated in the rally. Attractive valuations and lack of "irrational exuberance" suggest the rally in Chinese investable stocks should have further to run. Chart 1Chinese Equities Have Outperformed... Chart 2...But Still With Much Lower Multiples Chart 3... And Net ETF Redemptions Overall, we remain positive on both Chinese equities and the economy's cyclical outlook, and see limited downside risks in the near term, as discussed in detail in recent weeks.1 However, as growth and stock market performance have been largely in line with our expectations, it is always useful to reflect on risk factors. We see three potential risks that could upset the economy and the ongoing rally in Chinese stocks that need to be closely monitored. Will The Trump Wildcard Strike Again? There are increasing signs that tensions between the U.S. and China are on the rise again after a period of relative tranquility. The first round of U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue (CED) resulted in no material progress or concrete plans to improve bilateral trade imbalances. U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to pull "China hawks" into his trade policy team, naming Dennis Shea, well known for being highly critical of China's trade practices, as deputy U.S. Trade Representative. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department recently approved a major weapon package to Taiwan, the first arms sales to the Island since 2015. More recently, President Trump has openly accused China of not helping deal with the North Korea nuclear issue after the country tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that it claims can reach continental America. In addition, the Trump administration is reportedly planning trade measures to force Beijing to crack down on intellectual-property theft and ease requirements that American companies share advanced technologies to gain entry to the Chinese market. Overall, it is widely viewed that the brief "honeymoon" in U.S.-China relations following the April Summit between the leaders of the two countries has decisively ended, and the odds for protectionism tactics against Chinese products have increased. The "Trump wildcard" has always been a key risk with respect to our outlook for China2 - the latest developments suggest this risk remains firmly in place. President Trump and his inner circle appear genuinely convinced that punitive tactics could solve the country's chronic trade deficit. Moreover, President Trump has been increasingly bogged down by domestic policy, and he may lash out on the international front in an effort to boost his popularity. Furthermore, the U.S. President has few legal constitutional constraints to using tariffs against trade partners, giving him maneuvering room. From a big-picture perspective, the conflict between the U.S. and China has deep ideological and geopolitical roots, which are even harder to deal with than trade issues. Chart 4Steel Is No Longer Relevant For ##br##U.S.-China Trade Nonetheless, we maintain our guarded optimism that unilateral protectionism measures will not materially undermine Chinese exports, at least in the near term. On the U.S. side, even though President Trump has toughened his rhetoric on China and trade issues of late, it is still far less extreme compared to the promises he made on the campaign trail, in which he pledged to slap a 45% tariff on all imports from China and to label the country a currency manipulator on "day one." So far, the U.S. administration has mainly been focusing on specific industries, particularly steel, rather than broad-based tariffs, the impact of which should be marginal. For example, China accounts for only 3% of American steel imports. Sales to the U.S. account for less than 1% of China's massive steel output (Chart 4). In other words, steel appears to be a highly symbolic sector in Trump's trade policy, but the real impact on China-U.S. trade is negligible. On the Chinese side, the authorities have hard-drawn redlines on political and sovereign issues, but have much greater flexibility on trade-related issues. Chinese officials understand that the country's large surplus with the U.S. puts it at a near-term disadvantage in a trade war, and therefore will likely cave to pressure from the U.S. Moreover, the sectors that President Trump has been complaining about, namely steel and some other base metals, are the same sectors the Chinese government wants to restrict. Therefore, China will not fight for its own "out of favor" industries to disrupt the broader picture in exports. Taken together, President Trump's trade policy has once again become unpredictable, and some punitive measures on specific products appear likely in the near term. However, we still assign low odds of a drastic escalation in trade frictions, and we expect the Chinese authorities to refrain from tit-for-tat retaliation that could lead to a trade war. Protectionism risks, however, will remain a long-term structural issue that complicates the global trade and growth outlook. Deflationary Pressures And The Risk Of Policy Overkill? Chart 5Headline CPI Is Set To Drop Further A key feature of the Chinese economy is strong disinflationary/deflationary pressures, despite robust growth and job creation. Headline inflation to be released next week will likely once again surprise to the downside, mainly due to food prices (Chart 5). Wholesale prices of agricultural products have weakened substantially in recent months, pointing to sharply lower food CPI. Core CPI remains around 1%, underscoring incredibly low inflationary pressures. The key challenge for the Chinese authorities is figuring out how to manage economic policies to achieve the delicate balance between growth and disinflation/deflation. We have long viewed that one of the critical reasons behind China's sharp growth deterioration between 2012 and 2015 was a policy mistake, in which the authorities allowed monetary conditions to tighten dramatically. We are hopeful that the authorities have realized the cost of policy overkill, and will avoid similar mistakes down the road, but the risk certainly cannot be dismissed entirely. For now, we see low odds of policy overkill that could lead to price deflation and negative growth surprises. First, as growth has improved, some policy tightening is warranted. The authorities recently reported that the economy added 7.35 million new jobs in the first half of the year, far exceeding the government's target, pushing the registered urban unemployment rate to 3.95%, the lowest in recent years. In fact, the People's Bank of China may still be behind the curve, meaning that further tightening is simply a "catch-up" and is not immediately restrictive. Chart 6Another Sharp Rally ##br##In The Trade Weighted RMB is Unlikely Second, a major factor behind China's drastic tightening in monetary conditions in previous years was the sharp rally in the trade-weighted RMB, which appreciated by almost 30% between mid-2011 and early/late 2015 - a massive deflationary shock to Chinese exporters (Chart 6). Looking forward, it is extremely unlikely that the PBoC will allow the RMB to rise by a similar magnitude anytime soon. Finally, from investors' perspective, producer output prices are more important to watch for pricing power and profitability. On this front, PPI inflation has also rolled over and will likely continue to downshift, but will not turn to outright deflation in our view. It is important to note that the sharp decline in producer prices in previous years was due to a multi-year deterioration in Chinese growth, which has historically been an anomaly. The only other period in China's post-reform history with falling PPI happened in the late 1990s in the aftermath of the Asian crisis (Chart 7). In other words, falling PPI only occurs under rather extreme growth difficulties. Our model suggests that PPI inflation may decelerate to 3% by year end. Our PPI diffusion index, which measures the percentage of industrial sectors experiencing rising prices, suggests the majority of sectors are still witnessing higher prices both compared with previous months and a year ago (Chart 8). We are monitoring the PPI diffusion index closely to heed a leading signal on corporate pricing power and overall deflationary pressures in the corporate sector. Chart 7Producer Prices: A Historical Perspective Chart 8PPI Watch Bottom Line: A policy mistake of overtightening by the Chinese authorities remains a key threat to the near-term growth outlook, but is not our base case scenario. The Resumption Of The Dollar Bull Market? The U.S. dollar has rapidly dropped out of favor among global investors. The dollar index has fallen by 10% so far this year, the weakest among the major currencies. The weak U.S. dollar has provided a Goldilocks scenario for both the Chinese economy and financial markets: a weaker dollar depreciates the RMB in trade-weighted terms, which is reflationary for the Chinese economy. For investors, the broad dollar weakness also alleviates downward pressure on the CNY/USD, and a stable CNY/USD in turn reduces investors' anxiety on China's macro conditions, pushing up stock prices. This Goldilocks scenario could once again be disrupted if the dollar bull market resumes, and the positive feedback loop goes into reverse. A stronger dollar tends to strengthen the trade-weighted RMB, which is bad news for exporters. Meanwhile, it could rekindle downward pressure on the CNY/USD, re-intensifying domestic capital outflows, which could be viewed as a sign of China's macro troubles. Fears of an economic hard landing would quickly resurface. In our view, Chinese stocks are more vulnerable if the dollar's strength resumes, but the real damage on the broader economy should not be material. It is highly unlikely that Chinese policymakers would allow the trade-weighted RMB to rise alongside the dollar, and will tighten capital account controls to stop domestic capital flight. Chinese equities will suffer in this scenario, as investors' risk aversion increases. However, so long as the Chinese economy and corporate profits do not suffer a major relapse, the rally in stocks should eventually resume. All in all, the three risk factors should be closely monitored in the coming months, especially if investors become increasingly comfortable with the Chinese growth outlook. For now, the risks appear reasonably contained, and the lack of a complacency in the marketplace means it is too early to bet against the herd. We remain positive on Chinese growth, and favor Chinese equites both in absolute terms and against global/EM benchmarks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, "Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes", dated July 20, 2017, and Special Report, "Focusing On Chinese Money Supply", dated July 27, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard", dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Overweight The cable & satellite index heavyweights Comcast and Charter Communications both reported their results last week, announcing that they had churned 34,000 and 90,000 of the traditional video customers, respectively. Still, neither company saw a decline in video revenue, reflecting still-strong sector pricing (second panel) and an unabated willingness of the consumer to purchase their content (third panel). The dominant theme from cable & satellite earnings was a transition to high-speed internet (unchanged from the past number of years), a lower revenue but higher margin business. This drove both of the aforementioned companies to each grow their customer relationships by mid-single digits in the quarter. Importantly, the customer additions were made without significantly increasing capital outlays (bottom panel) that, when combined with an overall higher margin business, implies more efficient returns on capital. This should ultimately drive more free cash flow, higher valuation multiples and ongoing share price increases. We reiterate our overweight recommendation for cable & satellite. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P cable & satellite index are: BLBG: S5CBST - CMCSA, CHTR, DISH.