Estados Unidos
Highlights The Fed's evident desire to lift its policy rate next week - presumably to get out ahead of inflation that has yet to show up in its preferred gauge - will weigh on gold. Oil ... not so much. This is because fundamentals once again are asserting themselves in the evolution of oil prices, something that has been evident even before markets balanced last year. Gold, meanwhile, remains exquisitely sensitive to Fed policy expectations and their effects on the USD and real rates, as with other currencies. Energy: Overweight. We are looking to re-establish our long WTI Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 spread if it trades in contango again, i.e., if Dec/17 is less than Dec/18. We believe the combination of OPEC and non-OPEC adherence to their production Agreement will remain high, and demand likely will remain stout. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper is down ~ $0.10/lb on COMEX over the past week. We expect transitory supply issues in Chile and Indonesia to be resolved, and reflationary stimulus in China to wane going into the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party in the autumn, and, with it, copper demand. We remain neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is weakening as the Fed's March meeting approaches next week, given the overwhelming expectation for a 25bp rate hike. We remain long volatility, expecting fiscal-policy uncertainty in the U.S. to be resolved over the next few months, and Fed policy drivers to become more focused. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We are not expecting significant changes in the USDA's estimates of stocks globally, and therefore remain underweight. Feature The choreographed messaging of voting and non-voting FOMC members asserting the need for a policy-rate hike over the past two weeks succeeded in pushing markets' expectations for such action to 88.6% as of Tuesday's close, up from 44.6% at the end of February. This despite the fact that the Fed's preferred inflation gauge - core PCE - has yet to show any sign of pushing up and thru the Fed's target of 2% growth yoy (Chart of the Week). Nor, for that matter, has core PCE shown any tendency to remain above 2% yoy growth over the past two decades (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekThe Fed's Preferred Inflation ##br##Gauge Still Quiescent Chart 2Core PCE Has Been ##br##Quiescent For Decades Between mid-December 2016 and the end of last month, gold prices rallied ~11.3% largely on the expectation the Fed would not raise rates until at least June, and, even then, would be constrained by uncertainty over what Congress and the Trump Administration would offer up in terms of fiscal policy later this year. Now, with the Fed succeeding in raising the market's expectation of a March rate hike, gold markets are left to re-calibrate the number of hikes to expect this year, and the likely implications for the USD and real rates. We believe the Fed will execute three rate hikes this year, but this will be highly dependent on how markets react to the now fully priced-in hike markets expect next week. Synchronized Growth, Inflation And Feedback Loops It is likely the Fed feels confident accelerating its rates normalization because, for the first time since the Global Financial crisis, we are getting a globally synchronized recovery in GDP. All else equal, this will give the U.S. central bank a bit of headroom to experiment with an earlier-than-expected rate hike. This synchronized growth also will provide a positive backdrop for commodity demand this year and next (Chart 3). The possibility of highly stimulative - or even just moderately stimulative - fiscal policy in the U.S. at a time when the economy is apparently at or close to full employment, will be positive for aggregate demand, and could be inflationary if its principal result is to lift real wages in the U.S. In addition to synchronized growth, we also are seeing evidence of synchronized inflation in the largest economies in the world (Chart 4). Chart 3Synchronized Global Growth ##br##Could Embolden The Fed Chart 4Synchronized Inflation Globally ##br##Likely Caught The Fed's Attention This synchronized growth and inflation is, we believe, important to the Fed, in that its effects constitute something of a global feedback loop. As we have noted in earlier research, the Fed is much more sensitive to how its policy actions affect other economies, given the deepening of global supply chains over the past two decades or so. Equally, policymakers are well aware the evolution of monetary policy and economic growth in other economies affects the U.S. growth and policy variables important to the Fed.1 Absent a policy shock in the U.S., Europe or China, the backdrop for EM growth should remain positive for at least 2017, even with reflationary stimulus waning in China, a left-tail risk to commodity prices that we identified in last week's publication.2 We expect the Fed's policy normalization to be tempered by continued monetary accommodation globally, which will be supportive of growth at the margin. This will keep global oil demand growth on track to average 1.50 - 1.60mm b/d this year and next, and, importantly for inflation and inflation expectations, keep EM oil demand growing. The income elasticity of per-capita oil consumption in EM economies typically is ~ 1.0, meaning a 1% increase in EM incomes is associated with a 1% increase in EM oil demand.3 EM growth accounts for close to 85% of the growth we expect in global oil demand this year. This is important, given EM oil demand, which we proxy with the U.S. EIA's non-OECD oil consumption time series, to be a common factor that explains the evolution of the CPI series shown above (Chart 5). EM oil demand is able to explain the synchronization of inflation in the three largest economies in the world is because incremental growth is occurring in the EM economies, and this is driving global growth. We continue to expect high compliance in the OPEC - non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia at the end of last year, which will, against the backdrop of continued global growth, cause inventories to fall and for markets to backwardate. We believe last week's increase in U.S. crude oil inventories to be the last big build, and expect the decline to begin later this month. On average vessels leaving the Persian Gulf destined for the U.S. have a 45- to 50-day sailing period depending on multiple factors such route, weather and sea conditions. Therefore, the recent increase in U.S. crude oil inventories can be linked to the arrival of the final fleet of vessels in concert with the pre-OPEC agreement production surge undertaken by the GCC. Evidence of this phenomenon is apparent in the ~500k b/d increase in U.S. crude oil imports (374k b/d coming from Iraq) over the prior week. We expect OECD oil stocks to start declining this month and fall some 300mm bbl before the end of 2017. This supply-demand dynamic will continue to dominate financial-market influences on oil prices, as we argued in last week's publication (Chart 6).4 Gold, on the other hand, will continue to take its cue from Fed policy and policy expectations, particularly as regards expectations for the USD, which should strengthen at the margin, given the Fed's new-found hawkishness, and real rates, which also should strengthen (Chart 7). Chart 5EM Oil Demand Continues##br## To Drive Inflation Chart 6IF KSA And Russia Can ##br##Coordinate Production... Chart 7Gold Will Continue To Take##br## Its Cue From Fed Policy Bottom Line: Oil prices will continue to be dominated by supply-demand-inventory fundamentals, with monetary policy effects on the evolution of prices taking a secondary role. Gold prices will continue to take their cue from Fed policy and policy expectations. We look to re-establish our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread if it trades thru flat (i.e., $0.00/bbl). Given our gold view, we remain long volatility via the put spreads and call spreads we recommended February 23 - i.e., long Jun/17 $1,200/oz puts vs. short $1,150/oz puts, and long $1,275/oz calls vs. short $1,325/oz calls. The position was up 15% as of Tuesday's close. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports "Global Inflation and Commodity Markets," dated August 11, 2016, and "Memo To The Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation," dated August 4, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Gold's Known Unknowns, And Fat Tails," dated February 23, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Oil consumption frequently is employed to approximate EM income growth, given the income elasticity of demand for oil is ~ 1.0, meaning a 1% increase in income (GDP) produces an increase in demand for oil of approximately 1.0%. The OECD notes, "Non-OECD countries are found to have a higher income elasticity of oil demand than OECD countries. On average across countries, a one per cent rise in real GDP pushes up oil demand by half a per cent in OECD countries over the medium to long run, whereas the figure is closer to unity for most non-OECD countries." Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Days Of Oil Future's Past: Mean Reversion," dated March 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in
Highlights Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 boils down to a simple choice: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google? Right now, we would rather own the three tech stocks than the three banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Right now, we expect euro/pound to strengthen - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. Stay overweight Spanish Bonos versus French OATs as a structural position. Feature Which would you rather own: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google?1 Surprising as it may seem, the all-important allocation decision between the Eurostoxx50 and the S&P500 boils down to this simple choice. The Chart of the Week should leave no doubt that everything else is largely irrelevant. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Right now, we would rather own the top three U.S. tech stocks rather than the top three euro area banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. The Fallacy Of Division For Equities The fallacy of division is a logical fallacy. It occurs when somebody falsely infers that what is true for the whole is also true for the parts that make up the whole. As a simple example, somebody might infer that because their computer screen appears purple, the pixels that make up the screen are also purple. In fact, the pixels are not purple. They are either red or blue. The fallacy of division is that the property of the whole - purpleness - does not translate to the property of the constituent parts - redness or blueness. As investment strategists, we hear a common fallacy of division. Since global equities are a play on the global economy, it might seem that national equity markets - like Ireland's ISEQ or Denmark's OMX - are plays on their national economies. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The property of the equity market as a global aggregate does not translate to the property of equity markets as national parts. The equity markets in Ireland and Denmark are each dominated by one stock which accounts for almost a quarter of national market capitalization - in Ireland, Ryanair, the pan-European budget airline, and in Denmark, Novo Nordisk, the global pharmaceutical company. Therefore, the relative performance of Ireland's ISEQ has almost no connection with Ireland's economy; rather, it is a just a play on airlines. And given budget airlines' sensitivity to fuel costs, Ireland's ISEQ is counterintuitively an inverse play on the oil price (Chart I-2). Likewise, the relative performance of Denmark's OMX has no connection with Denmark's economy; it is just a strong play on global pharma (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Ireland = Short Oil Chart I-3Denmark = Long Pharma In a similar vein, the relative performance of Switzerland's SME is also a play on global pharma - via Novartis and Roche (Chart I-4); Norway's OBX is a play on global energy - via Statoil (Chart I-5); and Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX are plays on banks (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). We could continue, but you get our drift... Chart I-4Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Chart I-5Norway = Long Oil Chart I-6Italy = Long Banks Chart I-7Spain = Long Banks But what about a regional index like the Eurostoxx50 or Eurostoxx600: surely, with the broader exposure, there must be a strong connection with the euro area economy? Unfortunately not - at least, not when it comes to relative performance. Consider that for the past few years, the euro area economy has actually outperformed the U.S. economy2 (Chart I-8). Yet the Eurostoxx50 has substantially underperformed the S&P500 (Chart I-9). What's going on? The answer is that the Eurostoxx50 has a major 15% weighting to banks and a minor 7% weighting to tech. The S&P500 is the mirror image; a minor 7% weighting to banks and a major 22% weighting to tech. Chart I-8The Euro Area Economy ##br##Has Outperformed... Chart I-9...But The Eurostoxx50##br## Has Underperformed For the Eurostoxx50 the distinguishing property is 'bank'; for the S&P500 it is 'tech'. And as we saw earlier, these distinguishing properties are captured by just three large euro area banks and three large U.S tech stocks. So index relative performance simply boils down to whether the three euro area banks outperform the three U.S. tech stocks, or vice-versa. Everything else is largely irrelevant. Equities' Connection With Economies Is Often Counterintuitive When it comes to the FTSE100, it turns out that it is not more bank or tech than the Eurostoxx50. Major sector weightings across the two indexes are broadly similar. Hence, relative performance is more connected to relative economic performance. But there is a catch - the connection is not as intuitive as you might first think. You see, both major indexes are made up of dollar-earning multinational companies. Yet the index value and earnings are quoted in pounds and euros respectively. If the home currency appreciates, index earnings - translated from dollars into home currency - go down, depressing index relative performance with it. And the opposite happens if the home currency depreciates. So the counterintuitive thing is that a relatively strengthening home economy does not result in index outperformance. Quite the opposite, it normally means a relatively more hawkish central bank, and an appreciating currency (Chart I-10). Thereby it causes index underperformance. Hence, Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Once again, Chart I-11 should leave readers in no doubt. Chart I-10A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank =##br## A Stronger Currency Chart I-11A Stronger Currency = ##br##Equity Index Underperformance Which neatly brings us to today's ECB meeting. The ECB is a tunnel-vision 2% inflation-targeting central bank. Any upgrade to its inflation forecast, as seems likely, would imply less need for its extreme and experimental monetary easing. Once digested by the market, this would support the euro. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Channel, the U.K. Government is preparing to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start its formal divorce from the EU within a couple of weeks. Expect the EU's immediate response to cast long shadows across Theresa May's vision of a future in sunlit uplands. Once digested by the market, this would further weigh down the pound. A stronger euro/pound necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. The Fallacy Of Division For Bonds The fallacy of division also applies to euro area sovereign bonds. The aggregate euro area sovereign yield just equals the average ECB policy rate anticipated over the lifetime of the bond (Chart I-12). This is directly analogous to the relationship between the U.K. gilt yield and the anticipated path of the BoE base rate, and the relationship between the U.S. T-bond yield and the anticipated path of the Fed funds rate (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = ##br##The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected Chart I-13The U.S. T-Bond Yield = ##br##The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected But what is true for the whole is not necessarily true for the parts that make up the whole. Individual euro area sovereign bond yields carry a second component which can override everything else. This second component is a redenomination premium as compensation for the expected loss if the bond redenominates out of euros. For example, the redenomination premium on a Spanish Bono versus a French OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. However, the ECB's own analysis shows that Spain is now as competitive as France (Chart I-14), meaning that a new peseta ultimately should not lose value versus a new franc. So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the second item of the multiplication should be zero. Meaning that the redenomination premium should also be zero, rather than today's 75 bps (on 10-year Bonos over OATs). Bear in mind that Spain's housing bust and subsequent recapitalisation of its banks has followed Ireland's template - just with a two year lag. And observe that the redenomination premium on Irish 10-year bonds over OATs, which once stood at a remarkable 1100 bps, has now completely vanished. We expect Spain to continue following in the footsteps of Ireland (Chart I-15). As a structural position, stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-14Spain Has Dramatically Improved##br## Its Competitiveness Chart I-15Spain Is Following In The##br## Footsteps Of Ireland Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Listed as Alphabet. 2 On a per capita basis. Fractal Trading Model* Long tin / short copper hit its 5% profit target, while short MSCI AC World hit its 2.5% stop-loss. This week's recommendation is to short ruble / dollar. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-16 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Nothing in Trump's congressional address changes our outlook from November; Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to mercantilism; Investors should continue to favor small caps over large caps; We expect Trump to get his way on more spending, and a tax reform plan to pass by the end of the year; The Dutch election is a red herring, Le Pen's chances of winning are falling, but Italy remains a risk, especially in 2018; North Korea has evolved from a red herring into a black swan, stay short KRW/THB. Feature President Donald J. Trump delivered a reassuring speech last week. Sporting a magnanimous tone (and a new tie!) the president shocked the media by invoking a "new surge of optimism." Gone were the diatribes about "American carnage." Instead, President Trump implored Congress to work together to bring forth a major infrastructure program that would rival that of Eisenhower's interstate highway system, adopt a merit-based immigration system akin to Canada, and reform Obamacare in a way that would retain all its popular pillars. Trump concluded the speech by stating that "everything that is broken in our country can be fixed" and warning the polarized Congress that "true love for our people requires us to find common ground." After the speech, a narrative emerged in the media and financial press saying that Trump was a changed man. Should investors believe it? Not at all! There was simply nothing in the Trump speech that changes our outlook in November: that President Trump was elected on a populist platform and that he will be unconstrained on blowing out the U.S. budget and pursuing a mercantilist agenda.1 On everything else - from immigration reform to Obamacare - Trump may pursue a pragmatic set of policies. Or he may not. But what investors really care about is whether the Trump administration and Congress will: Get sweeping tax cut legislation done in 2017; Pass some infrastructure spending in 2017; Pursue protectionist policies. On all three counts, we believe that the answer is yes. Trump will get his way on both his pro-growth - anti-fiscal discipline - and mercantilist agendas. The timing is difficult to gauge, but we believe that we will see all three policy avenues aggressively pursued throughout the year and passed into law by the year's end. Trump's speech has only reinforced this view. Who Is Trump? Tax Cuts As we discussed in a recent report detailing the border adjustment tax (BAT) proposal, newly elected presidents rarely fumble on tax reform.2 Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In addition, the GOP knows that it must move fast if it wants to pass any tax cuts in 2017. President Trump is now the most unpopular president since polling began tracking the question (Chart 1). Chart 1Does President Trump Lack Political Capital? However, Republican voters continue to support him at 88%. This means that the House Republicans are vulnerable both to a Democrat/Independent backlash against Trump in the midterm elections and a Trump supporter backlash in the Republican primaries. They need to pass major legislation that satisfies middle class concerns and ensure that they do not incur the wrath of the Trump voters in primary races. While it is unlikely that the Democrats could significantly eat into Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, stranger things have happened.3 Adding fire under the GOP are two special Congressional Elections, in Georgia's sixth district and for Montana's "at large" seat, to be held in April and May respectively.4 Both were easily won in November by Republicans. A slippage by the Republicans in either would send shockwaves through Congress. There is therefore little time to waste. The Republicans know that they must strike while the iron is hot. We suspect that most representatives will abandon their demand for revenue-neutral tax reform to get any tax reform. That may mean adjusting House Speaker Paul Ryan's favorite revenue-raising proposal - the border adjustment tax (BAT) - so that it brings less revenue by exempting whole categories of imports from punitive corporate taxes. "Dynamic scoring" - an accounting method that considers the holistic impact of budget measures on revenues and thus deficits - will be used to make the "math" work and satisfy the procedural demand for budget responsibility.5 What about Obamacare? A narrative has emerged in the media that Republicans cannot work on tax reform while the issue of "repealing and replacing" the Affordable Care Act looms over their heads. We disagree. There are plenty of examples of the White House and Congress cooperating on multiple policy agendas at the same time. For example, the Obama White House used its majorities in Congress to push through a major fiscal stimulus, financial reform, and the controversial health care plan. Ronald Reagan also managed to enact comprehensive immigration and tax reform in 1986. Trump's congressional address made only one mention of government debt. But he did emphasize that his tax plan would provide "massive tax relief for the middle class." This implies that the election campaign's individual income tax proposals may have to be altered. Trump's and the GOP's plans from last year agreed that the individual income tax should be reduced from seven to three brackets, with the marginal rates at 12%, 25%, and 33%. This would have cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also have left a significant number of Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.6 It is likely that this will have to change, potentially creating an even greater impact on the deficit. Bottom Line: We expect both corporate and individual tax reform by the end of 2017. We do not have clarity on how legislators will go from here to there, but we suspect that to get both passed, Republicans in Congress will err on the side of greater deficits. As such, investors should expect exemptions on many imports under the final BAT (weakening any USD spike) and likely greater middle class tax cuts than are currently priced in the market. Infrastructure Spending Trump's congressional address ended several weeks of silence from the Trump administration on infrastructure spending. Not only did Trump reference the Eisenhower interstate highway system as a model to emulate, but he also promised a considerable increase in military spending and the completion of the wall on the border with Mexico ahead of schedule. Trump referred back to the original $1 trillion price tag that he announced in the heat of the electoral campaign. This figure was revised down by Trump's transition team to a modest $550 billion, though the difference may only be due to time frame. Whatever the case, Trump is using the bigger number now. We continue to believe that GOP representatives will not obstruct Trump's spending priorities. First, "dynamic scoring" can be applied to both tax cuts and infrastructure spending to make anything look close to revenue neutral. Second, voters want infrastructure spending (Chart 2). It is in fact the only issue other than combating drug addiction that Republicans and Democrats deeply agree on (Chart 3). Chart 2Everyone Loves Infrastructure Spending Chart 3Infrastructure Is Not A Partisan Issue Third, history is not on the side of deficit hawks. True, the national debt is higher today at $20 trillion than it has been for previous Republican administrations. However, it is not only an arithmetic fact that Republican administrations run large deficits (Chart 4), it is also a fact that they tend to get more than they ask from Congress. Chart 5 shows, with astonishing consistency, that Congress is only a check on Democratic presidents when it comes to the final size of appropriation bills, whereas Republican presidents always managed to get Congress to approve more funding than they asked for. Chart 4Fact: Republicans Run##br## Bigger Budget Deficits Chart 5Budgets: Republican Presidents ##br##Get What They Want Bottom Line: It remains difficult to gauge the actual size or economic impact of Trump's government spending proposals. However, we expect that President Trump will get his way on more spending not only for defense, veterans, and the wall, but also for infrastructure. While the impact will be minimal in 2017, investors should see greater fiscal thrust in 2018. Mercantilism While the media focused on the magnanimous tone of Trump's speech last week, we saw little change in his commitment to mercantilism. We continue to believe that Trump is a populist protectionist and that he is serious about enacting mercantilist policies.7 Recent government appointments (Table 2) and statements from the Trump administration (Table 3) suggest that we are correct. Table 2Government Appointments That Certify That Trump Is A Protectionist In his speech, Trump invoked President Abraham Lincoln's words that "abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people."8 He went on to call for "fair trade," contrasted explicitly with "free trade," and to suggest that he would support changing the U.S. corporate tax system to make U.S. exports more competitive. Trump also said on February 24, in a Reuters interview, that he thought that the border adjustment tax would boost exports and help keep jobs in the U.S.9 This should end the speculation - prompted by an early comment from Trump on the BAT - that the president and congressional GOP are irreconcilably at odds over the BAT. Table 3Protectionist Statements From The Trump Administration While Trump has yet to endorse Ryan's BAT proposal officially, he does not oppose its protectionist aspects. As a reminder, the BAT is protectionist because of two key elements: The BAT would give a "rebate" on exports (implicitly or explicitly) that could be higher than the amount of tax due on foreign profits (Diagram 1). For all intents and purposes, this is a dirigiste government subsidy for export-oriented industries. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current corporate income tax system. But under the value-added tax systems of the rest of the world wages are not deductible. In addition, Trump still retains a bevy of traditional tools like tariffs with which to go after potential trade rivals. As we have pointed out since November, there are few constraints on a U.S. president when imposing protectionist measures.10 Bottom Line: Donald Trump remains committed to a mercantilist agenda. Investors should expect him to live up to the hype at some point in 2017. Investment Implications If markets have been cheering Trump's pro-growth policies, in addition to improving global growth data, we suspect the stock-market party will continue. Investors can take from President Trump's March 1 speech a renewed commitment to a populist agenda that should cause government spending to increase, regulations to be cut, corporate and individual tax rates to fall, and the budget deficit to widen. Won't this pursuit of nominal GDP growth at any cost create conditions for inflation and eventually a recession? Yes, but the timing is difficult to gauge and much will depend on whether Donald Trump replaces the doves on the Fed governing board with hawks, as current conventional wisdom has it. We highly doubt that he would chose hawks, or policymakers committed to rules-based central banking, given his singular focus on reviving economic growth. But even a dovish Fed may move to raise interest rates aggressively given the slate of pro-growth policies being undertaken so late in the economic cycle. In the meantime, on a cyclical horizon, the party will continue and stocks will go higher. As we posited two weeks ago, many of our clients are cautious and tactically bearish, expecting a correction, but we cannot find a single structural bear. In this environment, where everyone expects to "buy on dips" following the correction that never seems to happen, it is hard for a correction to happen. But isn't protectionism and a trade war between the U.S. and China, or even the rest of the world, a risk to the rally? Not necessarily. First, the timing is uncertain. Second, the impact on economic growth is even more uncertain. Third, aside from any knee-jerk selloffs, protectionism will split sectors and stocks into winners and losers. Those with a greater share of revenues abroad will suffer due to potential retaliation from America's trade partners. Furthermore, much of Trump's policies will be dollar bullish - including tax cuts, greater government spending, and likely the BAT. As such, export-oriented sectors and companies will stand to suffer. We continue to believe that an overweight position in small caps will be a way to play the "Trump effect" on a strategic basis. Europe - Election Update Europe's election season is heating up, with the Dutch election just a week away and the first round of the French presidential election in just over a month. Here is a quick update on the key developments: The Netherlands According to the latest polls from the Netherlands, the Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) appears to be slipping (Chart 6). Just two months ago, the PVV was projected to capture around 35 seats, a number that has now fallen to around 25. Given that the Dutch parliament has 150 seats and that the PVV has no potential allies amongst the other 13 competitive parties, this election is largely a red herring. Should investors be worried about the Netherlands' role in European integration in the future? We don't think so. Support for the euro and the EU has not slipped in the Netherlands, at least not according to the data we have presented in these pages before.11 Instead, the PVV's support has risen due to the recent migration crisis. In fact, the number of asylum seekers has correlated almost perfectly with the PVV's support level since mid-2015 when the influx began (Chart 7). Given that the migration crisis is over (and we do not expect it to restart any time soon), we suspect that the PVV's support will moderate over the next electoral cycle. Chart 6Dutch Euroskeptics Are##br## An Overstated Threat Chart 7Dutch Populists Are A##br## Derivative Of The Immigration Crisis France The French election continues to grab headlines in Europe. However, almost all the news is bad news for Marine Le Pen. First, François Bayrou, a notable centrist who captured 9.3% of the vote in the first round of the 2012 election and 18.6% in 2007, has decided not to contest the election and instead support Emmanuel Macron. Non-French media have not picked up on the significance of the endorsement. It is more important than Bayrou's 3-5% level of support in the polls suggests. While Bayrou is a centrist, he once belonged to the center-right, conservative movement and was a cabinet minister during Jacques Chirac's reign. As such, his endorsement will give Macron, a former Socialist Party minister, even more "cross-over appeal" for center-right voters in the second round against Le Pen. Chart 8Le Pen Is Facing Resistance Second, the rumored alliance between the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the left-wing candidate of the ruling Socialist Party, Benoît Hamon, has failed to materialize. Their potential alliance was one of the main concerns that many of our clients brought to us in recent meetings. Given current polling, such a marriage could have produced a singular left-wing candidacy that would have propelled either Mélenchon or Hamon into the second round. However, the alliance was always a long shot, as anyone who has followed French politics knows, given Mélenchon's staunch commitment to running on his own platform. And furthermore, arithmetically combining the polling of the two candidates makes no sense given that a singular platform would have forced compromises that would have led to serious defections by voters to other candidates. As such, the combined ticket's support level was always just a theoretical exercise. Third, the latest polls suggest that Le Pen's mini-rally has been arrested (Chart 8). She has failed to consistently break through the 40% percentile mark for the second round. Against Macron, her most likely opponent, she continues to trail by a 25-30% margin. The second-round election is on May 7, just two months away. Two months from November 8, Donald Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by just 5%. Italy Our main political concern in Europe remains Italy. Polls continue to show that Euroskeptics are gaining on the centrist parties (Chart 9). Most worryingly, Italians continue to gain confidence in life outside the EU. According to a poll that asks respondents whether they think "their country could better face the future outside of the EU," Italians are the most optimistic, next to the Brits and the historically Euroskeptic Austrians, about life outside the bloc (Chart 10). Chart 9Italian Establishment##br## Is Collapsing Chart 10AItalians Are Now The Only People In ##br##The EU Who Are Like The Brits Chart 10BItalians Are Now The Only People In##br## The EU Who Are Like The Brits We therefore find the market's sanguine view on Italy to be myopic. Yes, the probability of an election in 2017 is declining. The ruling Democratic Party (PD) has set its leadership race for April 30, which rules out an election this summer, and former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi appears to have agreed to an election in February 2018.12 On a cyclical time horizon of 12 months, Italy is therefore not a major risk. However, once the election does take place, it could be source of considerable market volatility. At that point, investors would have to ask whether the election would take place under a new electoral law. If not, then the probability of a hung parliament would be considerable. Unless, that is, the Euroskeptic parties could form a coalition based solely on holding a referendum to leave the euro area. We doubt that the left-wing Five Star Movement (M5S) would be able to cooperate with the more staunchly Euroskeptic and right-wing Northern League and Brothers of Italy on this matter. Particularly since M5S has already begun to moderate on the issue of Euroskepticism. There is no point in speculating on an outcome of an election a year from now given that we are not even certain what electoral rules the contest would use. However, we do not think that investors should be sanguine because the likeliest outcome is governmental dysfunction. Chart 11SPD Continues Its Incredible Ascent The one thing that may help Italy in 2018 is the outcome of the German election in September. The radically Europhile chancellor-candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Martin Schulz, has continued to do well in the polls against Angela Merkel (Chart 11). On a recent tour of highly sophisticated clients in New York we were surprised that only a handful were aware of Schulz's platform and background. Even if Schulz does not win, a renewed Grand Coalition between Merkel's Christian Democratic Union and the SPD would have to take into consideration his meteoric rise. The price for a renewed Grand Coalition could be the abandonment of Merkel's reticent leadership of the euro area. Investment Implications For now, our view that the markets will climb the wall of worry in Europe in 2017 is holding up. We suspect that investors will quickly refocus their attention on Italy once the French election is out of the way. One of the best gauges of euro area breakup risk has been the performance of French bonds versus German bonds relative to the performance of Spanish and Italian bonds versus German bonds. In our view, every time French spreads have correlated highly with Spanish and Italian spreads, the euro area faced existential threats. The shaded sections of Chart 12 largely conform to the political context in Europe over the past five years. In particular, it is interesting that French yields have decoupled from their Mediterranean peers ever since the ECB's "whatever it takes" announcement. Chart 12French Spreads Are Overstated Until right now, that is. We think the bond market is making a mistake. France is not a risk and euro area breakup risk over the next 12 months is essentially near zero. However, the probability of a major economy leaving the euro area over the next five years is going up. This is both because of the political situation in Italy and because Euroskeptics like Marine Le Pen could take over the mantle of the "official opposition" to the "centrist consensus" running Europe. If a country like Italy exits the euro area, would the currency union be doomed? It depends, largely on how that economy were to perform post-exit. In the ceteris paribus world of macroeconomics, a massive currency devaluation post-exit would be a clear and definitive positive. However, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy was created specifically to go beyond ceteris paribus analysis. And we doubt that the euro area exit would be undertaken by pragmatic policymakers capable of taking advantage of currency devaluation while reassuring both markets and EU member states that they would pursue orthodox economic policies. As a guide for what we think would happen to Italy, we would suggest our clients read our January 2016 report on the Greek future post euro area.13 In this think piece, we argue that Greece would not become a "land of milk and honey" after exiting, largely because the political context of exit would be turbulent and lead to populist policies that would devastate the economy. As such, we would stress that while the probability of an individual member state leaving the euro area is climbing - even one as important as Italy - it does not necessarily mean that the probability of euro area dissolution is climbing at the same rate. North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring A brief word about the Korean peninsula is in order after the four North Korean missile tests on March 6 and our report last week recommending that clients steer clear of South Korean assets.14 Simply put, the Korean peninsula is a source of real geopolitical risk right now, contrary to the status quo in which North Korea was largely a red herring. We have narrated this transition since last year,15 but it boils down to the following points: North Korea is finally "arriving" at the nuclear club: It is coming upon that horizon foreseen long ago in which it possesses the ability strike the United States with a nuclear missile, however crude. The American and Japanese defense establishments are becoming more concerned, and their public opinion can follow on command.16 Trump's policy looks to be more assertive, though that is not certain. U.S.-China relations have gone sour: The worsening of Sino-American tensions makes these two more suspicious of each other's motives and simultaneously increases economic and political pressure on both Koreas. Ironically, China is currently sanctioning both North and South Korea, the latter because it is hosting the U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 13). The U.S., for its part, has been rushing THAAD, which it is just now rapidly deploying after the latest North Korean launches. North Korean internal stability is overrated: It is hard to argue that Kim Jong Un has not consolidated power impressively. But this consolidation has coincided with some loosening of internal economic control to help compensate for slower Chinese growth and worse Chinese relations. Gradual marketization threatens to undermine the regime from within, yet the standard playbook of belligerence threatens to provoke sanctions with real teeth from without, like China's proposed coal import ban for the rest of this year.17 Chart 13China Hits Seoul Over U.S. THAAD Missiles Adding to the volatile mix, South Korea's right-of-center ruling party is collapsing, which affects the behavior of all the interested parties. The Constitutional Court is set to decide whether to uphold the president's impeachment as early as this week. Where is it all going? In the short term, markets will respond to the court case and elections. A ruling is expected immediately, but could take until June. A ruling ejecting the president would be positive for South Korean risk assets, as it would reduce the current extreme uncertainty. As to the long-term outlook, if everything were to happen according to the region's familiar patterns of rising and falling tensions, China's sanctions would force North Korea to offer de-escalation, a new left-wing government in South Korea would launch a bold new "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with the North, and the alignment of these three in favor of new diplomatic negotiations would drive Japan and the United States to give peace another chance despite their skepticism about the outcome. By 2018, a revival of something like the Six Party Talks, discontinued in 2009, would be on the horizon or even underway. The problem is that the usual cycle is less assured because of the North's improving capabilities and other factors above. Thus, until we see China verifiably enforce sanctions, North Korea step back from its provocations, and the Trump administration take a non-aggressive posture (with Japan following suit), the Korean peninsula will be at a heightened risk of producing geopolitical "black swan" events. Bottom Line: North Korea is shifting from a red herring to a potential black swan, at least until U.S.-China relations improve and lend some stability to the situation. Stay short KRW/THB. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, the 2010 "Tea Party" revolution reversed the Democrat's majority in the House with one of the most sweeping victories merely 24 months following President Obama's 2008 victory, which itself was a lot more convincing than Trump's victory over Clinton. 4 Republican Ryan Zinke won the Montana seat but left it to become Trump's Secretary of Interior; Republican Tom Price won the Georgia seat but left it to become Secretary of Health and Human Services. 5 Dynamic-scoring, also known as macroeconomic modeling, is a favorite tool of Republican legislators when passing tax cut legislation. It allows policymakers to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. The same method could be used to pass "revenue-neutral" infrastructure spending, given that it too would produce higher economic growth and thus presumably higher government revenues. 6 Several income brackets would see no substantial tax cuts under the original tax cut plan proposed by the Trump campaign. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would see their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would see their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would see their rate rise substantively, from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, and "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 President Trump failed to mention that the U.S. was - when Lincoln made the statement in 1846 - a developing economy. Nor did he mention that Lincoln made the statements not as a president but a representative. 9 Please see Holland, Steve, Reuters, "Exclusive: Trump says Republican border tax could boost U.S. jobs," dated February 24, 2017, available at reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Renzi said on February 26 that "The elections are envisaged in February 2018. Fullstop." Please see Reuters, "Decision on early Italian elections up to PM Gentiloni: Renzi," dated February 26, 2017, available at reuters.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Greece After The Euro: A Land Of Milk And Honey?," dated January 20, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Mark Landler, "North Korea Nuclear Threat Cited by James Clapper, Intelligence Chief," New York Times, February 9, 2016; Siegfried S. Hecker, "The U.S. Must Talk To North Korea," New York Times, January 12, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. See also Jeff Seldin, "N. Korea Capable of Nuclear Strike at US, Military Leader Says," Voice of America, April 7, 2015, available at www.voanews.com. In 2013, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that "in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case, and that's ... why we're postured as we are today," quoted in "Hagel: North Korea Near 'Red Line,'" UPI, April 10, 2013, available at www.upi.com. 17 Enforcement is as yet unclear. Please see Leo Byrne, "North Korean cargo ship moves between Chinese, DPRK coal facilities," dated March 6, 2017, available at www.nknews.org.
We bought the S&P health care facilities index last December after a steep post-election sell-off created a valuation and technical undershoot relative to the fundamental outlook. The doomsday concern was that President Trump would tear up the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially leaving millions without insurance: treating the uninsured is the bane of any hospital's existence. The index has outperformed by 12% since then, encouraged by a jump in analyst net profit revisions following upbeat profit results and guidance from industry heavyweights such as HCA Holdings, and a realization that any ACA action is likely to be more of a rework than a total rebuild. Our conviction level has decreased a notch. Our concern is primarily revenue based, rather than fear that provisions for doubtful accounts will suddenly deteriorate as a consequence of treating uninsured patients. Instead, the main push from the surge in the insured population and increase in procedures on the back of rising consumer confidence/job security is likely to peter out. Consumer spending on hospitals has already rolled over decisively on a growth rate basis, and is contracting compared with total consumer spending. The same is true of spending on physician visits. Fewer doctor visits mean a reduction in procedures performed at hospitals. Health care is a labor-intensive industry. Health care facilities staff up when they get busy and prune when capacity utilization slips. As such, slowing growth in hospital employment reinforces that patient volume growth is likely to ebb. In fact, the contraction in hospital hours worked signals the same ahead for hospital sales. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P 1500 health care facilities index to neutral, locking in a 12% profit since inception in December 2016. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for additional details.
Momentum continues to trump all else, with the equity market surging to new all-time highs last week. However, in the background, the Fed is becoming steadily more hawkish, and the odds of a March rate hike have risen substantially. This should be cause for some trepidation. The market advance since November has been supported primarily by valuation expansion, along with some improvement in corporate profits. The forward P/E has climbed to 18, its highest level in well over a decade. The scope for further expansion is limited. Against this background, it is not surprising that a stealthy flight to safety has developed, although it is not uniform across asset classes. For instance, gold has outperformed most major currencies (note we recently upgraded the gold shares group as a portfolio hedge); global government yields have eased back while sovereign bond spreads have widened. In the U.S., the economically-sensitive transport group has rolled over in line with the yield curve narrowing, the equity SKEW index remains historically elevated, and a defensive vs. cyclical portfolio bias has outperformed handily since early December, on broad-based non-cyclical sector participation. These shifts, on the margin, signal that some investors are bracing for a bout of volatility. Bottom Line: The odds of an equity market sweet spot extension beyond the very near run have diminished as a consequence of ongoing strong economic data, which reflects the easing in financial conditions a year ago. Stick with a defensive over cyclical portfolio stance.
Highlights Chart 1Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions The market's rate hike expectations moved sharply higher during the past two weeks as a string of Fed speeches, including one by Chair Yellen, all but confirmed a March rate hike. The market is now priced for 75 basis points of hikes during the next 12 months, compared to 50 bps at the end of January. At least so far, broad indicators of financial conditions have not tightened in response to this re-rating of the Fed (Chart 1). However, there are some preliminary indications that the reflation trade is fraying at the edges. The trade-weighted dollar has appreciated +0.2% since the end of January, the 2/10 Treasury slope has flattened 9 bps and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has declined 1 bp. The Fed is currently testing the markets with hawkish rhetoric but, with inflation and TIPS breakevens still below target, will ultimately support the reflation trade if it comes under threat. In this environment investors with 6-12 month investment horizons should maintain below-benchmark duration, remain overweight spread product and continue to position for a steeper curve and wider TIPS breakevens. Feature Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month and, at 112 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). Our research1 shows that when core PCE inflation is between 1.5% and 2%2 investment grade corporate bonds produce an average monthly excess return of close to zero. A 90% confidence interval places monthly excess returns between -19 bps and +17 bps with inflation in this range and excess returns do not turn decisively negative until core PCE is above 2%. Given the Fed's desire to nurture a continued recovery in inflation, we are not worried about significant spread widening until inflation is sustainably above 2%. In the meantime we expect corporate bond excess returns to be low, but positive. While supportive monetary policy should ensure excess returns consistent with carry, investors should not bank on further spread compression as corporate spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2). Energy related sectors still appear cheap after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration (Table 3), and our commodity strategists expect oil prices to remain firm even in the face of a stronger U.S. dollar. This week we upgrade the Wireless and Packaging sectors from underweight to neutral and downgrade the Consumer Cyclical Services sector from neutral to underweight. The former two sectors now appear cheap on our model, while the latter has become expensive. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation*Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 112 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 25 bps on the month and, at 349 bps, it is currently 170 bps below its historical average. One of our key investment themes3 for this year is that the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse (Chart 3), mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Despite the positive outlook for defaults, we retain only a neutral allocation to High-Yield because of very tight valuations. The index option-adjusted spread is now within a hair of the average level of 340 bps that prevailed during the 2004 - 2006 Fed tightening cycle, when indicators of corporate balance sheet health were in much better shape. In fact, the index spread is now only 116 bps wider than its all-time low of 233 bps, reached in 2007. Our preferred measure of High-Yield valuation is the default-adjusted spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses. At present, the default-adjusted spread is 142 bps. Historically, a default-adjusted spread between 100 bps and 150 bps is consistent with positive excess returns during the subsequent 12 months 64% of the time. It is only when the default-adjusted spread falls below 100 bps that positive excess returns become unlikely. Junk has provided positive excess returns over a 12-month horizon only 13% of the time when the starting default-adjusted spread is between 50 bps and 100 bps. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in February. The conventional 30-year MBS yield fell 5 bps on the month, driven by a 7 bps decline in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) increased by 1 bp, as did the option-adjusted spread. MBS spreads remain extremely tight relative both to history and Aaa-rated credit, although they have begun to widen somewhat relative to credit in recent weeks (Chart 4). More distressing is that the nominal MBS spread appears too tight relative to interest rate volatility (bottom panel). As we noted in a recent report,4 the long-run trend in interest rate volatility tends to be driven by uncertainty about the macroeconomic and political environment. In fact, rate volatility can be modeled using forecaster disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates. While the Fed's policy of forward guidance and a fed funds rate pinned at zero limited the amount of forecaster disagreement in recent years, this disagreement will re-emerge the further the fed funds rate moves off its lower bound. Another medium-term risk for MBS comes from the Fed ending the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio. As we described in a recent Special Report,5 the Fed is likely to allow its MBS portfolio to shrink at some point in 2018, putting further upward pressure on MBS spreads. Government Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. The high-beta Sovereign and Foreign Agency sectors outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 90 bps and 59 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors each outperformed by 4 bps. Local Authorities returned 24 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sovereigns have outperformed Baa-rated corporate bonds year-to-date, a trend consistent with the rise in commodity prices and a trade-weighted dollar that has weakened by 1.5% (Chart 5). However, the dollar has started to appreciate in recent weeks and probably has further upside in the medium-term, especially if the Fed maintains its hawkish posture. Historically, it has been very rare for Sovereigns to outperform U.S. corporate bonds when the dollar is appreciating. After adjusting for credit rating and duration, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to appear cheap relative to U.S. corporate credit. In contrast, Sovereigns, Supranationals and Domestic Agencies all appear expensive. We continue to recommend overweight allocations to Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, alongside underweight allocations to the rest of the government-related index. In a television interview last month Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed that GSE reform is still a priority for the new administration but that tax reform is much higher on the agenda. This means that agency spreads will likely remain insulated from any "reform risk" until next year at the earliest. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in February (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio has fallen 4% since the end of January and remains firmly anchored below its post-crisis average. The decline in the average M/T yield ratio was concentrated in short maturities, while ratios at the long-end of the curve actually rose (Chart 6). Accelerating fund flows and falling issuance will continue to support yield ratios in the near term. In fact, our tactical yield ratio model - based on issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that yield ratios are presently very close to fair value. Although the average M/T yield ratio still appears expensive if we include the global economic policy uncertainty index as an additional explanatory variable.6 One risk to Munis is that yield ratios have already discounted a substantial reduction in state and local government net borrowing in Q1 (panel 3). While we expect this improvement will materialize in the next few quarters, net borrowing is biased upward beyond this year based on the lagged relationship between corporate sector and state and local government health.7 Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-flattened since the end of January as the market revised its Fed rate hike expectations sharply higher. Both the 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes have flattened by 9 basis points since January 31. As such, our recommended position long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell - designed to profit from a steeper yield curve - has returned -26 bps since the end of January, although it has returned close to 0 bps since it was initiated on December 20.8 As was stated on the front page of this report, the Fed's increasingly hawkish rhetoric has already caused the uptrend in TIPS breakevens to pause and the nominal Treasury slope to flatten (Chart 7). With inflation still below target these trends are not sustainable from the point of view of Fed policymakers. If the trend of decreasing TIPS breakevens and a flattening curve persists, we would expect the Fed to back away from its hawkish rhetoric. This dynamic will support a steeper yield curve at least until core PCE inflation is back to the Fed's 2% target and long-dated TIPS breakevens are anchored in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% (a range that is typically consistent with core PCE inflation at 2%). The persistent attractiveness of the 5-year bullet relative to the rest of the curve makes a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell the most attractive way to position for a steeper yield curve (panel 3). The carry buffer in the 5-year helps mitigate some of the risk of curve flattening. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in February. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate declined 3 bps on the month and, at 2.04%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. While the catalyst for the recent softening in TIPS outperformance seems to be the hawkish re-rating of Fed rate hike expectations, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens was probably due for a pause in any case. Breakevens had become stretched relative to our TIPS Financial Model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (Chart 8). Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation have also shifted into negative territory, suggesting that realized inflation readings will soften during the next couple of months. On a cyclical horizon, however, the Fed will be keen to allow breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target and will quickly adopt a more dovish stance if breakevens fall significantly. This "Fed put" should remain in place at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-dated TIPS breakevens return to a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. As we detailed in a recent report,9 while accelerating wage growth will ensure that inflation remains in a long-run uptrend, the impact from wages will be mitigated by deflating import prices meaning that the uptrend will be slow. We continue to expect that year-over-year core PCE inflation will not attain the Fed's 2% target until the end of this year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities performed in-line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in February. Aaa-rated issues underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 basis points, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 12 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 3 bps on the month. At 50 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level. Banks are now tightening lending standards on both auto loans and credit cards (Chart 9). While we do not think this will have much of an impact on consumer spending,10 it is usually an indication that there is growing concern about ABS collateral credit quality. While credit card charge-offs remain well below their pre-crisis levels, net losses on auto loans have in fact started to trend higher (bottom panel). We continue to recommend Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, despite the spread advantage in autos. We will closely monitor the evolving credit quality situation, but for now continue to view consumer ABS as a very attractive alternative to other short-duration Aaa-rated spread product such as MBS and Agency bonds. The main reason being the sizeable spread advantage that has persisted in ABS for some time. At present, Aaa-rated consumer ABS offer an option-adjusted spread of 50 bps, compared to 31 bps for 30-year conventional Agency MBS and 18 bps for Agency bonds. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are firmly entrenched below their pre-crisis average. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS widened 5 bps on the month, and currently sits at 53 bps. The spread offered on Agency CMBS is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (50 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (31 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. 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 2.42% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.21%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.49%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Year-over-year core PCE inflation is currently 1.74%. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on the linkage between corporate sector health and state & local government health please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 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) Current Recommendation
Highlights Assessing Our Tilts: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. Fed Vs ECB: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. U.K.: Gilts have already priced in a significantly weaker U.K. economic outlook, especially with regards to consumer spending, yet inflation expectations are only now starting to peak. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts with yields already at rich levels. Feature Chart of the WeekAre Central Banks Getting ##br##Behind The Curve? A whiff of central bank hawkishness has quickly swept over the major bond markets. In the U.S., a series of Fed speeches, coming after a string of improving economic data amid booming asset markets, has turned a March Fed rate hike from a long-shot to a virtual certainty in little more than a week. In Europe, another round of stronger inflation data is emboldening some of the hawks at the European Central Bank (ECB) to more openly question if some tapering of the central bank's asset purchases will be necessary next year. Even in the U.K., the Bank of England (BoE) is letting its latest round of Gilt quantitative easing (QE) expire, although the BoE is not close to considering a rate hike, as we discuss later in this Weekly Report. Chart 2A Supportive Backdrop ##br##For Taking Credit Risk A move by the Fed next week now seems like a done deal, and the new question for investors is: how many more times the Fed will lift rates in 2017? The market is now pricing in "only" 75bps of hikes over the next year, even as the S&P 500 sits close to its all-time high and U.S. jobless claims hit a 43-year low last week (Chart 1). We still see three hikes - the Fed's current projection - to be the most that the Fed will deliver in 2017. Yet the fact that equity & credit markets have taken the rising odds of a March rate increase in stride might nudge the Fed towards even more hikes this year than currently forecast. Bond markets around the world will likely not take a shift higher in the Fed "dots" very well, although in the U.S. the immediate upside for yields remains tempered by the persistent short positioning in the U.S. Treasury market. We still expect Treasury yields to rise over the next 6-9 months, though, driven by additional increases in inflation expectations rather than a sharp repricing of the expected path of the funds rate. The biggest risk looming for global bonds, however, would come from any signal by the ECB that a taper is in the cards next year. That would likely result in wider term premiums and bear-steepening of yield curves in the major developed government bond markets. It would be a surprise if the ECB started preparing the markets for a less accommodative policy stance at this week's meeting, although questions about a taper will certainly be posed to ECB President Draghi by reporters after the meeting. Evaluating Our Recommendations As Global Growth Improves Back on January 31st, we shifted to a more pro-growth stance in our fixed income portfolio recommendations, moving our duration tilt back to below-benchmark, while downgrading government debt and upgrading corporate bond exposure.1 The key to that shift was a growing body of evidence pointing to a broadening global economic upturn. The latest round of global purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) released last week confirmed that the business cycle dynamics continue to accelerate to the upside (Chart 2). This will maintain upward pressure on bond yields and downward pressure on credit spreads. Our portfolio recommendations have generally done well since we made our shift. In Chart 3, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the individual government debt markets versus the overall Barclays Global Treasury Index since the end of January. Our underweight positions in the U.S., Spain and Australia (up to February 21st, when we upgraded Aussie debt to neutral) performed well, as did our overweights in core Europe (Germany & France). Our worst performing tilts were our below-benchmark stances on Italy, which benefitted greatly from some diminished pressures on French government debt last week, and U.K. Gilts, which we discuss later in this report. In Chart 4, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the major spread product markets, since January 31. Our decisions to upgrade U.S. investment grade (IG) to above-benchmark, and U.S. high-yield (HY) to neutral, have done well as U.S. corporate spreads continue to tighten in response to improving U.S. economic growth. Our relative exposures between the U.S. and Euro Area remain our biggest tilts between countries. Specifically, we remain overweight core Euro Area government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, while we are neutral U.S. HY and underweight Euro Area equivalents. On IG corporate debt, we are above-benchmark on both sides of the Atlantic. Our marginal preference, however, is for U.S. IG given the shifting changes in relative balance sheet health in the U.S. (improving, but from relatively poor levels) versus Europe (stable, but at relatively strong levels) suggested by our Corporate Health Monitors. On a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis, our relative U.S. vs Euro Area tilts have done well since our major allocation shift on January 31 (Chart 5), with Treasuries underperforming, U.S. HY outperforming and both U.S. and European IG performing similarly. Chart 3Our Recent Country Allocation Performance Chart 4Our Recent Spread Product Allocation Performance Chart 5Our Europe Vs U.S. Tilts Have Done Well Of Late Bottom Line: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product risk versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. The Timing Of A Potential "Bund Tantrum" Looking ahead, timing a potential turn in our U.S. versus Europe tilts will likely remain the biggest call we make this year. With the Fed now set to raise rates again next week, and the ECB likely to deflect any talk of a taper to after the upcoming French elections (at the earliest), the bias will remain toward Treasury market underperformance in the near term. Yet the marginal pressures on inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area suggest that a turning point in U.S./Core Europe bond spreads could arrive sooner than many expect. While realized inflation rates are moving higher in both regions, the underlying price pressures have a different look. In the U.S., headline inflation (using the Fed's preferred measure, the change in the personal consumption expenditure, or PCE, deflator) has risen to 1.89%, a mere 15bps above core PCE inflation with both measures now sitting just below the Fed's 2% target. Yet the breadth of the rise in core inflation has rolled over, according to our diffusion index (Chart 6). This suggests that the recent acceleration in core inflation, which we believe the Fed is most focused on, may take a pause in the next few months. The opposite is true in the Euro Area, where headline HICP inflation (the ECB's target measure) has soared to 1.9%, right at the ECB target of "at or just below" 2%. The gap between headline and core HICP inflation has been widening, though, as there has been very little follow through from the acceleration in headline inflation, largely driven by base effects related to previous rises in energy prices and declines in the euro, into core prices. Our Euro Area headline inflation diffusion index is moving higher, highlighting that the increase in headline HICP inflation is becoming more broadly based (Chart 7). Chart 6A Narrowing Increase In U.S. Inflation Chart 7A Broadening Increase In Euro Area Inflation The cyclical uptrend in Euro Area growth and inflation is also fairly broad-based at the country level, with the individual country PMIs and headline HICP inflation rates all in solid uptrends for the major countries in the region (Chart 8). At the same time, core inflation rates remain well contained. Various ECB members have pointed to the benign core inflation readings as a reason to stay the course on extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy settings. Yet with unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a consensus view on maintaining the status quo on ECB policy. Already, the German Bundesbank has been quite vocal in questioning the need for the ECB to maintain the current pace of its asset purchase program, and that pressure will only grow with German inflation now above 2%. So how close is the ECB to a potential asset purchase taper? Some clues emerge when comparing Europe now to the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum." In Chart 9, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for both the Euro Area and U.S. All series in the chart are lined up to the peak in our Months-To-Hike indicator, which measures the number of months to the first rate hike of the next interest rate cycle, as discounted in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. That indicator peaked in the U.S. in late 2012, several months before Ben Bernanke's infamous speech in May 2013 that signaled the Fed's QE appetite was beginning to wane. Chart 8A Consistent Upturn##br## In Europe Chart 9Less Spare Capacity In Europe Now Vs ##br##Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. In the Euro Area, the Months-To-Hike indicator peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, the indicator remains much higher than it ever was in the U.S. during the QE era, indicating how the market believes that the ECB will have to maintain zero (or lower) interest rates for longer. Yet, by some measures, the ECB is closer to reaching its policy goals then the Fed was in 2012/13. In the 2nd panel of Chart 9, we show the "unemployment gap" - the difference between the unemployment rate and the rate consistent with inflation stability - for the U.S. and Euro Area. Note that there is far less spare capacity in labor markets today in Europe than there was in the U.S. when the Fed raised the topic of a QE taper to the markets. The U.S. unemployment rate was a full three percentage points above the full employment level in 2012, while Euro Area unemployment is now only one percentage point above full employment. In the bottom two panels of Chart 9, we show the gap between headline and core inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area, relative to the 2% inflation targets that both the Fed and ECB aim to hit. U.S. inflation was in the vicinity of the Fed's target around the time of the Taper Tantrum. While Euro Area headline inflation is similarly close to the ECB's 2% target today, core inflation is much further away from 2% than U.S. core inflation was four years ago. If the ECB focuses on headline rather than core inflation, then Europe could be getting close to its own Taper Tantrum. Yet the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to make a rush to judgement on its asset purchase program, especially given the uncertainties presented by the upcoming French elections in April & May. We are still maintaining our overweight stance on core European government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, but we are growing increasingly worried that a turning point may be on the horizon. As can be seen in the additional cycle-on-cycle comparisons in Chart 10, the benchmark 10-year German Bund is tracing out a similar path to that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury around the time of the Fed Taper Tantrum. If the ECB focuses on the tightening labor market and accelerating pace of headline inflation in the Euro Area, a "Bund Tantrum" could become the big story for global bond markets later this year. Bottom Line: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. Gilt(y) Optimism? The British economy has surprised to the upside in the last few months. Policy uncertainty has collapsed, while inflation expectations have marched higher and business optimism has stabilized. Most surprising against this backdrop, Gilt returns, on a currency hedged basis, have beaten most of their developed market fixed income peers (Chart 11). Chart 10A Bund Taper On The Horizon? Chart 11Gilts Should Have Underperformed This outperformance cannot be linked to factors such as the usual safe-haven status of Gilts, with no signs of major financial stresses in the Euro Area that would cause money to flow into Gilts (Chart 12). Indeed, the opposite has been happening as foreigners have been net sellers of Gilts in recent months. A better explanation might come from what has become a bond-bullish linkage between the British currency, inflation, real wages and consumption. In all likelihood, investors have already incorporated most of the impact of a weak Pound on U.K. inflation expectations and Gilt yields. Yet higher expected prices continue to erode household purchasing power, leading to weaker consumer spending (Chart 13). This dynamic is bullish for bonds. Chart 12Can't Blame The Safe Haven Status This Time Chart 13Consumers Will Feel The Pinch Already, this backdrop has become widely accepted. The Bloomberg survey of economists' forecasts is calling for U.K. consumer spending growth to decelerate to 1.6% on a year-over-year basis in 2017, down from 2.8% in 2016. The BoE adopted a more dovish stance at last month's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, citing the downside risks to consumption from high currency-driven inflation at a time of persistent spare capacity in labor markets and modest wage increases.2 This threat to U.K. growth from a more sluggish consumer should continue, at least in the short term. BCA's U.K. real average weekly earnings model is clearly pointing towards additional declines in inflation-adjusted wages (Chart 14). This should restrain consumption growth, especially as other factors boosting spending are likely to fade. For example, the gains to disposable income growth from falling interest rates are likely done for this cycle, with mortgage rates having little room to decline further from the current 2.5% level (Chart 15). Also, consumer credit is now expanding 10% year-over-year - a pace that is most likely unsustainable with household debt still at high levels relative to income and the savings rate having fallen close to pre-recession levels (Chart 16). As a result, U.K. consumers are unlikely to continue stretching their financial situation to support spending. Chart 14Real Wages Will Constrain Consumption Chart 15Little Room For Lower Mortgage Rates Chart 16Structural Limits On Consumer Credit Growth Additionally, the housing market could dent consumer confidence in the near term. Since the beginning of 2014, all measures of house price inflation have rolled over, while mortgage approvals have moved sideways (Chart 17). Signs of increased weakness are appearing and could force households to revise their spending habits downward. There are also potential risks coming from the business side, despite some more positive data of late. BCA's U.K. capex indicator, composed of several survey measures, points to a cyclical improvement in capital spending in the next few quarters. At the same time, net lending to non-financial institutions is growing at a robust rate (Chart 18), suggesting that credit availability is not an impairment for U.K. businesses. Chart 17Housing: From Tailwind To Headwind? Chart 18Some Optimism Is Warranted... However, the situation remains very fragile. The upcoming Brexit negotiations will keep animal spirits well contained. Firms have become more risk averse and less willing to take balance sheet risks according to the Deloitte CFO survey (Chart 19). Until the details on the U.K.'s future economic links to Europe are resolved, corporate decision-makers will be dissuaded from making long-term investments in productivity-enhancing capital such as plant and machinery. In turn, the continued lack of productivity gains will further depress U.K. corporate profitability (Chart 19, bottom panels). This uncertain environment will mean suppressed hiring intentions, greater slack in the economy and decreasing inflationary pressure. Consequently, the BoE should remain patient. The accommodative policy measures introduced last August after the Brexit vote have been working so far. Rock bottom real yields and highly expansionary money supply growth have spurred domestically generated inflation. While the BoE's latest Gilt QE program is expiring, there is no rush to hike rates until core inflation has reached the 2% threshold or until headline inflation tops out at 2.7% in Q1 2018, as the BoE predicts.3 As such, the probability of a rate hike this year, which has collapsed from 55% to 17% since January, will fall even further, to the benefit of Gilts (Chart 20). Chart 19...But The Brexit-Induced Stalemate ##br##Effects Still Prevail Chart 20More Time Needed ##br##For The BoE This week, we are upgrading our recommended stance on Gilts from below-benchmark to neutral. We have maintained an underweight posture since October 18th of last year, primarily driven by our expectation that rising U.K. inflation would put upward pressure on Gilt yields. Now that the main force driving inflation higher - the exchange rate - is bottoming out and possibly set to reverse, we have to change tack. On that note, our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy have recently laid out a very compelling bullish case for the Pound.4 They disagree with the assessment that further volatility in the currency is warranted because of the Brexit process. They oppose the market narrative that: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. severely for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Exiting the common market is negative for the country's economy in the short-term; Remaining legal uncertainties about Brexit could derail the process. In their view, two events that occurred in January - the U.K. Supreme Court decision that the U.K. parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 and Prime Minister May's "Brexit means exit" speech - have reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The first because parliament would ultimately be bound by the popular referendum. The second because the main cause of European consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - was taken off the table. Thus, going forward, Europe will exact a price, but it will not be severe. And the negative economic repercussions of leaving will only be fully registered in the coming years. If our colleagues are right, an overweight position in Gilts could be tempting, as a stronger Pound would decrease inflation expectations, pushing nominal yields lower. This case is even stronger given the economic uncertainties we've laid out above. Despite their convincing arguments, we prefer to take a cautious approach, while waiting to see on what ground the Brexit negotiations will start. Moreover, Gilt valuations now seem rich, with spreads versus U.S. Treasuries at historic lows. Thus, we are only upgrading to a neutral allocation to Gilts for now. In our model portfolio (shown on Page 16), we are funding the increased Gilt allocations by equally reducing the U.S. and German exposure, given the upward pressure on yields in those markets described earlier in this Weekly Report. Bottom Line: The U.K. economy has surprised to the upside and inflation expectations have reacted in line with the domestic currency weakness. There is now a greater chance that both of those trends will reverse, to the benefit of Gilts. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts, especially with yield already at rich levels. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Growth Upturn Has Legs: Reduce Duration, Upgrade Credit Exposure", dated January 31, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The BoE lowered its estimate of the full-employment level of the U.K. unemployment rate, consistent with accelerating wage growth, from 5% to 4.5% at the February MPC meeting. 3 Please see "Inflation Report", February 2017, Bank Of England, available at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2017/feb.aspx 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?", dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Portfolio Strategy A relapse in the global financials sector threatens to spill into U.S. financials as credit growth sinks. Bank equities are the most vulnerable to such a phase, given their reliance on rising interest rate expectations rather than increased lending. Take profits in the S&P health care facilities index and downgrade to neutral. Recent Changes S&P Health Care Facilities - Take profits of 12% and downgrade to neutral. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Momentum continues to trump all else, with the equity market surging to new all-time highs last week. However, in the background, the Fed is becoming steadily more hawkish, and the odds of a March rate hike have risen substantially. This should be cause for some trepidation. Chart 1Multiples Are Headed##br## Lower As The Fed Hikes The market advance since November has been supported primarily by valuation expansion, along with some improvement in corporate profits. The forward P/E has climbed to 18, its highest level in well over a decade. The scope for further expansion is limited. Importantly, if a transition to an earnings-led rally is in the offing, Fed funds expectations likely need to be ratcheted higher. Chart 1 shows that valuation multiples contract during Fed tightening cycles, using cycle-on-cycle analysis. Thus, the valuation expansion is inconsistent with a significant upgrade in the economic and profit outlook, particularly with return on equity so weak (Chart 1). In other words, the economy has good momentum, but that is not translating one for one to the corporate sector. Keep in mind that even a small two P/E multiple point decline requires 11% earnings growth for the market just to hold its ground. That is a tall order given the squeeze on profit margins from labor cost inflation and a strong U.S. dollar. Ironically, high multiples would be more durable if economic data softened enough for the Fed to hold its fire. Against this background, it is not surprising that a stealthy flight to safety has developed, although it is not uniform across asset classes. For instance, gold has outperformed most major currencies (note we recently upgraded the gold shares group as a portfolio hedge); global government yields have eased back while sovereign bond spreads have widened (Chart 2). In the U.S., the economically-sensitive transport group has rolled over in line with the yield curve narrowing (Chart 2), the equity SKEW index remains historically elevated, and a defensive vs. cyclical portfolio bias has outperformed handily since early December (Chart 2, bottom panel), on broad-based non-cyclical sector participation. These shifts, on the margin, signal that some investors are bracing for a bout of volatility. On the flipside, U.S. junk bond spreads have narrowed back to 2014 lows, and emerging market corporate bond spreads are testing similarly tight levels. The global purchasing manager survey recorded yet another monthly gain (Chart 3). Chart 2Contrarian##br##Alert... Chart 3... Defensives Can Outperform##br## When Growth Is Good Ergo, a systemic economic threat is not the main obstacle to further asset price appreciation. Rather, it is that expectations in some assets and sectors have become divorced from reality. Indeed, we have noted for the last two months the disturbing downtrend in bank credit growth and the unprecedented gap between strong 'soft' and pedestrian 'hard' economic data. Mixed economic and financial market messages suggest that any equity turbulence may be marked by a mostly rotational correction rather than a savage drawdown in the broad averages. Still, the latter cannot be ruled out given the high degree of complacency and buoyant profit and economic expectations. It is notable that defensive equities embarked on a massive outperformance phase when both U.S. and EM bond spreads were just as low as they are currently, i.e. they hit 'as good as it gets' levels (Chart 3). Any widening in corporate bond spreads would tighten financial conditions, spurring a slowdown in growth down the road. In sum, the odds of an equity market sweet spot extension beyond the very near run have diminished as a consequence of ongoing strong economic data, which reflects the easing in financial conditions a year ago. In terms of positioning portfolios, there is still a mismatch between developed and developing markets, as measured by the relative ISM indexes (Chart 3, fourth panel). The upshot is that defensives will continue to generate much more cash than their cyclical counterparts (Chart 3, bottom panel), supporting the nascent relative share price recovery. The financial sector could also be due for a correction. Financials And Banks: Where To Next? The global financials sector has cheered the firming in leading economic indicators and back up in bond yields since last autumn, but that celebration is likely drawing to a close. Euro area financials have rolled over, in line with renewed weakness in German government bond yields (Chart 4). Continued slippage in global yields could cap U.S. yields, thereby flattening the yield curve (Chart 5). U.S. financials are much more expensive than their euro area counterparts (Chart 5, bottom panel), suggesting heightened vulnerability. Chart 4Are EMU Financials ##br##Sending A Warning Signal? Chart 5Watch The##br## Yield Curve In our view, the S&P bank index contains the most downside vulnerability, in relative performance terms, of all the financial sector sub-components, especially if regulatory reform disappoints and/or is slow to evolve. True, as outlined in a Special Report published on October 3, 2016, interest rate expectations have a checkered history of predicting bank stock relative performance. When they do drive bank stocks, it is typically because most other profit drivers are lacking, as is currently the case (Chart 5, top panel). This cycle, interest rate spreads have been unduly suppressed by the zero lower bound. Under normal circumstances, when short-term interest rates are well above zero lower bound, banks can target a spread between rates on assets and liabilities. But when the fed funds rate is at zero, the spread is compressed, because banks generally cannot charge customers a penalty implied by negative interest rates on deposits (at least in the U.S.). As the Fed pushes interest rates back upward, banks may be able to return their spreads to their target levels, by raising deposit rates more slowly than loan rates. However, this dynamic has been fully priced in over the last few months and the risk is that higher net interest margins will not offset the lack of credit creation and/or that Fed funds rate expectations will level off if economic data start to disappoint. After all, Chart 6 shows that net interest margins can both widen and narrow when the Fed is hiking interest rates. Moreover, the yield curve is narrowing, after peaking two months ago. If rising fed interest rate expectations are the primary factor driving bank stock performance, then it follows that market expectations must continue to price in a much more hawkish rate environment in order to extend any rally in bank share prices. However, the global credit impulse is still negative, albeit less so, reflecting capital constraints and deleveraging. The Bank of International Settlements global credit impulse indicator has been an excellent leading indicator of relative bank profitability, and it is premature to expect earnings outperformance (Chart 7). U.S. credit data are also inconsistent with a major upshift in Fed funds interest rate expectations. Total loan growth is contracting, led by commercial & industrial loans (Chart 8). Commercial real estate loan growth has also turned lower. Chart 6Net Interest Margins And The Fed Chart 7Don't Chase Without Profit Support Chart 8Shrinking Balance Sheets The most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that banks are tightening lending standards in most categories, with the exception of mortgages (Chart 9). The number of banks reporting increased loan demand has also softened. Since the credit crisis, banks have shifted their balance sheet exposure toward businesses and away from consumers and residential mortgages, underscoring that a decent housing market is unlikely to provide an offset to lackluster corporate credit demand. Only mortgages have experienced an uptick in loan demand and availability of funds (Chart 9). This credit backdrop is not conducive to a much more aggressive Fed, reinforcing that it would be dangerous to discount a sustained and meaningful uptrend in net interest margins. To further confound the bank stock reward/risk profile, bank employment continues to rise steadily (Chart 10), even though balance sheet expansion is no longer a sure thing. We have shown in past Reports that bank stocks have almost always underperformed when bank employment is rising. Chart 9Credit Standars Are Tightening Chart 10Sagging Productivity The current combination of fading credit creation and rising employment has done a number on our bank productivity proxy. The latter is now contracting on a rate of change basis, warning that the expansion in bank stock valuations is due for a squeeze (Chart 10). Bottom Line: The run in bank stocks over the past few months is on the cusp of a reversal, based on the leading message from the euro area, sinking productivity and punk credit demand. Our financial sector preference remains skewed toward areas not dependent on credit creation, such as asset managers. Book Profits In Health Care Facilities We bought the S&P health care facilities index last December after a steep post-election sell-off created a valuation and technical undershoot relative to the fundamental outlook. The doomsday concern was that President Trump would tear up the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially leaving millions without insurance: treating the uninsured is the bane of any hospital's existence. At the time of purchase, the 52-week rate of change was diverging positively from the share price ratio after hitting deeply oversold levels, often a harbinger of a playable rally (Chart 11). That was particularly true given an historically high short position. The index has outperformed by 12% since then, encouraged by a jump in analyst net profit revisions following upbeat profit results and guidance from industry heavyweights such as HCA Holdings (Chart 11), and a realization that any ACA action is likely to be more of a rework than a total rebuild. Valuations remain appealing, but a technical breakout above key resistance levels requires increased confidence in the durability of profit outperformance. Is such a phase forthcoming? Our conviction level has decreased a notch. Our concern is primarily revenue based, rather than fear that provisions for doubtful accounts will suddenly deteriorate as a consequence of treating uninsured patients. Instead, the main push from the surge in the insured population and increase in procedures on the back of rising consumer confidence/job security is likely to peter out. Consumer spending on hospitals has already rolled over decisively on a growth rate basis (Chart 12, third panel), and is contracting compared with total consumer spending. The same is true of spending on physician visits. Fewer doctor visits mean a reduction in procedures performed at hospitals. Chart 11Hitting Resistance Chart 12Top-Line Trouble Ahead? Health care is a labor-intensive industry. Health care facilities staff up when they get busy and prune when capacity utilization slips. As such, slowing growth in hospital employment reinforces that patient volume growth is likely to ebb (Chart 12). In fact, the contraction in hospital hours worked signals the same ahead for hospital sales (Chart 12, bottom panel). The good news is that labor costs remain in check, as measured by the employment cost index for hospitals (Chart 13). Other input costs, such as the cost of medical equipment and supplies, have perked up (Chart 13), which may require increased pricing power in order to sustain profit margins. However, the revenue trends noted above suggest that hospitals may not experience a sufficient rise in patient volumes to the extent that restores pricing power to a more solid footing. Chart 14 shows that the consumer price index for hospitals is losing momentum relative to overall inflation. Durable outperformance phases require accelerating relative pricing power, in addition to a cooling in overall economic growth, as proxied by the ISM manufacturing index (see shading, Chart 14). Those conditions provide a durable competitive profit advantage. Chart 13A Mixed Picture For Costs Chart 14Shaky Long-Term Support Chart 15Macro Headwinds In addition, the ideal macro conditions for hospital stocks exist when consumer spending on overall health care services is accelerating relative to total spending. That implies that the providers of health care services have an advantage over those that pay for them, such as insurers. Total medical care spending is steadily decelerating (Chart 15), underscoring that investors are better off targeting investments in other parts of the sector. In sum, the forces required to sustain the oversold rally in the S&P 1500 health care facilities index are losing clout, so we recommend booking profits. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P 1500 health care facilities index to neutral, locking in a 12% profit since inception in December 2016. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).
Highlights President Trump has the opportunity to influence the Fed much more than past presidents, by virtue of the number of FOMC seats to fill and due to the likelihood that his nominations are likely to be confirmed. It would not be unprecedented for monetary policy to become politicized. In the current environment, the risk is that any loss of independence/politicization of the Fed would lead to higher inflation. Monitoring Trump's nominations will be the best way to gauge whether this is a legitimate worry for financial markets. Inflation will stay sufficiently benign in 2017 so that no more than three rate hikes occur in 2017. Feature Last week, a series of hawkish FOMC speeches caused expectations for a Fed rate hike in March to spike (Chart 1). On Friday, Yellen confirmed that a rate hike is likely in March as long as the data remains sufficiently strong. And Fed Governor Lael Brainard also signaled that a rate hike in mid-March is a high-probability outcome. What makes Brainard's hawkish comments particularly noteworthy is that she is well known to have very dovish leanings. She joins Fed Presidents Dudley and Williams, who also raised the prospect of raising rates this month earlier in the week. Chart 1March Rate Hike Expectations Surge In light of the recent Fed commentaries, our U.S. Bond Strategists now believe that a rate hike in March has a high likelihood. It will take a weak nonfarm payrolls report on Friday to stay the Fed's hand on March 15. As we note on page 7, the sudden hawkish shift to the Fed's rhetoric is somewhat at odds with the recent data, which do not call for any increased urgency to raise interest rates. For this reason, we believe it is premature to revise up the number of rate hikes likely to occur in 2017: we do not expect that economic and inflation performance will warrant a rate hike each quarter. Thus, we do not expect that overly tight monetary policy will be a risk to financial markets this year. This week, we focus on a longer-term threat to the monetary backdrop: the possibility of a more politicized Fed, and the implications for inflation. There has long been a healthy dose of suspicion in Congress about the Fed's role and conduct. But throughout Trump's campaign and now as president, the volume has been turned higher. There are several legislative proposals in recent years that have the potential to be advanced/passed during the next Presidential term: Audit The Fed: Audit the Fed legislation would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Fed's monetary policy decisions. The Fed's financial statements are already audited, and the GAO can examine most other Fed operations, but monetary policy decisions are currently exempt from needing Congress approval. This is the legislation that would be potentially most transformative for monetary policy, since it would subject the Fed to political pressure on monetary policy. Please see discussion below. The FORM Act: A main feature of the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act (FORM) is the so-called Taylor Rule requirement, which would require Fed officials to establish a mathematical formula to guide their interest-rate decisions, and require them to report to Congress if they deviate from the rule. We discussed the Taylor rule and the FORM Act in Detail in the February 13th Weekly Report (Chart 2). The bill also would allow the GAO to audit the Fed's policy decisions; widen membership of the Fed's rate-setting committee; require the Fed Chair to testify more frequently; and place new restrictions on the Fed's emergency lending powers. Chart 2 landscapeA "Rules-Based" Fed Would Be A Tighter Fed Following a mechanical rule would severely limit the Fed's flexibility in determining the appropriate path of monetary policy. Bailout Prevention Act: This measure is designed to curtail the Fed's powers to lend to financial firms in an emergency. The 2010 Dodd-Frank law put some restrictions in place, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle aren't satisfied the Fed has taken the necessary steps to implement those restrictions. Chart 3WWII Policy Expansion The Fed's ability to respond during crisis would henceforth be limited. Fed Capital Stock: This measure aims at requiring the Fed to pay back capital that banks paid to be members of the Fed system. The bill was introduced in 2015 after Congress voted to lower the dividend the Fed pays banks on that capital to help pay for federal highway programs. All of the above legislation will, if passed, have an impact on financial assets. However, Audit The Fed threatens to be by far the most transformative: as we discuss below, a slippage of independence of the U.S. monetary authority would have long-term consequences for the ability of policymakers to control inflation. At The Intersection Of The Fed And The Treasury: Inflation The Federal Reserve is part of the public sector. Its "chief executive" is a government appointee, and politicians have the power to legislate changes to central banks' structure, responsibilities, and mandates. Independence generally is interpreted as meaning that central bankers are free to conduct day-to-day monetary policy without any interference or influence from politicians, i.e. they have operational independence, not legal independence. It was not until The Banking Act of 1935 that the Treasury Secretary and the Comptroller of the Currency were removed from the Fed's governing board.1 The main argument for an independent central bank is that money supply decisions should be made independent of the political process. In other words, monetary policy should not be influenced by short-term political considerations. This is especially true for indebted economies: when debt/GDP levels are rising, the temptation for governments to fix government balance sheets via inflation grows. Indeed, it is not a coincidence that episodes of proximity between centrals and government coincide with periods of inflation, and that these periods almost always occur after periods of fiscal largesse (Chart 3). It would not be unprecedented for monetary policy to become politicized. During WWII, the Fed played an important role in financing defense-bloated budget deficits. And during the Nixon era, Chairman Arthur Burns was justifiably accused of running an overly-expansionary policy to aid the re-election prospects of the President (Chart 4). At a speech last week to a joint session of Congress, President Trump took a more conciliatory tone than in the past on all facets of governing, and did not even mention the Federal Reserve. There were few details on his plans, but the President's repeated mention of infrastructure and "national rebuilding" highlights that an infrastructure spending bill will happen. A major jump in defense spending also appears assured, as are tax cuts for the corporate and household sector. Of primary concern is how the current Administration will choose to finance its fiscal expansion. The temptation to finance higher deficit spending with easy money may be too great. Moreover, with so many vacant spots to fill on the FOMC, it might be far easier to align the Fed with Trump's interests than passing new legislation. Chart 4Impact Of Monetary Shifts Diluting Independence Through The Back Door The discussion on pages 2-3 focused on a potential loss of independence of the Fed via the legislative process. But passing Audit The Fed and other similar bills require a supermajority (60 votes) in the Senate. In January of last year, the Audit the Fed bill could not cross that hurdle. The easier route to bringing the Fed closer in line with the Treasury may simply involve staffing decisions. Recall that the FOMC committee is made up of seven Federal Reserve governors plus five regional Fed Presidents. FOMC members are nominated by the U.S. President and confirmed by the Senate. The full term of a Governor is 14 years and appointments are staggered so that one term expires each even-numbered year. In theory, only one new voting member should be replaced every second year. However, over the course of 2015/16, Obama delayed making nominations. Subsequently, his nominations were not approved by the (Republican) Senate. There are currently three Governor positions available (out of the possible seven). Two vacancies have existed since 2014, and Daniel Tarullo has resigned, effective April 5, 2017. Of the voting regional Fed Presidents, two (Atlanta and Richmond) will be replaced by mid-2018. Regional Fed Presidents are chosen by the Federal Reserve Bank's board of directors and these directors are representatives from member banks. Thus, the President does not have sway over the two Regional bank replacements. However, it is quite likely that the current Vice-Chair Stanley Fischer will retire at the end of his term in June 2018, as possibly Janet Yellen will as well, thus giving President Trump the opportunity to choose a majority of FOMC voting members by the middle of 2018. There is tremendous potential for Trump to put his stamp on the Federal Reserve. What could a Trump-induced Fed look like? There are plenty of names that are circulating. In the Box 1 on page 9, we provide a shortlist of possible candidates. Note that the candidates we list are what we classify as "typical" FOMC nominations. That is, their backgrounds and CVs fit the profile of recent FOMC members. Of course, these members range in hawkishness/dovishness, and so picking a few that rate more hawkishly (dovishly) could speed up (slow down) the march toward higher rates. It is worth noting that our list of candidates are Republican and, based on their track record, would favor a more hawkish bias. A bigger risk to financial markets is that Trump chooses multiple members outside of this pool of candidates, as this would mark a departure from the status quo/inject uncertainty. After all, the President has not shown a particular appreciation for economists in general. For example, President Trump has delayed appointing a Chair to the Council of Economic Advisers and has made it clear that in any case, the Chair will not be part of the President's cabinet (breaking the seven-decade tradition). A diversity of thinking could be a good thing, as one or two new voices would surely bring new ideas and perspectives to the Fed. But we see two major issues. First, six new board members over the next year or so will represent a tremendous changing of the guard at one time. If the President chooses to look outside traditional candidates to fill the majority of the vacant seats, then the FOMC committee is likely to lack experienced policymakers. Politics aside, by 2018, it is possible that only four of the twelve voting FOMC members will be veterans on the committee. Second, as we mentioned above, past presidents have not had to deal with the same temptation to meddle in monetary policy: Trump has been handed the opportunity to influence the Fed much more than past presidents, by virtue of the unprecedented number of FOMC seats to fill and the likelihood that his nominations are likely to be confirmed. Whether he decides to do so is unclear, but it is a risk that investors should bear in mind. A melding of powers between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, should it occur, would be a very powerful structural inflationary force and would be a regime shift from the past couple of decades. Monitoring upcoming appointments over the next several months will help to understand to what extent this is a legitimate risk. Note, however, that for the year ahead, our view of inflation is unchanged; we simply do not believe that the U.S. economy is facing enough supply constraints to generate meaningful inflation pressures. Last week's data reinforces our view. Economy Update: Goldilocks, Continued Last week's major data releases supports our view of an economy that is running neither too hot nor too cold. True, the monthly rise in core PCE (0.3%) was strong, but once again, was driven by only a few components and does not represent broad-based inflation pressures (Chart 5). In particular motor vehicle and apparel prices shot higher, but our diffusion indicator, which measures the number of components with rising versus falling inflation rates, fell into negative territory. It is now widely known that over the past three years, U.S. government statistics softened systematically in the first quarter of the calendar year, while inflation reports tend to be strong in the opening months of the year. Recent consumer spending data continue to follow this yearly trend; PCE spending was on the soft side. We are not overly worried about this weak number, as the bulk of data from other sources continues to paint a much more upbeat picture. For example, the ISM manufacturing and services surveys ticked higher again in February (Chart 6). Respondents' comments were very upbeat. 17 out of 18 industries reported growth, and importantly, the more forward looking component of the survey - new orders - shot higher to near cyclical highs. Chart 5Benign Inflation Outlook Intact Chart 6Economic Momentum Intact In sum, the recent economic data reports continue to point to continued economic expansion. Q1 data disappointments have become the norm, but we continue to expect the economy to achieve real GDP growth greater than 2.5% in 2017. The bond market now expects the Fed to raise interest rates in March; Fed communication has certainly turned in that direction over the past few days. Although the timing of the next rate hike could indeed be pushed forward to March, our economic forecast for 2017 implies that more than three rate hikes this year is still unlikely. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 For more historical background on the politicization of monetary policy, please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?," April 15, 2013. Box 1 Potential New FOMC Members President Trump's view of the Fed appears to be flexible - he has expressed a wide range of opinions about the central bank and its Chair. Unlike Trump's inconsistent views about interest rates, he has been more steady in his belief that Fed positions should be filled by Republicans. Our bias is to expect President Trump's Federal Reserve nominations to be a greater mix of traditional versus non-traditional central banking profiles. Below, we present a shortlist of mainstream Republican economists that may fill a vacancy on the FOMC. It is worth highlighting that a majority of these names have a hawkish bias, which could help mitigate the risk of a more politicized Fed being inherently more inflationary. Our list is by no means exhaustive. John Taylor (Hawkish bias): Taylor is most widely known for The Taylor Rule. He has recently criticized the Fed for being behind the curve, although has not explicitly advocated for a policy change. He also served as Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs from 2001 to 2005. Kevin Warsh (Hawkish bias): A former Morgan Stanley banker (and BCA Conference speaker!) has been forthright with his views that higher interest rates would actually be good for the U.S. economy. Glenn Hubbard (Neutral): Hubbard is Dean of Columbia Business School and has advocated a "wait and see" approach for monetary policy in face of current fiscal uncertainty. Hubbard headed the Council of Economic Advisers under the Bush Administration. Tom Hoenig (Hawkish bias): Hoenig is current FDIC Vice-Chair and former Kansas City Fed President. In the latter position, he was a voting member of the FOMC. Throughout 2010, Hoenig was the lone dissenter on the committee, voting always in favor of a rate hike and for the Fed to move away from ultra-accommodative policy. He is also a harsh critic of "too big to fail".