Fixed Income
Highlights The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and the so-called 'Trump trades' going into reverse. Equity valuation is stretched and plenty of risks remain. Nonetheless, we do not believe it is time to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar. The economic data remain constructive for profits in the major countries. The risks posed by upcoming European elections have eased for 2017, now that the Italian election appears unlikely until 2018. The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. If a tax reform package proves too difficult to pass, then the GOP will settle for straight tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending. Market reaction to the FOMC's 'dovish hike' was overdone. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce a further tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. In Japan, the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar, and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations. This reflects falling perceptions of downside "tail risk", which is reflected in a declining equity risk premium (ERP). Absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside risk should continue to wane, allowing risk premia and asset correlations to ease further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years. The only adjustment to asset allocation we are making this month is an upgrade for U.S. high-yield based on improved valuation. Feature The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and a number of popular trades going into reverse. First, the failure to replace Obamacare triggered a pull-back of the so-called 'Trump trades.' Stock indexes are holding up well, but the U.S. dollar has given back most of the gains made in March and the 10-year Treasury yield has dropped back to the bottom of the post-U.S. election trading range. Moreover, the negative correlation between the U.S. dollar and risk assets has flipped (Chart I-1). Even oil prices have diverged from their usual negative trading relationship with the dollar. Second, investors are questioning the FOMC's appetite for rate hikes in the coming months. They are also wondering how much longer the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) can maintain current hyper-stimulative policy settings. The whole narrative regarding equity strength, a dollar overshoot and bond price weakness may be over if there is not going to be any fiscal stimulus in the U.S., the Fed is not going to hike more aggressively than the market currently expects, and monetary policy is near a turning point in Japan and the Eurozone. Is it time for investors to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar? We believe the answer is 'not yet', although 2017 was always destined to be a rough ride given the ups-and-downs in the U.S. legislative process and the lineup of European elections. President Trump's first 100 days are turning out to be even more tumultuous than many expected. Allegations of wiretaps and the FBI investigation into the alleged interference of Russia in the U.S. election are costing the President political capital, as well as raising question marks over the Republican Party's wish list. Simply removing the possibility of corporate tax cuts would justify a healthy haircut on the S&P 500. The political situation has admittedly become more complicated, but our geopolitical team makes the following observations: The GOP base supports Trump: Until the mid-term elections, Trump's popularity with Republican voters remains strong, which means that the President still has political capital (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Changing Correlations Chart I-2Trump Not Dead To Republicans Yet Republicans want tax reform: Even if reform gets bogged down, there is broad support for cutting taxes at a minimum. Many deficit hawks appear willing to use the magic of "dynamic scoring" to justify tax cuts as revenue-neutral. Even the chairman of the Freedom Caucus has signaled that he is open to tax reform that is not revenue neutral. Tax reform not conditional on Obamacare: The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. The Republicans will need to show success on at least one of their signature platforms before heading into the mid-term elections. The prospective savings from Obamacare's repeal are not needed to "fund" tax cuts. Infrastructure: We still expect that President Trump will get his way on additional spending on defense, veterans, infrastructure and the wall. The tax reform process will undoubtedly be full of drama and may be stretched out, adding volatility to the equity market. Our base case is that some sort of tax reform and infrastructure package will be passed by year end. However, if a reform package proves too difficult to pass, then we believe that the GOP will settle for straight-forward tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending (please see Table I-1 in the March 2017 monthly Bank Credit Analyst for the probabilities we have attached to the various GOP proposals). Tax cuts and increased spending will be positive for risk assets. The caveat is that we see little change in Trump's commitment to mercantilism. This means he will lean toward backing the border tax or tariff increases, which will offset some of the benefits for risk assets from reduced tax rates. Excess Reaction To FOMC Chart I-3FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year Given the uncertainty on the fiscal side, one can't blame the FOMC for taking a "wait and see" approach. The range for the funds rate was raised to 0.75-1.00% at the March meeting, as expected, but there was virtually no change to any of the median FOMC member projections for GDP growth, inflation or interest rates out to 2019. Another 50 bps of tightening is expected by the Committee this year, with 75 bps expected in both 2018 and 2019 (Chart I-3). The FOMC signaled in March that it was not yet prepared to adjust the 'dot plot,' sparking a rally in bond prices and a pullback in the dollar. This market reaction seemed excessive in our view. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target, as highlighted by the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Is The Dollar Bull Over? Still, recent market action suggests that the dollar may not get a lift from future Fed rate hikes because the outlook for global growth outside of the U.S. is brightening. Moreover, it could be that monetary policy in the Eurozone and Japan is at a turning point. There is increasing speculation that the ECB will have to taper the quantitative easing program sooner than planned. Some are even speculating the ECB will lift rates this year. The recent economic data for the euro area have indeed been stellar. The composite PMI surged to 56.7 in March, with the forward-looking new orders components hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart I-4). In addition, private-sector credit growth has accelerated to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Our real GDP model for the Eurozone, based on our consumer and business spending indicators, remains quite upbeat for the first half of the year. With unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish a consensus view on the ECB policy committee. The Bundesbank has been quite vocal on this issue, especially given that Eurozone headline HICP inflation reached 2% in February. The core rate of inflation remains close to 1%, but the rising diffusion index suggests that budding inflation pressure is becoming more broadly based (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Solid Eurozone Economic Data Chart I-5Eurozone Inflation Broadening Out BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently compared the current economic situation to that of the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum."1 In Chart I-6, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for the Euro Area and U.S. In the Euro Area, the number of months to the first rate hike discounted in money markets peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, this indicator has converged with the U.S. path. There is less spare capacity in European labor markets today than was the case in the U.S. when the Fed first hinted at tapering its asset purchases. Nonetheless, the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to rush to judgment on asset purchases, especially given upcoming elections. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce another tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. We do not believe that the ECB will raise short-term interest rates before it starts the tapering process. A rate hike would result in a stronger euro, downward pressure on inflation, and an unwanted tightening in financial conditions that would threaten the current economic impulse. This means that, between now and September, the window is still open for U.S./Eurozone interest rate spreads to move further in favor of the dollar. The European election calendar remains a risk to our view on currencies and risk assets. Widening OAT/Bund yield spreads highlight that investors remain concerned that the French election will follow last year's populist script in the U.K. and the U.S. However, our geopolitical team believes that Le Pen is unlikely to win since she trails in the polls by a 25-30% margin relative to Macron, her most likely opponent. Even if she were to pull off a win, she will not hold the balance of power in the National Assembly. Over in Germany, where the election is heating up, the fact that the Europhile SPD party is gaining in the polls means that the September vote is unlikely to be a speed bump for financial markets. The real political risk lies in Italy. While the election has been pushed off to February 2018, it appears that there will be genuine fireworks at that time because Euroskeptic parties have seized the lead in the polls (Chart I-7). In the meantime, European elections will be a source of volatility, but investors should ride it out until we get closer to the Italian election. Chart I-6Less Spare Capacity In Europe ##br##Now Vs. Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Chart I-7Italian Elections: The Big Risk Japanese Yield Cap To Hold Chart I-8Japanese Wages Still Disappointing Similar to our view on the ECB, we do not believe that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) will be in a position to begin removing monetary accommodation anytime soon. We expect that the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. True, deflationary forces appear to have eased somewhat. Japan is also benefiting from the faster global growth on the industrial side. Nonetheless, the domestic demand story is less positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. Wages continue to struggle as well (Chart I-8). This year's round of Japanese wage negotiations was particularly disappointing, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus making the yen weaken alongside increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the outlook for the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Admittedly, however, the next major move in global yields may not occur until the autumn when the ECB takes a less dovish tone. In the meantime, our fixed-income strategists remain underweight Treasurys within global currency-hedged portfolios. The team recently upgraded (low beta) JGBs to overweight at the expense of core European government bonds, which move to benchmark. Correlation, ERP And Hurdle Rates Chart I-9Market Correlations Are Shifting Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations, a trend that began before the U.S. election (Chart I-9). Elevated financial market correlations have been a hallmark of this expansion, making life difficult for traders and for investors searching for diversification. Correlations have been higher than normal across assets, across regions and within asset classes. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. A drop in asset correlations is important for diversification reasons and because it provides a better backdrop for those seeking alpha. But the reasons behind the decline in correlations may have broader financial and economic implications. One can only speculate on the underlying cause of the surge in asset correlations in the first place. Our theory has been that the large global output gap lingered because of the sub-par recovery that followed the most damaging macroeconomic shock since the Great Depression. The growth headwinds were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged solely on the success or failure of radical monetary policy. Either policy would "work", the output gap will gradually close, the deflation threat would be extinguished and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail, and risk assets would be dragged down as the economy fell back into recession. Thus, risk assets fluctuated along with violent swings in investor sentiment in what appeared to be a binary economic environment. In the March 2017 Quarterly Review, the Bank for International Settlements described it this way: "In a global environment devoid of growth but plentiful in liquidity, central bank decisions appear to draw investors into common, successive phases of buying or selling risk." In previous research, we developed a model that helps to explain the historical movements in correlations. We chose to focus on the correlation of individual stocks within the S&P 500 (Chart I-10). The two explanatory variables are: (1) the equity risk premium (ERP; the difference between the S&P 500 forward earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield); and (2) rolling 1-year realized downside volatility.2 The logic behind the model is that a higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. Conversely, a lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious include an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Volatility is included to explain the cyclical variation of correlations, but we use only below-average returns in the calculation because we are more concerned about the risk of equity market declines. It makes sense that perceptions of downside "tail risk" should affect investors' appetite for risk. The model almost completely explains the trend in stock price correlations over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the ERP in driving the structural change in correlations (Chart I-11). But why was the ERP so elevated after 2007? Chart I-10Market Correlation And The ERP Chart I-11Modeling The Stock ##br##Correlation Within The S&P 500 The preceding moderation in risk premia in the 1990s was likely due to a decline in macroeconomic volatility, a phenomenon that began in the early 1980s and has since been dubbed "The Great Moderation". A waning in the volatility of global inflation and growth contributed to a decline in the volatility of interest rates, which are used to discount future cash flows. This also reduced the perceived riskiness of investing in securities that are leveraged to economic growth, thus causing investors to trim their required excess returns to equities. Unfortunately, the Great Moderation contributed to complacency and bubbles in tech stocks and, later, housing.3 The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble brought the Great Moderation to a crushing end, ushering in an era of rolling financial crises and monetary extremism. Our measure of downside volatility soon returned to normal levels after the recession-driven spike. However, the ERP continued to fluctuate at a higher average level, which helps to explain the strong correlation among risk asset prices in the years since the recession. The ERP And Capital Spending Chart I-12Capex Hurdle Rates Never Came Down An elevated equity risk premium is consistent with the view that investors demanded a more generous premium to take risk in a post-Lehman world. This may also help to explain the disappointing rate of capital spending growth in the major countries in recent years. Firms demanded a fat "hurdle rate" when evaluating new investment projects. Sir John Cunliffe, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, recently cited survey evidence related to the dismal U.K. capital spending record since the recession.4 The main culprits were bank lending issues, the high cost of capital and elevated hurdle rates. Eighty percent of publically-owned firms in the survey agreed that financial market pressure for short-term returns to shareholders had been an obstacle to investment. This short-termism makes sense if investors feared that the recovery could turn to bust at any moment. The survey highlighted that market pressure, together with macro uncertainty among CEOs, kept the hurdle rate applied to new investment projects at close to 12%, despite the major drop in market interest rates. In other words, the gap between the required rate-of-return on new projects and the risk-free rate or corporate borrowing rates surged (Chart I-12). J.P. Morgan concluded that hurdle rates have also been sticky at around 12% in the U.S.5 This study blamed uncertainty over the cash-flow outlook (macro risk) and the fact that CEOs believed that low borrowing rates are temporary. It is rational for a firm to hold cash and buy back stock if perceptions of downside tail risk remain lofty. The bottom line is that uncertainty and higher risk aversion related to macro volatility kept the ERP elevated, curtailing animal spirits and lifting correlation among risk asset prices. The good news is that the situation appears to have changed since the U.S. election. Measures of market correlation have dropped sharply across asset classes, within asset classes and across regions. Animal spirits also appear to be reviving given the jump in consumer and business confidence in the major countries. We are not making the case that all risks have dissipated. The military situation in North Korea and upcoming European elections are just two on a long list, as highlighted in this month's Special Report on Brexit's implication for Scotland independence, beginning on page 19. Our point is that, absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside tail risk and a binary economic future should wane further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can now focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Does The ERP Have More Downside? It is difficult to determine the equilibrium equity risk premium, but back-of-the-envelope estimates can provide a ballpark figure. Let us assume that the ERP is not going back into negative territory, as was the case from 1980-2000. A more reasonable assumption is that the ERP instead converges with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003 to 2007 (about +200 basis points). The ERP is currently 3.2, which is equal to the forward earnings yield of 5.6 minus the 10-year yield of 2.4% (Chart I-13). The ERP would need to fall by 120 basis points to get back to the 2% average yield of 2003-2007. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or a higher bond yield. If the 10-year Treasury yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3%, then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 60 basis points. This would boost the earnings multiple from 17.8 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We lean to the latter scenario for bonds, although it will take some time for the bond bear phase to play out. In the meantime, an equity overshoot is possible. The bottom line is that much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years, although that will be much better than the (likely negative) returns in the bond market. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets where value is less stretched, such as the euro area and Japan, over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Europe is about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. index, although the extra value in the Japanese market has dissipated recently (Chart I-14). Moreover, both Eurozone and Japanese stocks in local currency terms will benefit from weaker currencies in the coming months, as rising inflation expectations and stable nominal interest rates result in declining in real rates, at least relative to the U.S. Chart I-13Forward Multiple Scenarios Chart I-14Eurozone Stocks Are Cheap Conclusion We have reassessed our asset allocation given that several market calls have gone against us over the past month. However, three key views argue to stay the course for now: Recent economic data support our view that a synchronized global acceleration is underway. This is highlighted by an update of the real GDP growth models we introduced last month (Chart I-15). The implication is that earnings growth will be constructive for stocks; Tax reform is still likely to be passed this year in the U.S. Moreover, were a broad tax reform package to elude the Administration, the fallback position will involve (stimulative) tax cuts, some infrastructure spending and de-regulation; and The FOMC will shift to a more hawkish tone in the coming months, while the ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan will maintain extremely accommodative monetary policy at least into the fall. The result is that stocks will outperform cash and bonds, while the dollar still has another 10% upside potential. The only adjustment we are making this month is in the U.S. high-yield corporate bond allocation. According to our fixed-income strategists, value has improved enough that it is worth upgrading the sector to overweight at the expense of Treasurys. Some of the indicators that comprise our default rate model have become more constructive for credit risk, including lending standards, the PMIs and profits. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default rate outlook have resulted in a widening in our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread to 219 basis points (Chart I-16). Historically, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 81% of the time when the default-adjusted spread is between 200 and 250 basis points. Chart I-15GDP Models Are Bullish Chart I-16Upgrade U.S. High Yield Turning to oil markets, we expect recent price weakness to reverse despite dollar strength. Building inventories have weighed on crude, but this is a head fake according to our commodity experts. We expect to see a sustained draw in OECD storage volumes this year, now that the year-end surge on crude product from OPEC's Gulf producers has been fully absorbed. With global supply/demand fundamentals now dominating price movements, the recent breakdown in the inverse correlation between oil prices and the dollar should persist. Oil prices will rise back toward the US$55 range that we believe will be the central tendency over 2016 and 2017. Risks are to the upside. Our other recommendations include: Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Shift to benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and upgrade JGBs to overweight within currency-hedged portfolios. The U.S. remains at underweight. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged portfolios. Be defensively positioned within equity sectors to temper the risk associated with overweighting stocks over bonds. In U.S. equities, maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that rely heavily on imports. Overweight investment-grade corporate bonds relative to government issues in the U.S.; upgrade U.S. high-yield to overweight, but downgrade European investment-grade to underweight due to fading support from the ECB. Within European government bond portfolios, continue to avoid the Periphery in favor of the core markets. Fade the widening in French/German spreads. Overweight the dollar relative to the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market, on expected policy changes that will disproportionately favor small companies. Favor oil to base metals. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 30, 2017 Next Report: April 27, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?" dated March 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Downside volatility is calculated in a fashion similar to standard deviation, except only using below-average returns. 3 Of course, the Great Moderation was not the only factor that contributed to the financial market bubbles. 4 Are Firms Underinvesting - and if so why? Speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability and Member of the Monetary Policy Committee. Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. February 8, 2017. 5 It's Time to Reassess Your Hurdle Rates. J.P. Morgan, November 2016. II. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? This month's Special Report, on Scotland's role in Brexit negotiations, was penned by our colleagues Matt Gertken, Marko Papic, and Jesse Kurri of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Scottish secessionist sentiment has increased in response to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's decision to push for a second popular referendum on Scottish independence, tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019, though likely to be denied for some time by Westminster. The outcome of a referendum on leaving the U.K., which eventually will occur, is too close to call at this point. The possibility will influence the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, and vice versa. The risk of a U.K. break-up adds an important constraint to Prime Minister Theresa May's government in the Brexit talks. Since the EU also has an interest in avoiding a devastating outcome for the U.K., our geopolitical team believes that the worst version of a "hard Brexit" will be avoided. That said, independence for Scotland cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s divorce proceedings. I trust that you will find the report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the "Great Repeal Bill" that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the "Phoney War" has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart II-1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart II-2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart II-3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart II-1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart II-2...Is Looking More Likely Chart II-3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, the outcome will be "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss why, and how Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "the End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland resented the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. If that had happened in 2014, it was estimated that the country's fiscal deficit would have been 5.9% of GDP and that its national debt would have been 109% of GDP. (Today those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively) (Table II-1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Table II-1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart II-4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Chart II-4Highly Financialized Societies Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart II-5). Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. Chart II-5Three Cheers For Brexit And The Tories It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that a new independence vote would be justified in case of "a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will." Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart II-6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart II-7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart II-6Immigration Curbs ##br##Threaten Scots Growth Chart II-7Scottish Patriots ##br##Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart II-8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart II-9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart II-10). Chart II-8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart II-9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies Chart II-10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart II-11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Chart II-12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts II-13 and II-14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart II-15). Chart II-13Irish Independence: ##br##Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart II-14Scotland: If The Irish ##br##Can Do It So Can We Chart II-15EU Market No ##br##Substitute For British Market Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart II-16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart II-17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while their elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart II-16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart II-17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart II-18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart II-19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart II-18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart II-19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, though of course Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart II-5, page 24). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism and migration, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the common market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the common market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down 2%. This suggests that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer this currency trade as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Jesse Anak Kuri Research Analyst Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also may work against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 index has pulled back from its recent highs, but it has not corrected enough to 'move the dial' in terms of the valuation or technical indicators. Stocks remain expensive based on our valuation index made up of 11 different measures. The technical indicator is still bullish. Our equity monetary indicator has dropped back to the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. The speculation index is elevated, however, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our composite sentiment index and the low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. Net earnings revisions remain close to the zero mark, although it is somewhat worrying that the earnings surprises index is slowly deteriorating. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. However, the widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking ahead, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as some of the economic headwinds fade. The composite technical indicator for the 10-year Treasury shows that oversold conditions are unwinding, although the indicator is not yet back to zero. This suggests that the consolidation period for bonds is not yet complete. Oversold conditions are almost completely gone in terms of the U.S. dollar. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. We believe the dollar has more upside. Technical conditions are also benign in the commodity complex. However, we are only bullish on oil at the moment. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China
Highlights Spread Product: Any near-term correction in risk assets is likely to be fleeting. Investors should take the opportunity to increase credit exposure and maintain overweight spread product allocations on a 6-12 month horizon. Duration: Our 2-factor Global PMI model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.54%. Economy: U.S. economic growth will remain solidly above-trend this year, helped along by renewed strength in both residential and non-residential investment. Above-trend growth will ensure that inflation remains in its current gradual uptrend. Feature Chart 1Back Above 400 bps The reflation trade has come under question during the past couple of weeks. The S&P 500 is 1.7% off its recent high, the VIX has bounced and the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is back above 400 basis points (Chart 1). After such a move, it is reasonable to ask if the economic landscape has changed enough to warrant a reversal of our current overweight spread product allocation. We think not, and we advise investors to buy the dips, adding credit risk to their portfolios from more attractive levels. This week we examine why risk assets are vulnerable to a near-term correction, but also why these corrections are likely to be short lived. On a 6-12 month investment horizon we continue to recommend a pro-risk portfolio characterized by: below-benchmark duration, overweight spread product, curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners. Three Catalysts For A Near-Term Sell Off... Three main factors suggest that risk assets might continue to correct in the near-term. The first is that Fed rate hike expectations might be increasing too quickly. Chart 2 shows the fed funds rate that is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the end of this year. The lower dashed horizontal line is the level consistent with one more rate hike between now and the end of the year. The higher dashed horizontal line is the level consistent with two more rate hikes between now and the end of the year. We see that risk assets were able to handle the shift in rate expectations up to the lower dashed line with no trouble. The yield curve steepened and the cost of inflation compensation rose (Chart 2, bottom panel). But now, as rate expectations approach the higher dashed line, the reflation trade is starting to fray. The yield curve has started to flatten and TIPS breakevens are rolling over. A second reason why risk assets might sell-off in the near-term is the still elevated level of economic policy uncertainty (Chart 3, top panel). Last Friday, markets hung on every word related to the likelihood of a new healthcare bill being passed. Now that the bill has failed, attention will turn quickly to tax reform. It is very likely that risk assets will suffer if it appears as though tax reform will be delayed or scrapped altogether. Importantly, it is the opinion of our Geopolitical Strategy service that tax reform will be passed before the end of the year.1 Chart 2How Much Hawkishness Can Markets Take? Chart 3Correction Catalysts? A third reason why risk assets are vulnerable to a near-term correction is that investors have bought into the reflation trade, and sentiment is extremely bullish (Chart 3, bottom panel). Surveys of investors conducted by Yale University show that 99% of investors expect the Dow to increase during the coming year, while simultaneously only 47% of investors characterize the stock market as "not too high" relative to its fundamental value. The divergence in itself suggests that the equity rally is built on a shaky foundation. It seems likely that either confidence needs to wane or valuations need to correct for the rally to be prolonged. ...But The Fed Cycle Trumps Them All In previous reports2 we outlined the four phases of the Fed Cycle (see Box), and observed that in all likelihood we are currently in Phase I. Box: The Four Phases Of The Fed Cycle Chart 4Stylized Fed Cycle The four phases of the Fed Cycle are illustrated in Chart 4 and defined as follows: Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above its equilibrium (or neutral) level. Phase II represents the late stage of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in an effort to slow the economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate descends to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. In Phase I, the Fed has begun to remove monetary accommodation but still needs inflation to rise back to target. In other words, if risk assets sell off and financial conditions start to tighten the Fed will adopt a more dovish policy stance to ensure that the recovery persists and inflation continues to trend higher. We note that core PCE inflation is running at 1.74% year-over-year, still below the Fed's 2% target. Further, the St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure3 is signaling only a 19% chance that PCE inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next twelve months, and market-based measures of inflation compensation are well below levels that are consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 5). Chart 5Fed Still Needs Higher Inflation In this environment, if risk assets sell off because of overly aggressive rate hike expectations, fiscal policy disappointments or over-extended sentiment, the Fed will quickly adopt a more dovish policy stance, lending support to the reflation trade. Of course, if any of the catalysts for the market correction also cause a severe contraction in economic growth, then the reflation trade would face a more lasting setback. However, none of the three reasons for a market correction listed above seem likely to have significant pass-through effects on the economy. Even if fiscal stimulus turns out to be much less than was previously anticipated, there appears to be sufficient momentum in economic growth to maintain inflation on its upward trajectory (see section titled "Above-Trend Growth: Aided By Housing & Capex" below). It follows from this analysis of the Fed Cycle that a strategy of "buying the dips" should work whenever we are in an environment where the Fed needs inflation to move higher. It is only when inflation is more firmly anchored around the Fed's target that the Fed will be less willing to support markets, making a "buy the dips" strategy less effective. To test this theory, we devised a trading rule for high-yield bonds where we buy the High-Yield index whenever spreads widen by 20 bps or more during a month. We then hold that position for a period ranging from 1 to 3 months and calculate excess returns relative to duration-matched Treasuries during that period. Our goal is to see if the effectiveness of this "buy the dips" strategy differs depending on the stage of the Fed Cycle. For this test we define the stages of the Fed Cycle using the aforementioned St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure, which we split into four ranges: 0% to 15%: An environment of very limited inflation pressure most consistent with Phase IV of the Fed Cycle. 15% to 30%: Still muted inflation pressures. Roughly consistent with Phase I of the Fed Cycle. 30% to 50%: Rising inflation pressures, but still less than a 50% chance that PCE will exceed 2.5% in the coming 12 months. This likely coincides with some Phase I periods and some Phase II periods of the Fed Cycle. 50% to 70%: Strong inflation pressures, and a good chance of inflation overshooting the Fed's target. Most likely coincides with Phase II or Phase III of the Fed Cycle. We indeed find that a "buy the dips" strategy is more effective when inflation pressures are lower (Table 1). A strategy of buying the junk index after spreads widen by at least 20 bps and holding it for three months produces positive excess returns 65% of the time when the St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure is between 0% and 15%. This same strategy works 59% of the time when the Price Pressures Measure is between 15% and 30%, 44% of the time when the Measure is between 30% and 50% and only 25% of the time when the Measure is between 50% and 70%. Table 1High-Yield Corporate Bond Returns* Achieved By Holding The Junk Index Following ##br##A 20 BPs Widening In High-Yield Corporate OAS** Under Different Ranges##br## Of The St. Louis Fed Price Pressure Measure*** (February 1994 To Present) With the Price Pressures Measure at only 19% currently, we advise investors to increase exposure to spread product on any near-term correction. Bottom Line: Any near-term correction in risk assets is likely to be fleeting. Investors should take the opportunity to increase credit exposure and maintain overweight spread product allocations on a 6-12 month horizon. Above-Trend Growth: Aided By Housing & Capex For the analysis of the Fed cycle performed above to be applicable, we must have confidence in the view that GDP will continue to grow at an above-trend pace. That is, growth must at least be strong enough to remove slack from the labor market and cause inflation to trend gradually higher. This has mostly been the case since measures of core inflation bottomed in early 2015 and we see no evidence at the moment to suggest it is about to change. In fact, measures of global growth most relevant for Treasury yields have hooked up strongly in recent months, and our model now suggests that fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is 2.54% (Chart 6). At the time of publication the 10-year yield was 2.40%. The fair value reading from our model moved higher during the past month even though PMIs in both the U.S. and Japan ticked down. This negative move was offset by an acceleration in Eurozone PMI and a decline in bullish sentiment toward the dollar (Chart 6, bottom two panels). Less bullish dollar sentiment is a signal that the global recovery is becoming more synchronized which means that U.S. Treasury yields must rise more quickly for a given level of global growth.4 Returning to the U.S. growth outlook specifically, a recent BCA Special Report 5 showed that cyclical spending as a percent of overall GDP is an excellent leading indicator of economic downturns (Chart 7). Cyclical spending has been relatively firm as a percent of GDP during the past couple of years, and would have been stronger if not for stagnant residential investment (Chart 7, panel 3) and contracting non-residential investment in equipment & software (Chart 7, bottom panel). However, leading indicators suggest that both of these factors should shift from being sources of disappointment to sources of strength in the coming months. Chart 610-Year Treasury Fair Value Model Chart 7Cyclical Spending Is Firm... Chart 8 shows the year-over-year change in each of the three cyclical components of GDP as a percent of overall growth alongside a reliable leading indicator. Consumer confidence suggests that consumer spending on durables will remain firm (Chart 8, panel 1). Our composite indicator of New Orders surveys also points to a rebound in nonresidential investment on equipment & software (Chart 8, panel 2). In prior reports we observed that nonresidential investment was held back by the 2014 oil price shock and should recover now that oil prices have found a floor.6 Also, any potential benefit from a more favorable tax and regulatory environment under the new federal government would only increase the upside for capex. Residential investment as a percent of GDP also rolled over last year, but homebuilder confidence has been trending sharply higher during the past few months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Home construction will be strong this year, despite the recent increase in mortgage rates. As was recently observed by our U.S. Investment Strategy service,7 the constraint on housing demand since the financial crisis has not come from un-affordable monthly mortgage payments. In fact, we calculate that even if mortgage rates rise by another 200 bps from current levels, the mortgage payment as a percent of income for the median household would still be below its long-run average (Chart 9). Chart 8...And Likely To Increase Chart 9Higher Rates Won't Kill Housing Rather, the constraint on housing demand has come from insufficient savings on the part of potential first time homebuyers relative to required down payments. This constraint can only subside as household savings increase and mortgage lending standards ease, two trends that are ongoing. Finally, housing supply is approaching historically low levels relative to demand (Chart 9, bottom panel) even including the "shadow inventory" from foreclosed properties which has now mostly vanished in any case. With supply at such depressed levels and demand likely to remain firm, it is no wonder that homebuilders are feeling more confident. Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth will remain solidly above-trend this year, helped along by renewed strength in both residential and non-residential investment. Above-trend growth will ensure that inflation remains in its current gradual uptrend. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was", dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 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 3 A composite of 104 economic indicators designed to capture the probability of PCE inflation exceeding 2.5% during the subsequent 12 month period. https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure 4 A more detailed explanation of the inverse relationship between dollar sentiment and Treasury yields can be found in the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Another Update", dated January 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession", dated March 7, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Housing: What Comes Next?", dated March 27, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights U.S. Treasuries: The surprisingly positive response from financial markets to last week's Fed rate hike should force the Fed to quickly shift back to a hawkish bias. Maintain an underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries, and an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Bearish Fed Trade: As a new tactical trade, go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract to benefit from the Fed ramping up the hawkish language again. Japan: Japanese inflation remains too low for the Bank of Japan to move away from its 0% target on JGB yields anytime soon, even with signs of better Japanese growth and rising pressure on global bond yields. Upgrade low-beta Japan to above-benchmark in global hedged bond portfolios, while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands) to neutral. Feature Chart of the WeekAre Central Banks OK With This? The major central banks all had a chance to send a more hawkish message to the markets in the past couple of weeks, and every one took a pass. Even the Fed, who actually hiked rates, signaled that U.S. monetary policy would not be tightened more aggressively than previously planned, which financial markets took very bullishly. With the global economy finally enjoying a synchronized upturn after several years of sluggishness, policymakers are showing no interest in hitting the brakes too hard, too soon and risking a sudden downturn in growth The current backdrop of improving economic momentum, with central banks remaining accommodative, is sustaining the strong performance of growth-sensitive assets like equities and corporate debt over government bonds. This should continue over the next 6-12 months. Inflation rates, both realized and expected, continue to rise across the developed economies alongside faster economic growth, putting upward pressure on government bond yields (Chart of the Week). Central bank dovishness is looking increasingly non-credible as long as this dynamic persists, but policymakers will likely be slow to respond without a more rapid rise in inflation. Bond yields will continue to climb higher against this backdrop, first from continued increases in inflation expectations and, later, from a shift to less restrictive monetary settings. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance, while underweighting government bonds versus corporate debt, particularly in the U.S. This week, we are making a significant portfolio shift to get even more defensive within our government bond allocation, upgrading low-beta Japan to above-benchmark while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France & the Netherlands) to neutral. The Fed Declares Victory Over "Low-flation" The market response to last week's Fed tightening was consistent with the idea of a "dovish hike", with U.S. equity and bond markets rallying while the U.S. dollar sold off and overall U.S. financial conditions actually easing. There was heightened nervousness heading into the meeting that the Fed could signal a faster or steeper trajectory for interest rates. That turned out to be a false alarm, as not much was changed from the Fed's prior guidance to markets. The range for the funds rate was raised to 0.75-1.00%, as expected, but there was virtually no change to any of the median FOMC member projections for GDP growth, inflation or interest rates out to 2019. Another 50bps of increases are expected this year, with 75bps in both 2018 and 2019 (Chart 2). This would bring the funds rate to 3% in 2019, which is the median FOMC member's assessment of where the terminal rate lies. The pricing from the U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that market expectations for the funds rate are in line with the Fed's projections for this year, but lower for the next two years. Our proxy measure for the market's assessment of the terminal rate - the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward - sits at 2.25%, 75bps below the Fed's number. Our bias is closer to the market on this point, as we do not see a need for the funds rate, in real terms, to end this tightening cycle much above 0% against a backdrop of still very high U.S. debt levels and low U.S. productivity growth. A 0% real funds rate would be the result of the Fed successfully getting U.S. inflation expectations back to its 2% target level, with a nominal funds rate of 2%. That inflation goal has not yet been reached, however, as inflation expectations are still below levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 2FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year Chart 3Few Signs Of An Overheating U.S. Economy The FOMC has made it clear that they believe the U.S. economy is running very close to full employment. Yet the recent modest deceleration in the various measures of wage inflation (middle panel) suggests that there could still be some excess slack in the U.S. labor market - even with the recent Payrolls reports showing job growth of over 200k per month. If that pace is sustained for several months, however, the unemployment rate will likely fall further and wage pressures will intensify. In the near-term, the Fed will continue to focus on financial markets to get a sense of whether current policy settings are too restrictive or too accommodative. One recent development on this front is that the correlation between the U.S. dollar (USD) and risk assets has flipped, with a stronger USD now positively correlated to global equities and credit (Chart 4). This shift was already starting to happen before the election of Donald Trump and his pro-growth agenda last November, likely because the global economy was improving as evidenced by the accelerating trend in our global purchasing managers' index (PMI, bottom panel). We have written extensively about the Fed being stuck in a "policy loop" in the past couple of years, where a shift to a more hawkish bias would sharply drive up the USD and cause a risk-off move in global financial markets. This unwanted tightening of financial conditions would cause the Fed to back off from its hawkishness, causing the USD to soften and markets to rally. We have argued that the way to break out of this loop would likely be a rise in non-U.S. economic growth that would allow the Fed to continue slowly normalizing U.S. monetary policy without disrupting global markets. We seem to be in that period now. One implication of this is that the longer risk assets can withstand rising U.S. interest rates and a stronger USD, the more the fed funds rate and U.S. Treasury yields must rise in response to U.S. economic strength. For this reason, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance on U.S. Treasuries on a 6-12 month horizon. We also maintain our bias towards a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve through our butterfly trade, long the 5-year bullet versus a duration-matched 2-year/10-year barbell. The curve will remain positively correlated to inflation expectations until those reach the Fed's target level, after which any additional Fed rate hikes will likely flatten the yield curve in a more typical pattern during the latter stages of a tightening cycle. It is possible, though, that because markets shrugged off the latest rate increase, the Fed could return to sending hawkish signals in the near term. To play for this possibility, our colleagues at BCA U.S. Bond Strategy recommend that investors add a tactical trade: going short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 5). We are today adding this trade to our list of Tactical Overlay Trades (see page 12). Chart 4The Strong USD Is Not A Problem Chart 5Go Short January 2018 Fed Funds Futures We calculate that this trade will return 11bps in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates twice more before the end of the year and 37bps in a scenario where the funds rate is raised a more aggressive-than-expected three times. However, we do not expect to hold this trade until the end of the year. Rather, we expect the Fed will nudge rate expectations higher in the next month or two in response to the latest easing of financial conditions, and that these gains will be realized over a much shorter horizon. We also add a caveat that, in the present environment, it is safer to implement any "hawkish Fed trades" in either fed funds futures or the OIS market. The Eurodollar market does not provide the same potential for gains because the LIBOR / OIS spread is currently elevated and could tighten to offset the profits from rising rate expectations. Bottom Line: The surprisingly positive response from financial markets to last week's Fed rate hike could force the Fed to quickly shift back to a hawkish bias. Maintain below-benchmark exposure to U.S. Treasuries. As a new tactical trade, go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract to benefit from the Fed ramping up the hawkish language again. Japan: A Weaker Yen Is Still The Only Way Out The Bank of Japan (BoJ) stayed on hold last week, as expected. There had been some increased speculation of late that the BoJ could start to signal a potential increase in its 0% target for the 10-year Japanese Government Bond (JGB) yield, given the rising trend in global yields and signs of better growth in Japan. At the press conference following the BoJ meeting, however, Governor Kuroda shot down that notion, saying that the current accommodative policy stance must be maintained given how far Japanese inflation is below the central bank's 2% target. It remains far too soon for the central bank to signal any shift to a less accommodative stance, as both the pace of economic growth and inflation are not only modest but lagging the current global upturn. In Chart 6, we show some Japanese growth variables relative to an aggregate of the same data for the major developed economies.1 What is clear from the chart is that Japan is benefitting from faster global growth on the industrial side, with the manufacturing PMI above 50. However, the domestic demand story is not as positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. The lack of real income growth remains the biggest drag on Japanese consumers, as we show in another set of international comparisons in Chart 7. Japan's unemployment rate, currently at 3%, is below the OECD's estimate of the full employment level (consistent with stable domestic inflation pressures). This is in contrast to the other major economies, which are either at, or close to, full employment. Yet Japanese wages continue to struggle, both in nominal terms (a year-over-over growth rate of 1%) and real terms (a year-over-year growth rate of 0.4%). The current annual spring round of Japanese wage negotiations is showing that downward pressure remains powerful, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year.2 Chart 6Japan Is Lagging The Global Upturn Chart 7Still No Wage Growth In Japan Japan is still struggling to generate positive rates of inflation, even as price growth is accelerating in the other major economies (Chart 8). This is keeping Japanese inflation expectations, which the BoJ believes are mostly a function of the recent performance of actual inflation, subdued. As always, the only reliable source of Japanese inflation seems to be yen weakness. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus weakening the yen through increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. The BoJ's 0% yield curve targeting framework has been successful in keeping rate differentials wide enough to soften up the yen, especially against the USD (Chart 9). Given our expectations of additional Fed rate hikes, and higher U.S. Treasury yields, over the rest of the year, the yen will likely depreciate further as long as the BoJ sticks with its current interest rate targets. A similar argument holds for the yen versus the Euro, given the increasing likelihood that the European Central Bank (ECB) will be forced to signal a less accommodative monetary policy stance later this year. Against this backdrop, JGBs are likely to outperform the major global government bond markets over the rest of 2017. We upgraded our recommended stance on JGBs from underweight to neutral last October after the BoJ introduced its yield curve targeting framework. In Chart 10, we show the relative performance of JGBs versus some other bond benchmarks, on a duration-matched and common-currency (hedged into USD) basis. We broke up the returns into two periods, from our October 11, 2016 Japan upgrade to January 31 of this year when we upgraded our U.S. corporate bond exposure and cut our overall portfolio duration stance to below-benchmark. The chart shows that JGBs were a good defensive hedge during the latter part of 2016 when global yields were rising, led by U.S. Treasuries. The more recent period, however, shows a much more negligible relative performance, both against other government bonds and corporate debt, during a period where global bond yields have generally traded sideways. Chart 8Japan Inflation Still A No-Show Chart 9A Weaker Yen Is Still Necessary Chart 10Relative Performance Of JGBs Given our views that U.S. Treasury yields will continue to move higher in the next 6-9 months, and that the performance of core European government bonds will suffer over the same period as the ECB signals a slower pace of asset purchases for next year, a return to the late 2016 relative performance of JGBs is very likely. Thus, we are upgrading Japan to an above-benchmark stance in our model portfolio this week, while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands) to neutral. This is purely a move to get even more defensive in our overall country exposures, by allocating into JGBs which are low-beta to both U.S. Treasuries (where we are already below-benchmark) and core European government debt. Bottom Line: Japanese inflation remains too low for the Bank of Japan to move away from its 0% target on JGB yields anytime soon, even with signs of better Japanese growth and rising pressure on global bond yields. Upgrade Japan to above-benchmark in global hedged bond portfolios, while downgrading core Europe (Germany, France, the Netherlands) to neutral. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The U.S., Euro Area, U.K., Canada & Australia 2 https://www.ft.com/content/0895c4ee-eb3b-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4 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 Duration & Fed Policy: The longer risk assets can withstand rising rates, the higher will be the ultimate resting place for Treasury yields. Maintain below-benchmark duration on a 6-12 month horizon and add a short fed funds futures trade to profit from increased Fed hawkishness in the near-term. Yield Curve: While the long-run trend will be for the yield curve to flatten as the Fed hiking cycle progresses, rising inflation expectations will cause the curve to steepen between now and the end of the year. Maintain a position long the 5-year bullet, short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell to profit from a steeper curve on a 6-9 month horizon. Feature Say Uncle Chart 1More Tightening To Come The Fed lifted rates last week but kept its median projected path for future rate hikes unchanged. Judging from the market's reaction, this was a more dovish outcome than was anticipated. Since last Wednesday's meeting the dollar is down 0.5%, junk spreads have tightened 10 basis points and the 2/10 yield curve has steepened 1 bp. In other words, financial conditions have continued to ease even as the Fed took another step toward more restrictive policy. All in all, money markets are now discounting only a slightly slower pace of rate hikes than the Fed's median forecast (Chart 1) and financial conditions suggest that further incremental tightening is in store. The financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor1 is above zero, meaning that financial conditions are more accommodative than the long-run average, and the Chicago Fed's Adjusted Financial Conditions Index also shows that conditions are easy relative to the strength of the economy (Chart 1, bottom panel). New York Fed President William Dudley has previously described how the Fed incorporates financial conditions into its decision making:2 Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop All else equal, if financial conditions tighten sharply, then we are likely to proceed more slowly. In contrast, if financial conditions were not to tighten at all or only very little, then - assuming the economic outlook hadn't changed significantly - we would likely have to move more quickly. In the end, we will adjust the policy stance to support financial market conditions that we deem are most consistent with our employment and inflation objectives. We have also described this process in the context of our Fed Policy Loop3 (Chart 2). In essence, the Fed will continue to nudge rate hike expectations higher until financial conditions tighten excessively. At that point - because with inflation below target the Fed still has an interest in supporting the recovery - it will quickly shift to a more dovish stance. Chart 3Short Jan 2018 Fed Funds Futures One implication of the Fed Policy Loop is that the longer risk assets can withstand rising rates, the higher will be the ultimate resting place for the fed funds rate and Treasury yields. As such, we continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration allocation on a 6-12 month horizon. Another implication is that because markets shrugged off the latest rate increase, Fed policy is likely to turn more hawkish in the very near term. We therefore recommend investors add a tactical trade: short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 3). We calculate that this trade will return 11 bps in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates twice more before the end of the year and 37 bps in a scenario where the funds rate is raised three times. However, we do not expect to hold this trade until the end of the year. Rather, we expect the Fed will nudge rate expectations higher in the next month or two and that these gains will be realized over a much shorter horizon. We also add a caveat that, in the present environment, it is safer to implement any "hawkish Fed trades" in either fed funds futures or the overnight index swap market. The Eurodollar market does not provide the same potential for gains because the LIBOR / OIS spread is currently elevated and could tighten to offset the profits from rising fed funds rate expectations (Chart 3, bottom panel). Fed hawkishness also argues for a flatter yield curve in the very near term. While this could materialize, we continue to hold our position in the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/10 barbell - a trade designed to profit from a steeper 2/10 slope. For reasons described in the next section we believe the yield curve will steepen between now and the end of the year, although the risks are tilted toward flattening in the very near term and in 2018 and beyond. What Drives The Yield Curve? In this week's report we present an overview of the main drivers of the slope of the Treasury yield curve. Specifically, we identify (i) the fed funds rate, (ii) inflation expectations, (iii) implied volatility and (iv) unit labor costs as factors that correlate strongly with the slope of the yield curve on a cyclical horizon. We review the outlook for each of these factors and conclude that the Treasury yield curve has room to steepen between now and the end of the year. Beyond that, the curve will likely resume flattening as inflationary pressures start to bite and the Fed's rate hike cycle picks up steam. Chart 4Fed Rate Hikes Flatten The Curve 1. The Fed Funds Rate Not surprisingly, the slope of the Treasury curve correlates very strongly with the level of short rates (Chart 4). Typically, short-maturity yields are much more influenced by the expected path of Fed rate hikes than long-maturity yields. As such, when the Fed is lifting rates the yield curve tends to bear-flatten - both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields rise, but the 2-year rises more quickly. In contrast, when the Fed is cutting rates the yield curve tends to bull-steepen - both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields fall, but the 2-year falls more quickly. In a typical cycle the yield curve will start to flatten as the Fed lifts rates and will eventually become completely flat when the end of the rate hike cycle is reached and the fed funds rate is at its "equilibrium" or "terminal" level. Usually, at that point in the cycle, the Fed will keep policy too tight in an effort to rein in inflation. This causes the economy to slow and the yield curve to invert, signaling the start of the next recession. A recent BCA Special Report4 speculates that if the federal government succeeds in delivering sizeable fiscal stimulus, inflationary pressures could start to build next year, leading to a more rapid pace of Fed rate hikes and a flat or inverted yield curve by the end of 2018. This would be consistent with a recession in 2019. In terms of the behavior of the yield curve, this is not far off from the Fed's own projections. At present, the median FOMC projection calls for the fed funds rate to reach its equilibrium level of 3% by the end of 2019. If this forecast plays out, it means that the 2/10 Treasury slope must flatten by roughly 117 bps between now and then. Turning back to Chart 4, we see that the Treasury curve has already flattened considerably even though the Fed has only raised rates three times. This means that either the equilibrium fed funds rate is much lower than the Fed's 3% projection and the 2/10 slope will reach zero with a much lower fed funds rate, or that the curve flattening is overdone and the curve has room to steepen before it resumes its cyclical flattening trend. As is explained below, we favor the latter interpretation. 2. Inflation Expectations The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is also highly correlated with the slope of the yield curve (Chart 5). As long-dated inflation expectations increase the yield curve tends to steepen, and vice-versa. Interestingly, the positive correlation between long-dated inflation expectations and the slope of the Treasury curve persists even when the Fed is hiking rates. Notice that in the 1999 rate hike cycle, the yield curve did not start to flatten until the 5-year/5-year breakeven fell. Also, in the 2004-06 hike cycle, curve flattening ebbed just as the breakeven started to widen. Chart 5Rising TIPS Breakevens Steepen The Curve Charts 6 and 7 show the relationship between the 2/10 Treasury slope and the 5-year/5-year breakeven in more detail. Chart 6 shows the correlation between monthly changes in the 2/10 Treasury slope and the 5-year/5-year breakeven using all available data back to January 1999. We see that a positive correlation between the slope and the breakeven prevailed in 64% of monthly observations, while only 36% of months displayed a negative correlation. Chart 62/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven ##br##Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year Forward (February 1999 - Present) Chart 72/10 Nominal Treasury Slope Vs. TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate 5-Year/5-Year ##br##Forward During Fed Tightening Cycles (June 1999 To May 2000 & June 2004 To June 2006) In Chart 7, we focus exclusively on the past two Fed tightening cycles (1999-2000 & 2004-2006). Not only does a linear regression show an even stronger correlation than was achieved with the full sample, but we also see that a positive correlation between the slope and the breakeven existed in 73% of monthly observations, while only 27% of months displayed a negative correlation. At present, core PCE inflation is still below the Fed's 2% target and different measures of inflation expectations are all well below levels that prevailed during prior rate hike cycles (Chart 8). In other words, the Fed must proceed slowly enough with rate hikes to ensure that long-dated inflation expectations continue to trend higher, which argues for a steeper yield curve until inflation and inflation expectations are more firmly anchored around the Fed's target. For the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate we think a range of 2.4% to 2.5% would signal that inflation expectations are well anchored around the Fed's target. 3. Volatility Implied interest rate volatility - as measured by the MOVE volatility index - is another factor that correlates with the yield curve on a cyclical horizon (Chart 9). In theory, higher rate volatility should coincide with a steeper yield curve, all else equal, and this is exactly the correlation we observe. Chart 8Fed Wants Inflation Expectations To Rise Chart 9Higher Vol Steepens The Curve Let's consider that there is a risk premium applied to taking a unit of duration risk (usually called the term premium) and that said risk premium is larger for longer-maturity bonds that carry more duration risk. All else equal, the risk premium applied to one unit of duration risk should be larger when rate volatility is higher. This should also coincide with a steeper yield curve, since there is more duration risk at the long-end of the curve. In a recent report,5 we concluded that the level of disagreement among forecasters about future GDP growth and T-bill rates were the two most important drivers of cyclical swings in implied rate volatility, the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has at times also played a role (Chart 9, bottom 3 panels). Chart 10Higher Unit Labor Costs Flatten The Curve At the moment, the amount of forecaster disagreement about future GDP growth is near its lows since 1990 and T-bill forecast disagreement has, until recently, been suppressed by the zero lower bound on interest rates. All this implies that the balance of risks favors higher implied interest rate volatility in the months ahead, which will apply steepening pressure to the yield curve. 4. Unit Labor Costs Unit labor costs are the final yield curve indicator we discuss in this report. Since faster wage growth tends to coincide with Fed tightening and slowing wage growth tends to correlate with Fed easing, it makes sense for wage indicators to be inversely correlated with the slope of the yield curve. While it is broadly true that all wage indicators show a reasonable inverse correlation with the slope of the curve, unit labor costs are the best. The reason is that unit labor costs (compensation per unit produced) actually measure both wage growth (compensation per hour) and labor productivity (output per hour) (Chart 10). It turns out that the yield curve can flatten in the traditional way - a bear-flattening driven by rising wages and Fed tightening - but occasionally it can also bull-flatten if the market starts to discount a lower equilibrium (or terminal) fed funds rate. We might expect this sort of curve behavior in an environment of extremely low productivity growth, and this is exactly what has occurred during the past few years. Notice in Chart 10 that compensation per hour does not explain the curve flattening that started in 2014, but unit labor costs do because they also factor in incredibly low productivity growth. In the longer-run, we would strongly expect unit labor costs to remain in an uptrend. Wage growth is accelerating and there are structural headwinds that will prevent productivity growth from returning to the levels seen at the height of the IT revolution in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As was discussed last year in a Special Report from our Global Investment Strategy service,6 the rate of human capital accumulation is in a secular downtrend as is the share of workers in their 40s - the age cohort when people are most productive. However, there has also been a cyclical component to the productivity slowdown and it is possible that productivity growth could accelerate somewhat in the near-term as the cycle matures. The capital stock per worker correlates strongly with productivity growth (Chart 11), and while capital investment has been depressed for most of the recovery there are finally some signs that it may return (Chart 12). Chart 11Productivity Held Back By Lack Of Investment Chart 12Getting Optimistic About Capex In fact, it is even conceivable that more rapid wage growth itself might encourage firms to replace labor with capital, causing traditional measures of wage growth to accelerate relative to unit labor costs. Also, the prospect of tax reform and regulatory relief could give capital spending a boost - it has already led to a jump higher in small business optimism (Chart 12, bottom panel). Unit labor costs will likely continue to accelerate on a cyclical investment horizon, applying flattening pressure to the yield curve. But this flattening pressure would be mitigated to the extent that there is any cyclical rebound in productivity growth. Yield Curve Strategy Upon consideration of the four factors described above, we conclude that while the slope of the yield curve will likely be close to zero sometime in late 2018, curve flattening won't start in earnest until late this year or early next year when inflation expectations are higher (2.4% to 2.5% on long-dated TIPS breakevens) and core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around the Fed's 2% target. This conclusion is based on our observations that: TIPS breakevens and the slope of the curve tend to be positively correlated, even during rate hike cycles. Interest rate volatility is more likely to rise than fall. Unit labor costs are likely to remain in an uptrend on a cyclical horizon, but there is scope for them to level-off if we see a modest late-cycle rebound in productivity growth. To position for a steeper yield curve between now and the end of this year we continue to recommend that investors favor the 5-year Treasury note relative to a duration-matched position in a 2-year/10-year barbell. Long bullet/short barbell trades tend to outperform when the yield curve steepens, and our model suggests that the 5-year yield is currently very cheap relative to the 2/10 slope (Chart 13). We have been recommending this trade since December 20, 2016 and it has so far returned +2 bps even though the 2/10 slope has flattened 13 bps during that time. The strong positive carry means that not much curve steepening is required for the trade to realize strong positive gains. Chart 13The 5-Year Bullet Is Cheap On The Curve Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 For further details on our Fed Monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/dud150605 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession", dated March 7, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 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 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians", dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Once the Brexit starting gun is fired, the EU27's high-level guidelines and red lines will create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. The BoE will be more boxed in than the ECB. Brexit trades have more legs. We describe four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets (on page 6). Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Feature "Many in Great Britain expected a major calamity... but what happened was near enough nothing ." The citation above perfectly describes the 9 months that have elapsed since the U.K.'s June 23 2016 vote to exit the EU. In fact, it refers to the 9 months that elapsed after Britain declared war on Germany on September 3 1939 - a period of calm, militarily speaking, which became known as the 'Phoney War'.1 But outside the military sphere a lot did happen in the Phoney War. Most notably, a propaganda war ensued. On the night of September 3 1939 alone, the Royal Air Force dropped 6 million leaflets over Germany titled 'Note to the German People'. Chart of the WeekOne Big Correlated Trade: Pound/Euro And Eurostoxx600 Vs. FTSE100 Brexit Phoney War And The Markets Fast forward 77 years. The 9 months since the Brexit vote has also been a period of calm, economically speaking. Indeed, the U.K. economy has sailed along remarkably smoothly. And this has fuelled a propaganda war for those who believe that Brexit's economic impact will be near enough nothing. But outside the economic sphere, a lot has happened in the Brexit Phoney War: The pound has slumped 12% versus the euro and 17% versus the dollar. The FTSE100 has surged 16%, substantially outperforming the 8% gain in the Eurostoxx600 The U.K. 10-year gilt yield is down 40 bps when the equivalent German bund yield is up 40 bps and the equivalent U.S. Treasury yield is up 90 bps. These relative moves appear to reflect different asset class stories, but it is crucial to realise that: All of these relative moves are just one big correlated trade. The relative moves in bond yields have just tracked the expected differences in central bank policy rates two years ahead (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). This is exactly in line with the theory that a bond yield just equals the expected average interest rate over the bond's lifetime. Chart I-2Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. Bund Yields Chart I-3Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. T-Bond Yields Likewise, the moves in pound/dollar and pound/euro have also closely tracked the same expected differences in central bank policy rates (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Again, this is exactly in line with theory. Over short horizons, the biggest driver of exchange rates is fixed income cross-border portfolio flows - which always seek out the highest yield adjusted for hedging costs. Chart I-4Difficult Brexit = Pound/Euro Falls Chart I-5Difficult Brexit = Pound/Dollar Falls In turn, FTSE100 performance versus the Eurostoxx600 has near-perfectly tracked the inverse direction of pound/euro. Once more, this is exactly as theory would suggest. The FTSE100 and Eurostoxx600 are just a collection of multinational dollar-earning companies quoted in pounds and euros respectively. So when pound/euro weakens, the dollar earnings increase more in FTSE100 index terms than in Eurostoxx600 index terms, resulting in Eurostoxx600 underperformance (Chart of the Week). Now that the Brexit battle is about to begin in earnest, what will happen to these Brexit trades? Brexit Battle Begins It is not our intention here to forecast all the twists and turns of the Brexit battle. We will leave that to a later report. Instead, we just want to list the likely opening salvos. With Parliamentary approval now sealed, Theresa May is due to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in the week commencing March 27 and thereby formally begin the Brexit battle. Expect the first EU27 response within 48 hours, probably through the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. In this response, Tusk may also give the date for the first European Council 'Brexit' summit. This EU27 Brexit summit will take place within 8 weeks of the Article 50 trigger, and likely after the two-round French Presidential Election in April/May. At the Brexit summit, the EU27 will establish its strategy, high-level guidelines and red lines for the Brexit negotiations. The European Council will present these negotiating guidelines to the European Commission. Drawing upon its own legal and policy expertise, the Commission will then draft a mandate which sets out more technical details of each area of negotiation. Next, the Council of the EU2 must approve this draft mandate by qualified majority vote (obviously excluding the U.K.) Once approved, the European Commission can begin the detailed negotiations with the U.K., keeping within the final mandate's guidelines. But what does all this mean for investors? The preceding analysis showed that the dominant driver for all Brexit trades is the expected difference in central bank policy interest rates two years ahead. Recall that not long ago the BoE was vying with the Fed to be the first to hike rates in this cycle, while the ECB was likely to ease further. But after the Brexit vote and the resulting uncertainty about the U.K.'s position in the world, the tables have turned. The EU27's high-level negotiating guidelines and red lines are likely to create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. And now, these vulnerabilities and uncertainties are amplified by Scotland First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, calling for a second referendum on Scottish Independence. For central bank policy, this means that the BoE will be hamstrung; whereas, absent any tail-events, the ECB can continue to back away from its extreme dovishness - a process that Draghi verbally started at the ECB Press Conference last week. Therefore, at least into the early summer, stay: Overweight U.K. gilts versus German bunds. Long euro/pound. Long FTSE100 versus Eurostoxx600 (or Eurostoxx50). Long U.K. Clothes and Apparel equities versus the market (Chart I-6). Short U.K. Real Estate equities versus the market (Chart I-7). But a word of warning for risk control. Remember that all five positions are in effect just one big correlated trade. So they will all work together, or they will all not work together! Chart I-6Difficult Brexit = U.K. Clothes And Apparel Outperforms Chart I-7Difficult Brexit = U.K. Real Estate Equities Underperform Four Disruptors The final section this week takes a wider-angle view of the world, and briefly highlights four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets in the coming years. Disruptor 1: Protectionism. Since the Great Recession, an extremely polarised distribution of economic growth has left most people's standard of living stagnant - despite seemingly decent headline economic growth and job creation (Chart I-8). Looking to find a scapegoat, economic nationalism and protectionism have resonated very strongly with voters in the U.K. and U.S. - resulting in Brexit and President Donald Trump. Other voters could follow in the same vein. But history teaches us that protectionism ends up hurting many more people than it helps. Disruptor 2: Technology. The bigger danger is that people are misdiagnosing the illness. The vast majority of middle-income job losses are not due to globalization, but due to technology. Specifically, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is replacing secure middle-income jobs and displacing workers into insecure low-income manual jobs - like bartending and waitressing - which AI cannot (yet) replace (Table I-1). And AI's impact on middle-income jobs is only in its infancy.3 The worry is that by misdiagnosing the illness as globalization and wrongly taking a protectionist medicine, the illness will intensify, rather than improve. Chart I-8Disruptor 1: Protectionism Table I-1Disruptor 2: Technology Disruptor 3: Debt super-cycles have reached exhaustion. The protectionist medicine carries a further danger. Major emerging market economies are coming to the end of structural credit booms and need to wean themselves off their credit addictions (Chart I-9). At this point of vulnerability, aggressive protectionism risks tipping these emerging economies into a sharp slowdown. Chart I-9Disruptor 3: Debt Super-Cycles Have Reached Exhaustion Disruptor 4: Equities are overvalued. Disruptors one, two and three come at a time when equities are valued to generate feeble total nominal returns over the next decade (Chart I-10). Risk premiums are extremely compressed. And if investors suddenly demand that risk premiums rise to average historical levels, it necessarily requires equity prices to adjust downwards. Chart I-10Disruptor 4: Equities Are Overvalued The long-term investment message is crystal clear. With the four disruptors in play, we strongly advise long-term investors not to follow passive (equity) index-tracking strategies. Instead, we advise long-term investors to stick to bespoke structural investment themes. Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 C N Trueman 'The Phoney War'. 2 The Council of the EU should not be confused with the European Council. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Superstar Economy: Part 2," dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model This week's trade is to short Netherlands equities, but wait until after the election result. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Fed: The Fed will deliver another rate hike tomorrow, but we do not expect a signal that a higher trajectory for the funds rate is necessary. The Fed wants to see higher inflation expectations and will remain as accommodative as possible until that happens. Maintain a below-benchmark allocation to U.S. Treasuries within global fixed income portfolios. ECB: The ECB opened the door slightly to a less-accommodative policy stance last week, although the talk of a rate hike is premature. A 2018 taper is the more probable scenario, likely to be introduced at the September 2017 policy meeting. This will raise longer-dated European bond yields and widen spreads for both Peripheral European government debt and Euro Area corporate bonds. Reduce Euro Area IG to below-benchmark. U.S. High-Yield: U.S. junk bond spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade U.S. High-Yield from neutral to overweight. Feature Chart of the WeekStill A Positive Backdrop ##br##For U.S. Corporates After a run of smooth sailing for the markets so far in 2017, investors will have a lot of event risk to chew over this week. A slew of central bank meetings - the Fed on Wednesday followed by the Bank of England, Bank of Japan and Swiss National Bank all on Thursday - provide opportunities for policymakers to respond to the rising trends in global growth and inflation. Only the Fed is expected to make a change, though, delivering a now fully priced rate hike. Throw in the Dutch elections on Wednesday and the G20 finance ministers meeting in Germany at the end of the week and there are plenty of potentially market-moving headlines that can hit the tape. While there has been selling pressure on all global bonds during the bear phase since last July, U.S. Treasuries still remain most exposed to additional losses in the near term given the combination of improving growth, booming asset markets, a whiff of Trumpian "animal spirits" and a Fed that still appears to be playing catch-up to the overall positive U.S. macro backdrop. A bigger potential move in yields could occur if and when the European Central Bank (ECB) shifts to a less accommodative monetary stance - a taper of asset purchases first, not a rate hike, in our view - although that will likely require more evidence that medium-term Euro Area inflation expectations are sustainably moving back to the ECB's 2% target (Chart of the Week). For now, we continue to see a more negative near-term environment for U.S. Treasuries over core European debt, and a more positive environment for U.S. corporate bonds than European equivalents. As we have discussed in recent Weekly Reports, the time is coming for a shift out of core European government debt into U.S. Treasuries, although we prefer to wait for that switch until after the French elections. After the recent back-up in U.S. High-Yield spreads that has restored some value to junk bonds, however, we are upgrading our allocation to U.S. High-Yield this week to above-benchmark, while downgrading Euro Area Investment Grade corporate bonds to neutral from above-benchmark. Simply put, we prefer to take our growth-sensitive spread risk in U.S. corporates over European equivalents. Fed Vs. ECB: Dawn Of Hawkish? Some investors and financial media pundits have been asking if the Fed has fallen "behind the curve" with regards to U.S. monetary policy, especially after another solid Payrolls report and with U.S. inflation expectations holding firm despite a pullback in oil prices. In our view, being a little bit behind the curve is exactly where the Fed wants to be, allowing the economic upturn to blossom and inflation expectations to continue drifting towards the Fed's 2% target. We do not anticipate that the Fed will shift to a more aggressively hawkish stance this week, with no signal that rates will rise in 2017 more than is currently projected (three times by year-end). However, we do expect some acknowledgement of the positive macro backdrop both in the U.S. and abroad, justifying the need to move sooner by hiking now. This is especially true with the U.S. dollar still well off the 2017 peak and not providing much of a tightening in monetary conditions that could postpone a Fed rate hike. Any surprise shift higher in the Fed's interest rate projections (the "dots") would not be taken well by the Treasury market, particularly after last week's European Central Bank (ECB) meeting where a message that was merely less dovish than expected sent European bond yields sharply higher. A more hawkish shift by either central bank would be premature right now, as bond markets are not yet signaling that significantly higher real interest rates are necessary. It is important to note that most of the rise in Treasury yields since last July, and virtually all of the rise in German Bund yields, has come from rising inflation expectations rather than higher real yields (Chart 2 & Chart 3). Also, the market expectation for the real terminal policy rate - where interest rates should end up at the end of the tightening cycle - remains around 0% in the U.S. and -1% in Europe, using our proxy measure of the 5-year Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rate, 5-years forward minus the equivalent forward inflation rate from the TIPS and CPI swap markets (bottom panel of both charts). In other words, markets are only expecting a cyclical rise in interest rates in response to faster inflation, not a structural rise in interest rates because of faster potential economic growth. Chart 2Rising Inflation Explains ##br##Most Of The Rise In U.S. Yields... Chart 3...And All Of The Rise##br## In European Yields On that front, the winds are shifting in a fashion that is more bearish for Treasuries, at least in the near term. In Chart 4, we show the relationship between inflation expectations and oil prices for the U.S. and Euro Area. As can be seen in the bottom panel, the correlation between oil and expectations remains high in the Euro Area, but has fallen to zero in the U.S., where inflation expectations are increasingly influenced by domestic price pressures (i.e. rising wage growth and faster core inflation). Chart 4U.S. Inflation Now Not Just About Oil, ##br##Unlike Europe This remains a key element underpinning of our current below-benchmark call on U.S. Treasuries, particularly versus core European bonds. U.S. yields are likely to have more upside from higher inflation expectations with the Fed likely to stay as accommodative as possible by hiking rates at a slower pace than inflation is rising. At some point, monetary policy will become restrictive, particularly if the U.S. dollar bull market resumes with gusto as the Fed is delivering additional rate hikes and expectations for U.S. growth and inflation moderate, capping the current cyclical rise in Treasury yields. We are still some time away from that point, however. Bottom Line: The Fed will deliver another rate hike tomorrow, but we do not expect a signal that a higher trajectory for the funds rate is necessary. The Fed wants to see higher inflation expectations, and will remain as accommodative as possible until that happens. Maintain a below-benchmark allocation to U.S. Treasuries within global fixed income portfolios. ECB Begins The Path To Tapering The ECB last week put a relatively positive spin on the Euro Area economy, while declaring that the worst of the deflationary pressures have passed. President Draghi sounded less downbeat on the Euro Area economy than he has for some time, citing the broadening Euro Area economic upturn that was pushing down unemployment and absorbing economic slack. The ECB only slightly raised its growth forecast for 2017 and 2018, though, raising both figures by 0.1 percentage points to 1.8% and 1.7%, respectively. This would still be sufficient to remove additional slack from the economy, with the ECB currently estimating trend growth of around 1% in the Euro Area. A look at the details of those projections showed that real consumer spending is only expected to grow by 1.4% this year and next, even as the Euro Area unemployment rate is projected to fall below 9% in 2018 on the back of steady job gains. Capital spending is also expected to pick up in the next couple of years, but the projections were downgraded slightly from previous forecasts. These numbers seem a bit too cautious compared to the recent improvements seen in consumer and business confidence in the Euro Area (Chart 5), and to the more positive tone on the economy expressed in the ECB policy statement and in Draghi's press conference following the meeting. Perhaps this is simply central bank prudence at work, particularly in an environment where there is still considerable uncertainty about politics within the Euro Area and global trade in the Trumpian era. Whatever the reason, it now seems likely that growth will at least match, if not exceed, the relatively low bar set by the ECB. This is important, as the central bank is already projecting that the Euro Area will reach full employment by 2019, when the unemployment rate is projected to fall to 8.4%. The ECB expects wage pressures to rise as a result, helping boost core inflation up to 1.8% within two years (Chart 6). This would be consistent with the rising path of interest rates currently discounted in the Euro Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve where rates are now expected to start going up in the middle of next year, with the negative rate era ending in 2019 (bottom panel). Chart 5ECB Too Pessimistic On ##br##Euro Area Growth? Chart 6ECB Will Not Hike Rates Before ##br##Full Employment Is Reached The ECB knows that interest rates will have to rise if its core inflation forecast pans out, as this would almost certainly mean that headline inflation and inflation expectations would be at the ECB target of "at or just below" 2%. Yet it is still too soon to discuss that scenario, with core inflation struggling to surpass 1% and the 5-year CPI swap rate, 5-years forward at similar levels. The ECB did slightly alter its forward guidance in its policy statement to suggest that it was now much less likely that additional monetary easing would be needed to boost growth, and that it would no longer be necessary to use "all instruments" to fight deflation in Europe. This was taken as a hawkish surprise by the markets, particularly after media reports indicated that some members of the ECB discussed raising interest rates before the tapering of the ECB's asset purchases. As we discussed in our previous Weekly Report, the current backdrop in Europe looks similar in many respects to the U.S. prior to the "Taper Tantrum" episode in 2013.1 We see the ECB following a similar path to what the Fed did during the Tantrum, by signaling a tapering of asset purchases several months in advance, then raising interest rates after the taper is complete. Many clients have asked us if it is possible for the ECB to raise short-term interest rates before starting a tapering of asset purchases. This question also came up at last week's ECB meeting, and President Draghi reiterated the view that rates would be expected to "remain at present or lower levels for an extended period of time, and well past the horizon of our net asset purchases." This fits with the ECB's unemployment and inflation scenarios, which do not project a return to full employment - which would justify a rate hike - until 2019. A rate hike too soon would result in an unwanted tightening in financial conditions in Europe that could threaten the current economic upturn. We do not believe that investors could neatly separate the impact of a rate hike from that of a taper. A tightening is a tightening, as can be seen in the strong correlation of our Euro Area months-to-hike measure and the term premium on 10yr German Bund yields in recent years (Chart 7).2 If the ECB were to deliver a rate hike, even a modest one of less than the typical 25bp increment, while maintaining the current pace of bond buying, it would send a contradictory message given the ECB's benign inflation outlook for the next couple of years. Clearly, the market is already a bit confused, as the months-to-hike has been rapidly declining, even as shorter-dated bond yields in core Europe stay low and the term premium on longer-dated government debt has stopped rising. We still see a taper next year as a more likely scenario, to be announced at the September 2017 ECB meeting, with a rate hike to occur within 6-12 months of the completion of the taper. This would allow the ECB to reduce the pace of monetary expansion in line with a less deflationary backdrop in Europe, while leaving the rate hike for a more traditional move when full employment is reached in 2019. In Chart 8, we present some potential tapering scenarios and what it would mean for the growth rate of the ECB's monetary base. We show the base case for this year of €60bn/month in asset purchases that ends in December (a "full-stop" with no tapering), along with alternative scenarios of a pace of tapering that reduces the bond buying to zero within six months (i.e. a €10bn/month reduction until June 2018) and with a full taper over 12 months (i.e. a €5bn/month reduction until December 2018). We also show an additional scenario where the ECB decides to extend the asset purchases into 2018 at the same current pace of €60bn/month. Chart 7A Rate Hike Before Tapering ##br##Is A Confusing Message Chart 8Taper Or Not, ECB Effect ##br##On Bund Yields Fading... The bottom panels of Chart 8 show the annual growth rate of the monetary base under the different scenarios, and how that maps into longer-term German bond yields through a widening term premium. Importantly, the growth rate of the ECB's monetary base would decelerate even if there was no taper next year, which would put upward pressure on European bond yields. Unless the ECB is willing to raise the pace of bond buying next year, which would only occur if there was an unexpected downturn in the Euro Area economy before full employment is reached, then the writing is on the wall for Euro Area government bond yields. They are moving higher. The same goes for Peripheral European debt and even Euro Area Investment Grade corporate debt, which the ECB has also been buying. A slowing pace of ECB buying will put upward pressure on both yields and spreads next year (Chart 9), although a better Euro Area economy that improves corporate profits and tax revenues will help mitigate the rise in yields. It is possible that the ECB could alter the composition of its purchases while tapering, choosing to continue to buy more shorter-dated bonds to limit the potential of an unwanted rise in the Euro. As can be seen in Chart 10, the typical indicators that correlate to the EUR/USD currency pair - the relative balance sheets of the Fed and ECB, and the 2-year interest rate differential between European and U.S. interest rates - are still pointing to an extended period of Euro weakness. It would take a combination of rate hikes in Europe and rate cuts in the U.S. to turn EUR/USD around on a sustainable basis. While the tapering announcement will likely push the Euro immediately higher, such a move will not last without a more fundamental change in relative interest rates. Chart 9...And For European ##br##Spread Product, Too Chart 10Tapering Will Not Sustainably ##br##Boost The Euro Bottom Line: The ECB opened to door slightly to a less-accommodative policy stance last week, although the talk of a rate hike is premature. A 2018 taper is the more probable scenario, likely to be introduced at the September 2017 policy meeting. This will raise longer-dated European bond yields and widen spreads for both Peripheral European government debt and Euro Area corporate bonds. Reduce Euro Area Investment Grade to below-benchmark. The Value Is Back In U.S. High-Yield One of our key themes for 2017 is that the uptrend in the U.S. High-Yield default rate is due for a pause.3 With the first quarter of the year nearly complete, all the indicators that make up our U.S. Default Rate Model are showing noticeable improvement (Chart 11). Interest coverage remains elevated A strong U.S. Manufacturing PMI points to a rebound in after-tax cash flow Lending standards have rolled over and are now just barely in "net tightening" territory An improving sales/inventory ratio portends a return to positive industrial production growth Job cut announcements have fallen back to 2011 levels on a trailing 12-month basis Chart 11Default Rate Indicators Are Showing Improvement Meantime, even though the default outlook continues to improve, junk spreads have actually widened during the past couple of weeks. The average option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield index has widened from a low of 344bps up to 378bps (Chart 12). Some of that spread increase is likely attributable to declining oil prices, as energy sector credits have indeed underperformed the overall index. However, the underperformance of the energy sector did start before the sharp drop in oil prices (Chart 12, bottom panel). In any event, our commodity strategists are not expecting the current decline in oil prices to persist and their estimates show that the oil market has recently shifted from an environment of excess supply to one of excess demand. U.S. crude oil inventories are poised to decline later this month and the OPEC / non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Russia at the end of last year should be met with high compliance.4 If this view is correct, then the energy sector will not drag overall junk spreads wider in the months ahead. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default outlook has led to an increase in our preferred gauge of value for high-yield bonds - the default-adjusted spread (Chart 13). The default-adjusted spread is calculated by subtracting an ex-ante estimate of default losses from the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield index. Chart 12Energy Contributed To Junk Sell-Off Chart 13Some Value Returns To High-Yield To arrive at an estimate of default losses we use the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate and our own forecast for the recovery rate based on the historical relationship between recoveries and defaults. With the release of February's default report, the Moody's baseline default rate forecast fell to 3.14% for the next 12 months. Based on this forecast, we estimate that the recovery rate will be 44%. Combining the default and recovery rate forecasts gives an estimate for default losses of 3.14% x (1- 0.44) = 176bps for the next 12 months. Since the average option-adjusted spread of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield index is currently 378bps, we calculate the default-adjusted spread to be: 378 bps - 176bps = 202bps. A default-adjusted spread of 202bps is 60bps higher than the reading of 142bps that prevailed just last week. This 60bps spread advantage makes a considerable difference in terms of projected excess returns. Chart 14 shows the relationship between 12-month excess returns and the starting default-adjusted spread. We observe a reasonably strong correlation and note that, using a linear regression, an extra 60bps of spread translates to an extra +251bps of excess return on average over a 12-month period. Chart 1412-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Table 1 provides more detail in terms of what excess returns have historically been associated with different levels of the default-adjusted spread. We see that when the default-adjusted is between 100 bps and 150bps, high-yield bonds earn positive excess returns 64% of the time over the following 12 months. When the default-adjusted spread is between 200bps and 250bps, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 71% of the time. Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Given our upbeat assessment of the trend in defaults and a wider junk spread than we have seen in a while, we think it is a good time to upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. The key near-term risk to this view is that the Fed will be more hawkish than we anticipate at this week's meeting. If the Fed's median forecast is revised up to four hikes in 2017, then it is possible that the recent bout of junk spread widening will have a bit further to run. However, given still-low inflation readings, the Fed would eventually be forced to back away from its hawkish rhetoric and support renewed spread tightening. In our view, the main risk to upgrading junk this week is that we are a bit too early. Bottom Line: U.S. junk bond spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade U.S. High-Yield from neutral to overweight. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?", dated March 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Last week, we presented the Euro Area months-to-hike measure. We discovered that our measure was not calibrated for the current era of negative interest rates in Europe, and the months-to-hike indicated was actually signaling the "months until interest rates turned positive." We have since corrected our methodology to show the months until one full 25bp rate hike was priced in from the current negative levels, which is what is shown in Chart 7 of this report. This does not change the direction of the months-to-hike indicator, but it does bring forward to date of the first rate hike versus what was presented last week. 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 Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Fed's Pre-Emptive Hike Will Hit Gold, Not Oil", dated March 9, 2017, available at ces.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 Monetary Policy: The Fed will lift rates this week, but will likely leave its median forecast for three hikes this year unchanged. With inflation still below target the Fed has an incentive to take it easy. Curve steepeners, TIPS breakeven wideners and overweight spread product positions will benefit. Duration: The growth outlook is improving and the 10-year Treasury yield could soon move higher, breaking out of its recent trading range. An already elevated economic surprise index should not be a deterrent. High-Yield: Junk spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. Feature Chart 1How Much Hawkishness ##br##Can Markets Take? In early November, just prior to the U.S. election, money markets were still only discounting one rate hike before the end of 2017. The Fed has already raised rates once since then and the market is now almost priced for another three hikes before year-end (Chart 1). Encouragingly, financial markets digested the shift up to two 2017 rate hikes without much of a hiccup - the yield curve steepened, TIPS breakevens widened and junk spreads tightened - but the journey from two to three hikes has not gone down quite as easily (Chart 1, bottom panel). The yield curve has now started to flatten, breakevens have leveled off and junk spreads have edged wider. The worry is that a further shift in expectations - from three to four hikes in 2017 - might cause markets to choke. Fed Will Take It Slow Markets are already priced for a rate hike at this week's FOMC meeting along with no change to the Fed's median forecast for three hikes in 2017. As such, we would not expect much of a market reaction if that outcome is delivered. If the Fed were to increase its median forecast from three to four hikes in 2017, then we would anticipate at least some tightening of financial conditions. In other words, we would expect the yield curve to flatten, TIPS breakevens to narrow, the dollar to strengthen and credit spreads to widen. As we have written several times,1 with core inflation and TIPS breakevens still below target, the Fed must ensure that the economic recovery continues. It will therefore be quick to back away from any nascent hawkishness if financial conditions start to tighten. With markets already showing some signs of stress, we expect the Fed to err on the side of caution this week. This means the Fed will lift rates, but also leave the median forecast of three 2017 rate hikes unchanged. This notion that the Fed should be lifting rates, but only very slowly, is confirmed by our Fed Monitor (Chart 2). The Fed Monitor is a composite of 32 indicators that track the evolution of U.S. economic growth, inflation pressures and financial market conditions. Historically, a positive reading from the monitor has coincided with rate hikes, and vice versa. Chart 2BCA Fed Monitor Suggests A Slow Pace Of Rate Hikes The Fed Monitor just recently moved above zero, suggesting that only modestly tighter monetary policy is required. As an aside, we view the strongly positive readings from the Fed Monitor in 2011 and 2012 as anomalous and an artifact of the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. Since interest rates could not be lowered as much as would have been necessary (according to the Fed Monitor) in 2009, they also could not be raised as quickly as the monitor suggested in 2011. With the base effects from the financial crisis now out of the data, the Fed Monitor should go back to providing a useful signal about the future course of monetary policy. Chart 3BCA Fed Monitor Components We gain further insight from splitting the Fed Monitor into its three key components: growth, inflation and financial conditions (Chart 3). The growth component has accelerated strongly into positive territory but the inflation component still suggests that an easy policy stance is required. Financial conditions are also consistent with modest Fed tightening but have ticked down in recent weeks as the market has discounted a more rapid pace of hikes. Judging from the prior two cycles, an acceleration of the inflation component will be necessary for the Fed to deliver on its current expected path of rate hikes. While the Fed has sometimes started to lift rates with the inflation component below zero, that component has always surged into positive territory soon after hikes began (Chart 3, panel 2). While economic growth is accelerating, below-target inflation means that the Fed must continue to nurture the economic recovery. Investors should position for a steeper curve, wider TIPS breakevens and tighter credit spreads until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. This means at least until long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range and core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2%. Bottom Line: The Fed will lift rates this week, but will likely leave its median forecast for three hikes this year unchanged. With inflation still below target the Fed has an incentive to take it easy. Curve steepeners, TIPS breakeven wideners and overweight spread product positions will benefit. Consolidation Complete? The 10-year Treasury yield has been stuck in a tight range below 2.6% since mid-December (Chart 4), but recent trends in the economic data suggest that it could be on the verge of breaking through this key resistance level. Economic surprises are positively correlated with changes in the 10-year Treasury yield and currently appear extended (Chart 4, bottom panel). While not a mean-reverting series by construction, economic surprises tend to follow a mean reverting pattern because investors revise their expectations higher as the economic data outperform. Eventually, expectations are bound to become excessive and the series will mean revert. However, we have found that economic surprises are usually first reflected in Treasury yields. In fact, changes in the 10-year Treasury yield tend to lead the economic surprise index by several weeks. This means that stagnant yields during the past few months have already foreshadowed a reversal in the surprise index. In other words, some mean reversion in economic surprises is already in the price and should not prevent yields from rising in the coming weeks. More important is that economic growth should be sustainably above trend on a 6-12 month horizon. This will continue to put upward pressure on inflation and ensure that the Fed remains in a rate hike cycle. Judging from recent data, not only is growth sustainably above trend, but it is probably even accelerating. Last week's February employment report showed that nonfarm payrolls rose by 235k, the second consecutive month of gains above 200k. The rate of change of employment growth is now threatening to reverse the downtrend that started in early 2015, and aggregate hours worked have accelerated suggesting that GDP growth will be strong in Q1 (Chart 5). Chart 410-Year Yield Facing Resistance Chart 5Labor Market Points To Stronger Growth... Financial conditions are also supportive of a further acceleration in growth. We found that the financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor provides a strong indication of near-term trends in GDP growth (Chart 6). This highlights that growth should be strong during the next few months but also that the Fed must respond to any tightening in financial conditions if it wants growth to remain robust. Chart 6...So Do Financial Conditions Bottom Line: The growth outlook is improving and the 10-year Treasury yield could soon move higher, breaking out of its recent trading range. An already elevated economic surprise index should not be a deterrent. The Value Is Back In High-Yield One of our key themes for 2017 is that the uptrend in the high-yield default rate is due for a pause.2 With the first quarter of the year nearly complete, all the indicators that make up our Default Rate Model are showing noticeable improvement (Chart 7). Chart 7Default Rate Indicators Are Showing Improvement Interest coverage remains elevated A strong Manufacturing PMI points to a rebound in after-tax cash flow Lending standards have rolled over and are now just barely in "net tightening" territory An improving sales/inventory ratio portends a return to positive industrial production growth Job cut announcements have fallen back to 2011 levels on a trailing 12-month basis Meantime, even though the default outlook continues to improve, junk spreads have actually widened during the past couple of weeks. The average option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index has widened from a low of 344 basis points up to 378 bps (Chart 8). Some of that spread increase is likely attributable to declining oil prices, as energy sector credits have indeed underperformed the overall index. However, the underperformance of the energy sector also started before the sharp drop in oil prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). In any event, our commodity strategists are not expecting the current decline in oil prices to persist and their estimates show that the oil market has recently shifted from an environment of excess supply to one of excess demand. U.S. crude oil inventories are poised to decline later this month and the OPEC / non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Russia at the end of last year should be met with high compliance.3 If this view is correct, then the energy sector will not drag overall junk spreads wider in the months ahead. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default outlook has led to an increase in our preferred gauge of value for high-yield bonds - the default-adjusted spread (Chart 9). The default-adjusted spread is calculated by subtracting an ex-ante estimate of default losses from the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index. Chart 8Energy Contributed To Junk Sell-Off Chart 9Some Value Returns To High-Yield To arrive at an estimate of default losses we use the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate and our own forecast for the recovery rate based on the historical relationship between recoveries and defaults. With the release of February's default report, the Moody's baseline default rate forecast fell to 3.14% for the next 12 months. Based on this forecast we estimate that the recovery rate will be 44%. Combining the default and recovery rate forecasts gives an estimate for default losses of 3.14% x (1- 0.44) = 176 bps for the next 12 months. Since the average option-adjusted spread of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is currently 378 bps, we calculate the default-adjusted spread to be: 378 bps - 176 bps = 202 bps. A default-adjusted spread of 202 bps is 60 bps higher than the reading of 142 bps that prevailed just last week. This 60 bps spread advantage makes a considerable difference in terms of projected excess returns. Chart 10 shows the relationship between 12-month excess returns and the starting default-adjusted spread. We observe a reasonably strong correlation and note that, using a linear regression, an extra 60 bps of spread translates to an extra +251 bps of excess return on average over a 12-month period. Chart 1012-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. ##br##Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Table 1 provides more detail in terms of what excess returns have historically been associated with different levels of the default-adjusted spread. We see that when the default-adjusted is between 100 bps and 150 bps, high-yield bonds earn positive excess returns 64% of the time over the following 12 months. When the default-adjusted spread is between 200 bps and 250 bps, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 71% of the time. Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Given our upbeat assessment of the trend in defaults and a wider junk spread than we have seen in a while, we think it is a good time to upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. The key near-term risk to this view is that the Fed will be more hawkish than we anticipate at this week's meeting. If the Fed's median forecast is revised up to four hikes in 2017, then it is possible that the recent bout of junk spread widening will have a bit further to run. However, given still-low inflation readings, the Fed would eventually be forced to back away from its hawkish rhetoric and support renewed spread tightening. In our view, the main risk to upgrading junk this week is that we are a bit too early. Bottom Line: Junk spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. 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, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Fed's Pre-Emptive Hike Will Hit Gold, Not Oil", dated March 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights U.S. equity valuations are historically high, based on a variety of metrics. However, relative to competing assets and global equity peers, U.S. stock valuations are not an extreme. For U.S.-based investors, our upbeat view on the U.S. dollar implies that efforts to diversify globally may come up short. The Fed will allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off starting in 2018, but it is much more uncertain whether it will ever cease the reinvestment of its Treasury holdings. Feature The S&P 500 remains near record highs, despite a modest setback last week. And the only period when stocks were more expensive was during the halcyon days of the dot-com bubble. Have stock prices outpaced fundamentals, and if so, how much of a risk does this present over the cyclical horizon? And should U.S. investors look further afield than domestic markets for a relative deal? On a historical basis, it is hard to argue that U.S. equities are anything other than expensive. A preferred valuation metric is the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE), see Chart 1. Based on this metric, stocks are expensive, trading at their highest valuation outside of the dot-com bubble. However, valuing equities is a complicated issue, and the CAPE is not without its weaknesses. Examining a broad array of valuation indicators provides a slightly different message; U.S. stocks are expensive in absolute terms based on historic relationships, but are less stretched relative to both other asset classes and other equity indexes. Expensive, But... Our BCA valuation index captures the message from a broad range of metrics in one gauge (Chart 2). The valuation index was constructed using 11 different measures in an attempt to approach valuation from multiple angles. Decomposing the index into its three major components - earnings, balance sheet metrics and yield - show that stocks prices are well into expensive territory in absolute terms based on traditional fundamentals: Chart 1(Part I) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive ##br##Relative To History Chart 2(Part II) U.S. Stocks Are Expensive Relative ##br##To History Earnings Group: There are five inputs to the earnings component of our valuation indicator, including trailing price/earnings ratio, price/sales, market cap as a share of GDP. The second panel of Chart 2 shows that the aggregate of the Earnings Group indicators sits at historical highs, excluding the tech bubble. Balance Sheet Metrics: This component includes measure of the market value of equities relative to corporate net worth, both using market value (replacement cost) and historical cost. This measure of valuation has the same profile as the Earnings Group. Yield Group: The yield group compares the price of stocks to interest rates, nominal and real, government and corporate. Of the three groups, it is this Yield Group that gives a less expensive reading on equities (bottom panel of Chart 2). Overall, the Valuation Indicator is already well into "overvalued territory". There is only one episode since 1970 when the indicator has reached a significantly more extreme reading (the dot-com bubble). ...Not So On A Relative Basis Stocks are expensive on an absolute basis, but are far more appealing in relative terms. The current earnings yield on stocks is well above the real corporate bond yield and corporate bond spreads are historically very tight, despite the erosion in balance sheet health (our corporate health monitor has been deteriorating for several months). And compared to housing returns, stocks look downright cheap (Chart 3). Within the U.S., we expect stocks to be the biggest beneficiary of investment flows in the next year or two, in part because equity market value is the most appealing. Meanwhile, relative to global peers, U.S. equities valuations have been climbing since 2009 (Charts 4 and Chart 5). This eight-year rise in valuations now leaves U.S. P/Es at the higher end of the historical range relative to G10 ex-U.S. equities. U.S. stocks are especially expensive relative to Japanese equities. In any case, standard valuation measures have always been lower in Japan, with the exception of price-forward earnings. As our Bank Credit Analyst monthly publication points out, Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend to come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan. Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets. Nonetheless, the valuation gap is at an extreme, with Japanese equities appearing to be a screaming value relative to U.S. stocks. Chart 3Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Chart 4(Part I) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue Chart 5(Part II) U.S. Outperformance Phase Can Continue A similar, albeit less extreme, valuation case can be made for European stocks relative to the U.S. Eurozone stocks have also almost always traded at a discount to U.S. equities and this continues to be the case. Stocks have gotten even more expensive, more quickly, in the U.S. over the past year. But relative valuations are not near historic extremes. Tack on the fact that BCA's view is that the dollar will continue to appreciate over the next six-twelve months. For U.S.-based investors, the coming rise in the domestic currency implies that efforts to diversify globally may come up short, despite better value in major foreign markets. It is important to note that BCA does not view valuation measures as market timing tools. They are only useful at extremes. The bottom line is that U.S. equities are certainly far from cheap, but are not so expensive in relative terms to warrant an allocation change on this basis. We believe that equity returns should outperform Treasuries, cash and high-quality corporate bonds over the next 1-2 years as the bond bear market plays out. The Fed's Balance Sheet: What's Next? Recently we have received a number of client questions about the Fed's balance sheet and how it will evolve during the next few years. In response, we reprint below work from our U.S. Bond Strategy team, who recently addressed the topic in detail. The Fed's Stated Plan The most up-to-date guidance we have received about the Fed's balance sheet plans comes from Janet Yellen's recent Congressional testimony: "The FOMC has annunciated that its longer run goal is to shrink our balance sheet to levels consistent with the efficient and effective implementation of monetary policy. And while our system evolves and I can't put a number on that, I would anticipate a balance sheet that's substantially smaller than at the current time. In addition, we would like our balance sheet to again be primarily Treasury securities, whereas as you pointed out, we have substantial holdings of mortgage-backed securities." From this, and similar statements from other Fed officials, we conclude that the Fed will allow its balance sheet to shrink once the fed funds rate is somewhere in the range of 1% to 1.5%. Surveys also show that the median primary dealer expects the Fed will change its balance sheet policy when the target fed funds rate is 1.38%. As such, and under reasonable assumptions for the pace of rate hikes, we think it is very likely that the Fed will start to let its balance sheet shrink sometime in 2018. MBS First, Treasuries Maybe Later Yellen's statement to Congress also makes clear that the Fed would be more comfortable with a balance sheet that consists entirely of Treasury securities. For this reason, the central bank will start by simply ceasing the reinvestment of its Agency bond and MBS portfolios. At least initially, the Fed will continue to reinvest the proceeds from its maturing Treasury portfolio. Yellen also left open the possibility that reinvestment could be "tapered" rather than just halted altogether. While this is possible, and in fact 70% of primary dealers think that reinvestments will be phased out over time while only 14% think they will be ceased all at once, it seems to us like a needless complication. We expect that reinvestments of Agency bonds and MBS will end all at once sometime in 2018. As for the Fed's holdings of Treasury securities, it is much less clear whether the Fed will allow these balances to run down. In a Report in 2014,1 we describe in detail the differences between the Fed's pre-crisis mode of operation, when bank reserves were scarce, and the Fed's current mode of operation with large bank reserve balances. As of now, the Fed has stated that it intends to eventually drain bank reserves from the system and return to its pre-crisis mode of operation, but there are several possible advantages to running a system with an outsized Fed balance sheet and large bank reserve balances. None other than Ben Bernanke pointed out a few of those reasons in a blog post last fall.2 In our view, the most compelling is that regulatory changes have increased private sector demand for safe, short-maturity, liquid assets in recent years. If the Treasury department is unwilling to supply T-bills in sufficient numbers, then the Fed can supply safe, short-maturity, liquid assets to the market by purchasing long-maturity Treasury securities and replacing them with bank reserves. Chart 6Reserves Can Be Drained Fairly Quickly Of course, we take the Fed at its word when it says that it would like to eventually drain excess bank reserves from the system. But even in that case, the steady growth of currency in circulation means that bank reserves will decline over time even if the Fed keeps the asset side of its balance sheet flat. For example, Chart 6 shows what would happen to bank reserves if the amount of currency in circulation grows at a conservative 5% per year pace, and if the Fed decides to allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off at the beginning of next year while keeping its Treasury portfolio flat. We assume that MBS runs off the Fed's balance sheet at a pace of $15 billion per month, slightly below the recent pace of MBS reinvestment. During the past three years, the Fed has reinvested between $20bn and $40bn MBS each month with an average monthly reinvestment of $32bn. In this scenario, outstanding bank reserves would decline to zero by the end of 2025. At that point the Fed would have to start adding to its Treasury holdings just to keep pace with the amount of currency in circulation. Bottom Line: While it is very likely that the Fed will allow its Agency bond and MBS portfolios to run off starting in 2018, it is much more uncertain whether it will ever cease the reinvestment of its Treasury holdings. If the Fed does allow its Treasury holdings to run down as well, it will have to start buying Treasuries again before 2025. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report "Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood", dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2016/09/02/should-the-fed-keep-its-balance-sheet-large/
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