Reino Unido
Puntos destacados
La economía del Reino Unido se ha mantenido bastante bien, a pesar de la carga de la incertidumbre política.
Sin embargo, incluso antes de que se haya producido la salida efectiva del Reino Unido de la UE, el Brexit ha dejado una huella duradera en la economía británica a través de una incertidumbre elevada, una fuerte debilidad en la inversión empresarial y una productividad anémica.
El resultado neto es una economía con un crecimiento de tendencia inferior, un tipo de cambio estructuralmente más débil y una inflación interna relativamente alta.
El Brexit se retrasará más allá del 31 de octubre. El riesgo de un Brexit sin acuerdo está sobrevalorado a menos que unas elecciones anticipadas fortalezcan la posición de Boris Johnson. Eso es improbable.
Las perspectivas de inversión para la libra esterlina y los gilts del Reino Unido son muy binarias: un Brexit “suave” es alcista para la libra y bajista para los gilts, mientras que un Brexit sin acuerdo haría caer aún más tanto la libra como los rendimientos de los gilts.
Análisis
Desde que el Reino Unido votó en 2016 salir de la Unión Europea, las perspectivas para la economía y los activos financieros han estado ligadas al resultado binario de si la salida sería ordenada o no. Esto ha sido una enorme fuente de incertidumbre, colocando al Banco de Inglaterra (BoE) en una de las posiciones más incómodas que haya enfrentado jamás un banco central.
En el informe de esta semana intentamos responder algunas preguntas de alto nivel. Primero, ¿la desaceleración de la economía del Reino Unido ha sido ordinaria, dado el retroceso manufacturero global? ¿O ha sido indebidamente prolongada debido al aumento de la incertidumbre política? Si se trata de lo último, ¿cuáles son las perspectivas de una recuperación si prevalece cualquier escenario que no sea un Brexit “sin acuerdo”? Finalmente, ¿se ha causado ya un daño irreparable a la economía por la inversión retrasada, con ramificaciones a más largo plazo independientemente del resultado de la relación con la UE?
Un auge del empleo
El Reino Unido está experimentando actualmente la mejor recuperación de empleo desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Se han creado 4,2 millones de nuevos empleos en la última década, elevando la proporción de empleo respecto a la población al nivel más alto en casi 50 años. Lo notable es que esta recuperación parece incluso más impresionante que la de Estados Unidos, donde las condiciones del mercado laboral han sido muy sólidas. Por ejemplo, en EE. UU. la tasa de empleo se sitúa en 60,9%, apenas por debajo de la del Reino Unido pero aún casi cuatro puntos porcentuales por debajo de su máximo previo a la crisis (Gráfico 1). En comparación con la zona euro, el mejor desempeño del mercado laboral del Reino Unido ha sido muy evidente.
A pesar de esta recuperación, el aumento de los salarios ha sido el más débil desde la Guerra de los Bóeres.
La calidad de los empleos también ha sido excelente: la creación de empleos a tiempo completo ha superado a la de tiempo parcial y las tasas de participación femenina se están disparando. El bonanza de empleo también ha sido amplio en regiones e industrias. Sí, el sector manufacturero ha experimentado cierta volatilidad, pero aparte de la región de East Midlands, las tasas de desempleo continúan convergiendo a la baja en todo el Reino Unido (Gráfico 2)
Gráfico 1
Un auge del empleo
Un auge del empleo
Un auge del empleo
Gráfico 2
La recuperación es amplia
La recuperación es generalizada
La recuperación es generalizada
A pesar de esta recuperación, el aumento de los salarios ha sido el más débil desde la Guerra de los Bóeres. En un discurso de julio, el economista jefe del BoE, Andy Haldane, señaló con acierto que la década perdida de los salarios ha sido un desastre de igualdad de oportunidades en las principales regiones del Reino Unido. Desde la década de 1950 hasta la Gran Recesión, la remuneración real en el Reino Unido creció alrededor de un 2% anual. Desde la Gran Recesión, la remuneración real se ha estancado a una tasa de -0,4% anual (Gráfico 3).1
Gráfico 3
Los salarios se estancaron hasta hace poco
Los salarios se estancaron hasta hace poco
Los salarios se estancaron hasta hace poco
Ha habido varias razones para esto. En primer lugar, ha habido un fuerte crecimiento del trabajo por cuenta propia, los contratos de cero horas y el trabajo a través de agencias. Así, aunque la proporción de empleo a tiempo completo ha ido aumentando en el periodo posterior a la crisis, sigue estando muy por debajo de sus máximos previos a la crisis. Esto ha incrementado la fluidez del mercado laboral, reduciendo el coste de hacer negocios en el proceso. La compensación de los trabajadores por cuenta propia o con contratos de cero horas está significativamente por debajo de la de sus homólogos permanentes. El lado positivo es que este fenómeno no es específico del Reino Unido, sino que está ocurriendo en todo el mundo, especialmente en Europa, donde las reformas estructurales han eliminado rigideces en el mercado laboral.
La cuestión clave de cara al futuro es si el incipiente aumento de los salarios continuará. A un horizonte cíclico, nuestra postura es que si continúan las tendencias positivas de empleo, el Reino Unido podría empezar a experimentar presiones salariales significativamente más fuertes. Hay cuatro razones fundamentales para ello:
Las ofertas de trabajo siguen superando al número de demandantes. Según la medida utilizada, hay entre un 20% y un 40% más de puestos que solicitantes (Gráfico 4). Este estancamiento no se puede resolver fácilmente con una mayor tasa de empleo (está en un máximo secular) ni con un desempleo más bajo.
El BoE estima que el NAIRU en el Reino Unido está en el 4,4%, lo que significa que la tasa de desempleo está claramente por debajo de su nivel estructural. Las encuestas empresariales siguen sugiriendo que la escasez de mano de obra cualificada es uno de los principales problemas que enfrentan las empresas.
La curva de Phillips en el Reino Unido se ha aplanado en los últimos años, pero el crecimiento salarial ha empezado a inclinarse al alza recientemente. Como en muchos otros países, la curva de Phillips en el Reino Unido está doblada, de modo que la convexidad del crecimiento salarial aumenta a medida que se cierra la brecha de desempleo.
La velocidad de circulación en el mercado laboral, también conocida como flujo de trabajo a trabajo, ha aumentado. Históricamente esto ha sido positivo para el crecimiento salarial (Gráfico 5). Esto también se refleja en la tasa de renuncias, que se ha acelerado desde 2012.
Gráfico 4
Las presiones salariales deberían aumentar
Las presiones salariales deberían intensificarse
Las presiones salariales deberían intensificarse
Gráfico 5
Aumento de la velocidad del empleo en el Reino Unido
Aumenta el ritmo del empleo en el Reino Unido
Aumenta el ritmo del empleo en el Reino Unido
En este momento, el mecanismo de transmisión desde un mercado laboral ajustado hacia salarios más altos está siendo obstaculizado por la incertidumbre política, que seguirá proyectando una sombra a corto plazo sobre los planes de contratación a más largo plazo. Por ejemplo, pese a todo el discurso sobre el Reino Unido como centro financiero, la pérdida de empleo en la banca y los seguros sigue estando asentada (Gráfico 6). El Reino Unido continúa atrayendo una cantidad significativa de actividad financiera, especialmente en el mercado de divisas, pero hubo una caída clara en los volúmenes en 2016, el año del referéndum del Brexit (Gráfico 7). Mientras tanto, en el sector manufacturero, llevará tiempo reavivar los “animal spirits” y volver a atraer inversión extranjera directa.
Gráfico 6
Pérdida de empleo en manufactura y finanzas
Rotación de personal en los sectores de manufactura y finanzas
Rotación de personal en los sectores de manufactura y finanzas
Gráfico 7
El Reino Unido es un importante centro financiero
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Dicho esto, la economía del Reino Unido sigue estando impulsada principalmente por los servicios, lo que significa que los salarios aún sufrirán cierta presión al alza. El crecimiento salarial del sector servicios ha sido sólido y, a menos que la recesión manufacturera se profundice y empiece a contagiar a otros sectores de la economía del Reino Unido, la trayectoria de menor resistencia para los salarios sigue siendo al alza.
Conclusión: La economía del Reino Unido se ha mantenido bastante bien, a pesar de la carga de la incertidumbre política.
Círculo virtuoso del gasto
Si bien el pastel de ingresos del Reino Unido podría crecer, la falta de confianza sigue limitando el gasto. Gráfico 8 muestra que la confianza del consumidor en el Reino Unido ha divergido negativamente respecto a las tendencias tanto en EE. UU. como en la zona euro. Han intervenido algunos factores compensatorios que sugieren que una vez que se disipen las nubes de la incertidumbre del Brexit, el gasto podría volver a acelerarse.
El mecanismo de transmisión desde un mercado laboral ajustado hacia salarios más altos está siendo impedido por la incertidumbre política, que seguirá proyectando una sombra a corto plazo.
Un gran impulsor de las ventas minoristas en el Reino Unido son las llegadas de turistas y la libra debilitada probablemente seguirá atrayendo un influjo de visitantes (Gráfico 9).
Gráfico 8
La confianza será clave para ##br##cualquier recuperación
La confianza será clave para cualquier recuperación
La confianza será clave para cualquier recuperación
Gráfico 9
La libra barata animará a ##br##los compradores extranjeros
La libra barata animará a los compradores extranjeros
La libra barata animará a los compradores extranjeros
El Reino Unido alberga muchas de las principales marcas mundiales que se beneficiarán de una moneda barata.
El proceso de desapalancamiento de los hogares está muy avanzado, y la recuperación tentativa del crédito y de las solicitudes hipotecarias está ayudando a amortiguar la caída de los precios de la vivienda en el Reino Unido. Esto está respaldado por el hecho de que los costes de préstamo hipotecario en el Reino Unido se han desplomado junto con los rendimientos (Gráfico 10). Dicho esto, cualquier aumento en el endeudamiento se verá mitigado por el hecho de que la deuda de los hogares respecto al PIB en el Reino Unido sigue siendo más alta que en muchas otras economías desarrolladas.
Gráfico 10
Las bajas tasas deberían ayudar a la vivienda
Las tasas bajas deberían ayudar a la vivienda
Las tasas bajas deberían ayudar a la vivienda
Gráfico 11
Inflación de origen costos
Inflación por costos
Inflación por costos
Las expectativas de inflación están disparándose, en parte en respuesta a la moneda más débil. Lo notable es que la libra ha caído mucho más de lo justificado sobre una base fundamental de PPP. Esto provocará inflación importada (Gráfico 11).
Conclusión: El gran riesgo para la economía del Reino Unido es que entre en estanflación. Una encuesta del BoE sitúa la pérdida de producción en caso de un Brexit sin acuerdo en torno al 3% del PIB, pero estas son estimaciones ya que gran parte del ajuste económico podría producirse a través del tipo de cambio. El rango de estimaciones del impacto económico de un no-acuerdo (Tabla 1), quizás no por coincidencia, refleja el rango de recesiones británicas del siglo XX (Gráfico 12). Esto coloca al BoE en un modo particularmente incómodo de “esperar y ver”. Por ejemplo, si una salida dura conduce a una caída de la libra y a un aumento de las expectativas de inflación, no está claro que el Comité de Política Monetaria del BoE recortaría las tasas si tuviera que cumplir su mandato de inflación.
Tabla 1
Amplio rango de estimaciones del impacto ##br##de un Brexit sin acuerdo
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Gráfico 12
Las recesiones británicas pasadas ofrecen pautas ##br##para el impacto de un no-acuerdo
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
La incertidumbre del Brexit ya ha causado un daño duradero al crecimiento del Reino Unido
Un lastre importante para el crecimiento económico del Reino Unido en los últimos tres años ha sido el colapso de la confianza empresarial y la contracción asociada en el gasto de capital (Gráfico 13).
Desde la votación del Brexit de 2016, la inversión empresarial ha sido sustancialmente más débil que en puntos similares de ciclos empresariales previos del Reino Unido: de forma acumulada, un 26% menos, según el BoE (Gráfico 14). Si bien parte de la debilidad observada en 2019 también puede atribuirse a la desaceleración del crecimiento económico global y a la incertidumbre relacionada con la guerra comercial entre EE. UU. y China, el gasto de capital del Reino Unido ha sido mucho más débil que el de otras economías avanzadas (Gráfico 15).
Desde la votación del Brexit de 2016, la inversión empresarial ha sido sustancialmente más débil que en puntos similares de ciclos empresariales previos del Reino Unido – de forma acumulada, un 26%.
Este es un punto crítico a considerar al juzgar el daño a largo plazo que ya se ha infligido a la economía del Reino Unido solo por la incertidumbre del Brexit. La mejor manera de evaluar este daño es a través de la lente del gasto de capital, cuyo crecimiento está altamente correlacionado con los cambios en la productividad y el crecimiento económico potencial (Gráfico 16).
Gráfico 13
Empresas británicas sombrías han dejado de invertir
Las sombrías empresas del Reino Unido han dejado de invertir
Las sombrías empresas del Reino Unido han dejado de invertir
Gráfico 14
Gran subrendimiento del gasto de capital del Reino Unido comparado con la historia ...
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Gráfico 15
...y comparado con ##br##pares globales
...Y en comparación con pares globales
...Y en comparación con pares globales
Gráfico 16
Un golpe duradero a la economía del Reino Unido por la incertidumbre del Brexit
Un impacto duradero en la economía del Reino Unido por la incertidumbre del Brexit
Un impacto duradero en la economía del Reino Unido por la incertidumbre del Brexit
Un importante artículo de investigación publicado por el BoE el mes pasado – coescrito por dos miembros actuales del Comité de Política Monetaria del BoE, Ben Broadbent y Silvana Tenreyro – analiza los vínculos entre la incertidumbre del Brexit, el gasto de capital y la productividad del Reino Unido.2 Los autores concluyeron que los efectos económicos del resultado del referéndum del Brexit pueden categorizarse como una respuesta a una anticipada y persistente caída del crecimiento de la productividad para los sectores comerciables de la economía del Reino Unido. En ese marco, la siguiente cadena de eventos ocurriría después de que se anuncie la “noticia” de una productividad esperada más débil (es decir, el resultado del referéndum del Brexit):
Gráfico 17
Una mala asignación de recursos
Una mala asignación de recursos
Una mala asignación de recursos
Una caída inmediata y permanente en el precio relativo de la producción no comerciable respecto a la comerciable, es decir, el tipo de cambio real.
Los recursos se desplazan hacia el sector comerciable para aprovechar el precio relativo más alto, lo que lleva a un aumento de la producción y a un aumento de las exportaciones.
El crecimiento de la productividad en el sector comerciable luego cae, tal como anunciaba la “noticia” del voto del Brexit, lo que provoca un desplazamiento de recursos económicos de nuevo hacia los sectores no comerciables de mayor productividad.
Las tasas de interés del Reino Unido caen respecto al mundo, ya que los mercados financieros descuentan la senda relativamente más lenta de productividad del Reino Unido prevista.
El crecimiento agregado de la inversión empresarial se ralentiza, pero en general el crecimiento del empleo permanece
resiliente.
Así es exactamente como ha evolucionado la economía del Reino Unido desde la votación del Brexit de 2016:
El índice del BoE ponderado por el comercio para la libra ha caído tanto en términos nominales como reales.
La cuota de exportaciones del PIB real del Reino Unido aumentó del 27% al 30%, mientras que la cuota de inversión del PIB real disminuyó del 10% al 9% (Gráfico 17, panel superior).
El crecimiento anual del empleo en los servicios del Reino Unido (no comerciables) cayó del 2,1% a cero a finales de 2018, pero desde entonces ha comenzado a recuperarse; el crecimiento del empleo en manufactura (comerciable) aumentó inicialmente del 0,5% al 2,7% dentro del año posterior al voto del Brexit, antes de desacelerarse hasta el 0% en 2018, y también está empezando a moverse al alza (Gráfico 17, tercer panel).
El crecimiento de la productividad ha caído del 1,9% a cero, incluso cuando el crecimiento salarial se ha acelerado debido al ritmo sostenido de la demanda de trabajo en un momento de bajo desempleo (Gráfico 17, panel inferior).
A nivel sectorial, las peores tasas de crecimiento de la productividad realizada se están produciendo en industrias comerciables como productos metálicos y servicios financieros, mientras que las tasas más altas de crecimiento de la productividad se observan en industrias no comerciables como los servicios profesionales y el comercio minorista (Gráfico 18).3
Gráfico 18
Últimas tasas de crecimiento de la productividad del Reino Unido, por industria
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Resumiendo, según el marco analítico del artículo de investigación del BoE, el resultado del referéndum del Brexit esencialmente creó una señal, manifestada por la caída de la libra esterlina, para la mala asignación de recursos del Reino Unido alejándolos de industrias no comerciables de mayor productividad hacia sectores comerciables de menor productividad. Si esto fuera cierto, también esperaríamos ver lo siguiente:
Gráfico 19
Consecuencias inflacionarias de la incertidumbre del Brexit
Consecuencias inflacionarias de la incertidumbre en torno al Brexit
Consecuencias inflacionarias de la incertidumbre en torno al Brexit
Tasas de inflación mucho más altas en medidas más centradas en lo doméstico, como los servicios y los salarios.
Un crecimiento más rápido del coste unitario del trabajo como resultado de la brecha entre salarios que se aceleran y productividad estancada.
Expectativas de inflación estructuralmente más altas.
Tasas de interés reales más bajas en el Reino Unido que en otras economías avanzadas.
Debilidad prolongada en el tipo de cambio.
Nuevamente, todo esto se ha concretado en el Reino Unido (Gráfico 19):
La inflación del IPC de servicios está ahora en 2,2%, en comparación con solo 1,7% para la inflación general del IPC.
El crecimiento del coste unitario del trabajo se ha acelerado desde niveles negativos antes del referéndum del Brexit hasta un rango del 2%-3% desde finales de 2016.
El rendimiento real del gilt a 10 años (deflactado por la swap de CPI a 10 años) es ahora -3,1%, en comparación con un rendimiento real del 0% en los bonos del Tesoro estadounidense a 10 años.
La libra esterlina ponderada por el comercio se mantiene cerca de sus mínimos posteriores al referéndum del Brexit.
Está claro que la incertidumbre del Brexit ha dado lugar a una economía del Reino Unido estructuralmente más débil y más inflacionaria, un resultado que puede no revertirse rápidamente en caso de que se evite un Brexit sin acuerdo. Esto tiene importantes implicaciones para las futuras decisiones de política monetaria del BoE y las perspectivas de inversión para la libra y los gilts del Reino Unido.
Conclusión: Incluso antes de que se haya producido la retirada efectiva del Reino Unido de la UE, el Brexit ha dejado una marca duradera en la economía británica a través de una incertidumbre elevada, una severa debilidad en el gasto de inversión empresarial y una productividad anémica. El resultado neto es una economía con un crecimiento de tendencia más bajo, un tipo de cambio estructuralmente débil y una inflación interna relativamente alta.
Predomina la incertidumbre política
Gráfico 20
El público se opone a un Brexit sin acuerdo
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿Desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Incluso tras considerar el estado cíclico y estructural de la economía del Reino Unido, tal como lo hemos hecho en este informe, las perspectivas a corto plazo siguen dependiendo por completo del resultado del Brexit.
El estado del Brexit es más incierto que nunca debido al caso del Tribunal Supremo contra la suspensión del Parlamento por parte del gobierno y a la negativa del primer ministro Boris Johnson a obedecer una orden del Parlamento para solicitar una prórroga del plazo de salida del 31 de octubre. Lo que no está en duda es que el parlamento se opone a un Brexit desordenado y sin acuerdo. Y las mejores encuestas sugieren que la opinión pública también se opone a un Brexit sin acuerdo (Gráfico 20).
Los miembros rechazaron rotundamente la estrategia de negociación del primer ministro Boris Johnson en septiembre: prohibieron tanto un Brexit sin acuerdo como votaron en contra de celebrar unas elecciones anticipadas en dos ocasiones separadas (Gráfico 21). Johnson perdió su mayoría de coalición y, sin embargo, no puede ir a nuevas elecciones, dejándolo paralizado hasta que el Parlamento se reúna.
Lo que es probable independientemente del resultado es un aumento sustancial del gasto fiscal,
El Reino Unido no es una monarquía Estuardo del siglo XVII: el Parlamento es el órgano político supremo en la constitución y sus decretos no pueden ser ignorados o desobedecidos de forma permanente. Siempre que el Parlamento se reúna de nuevo, probablemente el 14 de octubre, tendrá la capacidad de asegurar que se extienda el plazo del Brexit. La UE probablemente concederá una prórroga porque le interesa demorar o cancelar el Brexit y demostrar a todos los miembros que abandonar el bloque no es ni deseable ni práctico. El resultado sería entonces unas elecciones.
Gráfico 21
La estrategia de negociación de Boris Johnson fracasó
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Reino Unido: ¿desaceleración cíclica o malestar estructural?
Gráfico 22
El resultado probable es un Parlamento en minoría
Es probable que el resultado sea un parlamento sin mayoría.
Es probable que el resultado sea un parlamento sin mayoría.
Las encuestas electorales muestran a los Conservadores despegar, a los Liberal Demócratas adelantando a Labour y al Brexit Party manteniendo una ventaja (Gráfico 22). Traducir estas encuestas a escaños parlamentarios no es sencillo porque el sistema electoral mayoritario significa que un partido más pequeño puede robar votos cruciales al partido más popular, dejando al segundo o tercer partido más popular para ganar el escaño.
El punto clave es que el Brexit Party es un partido de una sola cuestión y los tories bajo Johnson ahora monopolizan esa misma cuestión. Si esta dinámica persiste, los Lib Dems suponen una mayor amenaza de dividir los votos de Labour que el Brexit Party de dividir los votos conservadores. El resultado es que todavía es posible que los conservadores obtengan una mayoría, aunque parece improbable dado que necesitan más de 325 escaños y han caído a 288 escaños tras purgar a miembros indisciplinados y perder liderazgo en Escocia. Un Parlamento en minoría es un resultado más probable.
Un Parlamento en minoría prolongará la indecisión y la incertidumbre, pero también es probable que permanezca unido contra un Brexit sin acuerdo. Un gobierno de coalición de la oposición impedirá un Brexit sin acuerdo. Incluso una mayoría conservadora de un solo partido no sería un resultado desastroso, ya que aumentaría la influencia de Johnson con la UE y aumentaría la probabilidad de que la UE ofreciera algunas concesiones para que se apruebe un acuerdo de retirada, resultando en un trato del Brexit y una salida ordenada (específicamente, una limitación para Irlanda del Norte al backstop, o una cláusula de caducidad o mecanismo de retirada para lo mismo). Dicho acuerdo interesa a Johnson para no presidir una recesión desde el momento en que vuelva al cargo. Todos estos resultados apuntan hacia un acuerdo de salida o a un nuevo capítulo en el que el parlamento busque un nuevo referéndum.
Gráfico 23
Espere un aumento del gasto fiscal
Espere un aumento en el gasto fiscal
Espere un aumento en el gasto fiscal
El peor resultado para los mercados sería una débil mayoría conservadora de coalición que no pueda ponerse de acuerdo sobre Irlanda ni aprobar un acuerdo de salida, ya que esto podría conducir a la parálisis, como le ocurrió a Theresa May, en un momento en que el primer ministro está decidido a lograr una salida cueste lo que cueste. Este es el escenario en el que el no-acuerdo vuelve a convertirse en un riesgo real. Subjetivamente hemos estimado que el riesgo de no-acuerdo es de alrededor del 30%, pero esto actualmente está disminuyendo, no aumentando, como resultado de las amplias mayorías del parlamento contra ese resultado en septiembre, y solo unas elecciones pueden cambiar eso.
Es infructuoso tratar de predecir el panorama político futuro del Reino Unido sin conocer la conclusión de la saga del Brexit. Lo que es probable independientemente del resultado es un aumento sustancial del gasto fiscal, revirtiendo la “austeridad” de la pos-Gran Recesión. Esta tendencia ya es evidente en el intento actual de Johnson de presentar un paquete generoso de gasto social en la conferencia del partido tory este otoño, que, si se confirma con unas nuevas elecciones, representaría un giro en la política fiscal conservadora (Gráfico 23).
Se necesitará más gasto fiscal para contrarrestar el impacto negativo de un Brexit desordenado, o para aplacar a la clase media una vez que quede claro que salir de la UE no es una panacea para los problemas del Reino Unido, o para cumplir la agenda de un gobierno de la oposición cuando llegue al poder.
En caso de que ocurra un Brexit sin acuerdo, el Reino Unido no solo afrontará unas consecuencias económicas tumultuosas, sino que las luchas constitucionales entre los tres reinos se reavivarán debido al impacto negativo en Irlanda del Norte y a la probable revivificación de los esfuerzos por la independencia de Escocia.
Conclusión: El Reino Unido no es una dictadura y el primer ministro no puede negarse a obedecer la voluntad del Parlamento. El Parlamento ha votado claramente para retrasar un Brexit sin acuerdo y continuará haciéndolo. Una salida desordenada sigue siendo un riesgo porque unas elecciones eventuales podrían devolver a los tories al poder. Pero en ese caso, la UE tendrá más incentivos para ofrecer una concesión que permita al Parlamento aprobar un proyecto de ley de retirada. Las probabilidades de un no-acuerdo no son superiores al 30%. La conclusión estructural, independientemente del resultado, es que el gasto fiscal aumentará.
Conclusiones de inversión
Los episodios en torno al colapso de la libra en 1992 contienen lecciones importantes para hoy.4 De manera crucial, la mayor parte del ajuste de la libra ocurrió rápidamente, pero una diferencia clave con respecto a hoy es que una salida del Mecanismo de Tipo de Cambio Europeo fue inesperada, a diferencia del Brexit. Los mercados de divisas son extremadamente fluidos y se ajustan a las expectativas con bastante rapidez. Del máximo al mínimo, la libra ya ha caído en torno al 30%, lo que sugiere que la mayor parte del ajuste a la baja está hecho.
Gráfico 24
Un resultado binario del Brexit para los gilts
Un resultado binario del Brexit para los gilts
Un resultado binario del Brexit para los gilts
La moneda británica es de libre flotación, lo que significa que hay menos “pecados ocultos” en comparación con el período de tipo de cambio fijo. Dicho esto, el valor razonable de la libra se ha debilitado estructuralmente. Nuestra inclinación es que si hay un Brexit duro, la libra podría caer fácilmente hasta la zona 1.10-1.15. Parte de este movimiento será un submuestreo a la baja. En el caso de un Brexit suave (o ningún Brexit), la libra debería converger hacia el punto medio de su rango histórico de tipo de cambio efectivo real, lo que la situaría un 15%-20% más alta, o en torno a 1.50. Desde una perspectiva riesgo-recompensa, esto parece atractivo.
Para los gilts del Reino Unido, la dirección de los rendimientos también depende del resultado del Brexit, ya que esencialmente no hay cambios en las tasas de política descontados en la curva OIS del Reino Unido (Gráfico 24).
Un Brexit “suave” permitiría al BoE volver a centrarse en combatir las elevadas expectativas de inflación en el Reino Unido. Eso probablemente resultaría en rendimientos de gilts más altos y un aplanamiento de la curva de rendimientos de los gilts, a medida que el mercado valore futuras subidas de tipos del BoE, y en expectativas de inflación a más largo plazo más bajas. Una libra al alza también moderaría las expectativas de inflación. Ni los gilts ni los bonos vinculados a la inflación del Reino Unido rendirían bien en este escenario.
Un Brexit “sin acuerdo”, por otro lado, llevaría al BoE a recortar los tipos de interés para compensar el posible golpe a la confianza empresarial y del consumidor. Esto podría ocurrir incluso si las expectativas de inflación se mantienen altas o aumentan más por la debilidad de la libra. Eso significaría rendimientos de gilts más bajos y un empinamiento de la curva de gilts. Sobrerponderar gilts y estar largo en bonos vinculados a la inflación sería la mejor manera de posicionarse para este resultado.
Los escenarios de relajación fiscal descritos anteriormente también influirían en la forma de la curva de gilts, resultando en cierto grado de empinamiento bajista a medida que la curvaprecio mayores déficits y una inflación futura más alta, todo lo demás constante.
Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com
Chester Ntonifor, Estratega de divisas chestern@bcaresearch.com
Matt Gertken, Estratega geopolítico mattg@bcaresearch.com
Ray Park, CFA, Analista de investigación ray@bcaresearch.com
Notas al pie
1 Andrew G Haldane, “Subiendo la escalera del empleo,” Banco de Inglaterra, 23 de julio de 2019
2 Documento de discusión de la Unidad Externa del MPC del Banco de Inglaterra No. 51, “El voto del Brexit, el crecimiento de la productividad y los ajustes macroeconómicos en el Reino Unido”, agosto de 2019
3 El papel de Londres como un importante centro financiero global convierte a la industria de servicios financieros del Reino Unido en un sector “comerciable”, en el sentido de que una proporción significativa de su producción se “comercializa” a usuarios fuera del Reino Unido.
4 Mathias Zurlinden, “La vulnerabilidad de los tipos de cambio anclados: la libra esterlina en el MTC,” Investigación Económica, Vol. 75, No. 5 (septiembre/octubre de 1993).
Operaciones y previsiones
Resumen de previsiones
Cartera principal
Operaciones tácticas
Órdenes limitadas
Operaciones cerradas
Highlights Global bond yields have closely tracked the trajectory of global growth. While the global economy remains fragile, some positive signs are emerging: Our global leading economic indicator has moved off its lows; global financial conditions have eased significantly; U.S. household spending remains resilient; and China is set to further increase stimulus. Neither a severe escalation of the trade war nor a hard Brexit is likely. A simple comparison between current dividend yields and bond yields implies that global equities would need to fall by an outsized amount over the next decade for bonds to outperform stocks. As global growth stabilizes and then begins to recover over the coming months, bond yields will rebound from depressed levels. Investors should overweight stocks versus bonds for now, and look to upgrade EM and European equities later this year. Feature Global Growth Driving Bond Yields Chart 1Global Bond Yields: How Low Will They Go? Global bond yields rose sharply yesterday on word that U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators will meet in October. The announcement by China’s State Council of additional stimulus measures and better-than-expected data on the health of the U.S. service sector also drove the bond sell-off. The jump in yields follows a period of almost unrelenting declines. After hitting a high of 3.25% last October, the U.S. 10-year yield fell to 1.43% this Tuesday, just shy of its all-time low of 1.34% reached on July 5, 2016. The 30-year Treasury yield broke below 2% for the first time in history on August 15, falling to as low as 1.91% this week. It now stands at 2.07%. In Japan and across much of Europe, bond yields remain firmly in negative territory (Chart 1). The large movements in bond yields can be attributed to both the state of the global economy as well as to changes in how central banks are reacting to economic uncertainty. Just as stronger global growth pushed yields higher between mid-2016 and early-2018, the deceleration in growth since then has pulled yields lower. Chart 2 shows that there has been a close correlation between changes in the U.S. 10-year yield and the ISM manufacturing index. The release on Tuesday of a weaker-than-expected ISM manufacturing print for August was enough to push the 10-year yield down by seven basis points within a matter of minutes. Chart 2The Deceleration In Growth Has Pulled Yields Down The forward-looking new orders component of the ISM manufacturing index sunk to a seven-year low. The export orders component fell to the lowest level since 2009. Export volumes track ISM export orders quite closely (Chart 3). Not surprisingly, the ISM press release noted that trade remains “the most significant issue” for U.S. manufacturers. Chart 3Export Volumes Track The ISM Export Component The only redeeming feature in the report was that the customers’ inventories index dropped a notch from 45.7 in July to 44.9 in August. A reading below 50 for this subindex indicates that manufacturers believe that their customers are holding too few inventories, which is positive for future production. Global Manufacturing PMI Not Looking Much Brighter The Markit global manufacturing PMI remained below 50 for the fourth month in a row in August. While the global PMI did edge up slightly from July’s reading, this was largely due to a modest rebound in the Chinese PMI, which rose from 49.9 to 50.4. The improvement in the China Markit-Caixin PMI stands in contrast to the further deterioration observed in the “official” National Bureau of Statistics PMI. The former is more heavily geared towards private-sector exporting companies, and hence may have been influenced by the front-loading of exports ahead of the planned tariff increase on Chinese exports to the United States. Some Positive Signs Chart 4Global LEI Has Moved Off Its Lows In light of the disappointing manufacturing data, it is too early to call a bottom in the global industrial cycle. Nevertheless, there are some hopeful signs. Our Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has moved off its lows (Chart 4). It usually leads the PMIs by a few months. Sterling will probably be the best performing currency in the G7 over the next five years. Despite ongoing weakness in the manufacturing sector, household spending has held up in most economies. In the U.S., the nonmanufacturing ISM index jumped to 56.4 in August from 53.7 in July. Real personal consumption is still on track to grow by 2.8% in Q3 according to the Atlanta Fed (Chart 5). The euro area services PMIs have also been resilient (Chart 6). In Germany, where the manufacturing PMI stood at 43.5 in August, the services PMI rose to 54.8. Chart 5Inventories And Net Exports Have Subtracted From U.S. Growth In Q2 And Q3 Chart 6AThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 6BThe Service Sector Has Softened Much Less Than Manufacturing (II) Global financial conditions have eased significantly, mainly thanks to the steep decline in bond yields. The current level of financial conditions implies that global growth could rebound swiftly (Chart 7). The Chinese government is also likely to step up fiscal/credit stimulus over the coming months in an effort to shore up growth. In a boldly worded statement released on Wednesday, the Chinese State Council promised to further increase bond issuance to finance infrastructure projects, while cutting interest rates and reserve requirements. A stronger Chinese economy should benefit global growth (Chart 8). Chart 7Easier Financial Conditions Will Benefit Global Growth Chart 8Stronger Chinese Growth Should Benefit The Global Economy The Trade War: Moving Towards A Détente? The announcement that the U.S. and China will resume trade negotiations on October 5th is a step in the right direction. As we noted last week, both parties have an incentive to de-escalate the trade conflict. President Trump wants to prop up the stock market and the economy in order to improve his re-election prospects. China also wants to bolster growth.1 Chart 9Would China Really Be Better Off Negotiating With A Democrat As President? As difficult as it has been for China to deal with Donald Trump, trying to secure a trade deal with him after he has been re-elected would be even more challenging. This would be especially the case if Trump thought that the Chinese had tried to sabotage his re-election bid. Even if Trump were to lose the election, it is not clear that China would end up with someone more palatable to deal with on trade matters. Does the Chinese government really want to negotiate over labor standards and human rights with President Warren, who betting markets now think has a better chance of becoming the Democratic nominee than Joe Biden (Chart 9)? While Republicans in Congress would be able to restrain a Democratic president on domestic issues, the president would still enjoy free rein over trade policy. Brexit Uncertainty Adding To Investor Angst Two weeks before the Brexit vote on June 23, 2016, I wrote that “Just like my gut told me last August that Trump would do much better at the polls than almost anyone thought possible, I increasingly feel that come June 24th, the EU may find itself with one less member.”2 Chart 10Brexit Opposition Has Been Growing Soon after the shocking verdict, we argued that a hard Brexit would prove to be politically infeasible, meaning that the U.K. would either end up holding another referendum or be forced to negotiate some sort of customs union with the EU. Our view that a hard Brexit will not happen has not changed. Chart 10 shows that opposition to Brexit has only grown since that fateful day. Boris Johnson does not have enough votes in Westminster to force a hard Brexit. Another election would not change this outcome, given that it would almost certainly produce a hung parliament. In any case, it is not clear that Johnson actually wants a hard Brexit. The Times of London recently reported that the government’s own contingency plans for a hard Brexit, weirdly code-named “Operation Yellowhammer,” predicted a crippling logjam at British ports leading to shortages of fuel, food and medicine.3 Boris Johnson is all hat and no cattle. He will be forced to make a deal with the EU. Buy the pound on any dips. Sterling will probably be the best performing currency in the G7 over the next five years. Central Banks: Cut First, Ask Questions Later Chart 11Inflation Expectations Are Low Across The Globe Despite a few glimmers of good news, central banks are in no mood to take any chances. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said it bluntly last week: “Our job is to get the yield curve uninverted.”4 If history is any guide, global growth will stabilize and begin to recover over the coming months. Inflation expectations are below target in most economies (Chart 11). Central banks know full well that if the current slowdown morphs into a full-blown recession, they will be out of monetary ammunition very quickly. In such a setting, it does not make sense to hold your punches. Much better to generate as much inflation as possible, and as soon as possible, so that real rates can be brought deeper into negative territory if economic circumstances later warrant it. What If The Medicine Works? The risk of easing monetary policy too much is that economies will eventually overheat, producing more inflation than is desirable. It is easy to forget that the aggregate unemployment rate in the G7 is now below its 2007 lows (Chart 12). True, inflation has yet to take off, but this may simply be because inflation is a lagging indicator (Chart 13). Chart 12Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Chart 13Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator For all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, the empirical evidence suggests it is very much alive and well (Chart 14). Ironically, this means that lower interest rates today could set the stage for much higher rates in the future if hyperstimulative monetary policies ultimately generate a bout of inflation. Chart 14The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well Chart 15The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Investment Conclusions Like most economic forecasters, central banks tend to extrapolate recent trends too far into the future. Global growth has been weakening since early 2018 so it seems reasonable to assume that this trend will persist into next year. However, as we have documented, global industrial cycles tend to last about three years – 18 months of rising growth followed by 18 months of falling growth.5 If history is any guide, global growth will stabilize and begin to recover over the coming months. Should that occur, we will enter an environment where the lagged effects of easier monetary policy are hitting the economy just when the manufacturing cycle is taking a turn for the better. Stocks are likely to fare well in such a setting, while long-term bond yields will move higher. As a countercyclical currency, the dollar will also start to weaken anew (Chart 15). Granted, an intensification of the trade war or some other major adverse shock would upset this rosy forecast. Nevertheless, current market pricing offers a fairly large cushion against downside risks. Thanks to the drop in bond yields, the equity risk premium is quite high globally (Chart 16). Even if one were to assume that nominal dividend payments remain unchanged for the next ten years, the S&P 500 would still need to fall by more than 20% in real terms over the next decade for bonds to outperform stocks (Chart 17). Euro area stocks would need to drop by more than 42%. U.K. stocks would need to plummet by at least 60%! Chart 16AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 16BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) Chart 17AStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (I) Chart 17BStocks Need To Fall By A Considerable Amount For Bonds To Outperform Over A 10-Year Horizon (II) Investors should remain overweight stocks versus bonds over the next 12 months. We intend to upgrade EM and European equities once we see a bit more evidence that global growth has troughed. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “A Psychological Recession?” dated August 30, 2019. 2Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Worry About Brexit, Not Payrolls,” dated June 10, 2016. 3Rosamund Urwin and Caroline Wheeler, “Operation Chaos: Whitehall’s Secret No-Deal Brexit Preparations Leaked,” The Times, August 18, 2019. 4“Fed’s Bullard Sees ‘Robust Debate’ Over Half-Point Cut,” Bloomberg, August 23, 2019. 5Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Three Cycles,” dated July 26, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
The non-linearity of any potential U.K. election is what makes it difficult to take a high-conviction view on sterling’s direction. Instead, as soon as an election is announced, a good strategy is to buy sterling volatility. Although it has risen recently,…
The only way out of the impasse is to change the parliamentary arithmetic via a snap general election. The trouble is that the outcome of such an election is near impossible to predict. This is because the U.K.’s first past the post electoral system is…
Highlights An inevitable and imminent U.K. general election will be one of the most unpredictable and ‘non-linear’ elections ever. This non-linearity makes it difficult to take a high-conviction view on sterling’s direction because a tiny vote swing in one direction or another could be the difference between a no-deal Brexit – and the pound below parity against the euro – or a solid coalition for remain – and the pound at €1.30. Instead, a good strategy is to buy sterling volatility on the announcement of the election. The easiest way to implement this is simultaneously to buy at-the-money call and put options (versus either the euro or dollar). In a soft Brexit or remain, the U.K. equity sectors most likely to outperform the overall market are real estate and general retailers. In a hard Brexit, a U.K. sector likely to outperform the overall market is clothing and accessories. Feature Chart of the WeekSterling Volatility Could Go Up A Lot Lyndon B Johnson famously said that that the first rule of politics is to learn to count. A government is a lame duck if it does not have a majority of legislators to drive and set its policy. Fifty years on, LBJ’s namesake is learning this first rule of politics. Boris Johnson is running a minority U.K. government. The irony is that this makes it impossible for a pro-Brexit Johnson to pass legislation for the Brexit process itself! Ending the free movement of EU citizens was supposedly one of the biggest ambitions of the Brexit vote. But astonishingly, even after a no-deal Brexit, free movement would not end – because EU law continues to apply until its legal foundation is repealed. The U.K. government wanted to end free movement through a new law, the immigration bill, but the proposed legislation, along with several other key new laws, cannot make it through parliament. The Most Non-Linear Election Looms The only way out of the impasse is to change the parliamentary arithmetic via a snap general election. The trouble is that the outcome of such an election is near impossible to predict. This is because the U.K.’s first past the post electoral system is designed for a head-to-head between two dominant parties. But right now, there are four parties in play – from left to right: Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative, and Brexit. While in Scotland, the SNP is resurgent. Making the next U.K. general election one of the most unpredictable and ‘non-linear’ elections ever. The outcome of a snap general election is near impossible to predict. For example, in the recent Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, the 10 percent of votes that went to the Brexit party syphoned just enough ‘leave’ votes from the Conservatives to hand the seat to the Lib Dems. Repeated nationwide, such a swing could inflict mortal damage to the Conservatives. On the other hand, the staunchly pro-remain Lib Dems could also syphon crucial votes from a Labour party that is prevaricating on its Brexit policy. Understanding this, Johnson isn’t using the next election to resolve Brexit; quite the opposite, he is using Brexit to resolve the next election – in his favour – with the ancient strategy of ‘divide and rule’. Unite ‘leave’ by tacking to the hard right, and divide ‘remain’ between Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP, and Plaid Cymru. However, it is a very risky strategy. A small but critical rump of Brexit party voters are diehard anti-establishment rather than pure leave votes; furthermore, remainers almost certainly will vote tactically as they did in 2017 when they obliterated the Conservatives’ overall majority. For U.K. investments, the inevitable imminent election dominates all other considerations, as its outcome will determine the U.K.’s ultimate trading relationship with the EU and rest of the world, as well as establish the U.K’s overarching economic policy and strategy. But to reiterate, the outcome is highly non-linear. A tiny vote swing in one direction or another could be the difference between a no-deal Brexit – and the pound below parity against the euro – or a solid coalition for remain – and the pound at €1.30, as sterling’s ‘Brexit discount’ is unwound (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Sterling's Brexit Discount Is 15 Percent, Based On Real Interest Rate Differentials... Chart I-3...And Expected Interest Rate ##br##Differentials The non-linearity makes it difficult to take a high-conviction view on sterling’s direction. Instead, as soon as an election is announced, a good strategy is to buy sterling volatility. Although it has risen recently, sterling volatility is only in the foothills relative to the heights of 2016, meaning plenty of upside (Chart I-1). The easiest way to implement this is simultaneously to buy at-the-money call and put options (versus either the euro or dollar). Brexit Investments A common question we get is what are the most Brexit-impacted investments, in both directions? As mentioned, the most obvious is sterling. Relative to the established relationship with interest rate differentials prior to the Brexit vote in 2016, the pound now carries a Brexit discount of around 15 percent. For U.K. investments, the inevitable imminent election dominates all other considerations. Related to this, the FTSE100 has outperformed the Eurostoxx600. This is exactly as theory would suggest. The FTSE100 and Eurostoxx600 are just a collection of global multi-currency earning companies quoted in pounds and euros respectively. So when sterling weakens, the multi-currency earnings increase more in FTSE100 index terms than in Eurostoxx600 index terms, resulting in FTSE100 outperformance (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The FTSE100 Outperforms When Sterling Weakens Turning to U.K. equity sectors, those most likely to outperform the overall market in a soft Brexit are real estate and general retailers (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-5U.K. Real Estate Outperforms In A Soft Brexit Chart I-6U.K. General Retailers Outperform In A Soft Brexit While a sector likely to outperform the overall market in a hard Brexit is clothing and accessories (Chart I-7). Chart I-7U.K. Clothing And Accessories Could Outperform In A Hard Brexit Four Disruptors Revisited The final section this week revisits the wider context for Brexit and other recent examples of populism. Specifically, they are backlashes to four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets. Disruptor 1: Protectionism. Since the Great Recession, an extremely polarised distribution of economic growth has left many people’s standard of living stagnant – despite seemingly decent headline economic growth and job creation (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Disruptor 1: Income Inequality Leads To Protectionism Looking to find a scapegoat, economic nationalism and protectionism have resonated very strongly with voters in several major economies: the U.S., U.K., Italy, and Brazil. 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 the malaise is being misdiagnosed. Many middle-income job losses are not due to globalization, but due to technology. A polarised distribution of economic growth has left many people’s standard of living stagnant. 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.1 The worry is that by misdiagnosing the illness as globalization and wrongly responding with protectionism, the illness will get worse, rather than improve. Table I-1Disruptor 2: Technology Disruptor 3: Debt super-cycles have reached exhaustion. Protectionism carries a further danger. Just like developed economies did a decade ago, major emerging market economies are now 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: Financial markets are richly valued. 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). Extremely compressed risk premiums are justified so long as bond yields remain ultra-low. Otherwise, the rich valuations will come under pressure. Chart I-10Disruptor 4: Financial Markets Are Richly Valued 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 follow bespoke structural investment themes as shown in our structural recommendations section. Please note that owing to my travelling there is no fractal trading system this week. Normal service will resume next week. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘The Superstar Economy: Part 2’ January 19, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations 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 Four ghosts of 2016 are knocking at the door: Brexit, Trump, Brazil, Italy. President Trump and U.S. trade policy are keeping uncertainty high. Upgrade the odds of a no-deal Brexit to about 33%. Expect limited stimulus from Italy and Germany – for now. Brazil’s pension reform is entering its final stretch – buy the rumor, sell the news. Feature Four major political events of 2016 are returning to affect the global investment landscape this fall – though only two of these ghosts are truly frightening. In order of market relevance: Trump: The election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president, November 8, 2016 Brexit: The U.K. referendum to leave the European Union, June 23, 2016 Italy: The Italian constitutional referendum, December 4, 2016 Brazil: The removal of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, August 31, 2016 Italy and Brazil are producing market-positive political results in the short run. Brexit and Trump pose substantial and immediate risks to the global bull market. A pivot by Trump is the headline risk to our view that no trade agreement will be concluded by November 2020, as we outlined in a Special Report last week. At the moment tensions are still escalating. President Trump has ordered an increase in tariffs (Chart 1) and threatened to invoke the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, which would give him the ability to halt transactions, freeze funds, and appropriate assets. China is retaliating proportionately and virtually incapable of softening its tone prior to its National Day celebration on October 1. The next round of negotiations, slated for Washington in September, could be a flop like the talks in July, or it could be canceled. Investors should stay defensive. The equity market will have to fall to force Trump to stage a tactical retreat. Meanwhile China could intervene violently in Hong Kong SAR. That possibility, the nationalist military parade on October 1, and U.S. actions toward the South China Sea and Taiwan, show that sabers are rattling, causing additional market jitters. Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo U.S.-China tensions underpin our tactical safe-haven trade recommendations. But we are not shifting to a cyclically bearish stance until we get clarity on Trump’s and Xi’s handling of their immediate predicament. Brexit is the other acute short-term risk. This was true even before Prime Minister Boris Johnson opted to prorogue parliament from September 10 to October 14, shortening the time that parliament has to either pass a law forbidding a no-deal exit or bring down Johnson’s government in a vote of no confidence. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” to no higher than 33%, using a conservative decision-making process (Diagram 1). No-deal is not our base case because parliament, the public, and even Johnson himself want to avoid a recession, which is the likely outcome, even granting that the Bank of England will not stand idly by. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” Brexit to about 33%. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Revised August 29, 2019) From a bird’s eye point of view, the pound is very attractive (Chart 2). But in the near-term the twists and turns of Britain’s political struggle imply that we will see wild volatility. Our foreign exchange strategists expect that a no-deal Brexit would cause GBP/USD to collapse to 1 after October 31. Assuming our one-in-three odds of such an outcome, the probability-weighted average of cable is about 1.2. Hence investors should not short sterling from here, unless they strongly believe we are underrating the odds of no-deal exit. In the worst-case scenario, a no-deal Brexit will cause an economic shock at a time when Europe is on the brink of recession – Italy and Germany are virtually there. This means there is a substantial risk of additional deflationary pressure piling onto German bunds and sustaining the global bond rally. This pressure will be sharply reduced if Johnson loses an early no confidence vote, but that is a 50/50 call so we would not call time on this rally yet. Stay cautious. Chart 2Pound Can Only Go So Low Italy: Stimulus … Without A Bruising Brussels Battle Italy has avoided a new election by producing an unusual tie-up between the establishment Democratic Party and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S). The coalition still needs to clear some internal hurdles and an online vote by Five Star members, but an agreement is to be presented to President Sergio Mattarella as we go to press. This is the most market-friendly outcome that could have been expected, as is clear through the sharp drop in Italian government bond yields (Chart 3). Our GeoRisk indicator for Italy is also collapsing. Chart 3Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition This development marks the climax of a story line that we outlined in 2016, when Prime Minister Matteo Renzi lost a constitutional referendum that aimed to strengthen Italian governments to enable deeper structural reforms (he subsequently resigned). At that time we argued that Italy would emerge as a market-relevant political risk due to rampant anti-establishment sentiment, but that this risk would subside when Italy’s populists were shown to be pragmatic at heart, i.e. unwilling to push their conflicts with Brussels to a point that truly reignited European break-up risk. This view is now vindicated – and not only for the short-term. The new coalition comes at the nick of time, with Europe teetering on recession and the risk of a no-deal Brexit rising. The new government will have to deliver the 2020 budget to the European Commission by October 15. The budget will aim to provide fiscal support, including a delay of the legislatively mandated hike in the Value Added Tax from 22% to 24.2%, already rolled over from 2019. The Five Star Movement will demand as a price for its participation in the coalition that social spending go up; the Democratic Party will have learned a lesson while out of power and will be more fiscally permissive and strike a tougher tone with Brussels. The Italian budget talks will be a non-issue: the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. The episode demonstrates that the Italian risk to financial markets is overrated. This point goes beyond the fact that the Democrats and Five Star were able to cooperate. Italy’s leading populist parties have already shown that they are pragmatic and will play the game with Brussels to avoid a financial breakdown. In May 2018, the newly formed populist coalition proposed a gigantic “wish list” budget that would have increased the budget deficit to roughly 7.3% of GDP in 2019. They also appointed a euroskeptic economy minister who almost prevented government formation. The ensuing conflict with Brussels triggered considerable turmoil (Chart 4). Ultimately, however, the populists did precisely what we expected: they bowed to the severe financial constraint on Italy’s banking system. They agreed to a 2019 and 2020 deficit of 2.04% and 2.1%, respectively (Chart 5). Chart 4Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Chart 5Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash At present, the market is relieved that an election was avoided that might have seen Salvini and the League form a government with a much smaller right-wing party (Fratelli D’Italia) (Chart 6) – but the truth is that Salvini had already capitulated to the EU, both on budget matters and the euro currency. He was hardly likely to push for a budget more aggressive than that of the initial proposal in 2018. The clash with Brussels would have been a flash in the pan; the result would have been greater fiscal thrust, which would have been market-positive in the current environment. Chart 6Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk M5S will also push for more spending and has also moderated their stance on the euro. A coalition with the Democrats will not work if the purpose is to push a euroskeptic agenda. There will be a focus on counter-cyclical fiscal policy, pragmatic reforms that the two can agree on, and fighting corruption. The budget talks will be a non-issue: the Democratic Party is an establishment party and the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. Furthermore, the context has changed since 2018 in a way that will reduce budget frictions. There is a need for countercyclical fiscal policy in light of the global slowdown, so the European Commission will have to be more flexible on the budget. This is particularly true if Germany itself loosens its belt on a cyclical basis. The risk to the above is that the coalition shaping up between the Democrats and Five Star is an alliance of convenience that will break down over time. Five Star will remain hard-line on immigration, which is driving anti-establishment sentiment. Italian elections are a frequent affair. Salvini and the League will be waiting in the wings, especially if Brussels proves too tight-fisted or if the Democrats do not toughen their stance on immigration. But as outlined above, Salvini’s own evolution on the euro, on northern Italy, and on the budget and financial stability shows that the economy will have to get a lot worse before Italian euroskepticism presents a renewed systemic risk. Bottom Line: The tentative coalition taking shape in Italy will produce a modest increase in fiscal thrust with minimal frictions with Brussels. As such it is the most market-friendly outcome that could have occurred from Salvini’s push to seize power. Beneath this episode of government change is the political arrangement taking shape in Italy, and across Europe, which calls for a commitment to the European project and currency. The price of this commitment is a tougher line on immigration from European leaders. Germany: Fiscal Loosening, But Not For The States (Yet) Our GeoRisk indicator for Germany is pointing to an increase in risk in recent weeks. Germany is threatened by a potential technical recession and while fiscal stimulus is in preparation, there will not be a fiscal game-changer until Merkel steps down in 2021 – barring a total collapse in the economy that forces her hand in the meantime. The outlook is not improving (Chart 7, top panel). The economy shrank by 0.1% in Q2 2019, exports are falling, and passenger car production is at the lowest level ever recorded (Chart 7, bottom panels). Chart 7German Economy Gets Pummeled Chart 8Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has announced that Germany could increase government spending by $55 billion within the context of European and German budget constraints. Split proportionally between 2019 and 2020, this additional spending would not put Germany in violation of the “black zero” rule – a commitment to a balanced budget that limits the federal structural deficit to 0.35% of GDP – even without any additional revenue (Chart 8). There will not be a fiscal game-changer in Germany until Merkel steps down – barring a crisis. The German Chancellery reports that it does not see the need for stimulus in the short term – as long as trade tensions do not escalate and there is no hard Brexit. At present, however, trade tensions are escalating and the odds of a no-deal Brexit are increasing. Moreover China’s economy and stimulus efforts continue to disappoint. In this context Germany’s ruling coalition is putting together a climate change package that would entail additional spending (while stealing some thunder from the increasingly popular Green Party). Given the European Commission’s forecast of Germany’s 2020 budget surplus, 0.8% of GDP, the government could ultimately go further than Scholz’s ~$50bn. This is because the black zero rule provides for exceptions in case of recession (or natural disasters or other crises out of governmental control) with a majority vote in the Bundestag. Hence we are not so much concerned about the magnitude of the stimulus as its timing. First, Merkel and her coalition typically move slower than the market would like in the face of financial and economic challenges. Second, according to the black zero rule, which is transcribed in the German constitution (the Basic Law), the Länder cannot run budget deficits from 2020. Amending the constitution to delay this deadline requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat – a much taller order than the simple majority needed to boost federal deficits. The governing coalition currently holds 56% of the seats in the Bundestag. If the Greens were brought on board, which they would be inclined to do, this number falls just short of two-thirds at 65.6%. In order to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Bundesrat, the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and the Greens would need the support of another party, either the Left or the Free Democrats. This could be done but it would require political will, which is only likely to be sufficient if the German and global economy get worse from here. Meanwhile financial markets will have to settle for the gradual implementation of a stimulus package on the order of 1% of GDP – the one the government is planning. Bottom Line: While Germany will likely roll out a stimulus package by Q4, if third quarter GDP data confirm that the country is in a technical recession, Merkel’s hesitation and budget limits mean that this stimulus will likely be moderate. A marginal upside surprise is possible but it will not represent a true “game changer” on fiscal policy in Germany. The game changer is more likely after Merkel steps down in 2021. The Green Party is surging in Germany and could possibly lead the next government. Even if it doesn’t, its success and Europe-wide developments are pushing German leaders to become more accommodative. Brazil: Reform Or Bust Political turmoil in Brazil over the past five years has ultimately resulted in a right-wing populist government under President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is pursuing a pension reform that is universally acknowledged as necessary to straighten out Brazil’s fiscal books, but that the previous government tried and failed to pass. On this front the news is market-positive: having cleared the lower Chamber of Deputies, the pension reforms are now likely to pass the senate. This will lift investor confidence and give Bolsonaro an initial success that he may then be able to translate into additional economic reforms. The Brazilian economy and financial markets are moving in opposite directions. The currency and equities staged a mid-year rally despite negative data releases – shrinking retail sales and industrial production amid high unemployment (Chart 9). More recently these assets relapsed despite tentative signs of improvement on the economic front (Chart 10). All the while, chaos and controversies surrounding Bolsonaro’s government have weighed on his approval rating, ending the honeymoon period after election (Chart 11). Chart 9Brazil: Signs Of Improvement Chart 10Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Chart 11Bolsonaro’s Honeymoon Is Long Gone The mid-year equity re-rating was driven by an improvement in sentiment on the back of the government’s pension reform. The relapse occurred despite the passage of the pension reform bill in the lower house, indicating that global economic pessimism has dominated. The bill’s next step goes to the senate where it faces two rounds of voting before enactment (Diagram 2). It should clear this hurdle by a large margin, though we expect delays. Diagram 2Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline In the second round vote in the lower house on August 6 – which had a smaller margin of victory than the first round – deputies voted largely in line with party alliances (Charts 12A & 12B). Assuming legislators in the senate behave in the same way, the reform should gain the support of 64 of the 81 senators – easily surpassing the 49 votes needed. Even in a more pessimistic scenario where all opposition parties and all independent parties vote against the bill – along with two defecting senators from government-allied parties – the reform would pass by 56-25. Chart 12APension Bill Sailed Through Lower House ... Chart 12B... And Should Pass Senate In Time This favorable outlook is also supported by popular opinion, which indicates that the majority of those polled agree that pension reforms are necessary (Chart 13). This leaves two questions: How soon will the bill clear the senate? According to senate party leaders’ proposed timetable, the bill will undergo its first upper house vote on September 18 with the second round slated for October 2. This is ambitious. The strategy of Senator Tasso Jereissati – who has been appointed senate pension reform rapporteur – is to approve the text in its current form and create a parallel proposed amendment to the constitution (PEC) which will bring together the amendments that senators make to the original text. Dozens of amendments have been filed with the Commission on Constitution and Justice. These will prolong the enactment of the final bill and dilute its impact. We doubt the senate will let Jereissati have his way entirely and hence expect delays and dilution. Chart 13Brazil: Public Now Favors Pension Reform Chart 14Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough How much savings will the bill generate? Will the reforms be sufficient to improve public debt dynamics in Brazil? The Independent Fiscal Institute of the senate estimates that the reform will generate BRL 744 billion of savings. This is significantly less than the BRL 1.2 trillion initially proposed, and lower than the BRL 860 billion that Economy Minister Paulo Guedes has indicated as the minimum fiscal savings required. Our Emerging Markets strategists argue that the bill falls short of what is needed. While the plan will reduce the fiscal deficit and slow debt accumulation, it will be insufficient to generate primary surpluses over the coming years (Chart 14).1 Moreover, estimated savings in the final bill will likely be further revised down as the bill undergoes more amendments in the senate. What comes after pension reform? The market has focused almost exclusively on this issue to the neglect of Bolsonaro’s wider economic reform agenda. The agenda includes privatization, trade liberalization, tax reforms, and deregulation. Here we are more skeptical. First, Bolsonaro will have spent a lot of political capital on pensions. Second, while the economy and unemployment are always important, they are not the foremost concern for Brazilians (Chart 15). Chart 15Bolsonaro Will Lose Political Capital After Pension Bill Third, the economic agenda is often at odds with Bolsonaro’s social, foreign, and environmental policies: The new Mercosur-European Union trade agreement and ongoing trade negotiations between Mercosur and Canada are positive developments. However the G7 summit in France highlighted that the deal with the EU is at risk due to dissatisfaction with Bolsonaro’s response to the Amazon fires. France and Ireland have threatened to withhold support of the ratification. With world leaders concerned about the political risks of trade liberalization, and with Trump having issued a license to foreign leaders for trade weaponization, an escalation of tensions between the Europeans and Bolsonaro could lead to punitive measures even beyond the delay to the Mercosur-EU deal. Brazil’s China problem: Bolsonaro has been cozying up to President Donald Trump while striking a more aggressive tone with China. This is a risky strategy as it may undermine Brazil’s economic interests. The country’s exports are much more leveraged to China than to the U.S. and have been benefitting on the back of the trade war as China substitutes away from the U.S. (Chart 16). The president’s planned trip to China in October reveals an attempt to mend ties after having accused China of dominating key Brazilian sectors during his election campaign. But it is not clear yet that Bolsonaro will stage a retreat. And if President Trump backtracks on his trade war in order to clinch a deal, Bolsonaro may have lost some goodwill with China without receiving the benefit of China’s substitution effects. Hence Bolsonaro will have to soften his approach to China to make progress on the trade aspect of the reform agenda. Chart 16Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Bottom Line: We expect the passage of a diluted pension reform bill that will slow the growth of public debt to some extent. However global headwinds are persisting. And any success on pensions should not be extrapolated to other items on the economic reform agenda. Bolsonaro’s trade liberalization faces difficulties on the surface. Other domestic reforms are even more difficult to achieve in the wake of painful pension cuts. Reforms that enjoy public support and do not require a complicated legislative process are the most likely to be implemented, but even then, legislation and implementation are likely to be long-in-coming in Brazil’s highly fractured congress. As a result we share the view with our Emerging Markets Strategy that the pension reform is a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon. Housekeeping We are booking gains on our long BCA global defense basket for a 17% gain since inception in October 2018. The underlying thesis for this trade remains strong and we will reinstitute it at an appropriate time, though likely on a relative basis to minimize headwinds to cyclical sectors. We are also finally throwing in the towel on our long rare earth / strategic metals equity trade. The logic behind the trade is intact but it was very poorly timed and the basket has depreciated 24% since inception. Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. France: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Geopolitical Calendar
Both our regression models show the pound as undervalued. This supports our view that over the long term, the pound is attractive. The consumption baskets in both the U.K. and the U.S. are roughly similar, which means traditional PPP models do a good job at…
Highlights Duration: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Relative Value In Global Government Debt: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds. Feature Reflexivity Chart 1A Brief Inversion The decline in global bond yields has been unrelenting, and it took on a life of its own last week when the U.S. 2-year/10-year slope briefly inverted (Chart 1). After the inversion, the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield broke below 2% and the 10-year yield broke below 1.50%. The average yield on the 7-10 year Global Treasury Index closed at 0.49% last Thursday, just above its all-time low of 0.48% (Chart 1, bottom panel). There’s an interesting self-fulfilling prophesy that can take hold when the yield curve inverts. Investors interpret the inversion as a signal of weaker economic growth ahead. They then bid up long-dated bond prices causing the curve to invert even more. This sort of circular reasoning can cause bond yields to disconnect from the trends in global economic data, often severely. While recession fears have benefited government bonds, risky assets – equities and corporate bonds – have experienced relatively minor pain. The S&P 500’s recent sell-off pales in comparison to the one seen late last year (Chart 2). Meanwhile, corporate bond spreads remain well below early-2019 peaks. Risky assets have clearly benefited from the drop in bond yields, as markets price-in a future where central banks ease monetary policy in response to weaker economic growth, and where that easing is sufficient to keep equities and credit well supported. Chart 2Low Yields Support Risk Assets I Chart 3Low Yields Support Risk Assets II Further evidence of this dynamic is presented in Chart 3. The chart shows the sensitivity of daily changes in the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to changes in the S&P 500 for each year since 2010. The sample is split into days when the S&P 500 rose and when it fell. For example, in 2010 the sensitivity on “up days” was 2.6, meaning that on days when the S&P 500 rose, the 10-year yield rose 2.6 basis points for every 1% increase in the S&P 500. Similarly, the sensitivity in 2010 on “down days” was 3.2. This means that the 10-year yield fell 3.2 bps for every 1% drop in the equity index. The main takeaway from Chart 3 is how dramatically the sensitivities have shifted in 2019. The yield sensitivity on “up days” has fallen sharply – down to 0.8. This means that yields barely rise on days when equities move up. Meanwhile, the sensitivity on “down days” has shot higher, to just under 4. This means that yields fall a lot on days when equities sell off. The perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year. The logical interpretation of these trends is that the perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year. Global Growth Needed At present, we are stuck in an environment where aggressively easy monetary policy and low bond yields are the sole supports for risky assets. In turn, falling bond yields are stoking concerns about the economy, leading to even easier monetary policy. Only one thing can bust us out of this pattern, and that’s a resurgence of global manufacturing growth. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that this is taking place (Chart 4). The Global Manufacturing PMI is now down to 49.3, below the 2016 trough of 49.9 (Chart 4, top panel). U.S. Industrial Production growth remains weak, but is showing signs of stabilization above the 2016 trough (Chart 4, panel 2). European Industrial Production, on the other hand, continues to contract (Chart 4, panel 3). The downtrend in our favorite real-time indicator of global manufacturing – the CRB Raw Industrials index – remains unbroken (Chart 4, bottom panel). However, even though evidence of a turnaround in global manufacturing is scant, we expect a rebound near the end of this year, for the following reasons: Global financial conditions have eased this year, the result of aggressive central bank stimulus. Financial conditions are easier now than they were in 2018, and much easier than they were prior to the 2015/16 global growth slowdown (Chart 5, top panel). China has started to ease credit conditions in response to U.S. tariffs and the slowdown in growth. So far, stimulus has been tepid relative to 2015/16 levels, but it should ramp up in the coming months.1 Many large important segments of the global economy remain unaffected by the global manufacturing slowdown. The U.S. consumer continues to spend: Core retail sales are growing at a robust 5% year-over-year rate, and consumer sentiment remains elevated (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). Even in the Eurozone, the service sector has not experienced the same pain as manufacturing (Chart 5, bottom panel). Fiscal policy will remain a tailwind for economic growth this year and next. Last week, there were even rumors of increased fiscal thrust from Germany if the growth slowdown persists.2 Strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary. On the whole, we expect that the above 4 factors will lead to a rebound in global manufacturing growth near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the global growth indicators shown in Chart 4 will need to rebound first. Chart 4Global Growth Indicators Chart 5Catalysts For Economic Recovery Inflation Puts Pressure On Powell Chart 6Strong Inflation Could Complicate The Fed's Message Strong U.S. inflation prints during the past two months add an interesting wrinkle to the macro landscape. Core U.S. inflation grew at an annualized rate of 3.55% in July, following an annualized rate of 3.59% in June (Chart 6). However, these strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary. This exacerbated the flattening of the yield curve and sent long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates lower. Our sense is that the Fed is chiefly concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations (Chart 6, bottom panel). This probably means that another rate cut is coming in September, and that Chairman Powell will do his best to sound accommodative in his Jackson Hole address on Friday. However, recent strong inflation data could prompt Powell to sound more hawkish than the market would like, causing yield curves to flatten and risky assets to fall. Bottom Line: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation & The Zero Lower Bound Perhaps the most straightforward way to think about country allocation within a portfolio of developed market government bonds is to classify the different markets as either “high beta” or “low beta”. Chart 7 shows the trailing 3-year sensitivity of major countries’ 7-10 year bond yields relative to the global 7-10 year yield.3 The U.S. and Canada have the highest betas, followed by the U.K. and Australia. Germany has a beta close to one, and Japan’s beta is the lowest. Chart 7Global Yield Beta In other words, if global growth falters and global bond yields decline, U.S. and Canadian bond markets should perform best, followed by the U.K. and Australia. German bonds should perform in line with the global index, and Japanese bonds should underperform the global benchmark. What makes this approach to portfolio allocation even better is that the calculation of trailing betas is not really necessary. A very similar ordering of countries – from “high beta” to “low beta” – is achieved by simply ranking the markets from highest yielding to lowest yielding. High yielding countries, like the U.S. and Canada, have the most room to ease monetary policy in response to a negative growth shock. This means that yields in those countries will respond most to global growth fluctuations. On the other hand, the entire Japanese yield curve is already pinned near the effective lower bound. Even in the event of a negative growth shock, there is little scope for easier Japanese monetary policy, and JGB yields will be relatively unaffected. Chart 8High Beta Countries Are Most Sensitive To Economic Growth It’s interesting to note in Chart 7 that while German yields are actually below JGB yields, bunds remain somewhat less defensive than the Japanese market. This is because the German term structure has only recently moved to the effective lower bound, and investors likely still retain some hope that an improvement in global growth could lead to European policy tightening at some point in the future. This belief is largely absent in Japan, where the term structure has been pinned at the lower bound for many years. Chart 8 provides some further evidence of the split between “high beta” and “low beta” bond markets. It shows that the bond markets with the highest yields are also the most sensitive to trends in global growth, as proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI. U.S. bond yields are highly correlated with the Global PMI, while Japanese bond yields are hardly correlated at all. It follows that if the slowdown in global growth continues and all nations’ yield curves converge to Japanese levels, then the overall economic sensitivity of global bond yields will decline. Bottom Line: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Looking For Positive Carry Yield curves have undergone dramatic shifts in recent months, in terms of both level and shape. Not only have curves for the major government bond markets shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape (Charts 9A-9F). With that in mind, in this week’s report we look for the best “positive carry” opportunities in global government bond markets. Yield curves for the major government bond markets have shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape. We use the term carry to mean the expected return from a given bond assuming an unchanged yield curve. This is essentially the combination of yield income (i.e. coupon return) and the price impact of rolling down (or up) the yield curve. For the purposes of this report, we assume a 12-month investment horizon and incorporate the impact of currency hedging into each security’s yield income. Rolldown ‘U’ shaped yield curves mean that bonds near the base of the ‘U’ currently suffer from negative rolldown, while the rolldown for long maturities is often highly positive. Table 1 shows that rolldown is currently negative for all 2-year bonds, but especially for U.S. and Canadian debt. The U.S. and Canada have the highest policy rates within developed markets, so it’s not surprising that the front-end of their yield curves are also the most steeply inverted. In other words, their yield curves are pricing-in that they have more room to cut rates than other countries. Table 112-Month Rolldown* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds In general, rolldown is relatively modest for most 5-year and 7-year maturities. The exceptions being German 5-year debt and Aussie 7-year debt, which benefit from 31 bps and 45 bps of positive rolldown, respectively. As mentioned above, rolldown is currently very positive for long maturity debt. In fact, a 10-year U.K. bond offers a whopping 85 bps of rolldown on a 12-month horizon. Yield Income & Overall Carry As mentioned above, rolldown is only one part of a bond’s carry. The other is the yield an investor earns over the course of the investment horizon – the yield income. Because we assume that investors hedge the currency impact of their bond positions, this yield income also depends on the native currency of the investor. Therefore, we show yield income and overall carry below from the perspective of investors in each of the major currency blocs (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD). USD Investors Being the global high yielder, USD investors benefit the most from currency hedging. That is, USD investors earn a lot of additional income on their currency hedges, making non-U.S. bonds look more attractive. Unsurprisingly, carry is most positive at the long-end of yield curves (Tables 2 & 3). Table 2In USD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 3In USD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds EUR Investors The polar opposite of USD investors, EUR-based investors give up a lot of return through currency hedging. This makes the potential for positive carry much less. In any case, the best positive carry opportunities still lie in German, Japanese and Australian 30-year bonds. U.K. and Japanese 10-year bonds are also attractive (Tables 4 & 5). Table 4In EUR: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 5In EUR: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds JPY Investors Yen-based investors currently have more opportunities to earn positive carry than those based in euros. But these opportunities remain confined to long-maturity debt. Once again, the standouts are Japanese, German and Australian 30-year bonds, and also U.K. and Japanese 10-year debt (Tables 6 & 7). Table 6In JPY: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 7In JPY: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds GBP Investors Currency hedges work more in favor of GBP than EUR or JPY. As a result, GBP-based investors see more opportunities to earn positive carry (Tables 8 & 9). Table 8In GBP: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 9In GBP: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds CAD Investors As with USD-based investors, CAD-based investors also benefit from currency hedging. All securities continue to offer positive carry when hedged into CAD (Tables 10 & 11). Table 10In CAD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 11In CAD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds AUD Investors AUD-based investors also see positive carry across the entire global bond space, after factoring-in the impact of currency hedging (Tables 12 & 13). Table 12In AUD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bond Table 13In AUD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Bottom Line: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Trump Interruption”, dated August 13, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/germany-ready-to-raise-debt-if-recession-hits-spiegel-reports 3 We calculate betas using average yields from the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Master index. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification