ポリシー
Dear Client, Thank you for your continued readership and support this year. This is the last European Investment Strategy report for 2021. In this piece, we review ten charts covering important aspects of the European economy and capital markets. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 10th, 2022. The European Investment Strategy team wishes you and your loved ones a wonderful holiday season, and a healthy, happy, and prosperous new year. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights European growth continues to face headwinds as it enters 2022. The ECB will be slow to remove more accommodation than what is implied by the end of the PEPP. Value stocks and Italian equities will enjoy a modest tailwind from rising Bund yields. The lower quality of European stocks creates a long-term headwind versus US benchmarks. The outperformance of European cyclicals relative to defensives will resume and financials will have greater upside. The relative performance of small-cap stocks will soon stabilize, but a weak euro will create a near-term risk. President Emmanuel Macron’s real contender is the center-right candidate Valerie Pécresse, not populists. Feature Chart 1: Wave Dynamics The current wave of COVID-19 infections continues to surge in Europe. As Chart 1 highlights, Austria and the Netherlands just witnessed intense waves that eclipsed those experienced earlier this year. However, these waves are already ebbing because of the containment measures implemented in recent weeks. In these two severely hit nations, hospitalization rates also increased significantly; however, they did not reach the degree experienced in France or the UK in the first half of 2021 (Chart 1, right panel). Chart 1Wave Dynamics Chart 1Wave Dynamics Europe will experience another test in the coming weeks as the highly contagious Omicron variant becomes the dominant COVID-19 strain. However, data from South Africa continues to suggest that this mutation is much less pathogenic than previous variants and will not place as much strain on the healthcare system as potential case counts would indicate. Nonetheless, it is too early to make this prognosis with great confidence. Importantly, even if a small proportion of infected people is hospitalized, a large enough a pool of infections could cause a rupture in the healthcare system. As a result, politicians will likely remain cautious until a larger share of the population receives its booster dose. Hence, Omicron still represents a near-term risk to economic activity, albeit one that will prove ephemeral. Chart 2: The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet European growth remains highly dependent on the fluctuations of the global economy because exports and capex account for a large share of the continent’s output. Consequently, global economic trends remain paramount when considering the European economic outlook. In the near-term, Europe continues to face headwinds beyond the uncertainty caused by the potential effects of the Omicron variant. Global economic activity, for instance, is likely to face some further near-term headwinds caused by the supply shock typified by elevated commodity prices and bottlenecks (Chart 2). Not only does this shock limit the ability of producers to procure important inputs, but it also increases the costs of production. Historically, this combination results in downward pressure on global manufacturing activity. Chart 2The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet Chart 2The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet The second problem remains the deceleration in the Chinese economy. Declining credit growth in China results in slower European exports, which also hurts the region’s PMI. The recent Central Economic Work Conference suggests that China is ready to inject more stimulus in its economy, which will help Europe. However, the beginning of 2022 will still witness the lagged impact of previous tightening in credit conditions on European economic indicators. Moreover, BCA’s China Investment Strategy team expects the stimulus to be modest at first and only grow in intensity later. It is unlikely to be as credit-heavy as in the past, which also means it will be less beneficial to Europe. Chart 3: A Careful ECB Last week, the European Central Bank aggressively upgraded its inflation forecast for 2022 and announced the end of the PEPP for March, however, it will increase temporarily the APP program to EUR40bn. Moreover, President Christine Lagarde remains steadfast that the Governing Council will not raise rates in 2022. Our Central Bank Monitor points to the need for tighter policy, yet the ECB continues to adopt a cautious tone, even if the Eurozone HICP inflation has reached 4%—the highest reading in thirteen years. First, the ECB still runs the risk of dislocation in the periphery, where Italian and Spanish spreads may easily explode if monetary accommodation is removed too quickly. Second, European inflationary pressures remain significantly narrower than they are in the US (Chart 3, left panel). Our Eurozone trimmed-mean CPI continues to linger well below core CPI readings, while in the US both measures track each other closely. Third, the decline in energy prices and the ebbing transportation bottlenecks mean that odds are growing that sequential inflation will soon experience an interim peak (Chart 3, right panel). Chart 3A Careful ECB Chart 3A Careful ECB This view of the ECB implies that German yields will not rise as much as US yields next year, which BCA’s US Bond Strategy team expects to reach 2.25% by the end of 2022. Moreover, the more tepid pace of the removal of accommodation and the implicit targeting of peripheral bond markets also warrant an overweight position in Italian bonds. Spreads will be volatile, but any move upward will be self-limiting because of their role in the ECB’s reaction function. As a result, investors should continue to pocket the additional income over German paper. Chart 4: A Murky Outlook For The Euro The market continues to test EUR/USD. Any breakdown below 1.1175 is likely to prompt a pronounced down leg toward 1.07-1.08, near the pandemic lows. The euro suffers from three handicaps. First, Europe’s economic links with China are greater than those of the US with China. Consequently, the Chinese economic deceleration hurts European rates of returns more than it hurts those in the US. Second, the acceleration of US inflation is inviting investors to reprice the path of the Fed’s policy rate, which accentuates the upside pressure on the dollar. Finally, the energy crisis is ramping up anew following Germany’s suspension of the approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the buildup of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders. Surging European natural gas prices act as a powerful headwind for EUR/USD because they accentuate stagflation risks in the Eurozone (Chart 4, left panel). While these create downside pressures on the euro, the picture is more complex. Our Intermediate-Term Timing Model shows that EUR/USD is one-sigma oversold (Chart 4, right panel). Over the past 20 years, it was more depressed only in 2010 and in early 2015. Such a reading indicates that most of the bad news is already embedded in EUR/USD and that sentiment has become massively negative. Thus, we are not chasing the euro lower, even though we will respect our stop-loss at 1.1175 if it were triggered. Instead, we will look to buy the euro at lower levels in the first quarter of 2021. Chart 4A Murky Outlook For The Euro Chart 4A Murky Outlook For The Euro Chart 5: German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities The performance of European value stocks relative to that of growth stocks continues to exhibit a close relationship with the evolution of German Bund yields (Chart 5, left panel). Value stocks are less sensitive than growth stocks to higher yields because they derive a smaller proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows; which suffer more from rising discount factors than near-term cash flows. Moreover, value stocks overweight financials, whose profitability increases when yields rise. The same relationship exists between the performance of Italian equities relative to the Eurozone benchmark (Chart 5, right panel). This correlation holds because of Italy’s significant value bias and its large exposure to financials. Chart 5German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities Chart 5German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities Based on these observations, BCA’s view that German Bund yields will rise toward 0.25% is consistent with a modest outperformance of value and Italian equities in 2022. For a more robust outperformance by value and Italian stocks, the Chinese economy will have to re-accelerate clearly and the dollar will have to fall significantly. However, these two outcomes could take more time to materialize than our bond view. Chart 6: Europe’s Quality Deficit The gyrations in the performance of European equities relative to US stocks continue to be influenced by China’s economic fluctuations. The deterioration in various measures of China’s credit impulse remains consistent with further near-term underperformance of European equities (Chart 6, left panel). Moreover, if Omicron has a significant impact on consumer behavior (via personal choices or government measures), it will once again hurt spending on services and boost the appeal of growth stocks, which Europe underrepresents. These headwinds will not be long lasting. Europe has an opportunity to outperform next year if global yields rise. However, European equity markets continue to suffer from a potent long-term disadvantage relative to those of the US. American benchmarks are composed of higher quality stocks than European ones. As a result of greater market concentration, more innovative applications of research, and the development of greater moats, US stocks generate wider profits margins than European companies and have a higher utilization of their asset base. Consequently, US shares sport significantly higher RoEs and earnings growth than European large-cap names (Chart 6, right panel). Historically, the quality factor has been one of the top performers and is an important contributor to the current strength of growth equities. Thus, even if Europe’s day in the sun arrives before the middle of 2022, it will again be a temporary phenomenon. Chart 6Europe’s Quality Deficit Chart 6Europe’s Quality Deficit Chart 7: Will the Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? For most of 2021, European cyclicals equities have not performed as well against defensive stocks as many investors hoped. In fact, the relative performance of cyclicals is broadly flat since March. Going forward, cyclicals will resume their uptrend against defensive equities and even break out of their range of the past twenty years. From a technical perspective, cyclicals have expunged many of their excesses. By the spring, European cyclicals had become prohibitively expensive compared to their defensive counterparts (Chart 7, left panel). However, their overvaluation has now passed and medium-term momentum measures are not overbought anymore, which creates a much better entry point for cyclical equities. From a fundamental perspective, cyclicals will also enjoy rising yields after being hamstrung by Treasury yields that have moved sideways for more than nine months (Chart 7, right panel). Moreover, the eventual stabilization of the Chinese economy will create an additional tailwind for these stocks. Chart 7Will The Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? Chart 7Will The Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? The biggest risk to cyclical stocks lies in inflation expectations. Ten-year CPI swaps have stopped increasing despite rising inflation. As the yield curve flattens and long-term segments of the OIS curve invert, markets register their fears that the Fed might tighten too much over the next two years. In other words, markets continue to agonize over the effect of a very low perceived terminal rate. These worries may cause the CPI swaps to decline significantly as the Fed hikes rates next year, creating a headwind for cyclicals. Chart 8: Favor Financials Financials in general and banks in particular have outperformed the European benchmark this year. This trend will persist in 2020. More than the positive impact of higher yields on the profitability of financials justifies this view. One of the key drivers supporting our optimism toward this sector is the continued improvement in the balance-sheet health of the European banking sector (Chart 8, left panel). Capital adequacy ratios remain in an uptrend and NPLs continue to be well-behaved. Meanwhile, both the governments’ liquidity support during the pandemic and the nonfinancial sector’s cash buildup over the past 18 months limit the risk that a brisk rise in insolvencies would threaten the viability of the banking system. European bank lending is also likely to remain superior to that of the post-GFC years. Consumer confidence is still sturdy, despite the recent increase in COVID cases and the tax hike created by rapidly climbing energy prices (Chart 8, right panel). Companies also benefit from an environment of low real rates and limited fiscal austerity. Unsurprisingly, capex intentions are elevated, which should support credit demand from businesses going forward. Chart 8Favor Financials Chart 8Favor Financials These factors imply that the current large discount embedded in European financials’ valuations remains excessive (even if a smaller discount is still warranted). As long as peripheral spreads do not blow out durably, financials will have scope to outperform further. Banks should also beat insurance companies. Chart 9: Small-Caps Are Nearly There Despite a sideways move followed by a 4% dip, the performance of European small-cap stocks remains in a pronounced uptrend relative to large-cap equities. The recent bout of underperformance is likely to end soon, unless a recession is around the corner. Small-cap stocks are becoming oversold (Chart 9, left panel) and will benefit from their pronounced procyclicality, especially if the recent improvement in global economic surprises continues next year. Moreover, above-trend European growth as well as an ECB that will maintain accommodative monetary conditions will combine to prevent a significant widening in European high-yield spreads, particularly once natural gas prices are turned down after the winter. This process will also help small-cap equities. The biggest risk for the European small-caps’ relative performance is the currency market. The relative performance of small-cap names is still closely correlated to the euro (Chart 9, right panel). As a result, if EUR/USD were to falter in the coming weeks, the underperformance of small-cap stocks could deepen. At the very least, small-cap stocks would languish before resuming their uptrend later in the year. Chart 9Small-Caps Are Nearly There Chart 9Small-Caps Are Nearly There Chart 10: A Risk to Macron’s Second Term The emergence of the new populist candidate Éric Zemmour has galvanized the media in recent weeks. However, he is very unlikely to pose a credible threat to French President Emmanuel Macron, unlike center-right candidate Valerie Pécresse, who just won the Les Républicains (LR) primary. In a Special Report published conjointly with our geopolitical strategists last summer, we identified the emergence of a single candidate able to unite the center-right as one of the biggest risks to Macron. As Chart 10 shows, Pécresse has made a comeback in the polls and is now expected to face Macron in the second round. According to an Elabe poll conducted after her victory in the primary, if the second round of the elections were held now, she would beat Macron. Will Pécresse manage to keep her momentum going until April 2022? First, she has to ensure the center-right remains united behind her. Up until the primaries, the center-right was divided. While she won the primary by a wide margin, her main opponent Éric Ciotti won the first round (25.6%), and Michel Barnier as well as Xavier Bertrand came close behind, with 23.9% and 22.7% respectively. Second, Pécresse must work hard to prevent voters from succumbing to the siren songs of Zemmour and Marine Le Pen, or to lean toward former Prime Minister Phillippe Edouard, a declared supporter of Macron. Investors should ignore Le Pen and Eric Zemmour. The real threat to Macron lies in Valerie Pécresse’s ability to keep the center-right united under her banner. Considering that the center-left does not represent an option and that the far-right is entangled in a tug-of-war, there is a high probability that Pécresse will reach the second round. Footnotes Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance
Highlights Our three strategic themes over the long run: (1) great power rivalry (2) hypo-globalization (3) populism and nationalism. The implications are inflationary over the long run. Nations that gear up for potential conflict and expand the social safety net to appease popular discontent will consume a lot of resources. Our three key views for 2022: (1) China’s reversion to autocracy (2) America’s policy insularity (3) petro-state leverage. The implications are mostly but not entirely inflationary: China will ease policy, the US will pass more stimulus, and energy supply may suffer major disruptions. Stay long gold, neutral US dollar, short renminbi, and short Taiwanese dollar. Stay tactically long global large caps and defensives. Buy aerospace/defense and cyber-security stocks. Go long Japanese and Mexican equities – both are tied to the US in an era of great power rivalry. Feature Chart 1US Resilience Global investors have not yet found a substitute for the United States. Despite a bout of exuberance around cyclical non-US assets at the beginning of 2021, the year draws to a close with King Dollar rallying, US equities rising to 61% of global equity capitalization, and the US 30-year Treasury yield unfazed by inflation fears (Chart 1). American outperformance is only partly explained by its handling of the lingering Covid-19 pandemic. The US population was clearly less restricted by the virus (Chart 2). But more to the point, the US stimulated its economy by 25% of GDP over the course of the crisis, while the average across major countries was 13% of GDP. Americans are still more eager to go outdoors and the government has been less stringent in preventing them (Chart 3). Chart 3Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Going forward, the pandemic should decline in relevance, though it is still possible that a vaccine-resistant mutation will arise that is deadlier for younger people, causing a new round of the crisis. The rotation into assets outside the US will be cautious. Across the world, monetary and credit growth peaked and rolled over this year, after the extraordinary effusion of stimulus to offset the social lockdowns of 2020 (Chart 4). Government budget deficits started to normalize while central banks began winding down emergency lending and bond-buying. More widespread and significant policy normalization will get under way in 2022 in the face of high core inflation. Tightening will favor the US dollar, especially if global growth disappoints expectations. Chart 4Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Chart 5Global Growth Stabilization Global manufacturing activity fell off its peak, especially in China, where authorities tightened monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy aggressively to prevent asset bubbles from blowing up (Chart 5). Now China is easing policy on the margin, which should shore up activity ahead of an important Communist Party reshuffle in fall 2022. The rest of the world’s manufacturing activity is expected to continue expanding in 2022, albeit less rapidly. This trend cuts against US outperformance but still faces a range of hurdles, beginning with China. In this context, we outline three geopolitical themes for the long run as well as three key views for the coming 12 months. Our title, “The Gathering Storm,” refers to the strategic challenge that China and Russia pose to the United States, which is attempting to form a balance-of-power coalition to contain these autocratic rivals. This is the central global geopolitical dynamic in 2022 and it is ultimately inflationary. Three Strategic Themes For The Long Run The international system will remain unstable in the coming years. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor. This is the first of our three strategic themes that will persist next year and beyond (Table 1). Our key views for 2022, discussed below, flow from these three strategic themes. Table 1Strategic Themes For 2022 And Beyond 1. Great Power Rivalry Multipolarity – or great power rivalry – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China. The US’s decline is often exaggerated but the picture is clear if one looks at the combined geopolitical influence of the US and its closest allies to that of the EU, China, and Russia (Chart 6). China’s rise is the most destabilizing factor because it comes with economic, military, and technological prowess that could someday rival the US for global supremacy. China’s GDP has surpassed that of the US in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years (Chart 7). True, China’s potential growth is slowing and Chinese financial instability will be a recurring theme. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Chart 8America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) Since China is capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, and ultimately globally, the United States is reacting. It is penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. The American reaction to the loss of influence has been unpredictable, contradictory, and occasionally belligerent. New isolationist impulses have emerged among an angry populace in reaction to gratuitous wars abroad and de-industrialization. These impulses appeared in both the Obama and Trump administrations. The Biden administration is attempting to manage these impulses while also reinforcing America’s global role. The pandemic-era stimulus has enabled the US to maintain its massive trade deficit and aggressive defense spending. But US defense spending is declining relative to the US and global economy over time, encouraging rival nations to carve out spheres of influence in their own neighborhoods (Chart 8). Russia’s overall geopolitical power has declined but it punches above its weight in military affairs and energy markets, a fact which is vividly on display in Ukraine as we go to press. The result is to exacerbate differences in the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and the European Union, particularly Germany. The EU’s attempt to act as an independent great power is another sign of multipolarity, as well as the UK’s decision to distance itself from the continent and strengthen the Anglo-American alliance. If the US and EU do not manage their differences over how to handle Russia, China, and Iran then the trans-Atlantic relationship will weaken and great power rivalry will become even more dangerous. 2. Hypo-Globalization The second strategic theme is hypo-globalization, in which the ancient process of globalization continues but falls short of its twenty-first century potential, given advances in technology and governance that should erode geographic and national boundaries. Hypo-globalization is the opposite of the “hyper-globalization” of the 1990s-2000s, when historic barriers to the free movement of people, goods, and capital seemed to collapse overnight. Chart 9From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization The volume of global trade relative to industrial production peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10 and has declined slowly but surely ever since (Chart 9). Many developed markets suffered the unwinding of private debt bubbles, while emerging economies suffered the unwinding of trade manufacturing. Periods of declining trade intensity – trade relative to global growth – suggest that nations are turning inward, distrustful of interdependency, and that the frictions and costs of trade are rising due to protectionism and mercantilism. Over the past two hundred years globalization intensified when a broad international peace was agreed (such as in 1815) and a leading imperial nation was capable of enforcing law and order on the seas (such as the British empire). Globalization fell back during times of “hegemonic instability,” when the peace settlement decayed while strategic and naval competition eroded the global trading system. Today a similar process is unfolding, with the 1945 peace decaying and the US facing the revival of Russia and China as regional empires capable of denying others access to their coastlines and strategic approaches (Chart 10).1 Chart 10Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Chart 11Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound No doubt global trade is rebounding amid the stimulus-fueled recovery from Covid-19. But the upside for globalization will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 11). Today governments are not behaving as if they will embark on a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. They are increasingly fearful of each other’s strategic intentions and using fiscal resources to increase economic self-sufficiency. The result is regionalization rather than globalization. Chinese and Russian attempts to revise the world order, and the US’s attempt to contain them, encourages regionalization. For example, the trade war between the US and China is morphing into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a change of administration in the United States. The further consolidation of President Xi Jinping’s strongman rule will exacerbate this dynamic of distrust and economic divorce. Emerging Asia and emerging Europe live on the fault lines of this shift from globalization to regionalism, with various risks and opportunities. Generally we are bullish EM Asia and bearish EM Europe. 3. Populism And Nationalism A third strategic theme consists of populism and nationalism, or anti-establishment political sentiment in general. These forces will flare up in various forms across the world in 2022 and beyond. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and today stands at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% before the pandemic, respectively (Chart 12). Large budget deficits and trade deficits, especially in the US and UK, feed into this inflationary environment. Most of the major developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, with the notable exception of France and Spain. Thus they have recapitalized their political systems and allowed voters to vent some frustration. These governments now have some time to try to mitigate inflation before the next election. Hence policy continuity is not immediately in jeopardy, which reduces uncertainty for investors. By contrast, many of the emerging economies face higher inflation, weak growth, and are either coming upon elections or have undemocratic political systems. Either way the result will be a failure to address household grievances promptly. The misery index is trending upward and governments are continually forced to provide larger budget deficits to shore up growth, fanning inflation (Chart 13). Chart 12DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place Chart 13EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized Chart 14EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 Just as social and political unrest erupted after the Great Recession, notably in the so-called “Arab Spring,” so will new movements destabilize various emerging markets in the wake of Covid-19. Regime instability and failure can lead to big changes in policies, large waves of emigration, wars, and other risks that impact markets. The risks are especially high unless and until Chinese imports revive. Investors should be on the lookout for buying opportunities in emerging markets once the bad news is fully priced. National and local elections in Brazil, India, South Korea, the Philippines, and Turkey will serve as market catalysts, with bad news likely to precede good news (Chart 14). Bottom Line: These three themes – great power rivalry, hypo-globalization, and populism/nationalism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism and nationalism will lead to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and/or inflation expectations, which is possible. But the general drift will be an inflationary policy setting. Inflation may subside in 2022 only to reemerge as a risk later. Three Key Views For 2022 Within this broader context, our three key views for 2022 are as follows: 1. China’s Reversion To Autocracy As President Xi Jinping leads China further down the road of strongman rule and centralization, the country faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks. This was our top view in 2021 and the same dynamic continues in 2022. The difference is that in 2021 the risk was excessive policy tightening whereas this coming year the risk is insufficient policy easing. Chart 15China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China’s economy is witnessing a secular slowdown, a deterioration in governance, property market turmoil, and a rise in protectionism abroad. The long decline in corporate debt growth points to the structural slowdown. Animal spirits will not improve in 2022 so government spending will be necessary to try to shore up overall growth. The Politburo signaled that it will ease fiscal policy at the Central Economic Work Conference in early December, a vindication of our 2021 view. Neither the combined fiscal-and-credit impulse nor overall activity, indicated by the Li Keqiang Index, have shown the slightest uptick yet (Chart 15). Typically it takes six-to-nine months for policy easing to translate to an improvement in real economic activity. The first half of the year may still bring economic disappointments. But policymakers are adjusting to avoid a crash. Policy will grow increasingly accommodative as necessary in the first half of 2022. The key political constraint is the Communist Party’s all-important political reshuffle, the twentieth national party congress, to be held in fall 2022 (usually October). While Xi may not want the economy to surge in 2022, he cannot afford to let it go bust. The experience of previous party congresses shows that there is often a policy-driven increase in bank loans and fixed investment. Current conditions are so negative as to ensure that the government will provide at least some support, for instance by taking a “moderately proactive approach” to infrastructure investment (Chart 16). Otherwise a collapse of confidence would weaken Xi’s faction and give the opposition faction a chance to shore up its position within the Communist Party. Chart 16China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress Party congresses happen every five years but the ten-year congresses, such as in 2022, are the most important for the country’s overall political leadership. The party congresses in 1992, 2002, and 2012 were instrumental in transferring power from one leader to the next, even though the transfer of power was never formalized. Back in 2017 Xi arranged to stay in power indefinitely but now he needs to clinch the deal, lest any unforeseen threat emerge from at home or abroad. Xi’s success in converting the Communist Party from “consensus rule” to his own “personal rule” will be measurable by his success in stacking the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee with factional allies. He will also promote his faction across the Central Committee so as to shape the next generations of party leaders and leave his imprint on policy long after his departure. The government will be extremely sensitive to any hint of dissent or resistance and will move aggressively to quash it. Investors should not be surprised to see high-level sackings of public officials or private magnates and a steady stream of scandals and revelations that gain prominence in western media. The environment is also ripe for strange and unexpected incidents that reveal political differences beneath the veneer of unity in China: defections, protests, riots, terrorist acts, or foreign interference. Most incidents will be snuffed out quickly but investors should be wary of “black swans” from China in 2022. Chinese government policies will not be business friendly in 2022 aside from piecemeal fiscal easing. Everything Beijing does will be bent around securing Xi’s supremacy at all levels. Domestic politics will take precedence over economic concerns, especially over the interests of private businesses and foreign investors, as is clear when it comes to managing financial distress in the property sector. Negative regulatory surprises and arbitrary crackdowns on various industrial sectors will continue, though Beijing will do everything in its power to prevent the property bust from triggering contagion across the economic system. This will probably work, though the dam may burst after the party congress. Relations with the US and the West will remain poor, as the democracies cannot afford to endorse what they see as Xi’s power grab, the resurrection of a Maoist cult of personality, and the betrayal of past promises of cooperation and engagement. America’s midterm election politics will not be conducive to any broad thaw in US-China relations. While China will focus on domestic politics, its foreign policy actions will still prove relatively hawkish. Clashes with neighbors may be instigated by China to warn away any interference or by neighbors to try to embarrass Xi Jinping. The South and East China Seas are still ripe for territorial disputes to flare. Border conflicts with India are also possible. Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. A fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis looms as China increases its military warnings to Taiwan not to attempt anything resembling independence (Chart 17A). China may use saber-rattling, economic sanctions, cyber war, disinformation, and other “gray zone” tactics to undermine the ruling party ahead of Taiwan’s midterm elections in November 2022 and presidential elections in January 2024. A full-scale invasion cannot be ruled out but is unlikely in the short run, as China still has non-military options to try to arrange a change of policy in Taiwan. Chart 17BMarket-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked China has not yet responded to the US’s deployment of a small number of troops in Taiwan or to recent diplomatic overtures or arms sales. It could stage a major show of force against Taiwan to help consolidate power at home. China also has an interest in demonstrating to US allies and partners that their populations and economies will suffer if they side with Washington in any contingency. Given China’s historic confluence of risks, it is too soon for global investors to load up on cheap Chinese equities. Volatility will remain high. Weak animal spirits, limited policy easing, high levels of policy uncertainty, regulatory risk, ongoing trade tensions, and geopolitical risks suggest that investors should remain on the sidelines, and that a large risk premium can persist throughout 2022. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators for both China and Taiwan are still trending upwards (Chart 17B). Global investors should capitalize on China’s policy easing indirectly by investing in commodities, cyclical equity sectors, and select emerging markets. 2. America’s Policy Insularity Our second view for 2022 centers on the United States, which will focus on domestic politics and will thus react or overreact to the many global challenges it faces. The US faces the first midterm election after the chaotic and contested 2020 presidential election. Political polarization remains at historically high levels, meaning that social unrest could flare up again and major domestic terrorist incidents cannot be ruled out. So far the Biden administration has focused on the domestic scene: mitigating the pandemic and rebooting the economy. Biden’s signature “Build Back Better” bill, $1.75 trillion investment in social programs, has passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. The spike in inflation has shaken moderate Democratic senators who are now delaying the bill. We expect it to pass, since tax hikes were dropped, but our conviction is low (65% subjective odds), as a single defection would derail the bill. The implication would be inflationary since it would mark a sizable increase in government spending at a time when the output gap is already virtually closed. Spending would likely be much larger than the Congressional Budget Office estimate, shown in Chart 18, because the bill contains various gimmicks and hard-to-implement expiration clauses. Equity markets may not sell if the bill fails, since more fiscal stimulus would put pressure on the Federal Reserve to hike rates faster. Whether the bill passes or fails, Biden’s legislative agenda will be frozen thereafter. He will have to resort to executive powers and foreign policy to lift his approval rating and court the median voter ahead of the midterm elections. Currently Democrats are lined up to lose the House and probably also the Senate, where a single seat would cost them their majority (Chart 19). The Senate is still in play so Biden will be averse to taking big risks. For the same reason, Biden’s foreign policy goal will be to stave off various bubbling crises. Restoring the Iranian nuclear deal was his priority but Russia has now forced its way to the top of the agenda by threatening a partial reinvasion of Ukraine. In this context Biden will not have room for maneuver with China. Congress will be hawkish on China ahead of the midterms, and Xi Jinping will be reviving autocracy, so Biden will not be able to improve relations much. Biden’s domestic policy could fuel inflation, while his domestic-focused foreign policy will embolden strategic rivals, which increases geopolitical risks. 3. Petro-State Leverage A surge in gasoline prices at the pump ahead of the election would be disastrous for a Democratic Party that is already in disarray over inflation (Chart 20). Biden has already demonstrated that he can coordinate an international release of strategic oil reserves this year. Oil and natural gas producers gain leverage when the global economy rebounds, commodity prices rise, and supply/demand balances tighten. The frequency of global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 21). Chart 20Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Both Russia and Iran are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries are demanding that the US make strategic concessions to atone for the Trump administration’s aggressive policies: selling lethal weapons to Ukraine and imposing “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Biden is not capable of making credible long-term agreements since he could lose office as soon as 2025 and the next president could reverse whatever he agrees. But he must try to de-escalate these conflicts or else he faces energy shortages or price shocks, which would raise the odds of stagflation ahead of the election. The path of least resistance for Biden is to lift the sanctions on Iran to prevent an escalation of the secret war in the Middle East. If this unilateral concession should convince Iran to pause its nuclear activities before achieving breakout uranium enrichment capability, then Biden would reduce the odds of a military showdown erupting across the region. Opposition Republicans would accuse him of weakness but public opinion polls show that few Americans consider Iran a major threat. The problem is that this logic held throughout 2021 and yet Biden did not ease the sanctions. Given Iran’s nuclear progress and the US’s reliance on sanctions, we see a 40% chance of a military confrontation with Iran over the coming years. With regard to Ukraine, an American failure to give concessions to Russia will probably result in a partial reinvasion of Ukraine (50% subjective odds). This in turn will force the US and EU to impose sanctions on Russia, leading to a squeeze of natural gas prices in Europe and eventually price pressures in global energy markets. If Biden grants Russia’s main demands, he will avoid a larger war or energy shock but will make the US vulnerable to future blackmail. He will also demoralize Taiwan and other US partners who lack mutual defense treaties. But he may gain Russian cooperation on Iran. If Biden gives concessions to both Russia and Iran, his party will face criticism in the midterms but it will be far less vulnerable than if an energy shock occurs. This is the path of least resistance for Biden in 2022. It means that the petro-states may lose their leverage after using it, given that risk premiums would fall on Biden’s concessions. Of course, if energy shocks happen, Europe and China will suffer more than the US, which is relatively energy independent. For this reason Brussels and Beijing will try to keep diplomacy alive as long as possible. Enforcement of US sanctions on Iran may weaken, reducing Iran’s urgency to come into compliance. Germany may prevent a hardline threat of sanctions against Russia, reducing Russia’s fear of consequences. Again, petro-states have the leverage. Therefore investors should guard against geopolitically induced energy price spikes or shocks in 2022. What if other commodity producers, such as Saudi Arabia, crank up production and sink oil prices? This could happen. Yet the Saudis prefer elevated oil prices due to the host of national challenges they face in reforming their economy. If the US eases sanctions on Iran then the Saudis may make this decision. Thus downside energy price shocks are possible too. The takeaway is energy price volatility but for the most part we see the risk as lying to the upside. Investment Takeaways Traditional geopolitical risk, which focuses on war and conflict, is measurable and has slipped since 2015, although it has not broken down from the general uptrend since 2000. We expect the secular trend to be reaffirmed and for geopolitical risk to resume its rise due to the strategic themes and key views outlined above. The correlation of geopolitical risk with financial assets is debatable – namely because some geopolitical risks push up oil and commodity prices at the expense of the dollar, while others cause a safe-haven rally into the dollar (Chart 22). Global economic policy uncertainty is also measurable. It is in a secular uptrend since the 2008 financial crisis. Here the correlation with the US dollar and relative equity performance is stronger, which makes sense. This trend should also pick up going forward, which is at least not negative for the dollar and relative US equity performance (Chart 23). Chart 22Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Chart 23Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets We are neutral on the US dollar versus the euro and recommend holding either versus the Chinese renminbi. We are short the currencies of emerging markets that suffer from great power rivalry, namely the Taiwanese dollar versus the US dollar, the Korean won versus the Japanese yen, the Russian ruble versus the Canadian dollar, and the Czech koruna versus the British pound. We remain long gold as a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation. We recommend staying long global equities. Tactically we prefer large caps and defensives. Within developed markets, we favor the UK and Japan. Japan in particular will benefit from Chinese policy easing yet remains more secure from China-centered geopolitical risks than emerging Asian economies. Within emerging markets, Mexico stands to benefit from US economic strength and divorce from China. We would buy Indian equities on weakness and sell Chinese and Russian equities on strength. We remain long aerospace and defense stocks and cyber-security stocks. -The GPS Team We Read (And Liked) … Conspiracy U: A Case Study “Crazy, worthless, stupid, made-up tales bring out the demons in susceptible, unthinking people.” Thus the author’s father, a Holocaust survivor translated from Yiddish, on conspiracy theories and the real danger they present in the world. Scott A. Shay, author and chairman of Signature Bank, whose first book was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award, has written an intriguing new book on the topic and graciously sent it our way.2 Shay is a regular reader of BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and an astute observer of international affairs. He is also a controversialist who has written essays for several of America’s most prominent newspapers. Shay’s latest, Conspiracy U, is a bracing read that we think investors will benefit from. We say this not because of its topical focus, which is too confined, but because of its broader commentary on history, epistemology, the US higher education system – and the very timely and relevant problem of conspiracy theories, which have become a prevalent concern in twenty-first century politics and society. The author and the particular angle of the book will be controversial to some readers but this very quality makes the book well-suited to the problem of the conspiracy theory, since it is not the controversial nature of conspiracy theories but their non-falsifiability that makes them specious. As the title suggests, the book is a polemical broadside. The polemic arises from Shay’s unique set of moral, intellectual, and sociopolitical commitments. This is true of all political books but this one wears its topicality on its sleeve. The term “conspiracy” in the title refers to antisemitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, particularly the denial of the Holocaust, coming from tenured academics on both the right and the left wings of American politics. The “U” in the title refers to universities, namely American universities, with a particular focus on the author’s beloved alma mater, Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Clearly the book is a “case study” – one could even say the prosecution of a direct and extended public criticism of Northwestern University – and the polemical perspective is grounded in Shay’s Jewish identity and personal beliefs. Equally clearly Shay makes a series of verifiable observations and arguments about conspiracy theories as a contemporary phenomenon and their presence, as well as the presence of other weak and lazy modes of thought, in “academia writ large.” This generalization of the problem is where most readers will find the value of the book. The book does not expect one to share Shay’s identity, to be a Zionist or support Zionism, or to agree with Israel’s national policies on any issue, least of all Israeli relations with Arabs and Palestinians. Shay’s approach is rigorous and clinical. He is a genuine intellectual in that he considers the gravest matters of concern from various viewpoints, including viewpoints radically different from his own, and relies on close readings of the evidence. In other words, Shay did not write the book merely to convince people that two tenured professors at Northwestern are promoting conspiracy theories. That kind of aberration is sadly to be expected and at least partially the result of the tenure system, which has advantages as well, not within the scope of the book. Rather Shay wrote it to provide a case study for how it is that conspiracy theories can manage to be adopted by those who do not realize what they are and to proliferate even in areas that should be the least hospitable – namely, public universities, which are supposed to be beacons of knowledge, science, openness, and critical thinking, but also other public institutions, including the fourth estate. Shay is meticulous with his sources and terminology. He draws on existing academic literature to set the parameters of his subject, defining conspiracy theories as “improbable hypotheses [or] intentional lies … about powerful and sinister groups conspiring to harm good people, often via a secret cabal.” The definition excludes “unwarranted criticism” and “unfair/prejudiced perspectives,” which are harmful but unavoidable. Many prejudices and false beliefs are “still falsifiable in the minds of their adherents,” which is not the case with conspiracy theories, although deep prejudices can obviously be helpful in spreading such theories. Conspiracy theories often depend on “a stunning amount of uniformity of belief and coordination of action without contingencies.” They also rely excessively on pathos, or emotion, in making their arguments, as opposed to logos (reason) and ethos (credibility, authority). Unfortunately there is no absolute, infallible distinction between conspiracy theories and other improbable theories – say, yet-to-be-confirmed theories about conspiracies that actually occurred. Conspiracy theories differ from other theories “in their relationship to facts, evidence, and logic,” which may sound obvious but is very much to the point. Again, “the key difference is the evidence and how it is evaluated.” There is no ready way to refute the fabrications, myths, and political propaganda that people believe without taking the time to assess the claims and their foundations. This requires an open mind and a grim determination to get to the bottom of rival claims about events even when they are extremely morally or politically sensitive, as is often the case with wars, political conflicts, atrocities, and genocides: Reliable historians, journalists, lawyers, and citizens must first approach the question of the cause or the identity of perpetrators and victims of an event or process with an open mind, not prejudiced to either party, and then evaluate the evidence. The diagnosis may be easy but the treatment is not – it takes time, study, and debate, and one’s interlocutors must be willing to be convinced. This problem of convincing others is critical because it is the part that is so often left out of modern political discourse. Conspiracy theories are often hateful and militant, so there is a powerful urge to censor or repress them. Openly debating with conspiracy theorists runs the risk of legitimizing or appearing to legitimize their views, providing them with a public forum, which seems to grant ethos or authority to arguments that are otherwise conspicuously lacking in it. In some countries censorship is legal, almost everywhere when violence is incited. The problem is that the act of suppression can feed the same conspiracy theories, so there is a need, in the appropriate context, to engage with and refute lies and specious arguments. Clients frequently email us to ask our view of the rise of conspiracy theories and what they entail for the global policy backdrop. We associate them with the broader breakdown in authority and decline of public trust in institutions. Shay’s book is an intervention into this topic that clients will find informative and thought-provoking, even if they disagree with the author’s staunchly pro-Israel viewpoint. It is precisely Shay’s ability to discuss and debate extremely contentious matters in a lucid and empirical manner – antisemitism, the history of Zionism, Holocaust denialism, Arab-Israeli relations, the Rwandan genocide, QAnon, the George Floyd protests, various other controversies – that enables him to defend a controversial position he holds passionately, while also demonstrating that passion alone can produce the most false and malicious arguments. As is often the case, the best parts of the book are the most personal – when Shay tells about his father’s sufferings during the Holocaust, and journey from the German concentration camps to New York City, and about Shay’s own experiences scraping enough money together to go to college at Northwestern. These sequences explain why the author felt moved to stage a public intervention against fringe ideological currents, which he shows to have gained more prominence in the university system than one might think. The book is timely, as American voters are increasingly concerned about the handling of identity, inter-group relations, history, education, and ideology in the classroom, resulting in what looks likely to become a new and ugly episode of the culture and education wars. Let us hope that Shay’s standards of intellectual freedom and moral decency prevail. Matt Gertken, PhD Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The downshift in globalization today is even worse than it appears in Chart 10 because several countries have not yet produced the necessary post-pandemic data, artificially reducing the denominator and making the post-pandemic trade rebound appear more prominent than it is in reality. 2 Scott A. Shay, Conspiracy U: A Case Study (New York: Post Hill Press, 2021), 279 pages. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Dear Clients, This is the final publication for the year, in which we recap some of the key economic developments this month. Our publishing schedule will resume on January 6, 2022. The China Investment Strategy team wishes you a very happy and safe holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Feature Recently released data show China’s economy is weakening despite easing monetary policy and power-supply constraints. Our credit impulse – measured by the year-on-year change in total social financing as a share of GDP – inched up in November (Chart 1, top panel). Given that the indicator leads economic activity by about six to nine months, we maintain the view that China’s economy will not bottom until Q2 next year. Chinese stocks, driven by business cycle, will remain under downward pressures in the next three to six months (Chart 1, middle and bottom panels). On the policy front, the PBoC announced a 50bps cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) rate taking effect in mid-December. Last week’s Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) signaled that stabilizing the economy will be the government’s core policy objective for 2022. However, we believe that policymakers will be data dependent and will only allow an overshoot in credit growth when the slowdown in the economy gathers pace in early 2022. Thus, investors should maintain an underweight allocation to Chinese equities relative to global stocks, at least for the next three to six months, until credit growth significantly improves. Chart 1Downside Risks Remain High For Chinese Stocks Until The Econmomy Troughs Chart 2Chinese Internet Stocks Are Not Cheap Chinese investable stocks, particularly internet companies, will continue to face geopolitical and regulatory headwinds in the next 12 months. Chinese tech stocks sold off this year, but they are not cheap (Chart 2). Economic weakness in the onshore market in the next three to six months may trigger more selloffs and further multiples compressions in Chinese investable stocks. Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Cuts To The RRR And Relending Rates: Not Game Changers Chart 3RRR Cut Is Not A Game Changer Following the RRR cut announcement in early December, the PBoC announced a 25bps decrease in the relending rate targeting agriculture and small businesses (Chart 3). The measures sent an easing signal in response to mounting downside risks in the economy. However, their impact on credit growth will likely be limited for the following reasons: First, the PBoC indicated that the RRR cut will release around RMB1.2 trillion in liquidity to the banks. From that amount, RMB950 billion will be used to replace maturing Medium-term Lending Facility (MLF) this month, which leaves only RMB250 billion for new liquidity injection. Chart 4Business Conditions For SMEs Deteriorated Faster Than For Larger Businesses Secondly, the PBoC is trying to prevent a jump in market-based rates in the next two quarters. Demand for liquidity is usually high due to tax season by year-end plus a front-loading of local government bond (LGB) issuance. Moreover, the Chinese New Year in Q1 2022 will further boost demand for liquidity. Thirdly, the targeted relending rate drop is intended to lower the borrowing costs of small-medium enterprises (SMEs) whose profitability has been challenged by rising input costs and sluggish consumer demand (Chart 4). Loan demand from small enterprises, as shown in the PBoC survey, peaked much earlier and tumbled more rapidly than their larger peers (Chart 4, bottom panel). The rate cut has decreased the possibility of a broadly based decline in interest rates in the near-term. China’s Credit Growth May Have Bottomed, But The Rebound Is Moderate Chart 5Below-Expectation Credit Growth In November China’s aggregate credit growth ticked up slightly in November. The modest advance mainly reflects an acceleration in LGB issuance. Chart 5 highlights that excluding LGB financing, China’s credit impulse remains on a downward trend. LGBs will be frontloaded in Q1 2022 before the March National People’s Congress sets the full-year quota for LGBs. However, without a meaningful rebound in bank loan growth, the effects of LGB issuance on infrastructure investment will be limited and short-lived, as occurred in Q1 2019 (Chart 6). Shadow banking, which historically has had a tight correlation with infrastructure investment, continued to slide in November to an all-time low. Infrastructure project approval also does not show any signs of strengthening (Chart 7). Chart 6Improvement In Infrastructure Investment Will Be Limited Without An Acceleration In Loan Growth Chart 7Key Indicators Show Weak Signs Of Revival In Infrastructure Spending Weak demand for bank loans from corporations dragged down credit growth in November as evidenced by softening growth in medium- and long-term corporate loans (Chart 8). Both corporate financing needs and investment willingness continued to wane, implying that corporate demand for bank lending may not turn around soon despite recent monetary easing (Chart 8, bottom panel). In addition, marginal easing measures in the property market have not worked their way into the sector. Bank loans to real estate developers plummeted to all-time lows last month, while trust loans contracted significantly in November, which indicates that financing conditions for real estate developers have not improved (Chart 9). Chart 8Loan Demand Remains Weak And Unlikely To Turn Around Imminently Chart 9Deepening Contraction In Trust Loans Indicates Deteriorating Financing Conditions For Real Estate Developers Easing Of Property Restrictions Will Marginally Benefit The Housing Market Last week’s Politburo meeting and the CEWC both proposed to promote affordable rental housing and support reasonable housing demand. Loan growth to government-subsidized social welfare housing has been decelerating since 2018 and started to contract this year (Chart 10). It will likely strengthen next year amid policy support, but from a very low level and at a modest rate. In addition, although social welfare housing loans account for around 40% of bank loans to real estate developers, they are only about 6% of developers’ total source of funding as of 2020. We expect more policy finetuning in the coming months, which may help slow the pace of deterioration in real estate developers’ financing conditions. Real estate developers’ financing from banks may bottom on the back of government’s intervention, but the improvement in total funds to developers will be gradual without mortgage rate cuts and a pickup in home sales (Chart 11). Meanwhile, the downward trend in housing completion will be sustained in the coming months (Chart 11, top panel). Chart 10Bank Loans To Social Welfare Housing Will Likely Improve Modestly Amid Policy Support Chart 11Less Funding = Reduced Completions And Investments Housing prices in most Tier-one and Tier-two cities continued to move down through November. Data for high-frequency floor space sold show that housing demand continued to abate last month despite a modest uptick in household mortgage loans (Chart 12). Home sales will remain depressed as buyers expect more discounts in housing prices and real estate tax reforms loom. Falling prices and constraints in developers’ financing will continue to weigh on housing starts, given the strong positive correlation between property starts and housing prices (Chart 13). Chart 12Demand For Housing In November Showed Little Signs Of Revival Chart 13Housing Starts Are Highly Correlated With Prices The Rebound In November’s PMI Does Not Signal A Bottom In China’s Economy Chart 14China's PMI Rebounds Amid Supply-Side Improvement The NBS manufacturing PMI returned to above the 50-expansionary threshold in November, but the rise reflects a near-term supply-side improvement related to the power shortage rather than a demand-driven recovery (Chart 14). China’s overall business conditions and domestic demand are still worsening, indicating that the rebound in the manufacturing PMI may be short-lived. The production subindex jumped by three and half percentage points in November from October, reflecting re-started operation of heavy-industry enterprises that were halted amid electricity shortages in September and October. Robust global demand for China’s manufactured goods supported a strong reading in November’s new export orders subindex. However, domestic demand remains lackluster. A proxy for the new domestic orders derived from the PMI reached its lowest level since February 2020 (Chart 14, bottom panel). In addition, service PMI weakened last month. A sharp resurgence in domestic COVID cases curbed service sector activity last month. Given uncertainties surrounding the Omicron variant and China’s zero-tolerance policy towards COVID, the service sector’s recovery will likely remain below-trend into 1H 2022 (Chart 15 and 16). Chart 15Lingering COVID Effects Will Continue To Impede Service Sector Activity In 1H22 Chart 16Service Sector Recovery In China Has Lagged Inflation Passthroughs Ongoing Producer price index (PPI) inflation may have peaked. Meanwhile, the consumer price index (CPI) shows another upturn in November. Despite the peak in PPI inflation, it will likely remain above trend through at least 1H22, supported by elevated commodity and energy prices (Chart 17). Chart 17PPI May Have Peaked, But Will Remain Elevated In The Near Term Chart 18Ongoing Inflation Passthroughs A synchronized rise between PPI consumer goods and non-food CPI, and a narrower gap between PPI and CPI inflation, suggest an ongoing inflation passthrough from producers to consumers (Chart 18). Price increases in some key sectors of manufactured consumer goods sped up in November (Chart 19). However, we do not think China’s consumer price inflation will prevent policymakers from further policy easing. Consumer goods prices are lightly weighted in China’s CPI. An acceleration in inflation passthroughs in this component is unlikely to significantly push up the CPI aggregates. Headline CPI may gather steam next year if food prices rise while energy prices remain at current levels. Nonetheless, in recent years China’s monetary policymaking has been more tightly correlated with the PPI and core CPI, and not headline CPI (Chart 20). Chart 19Manufactured Consumer Goods Prices On The Rise Chart 20Monetary Policy Is Tightly Correlated With Core CPI And Not Headline CPI Surging Prices Underpin China’s Exports, While The Rebound In Imports Is Unsustainable Chart 21Surging Export Prices Underpinned Strong Growth In The Value Of China's Exports Chinese exports in volume tumbled in November, however, surging export prices underpinned the strong growth in the value of exports (Chart 21). Demand from the US drove Chinese exports this year and the moderation in volume growth was more than offset by escalating prices (Chart 22). China’s export prices have caught up with the global average (Chart 23). Chart 22Strong Demand From US Has Driven Up China's Exports Chart 23Chinese Export Prices Have Caught Up With The Global Average We expect China’s export growth to slow in the new year on the back of softer global growth and a rotation in US household consumption from goods to services (Chart 24). However, while slowing, global economic growth is projected to remain above trend. The low level of industrial inventories will also provide support to the demand for goods, which will help to sustain strong growth in Chinese exports (Chart 25). China’s imports surprised to the upside in November, boosted by imports of commodities such as coal and crude oil. November’s acceleration in imports reflects a higher demand for primary commodities from Chinese producers, who recovered some production capacity from the power shortages in the previous few months. Chart 24US Household Spending Will Shift From Goods To Services Chart 25Inventory Restocking In The US Will Support Chinese Exports Next Year Furthermore, the increase in import prices in November outpaced the very modest uptick in the volume of imports, indicating that domestic demand remains sluggish (Chart 26). Credit growth, which normally leads import growth by about six months, only climbed moderately in November and will provide limited support to imports in the coming months (Chart 27). Chart 26Rising Import Prices Masked Weakness In China's Domestic Demand Chart 27Modest Rebound In Credit Impulse Will Provide Little Support To Chinese Imports Chart 28Chinese Demand For Industrial Metals Remains In Deep Contraction China’s imports of industrial metals, such as copper and steel, improved a little in November, but their year-on-year growth remains in deep contraction (Chart 28). Weakening construction activity amid a continued downtrend in China’s property market will likely reduce the demand for industrial metals. Therefore, the rebound in November’s import growth may be short-lived. The RMB Faces Headwinds In 2022 Regardless Of A Rise In FX Deposit RRR The RMB has climbed about 2% against the dollar since late July despite broad-based dollar strength. In trade-weighted terms, the RMB is at its strongest level since late 2015 (Chart 29). A rapidly appreciating RMB does not bode well for China’s industrial sector profits, and thus not at the PBoC’s best interests (Chart 30). Under this backdrop, last week the PBoC announced that it will raise the banks’ foreign exchange (FX) deposit reserve requirement ratio (RRR) to 9% from 7%, effective December 15. This is the second increase this year aimed at easing the RMB’s pace of appreciation. The RMB fell slightly against the US dollar following the announcement last week. Chart 29The RMB Has Strengthened Despite A Strong USD Chart 30Strengthening RMB Does Not Bode Well For Corporate Profit Growth The RMB appreciation against dollar this year was mainly enhanced by China’s record current account surplus and favorable interest rate differentials between China and the US (Chart 31 and 32). Although the increase in the deposit RRR rate will force banks to hold more foreign currencies and lift the cost of RMB speculation, the RRR hike itself has little impact on altering the existing path in RMB exchange rate. Moreover, the balance of FX deposits stands at US$1 trillion as of November this year. The 200bps increase in the FX deposit reserve ratio will only freeze about US$20 billion in FX liquidity, which is negligible compared with the US$580 billion in China’s trade surplus so far this year. Chart 31Current Account Surplus Will Likely Shrink Next Year Chart 32Interest Rate Differentials Will Narrow Further However, looking forward the conditions favored RMB this year are at risk of reversing in 2022. China’s weaker economic fundamentals and a slower pace in trade surplus next year, as well as narrowed interest rate differentials between the US and China due to falling long-duration bond yields in China, will provide headwinds to RMB. Therefore, investors should closely follow these key factors and to be cautious to bet on continued RMB appreciation. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Footnotes Market/Sector Recommendations Cyclical Investment Stance
Highlights The risk to European stocks from higher yields is overstated for 2022. Not only do equities possess a valuation cushion compared to bonds, but also the stock returns/bond yields correlation remains positive. This positive correlation is only two decades old, and it is a consequence of the stabilization of inflation and inflation expectations, which caused bond yield changes to mostly reflect adjustment in anticipated economic activity. As long as the recent inflation upsurge peters off next year, the equity/yield correlation will remain positive in 2022. Despite this sanguine short-term view, the long-term outlook is fraught with risks because next year’s inflation decline will be temporary; inflation is on a secular uptrend. The equity returns/bond yield correlation will become negative toward the middle of the decade, which will create a major headwind for the secular returns of both stocks and bonds. Feature Extremely low yields and elevated valuations constitute a potentially toxic mix for the equity outlook next year. The logic is straightforward: if yields rise enough, nosebleed multiples will become unjustifiable and the stock market will crash. Chart 1Protection Against Higher Yields The picture is more complex and instead, European equities are likely to withstand higher yields. To begin with, BCA Research’s US Bond strategists anticipate a modest rise in Treasury yields to 2.25% in 2022, and our Global Fixed-Income strategists foresee an even more limited increase in German rates. Moreover, as we showed in our 2022 Key Views piece published last week, European equities embed a large valuation cushion in the form of a significant premium in their dividend yield relative to Bund yields (Chart 1). The correlation between yields and equities is another facet that will impact the effect of higher yields on the equity bull market. For now, it is premature to conclude that the positive correlation between yields and the absolute performance of European equities is poised to turn negative again in 2022. However, over the next couple of years, such a correlation reversal will take place, because inflation expectations are increasingly likely to become unmoored to the upside. Stocks Like Higher Yields Over the past two decades, one of the major financial market paradoxes has been the relationship between equity prices and bonds yields. Since 1998, the weekly returns of the MSCI Euro Area equity benchmark have correlated positively with the change in 10-year German yields (Chart 2). However, prior to the late 1990s, changes in bond yields and stocks prices were negatively correlated. Chart 2For Two Decades, Bond Yields And Stocks Prices Have Moved Together The key to the shifting relationship between stocks and bonds is the link between yields and economic activity. Stock returns have always been procyclical because earnings are the most important driver of equity returns (Chart 3). However, bond yields have become increasingly pro-cyclical over time. Today, Bund yields and the German LEI move in tandem, but, prior to 1986, their five-year rolling correlation was negative (Chart 4). Chart 3Stocks Follow Earnings Who Follow Growth Chart 4Shifting Link Between Bunds And German Growth The positive correlation between German growth and German yields sheds light on why the correlation between yields and stocks is now positive, but it does not explain why this positive link emerged in the late 1990s and not earlier. Financial asset prices reflect global phenomena. Stock indices in advanced economies overrepresent multinationals which are affected by global economic fluctuations. Meanwhile, capital is fungible and flows freely across borders. As a result, German bond yields are not the unique factor that matters to the correlation between equities and stock. Instead, the behavior of global yields and equities is critical. Chart 5Living In The Shadow Of The Asian Crisis According to this logic, the correlation between global yields and global growth becomes important. As Chart 5 illustrates, the relationship between global bond returns and global economic activity became much closer around 1998 than it was prior to this date. The key turning point was the Asian crisis of 1997/98. Why was the Asian crisis so fundamental? It was the end state of the disinflationary trend started under Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker. After the Asian crisis, the region’s newly industrialized economies switched from chronic current account deficits to chronic surpluses, which added to the global supply of savings. Moreover, Asian economies became hypercompetitive because of severely devalued exchange rates, which limited pricing power around the world. Finally, the Chinese economy became a force to be reckoned with and its share of global trade expanded massively. Together, these forces amplified competitive pressure around the world and made every inflation uptick self-limiting. The impact of the shock is visible in the inflation data. As Chart 6 shows, core inflation in the US and in the G7 has been stable since 1998, capped near 2.5%, except for 2021. Additionally, after the Asian crisis, the volatility of core inflation collapsed among both the G7 and Eurozone economies (Chart 7). Chart 62.5%, A 20-Year Old Ceiling Chart 71998: RIP CPI Volatility The effect of this steady inflation was to stabilize inflation expectations. Thus, after 1998, the most important driver of bond price annual changes has been fluctuations in anticipated real economic activity, which explains why the relationship between global bond returns and the global LEI became much tighter afterward (Chart 5, on page 4). This result is crucial to understand the impact of higher yields for equities. It suggests that, if rising yields reflect improving economic growth, then the correlation between yields and stocks will remain positive and equities may climb higher along with mounting long-term interest rates. Bottom Line: Higher yields do not necessarily portend the end of the equity bull market. Stock prices and bond yields have been positively correlated since the Asian crisis of 1997/98 because fluctuating growth expectations drive most of the change in yields. As long as this remains the case, equities can handle higher yields. Can The Correlation Shift Sign Again? The correlation between equities and bonds is not static. There are threats that could restore both temporarily or permanently the negative correlation between changes in bond yields and stock returns that prevailed prior to 1998. A Temporary Correlation Shift? Since their March 2020 lows, 10-year yields have increased 94bps and 51bps in the US and Germany, respectively. Meanwhile, the MSCI Eurozone equity benchmark is up 78%. We are clearly not yet in an environment in which rising long-term interest rates hurt stocks. In the short term, the correlation between yield changes and equity returns may turn negative if yield moves into constraining territory—this is to say, if they rise enough to risk a recession. In more academic terms, this equates to rates moving above the neutral rate of interest, or r-star. Chart 8A Long Way To Go Before Policy Becomes Tight There is little indication that interest rates are moving above this level in the short term. US and European policy rates remain well below Taylor rule estimates of equilibrium (Chart 8), which suggests that policies are still highly accommodative. The most worrisome signal comes from the slope of the yield curve. Since March 2021, the US 2-/10-year yield curve has flattened by 76bps to 81bps and, since October 2021, the same yield curve has flattened by 23bps to 35bps in Germany. Moreover, the 20-/30-year US yield curve became inverted in October 2021. These dynamics may indicate that policy is already on the verge of becoming too tight, even if only five interest rate hikes are expected in the US over the next two years. Chart 9Term Premia Are Still Negative A curve flattening episode is the normal course of events when central banks become less accommodative; it is not a sign of impending doom. Instead, an inverted yield curve is the indication that the policy rate is above r-star. After all, if interest rates genuinely constrain growth, they will slow economic activity in the future, which will necessitate lower rates and generate a negative curve slope. We are not there yet. Moreover, the term-premium remains negative across major advanced economies, which suggests that a recessionary signal will come from a deeper yield-curve inversion than in the past (Chart 9). Chart 10Upside To The Terminal Rate Another factor likely to allow yields to rise without killing the equity market is that the expected terminal rate of interest remains too low, as we wrote in our 2022 Key Views piece last week. Historically, it is common for the expected terminal rate to rise as central banks begin to lift interest rates, especially if the economy handles the first hikes well. Today, the expected terminal rate is below the levels that prevailed after the GFC, despite a much firmer economy unburdened by private sector deleveraging and excessive fiscal tightening (Chart 10). As such, we anticipate the expected terminal rate to increase, which will limit how quickly the yield curve will flatten next year even if the Fed elevates interest rates and the ECB aggressively downshifts its pace of asset purchases once the PEPP ends. Chart 11Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not A Concern, Yet Under this aperture, the biggest risk for stocks remains inflation. Further acceleration in inflation, especially if it pushes the 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakeven rate above the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 11), could hurt stocks. Essentially, investors would price in a shift in the monetary policy environment whereby risks of a severe tightening would increase. However, as we recently wrote, the odds are mounting that short-term inflation will soon peak. Oil inflation is ebbing, while transportation costs are declining and supply bottlenecks are beginning to ease. Moreover, money growth in the US and the Eurozone, which proved relevant variables to explain inflation this year, is also waning (Chart 12). Finally, a mounting number of global central banks are tightening policy, which implies that maximum accommodation is behind us (Chart 13) In this context, we expect the positive correlation between stock returns and yield changes to remain broadly positive. A short-term rise in yields could easily contribute to equity market volatility and may even cause a deeper stock market correction than any experienced since April 2020. However, this will prove to be a temporary phenomenon, and thus we remain buyers of the dip. Chart 12Slowing Money Supply Growth, At Last Chart 13Global Policy Is Becoming Less Easy A Longer-Term Correlation Shift? A shift in the long-term correlation between equity returns and bond yield changes is a much more meaningful risk to stocks than short-term changes. BCA expects inflation to peak in the short term, but this will only be part of a stop-and-go process. Inflation is on a structural uptrend and so, any decline in 2022 and early 2023 will morph into renewed pressure, after the global output gap becomes positive again by the end of next year. Chart 14A Deflationary Tailwind Is Gone Many structural forces are moving away from deflationary to inflationary. True, technological progress remains a deflationary anchor. However, this downward pressure on inflation is no longer buttressed by a deepening of globalization (Chart 14). Moreover, because of the rise of populism around the world over the past five years, fiscal policy is unlikely to move back to the austere Washington Consensus that dictated governance from President Reagan up to the moment President Trump took power. Additionally, ageing across advanced economies and China, as well as the so-called “Great Resignation,” will constrain the expansion of the global supply side. This background suggests that the period of flat inflation that prevailed from 1998 to 2020 is ending. As a corollary, inflation expectations will embark on a multi-year upward drift. This process is likely to loosen the correlation between economic activity and yields. As a result, the period of positive correlation between yield changes and equity returns is in its last innings. This will represent a major difficulty for asset allocators over the next ten to twenty years, as it points to poor long-term real returns for both bonds and stocks. Bottom Line: The correlation between stock returns and bond yield changes is likely to remain positive in 2022, which implies that European stocks will eke out another year of positive returns, despite BCA’s house view that yields will rise. However, the long-term outlook is more problematic. The growing likelihood that inflation is making a secular upturn means that the two-decades old positive correlation between equity returns and bond yield change will become negative again around the middle of the decade. This shift will have a profound and deleterious impact on both stocks’ and bonds’ secular returns. Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance
Highlights The helicopter drops are over, … : The economic impact payments and supplemental unemployment insurance benefits may have stopped, but their full impact has yet to be felt. … but fiscal and monetary policy will continue to support demand, … : US households are sitting on more than $2 trillion of excess pandemic savings. If they were to spend just half of their stash over the next two or three years, the economy would gain a steady tailwind. … and the macro backdrop will remain equity-friendly, … : Monetary policy will be less accommodative going forward but it will remain solidly supportive of markets and the economy across all of 2022. … so investors should stick around for one last round: Equities and spread product outperform when monetary policy is easy. As long as COVID-19 doesn’t spring a nasty surprise, the expansion will continue and risk assets will once again generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash. Feature BCA editors’ annual sit-down with Mr. and Ms. X provides a welcome opportunity to gather our thoughts for the coming year and review how this year’s calls panned out. Looking back to this time last year,1 our risk-friendly recommendations performed well as the rationale behind them proved to be sound. Financial markets thrived in the wake of monetary and fiscal policy measures intended to err on the side of providing too much accommodation. The policy efforts were massive, and their support for markets and the economy has yet to be fully exhausted; indeed, their lengthy half-life is a key pillar of our sanguine 2022 outlook. Unlike last December, investors cannot look forward to peak accommodation in the year ahead; the peak is behind us and monetary and fiscal stimulus will be throttled back. The Fed is currently deliberating how much to accelerate its taper timetable, with an eye toward gaining the flexibility to hike rates sooner than previously planned. The hawkish turn foreshadowed by Chair Powell two weeks ago in Congressional testimony unsettled markets somewhat, but it is important to note that monetary policy settings are merely on track to become less accommodative – they are nowhere near crossing the line to restrictive and will not approach it anytime soon. Investors can be certain that markets will enjoy ample policy support across all of 2022 and we expect that equities will still be in a bull market when Mr. and Ms. X return to discuss the outlook for 2023. We are on board with the BCA consensus as detailed in the Bank Credit Analyst’s 2022 outlook.2 Early indications suggest that the Omicron variant will not be enough of a threat to provoke a negative growth surprise and we expect that the pandemic will recede in importance as the year unfolds. As it fades, supply chains should become less snarled, easing the near-term pressures that have been pushing prices higher. We expect that markets are overestimating inflation in the near term and that growth will be robust in the US and other developed economies. Despite the dialing back of some accommodation, monetary policy will remain easy, supporting economic activity and market valuations. We foresee another year of solidly positive excess returns for risk assets. The Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders You wouldn’t necessarily know it to talk with investors, much less consumer confidence survey respondents, but aggregate demand is surging and ought to remain robust going forward. Households are in fantastic shape. Although their net worth growth slowed in the third quarter, its 13% annualized seven-quarter (1Q20 through 3Q21) pace is within a whisker of all-time highs (Chart 1). They have accumulated $2.3 trillion of excess savings since the pandemic began and have plenty of capacity to borrow to augment their spending power. Just about anyone who wants a job can have one: the ratio of job openings to unemployed workers is making new highs (Chart 2) and the share of people in the labor force filing initial jobless claims is approaching the all-time lows set before the pandemic (Chart 3). Chart 1The Wealth Effect Will Support Consumption Chart 2More Jobs Than People Without Them ... Businesses are on a solid financial footing, as well. Debt as a share of net worth is near the lower end of its typical range since the high yield bond market got going in the late ‘80s (Chart 4). Borrowing costs are scraping all-time lows (Chart 5) and profit margins are wide (Chart 6). Banks and fixed income asset managers are falling all over themselves to lend to businesses and will continue to do so while default rates remain low. Chart 3... And Almost No Layoffs Chart 4Corporations Have Less Debt And More Equity, ... Chart 5... But Debt Has Never Cost Less ... Chart 6... And Profit Margins Are Wide Financial conditions will remain highly accommodative despite the Fed’s and other major developed world central banks’ moves to make them less easy at the margin. Below-equilibrium policy rates will continue to encourage financed purchases of homes, autos and other durable goods and entice investment via low hurdle rates. If sovereign bond yields rise modestly in 2022 in line with our high-conviction base case, governments won’t feel any pressure to tighten the fiscal screws. That may nourish modern monetary theory fantasies to the ultimate detriment of public finances, but it should ensure that all three engines of domestic demand – households, businesses and government – will hum in 2022. Omicron has reminded everyone that the pandemic is not over, but the shadow it casts on public health and economic activity is set to shrink. Booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine apparently provide effective protection, and Omicron’s mutations will not allow it to evade Merck’s and Pfizer’s soon-to-be-approved antiviral pills. The availability of pills to treat those who contract COVID could possibly be a game-changer in terms of neutralizing its global threat. Distributing shelf-stable pills is vastly simpler than delivering vaccines that need to be transported at temperatures below -70 degrees Fahrenheit. The Earnings Bar Has Been Set Very Low Our constructive view would not translate into risk friendly investment strategy if asset prices already discounted it or were expecting something even better. Just as the economy is on a better path than consumers seem to perceive and investors believe can persist, S&P 500 earnings per share are poised to grow over the next four quarters by more than the bottom-up analyst consensus expects. As compared to the simple annualized run rate of last quarter’s earnings ($215.76, or $53.89 times 4), the analyst consensus is calling for effectively no growth ($215.87) over the four quarters through 3Q22. That is a surprising prediction based on two sets of empirical evidence. First, earnings typically rise outside of recessions (Chart 7). Second, analysts have consistently forecast that forward four-quarter earnings would top the run rate of the last reported quarter’s earnings for four decades (Chart 8). This year, though, analysts have repeatedly called for quarter-over-quarter declines in earnings (Table 1), only to have reported numbers shred their estimates by jaw-dropping margins, just as they have in all six full quarters since COVID-19 arrived (Chart 9). We interpret the phase shift in the magnitude of earnings beats as evidence that companies have surprised themselves by how much they’ve been able to increase efficiency and/or cut costs during the pandemic. Our interactions with the investment community suggest that it has also been surprised but views the gains as one-off events that are unlikely to continue. Chart 7Earnings Declines Outside Of Recessions Are Rare Chart 8This Has Been An Odd Time To Expect 40-Year Lows In Earnings Growth Table 1Grim Expectations Expectations of sequentially declining earnings would fit if the economy were flirting with falling below stall speed, as it regularly did during the sluggish post-GFC expansion. But they are completely at odds with the Bloomberg economist consensus that GDP will grow at a 5% real annualized rate this quarter and 3.9% in calendar 2022 (Table 2). Over time, S&P 500 revenue growth should converge with nominal GDP growth, so the current expectations for around 10% and 7% annualized nominal GDP growth in 4Q21 and 2022, respectively, are a decent starting point for estimating S&P 500 revenue growth over those periods. While we expect that S&P 500 profit margins have peaked, we do not foresee a sharp decline in 2022, and operating leverage should ensure that high single-digit revenue growth will translate into healthy earnings gains. Table 2Above-Trend Growth Ahead Bottom Line: The S&P 500 should have no trouble topping consensus estimates that foresee next to no growth in earnings over the next four quarters. There is ample room for corporate earnings to surprise to the upside. Our Major Disagreement With Markets Differences of opinion make markets and our biggest one pertains to the future direction of interest rates. We think the widespread conviction that the Fed will be unwilling or unable to raise the fed funds above 2%, if that, lest it crush financial markets and the real economy is way off base. The majority of investors seem to have taken the decade between the crisis and the pandemic as evidence that rates will remain very low for very long. Many of them must be buying the longer end of the Treasury curve in anticipation that an expedited liftoff date is the first step on the path to the next recession (Chart 10). Chart 10The Bond Market Sees Ice, Not Fire The risk asset selloff that ensued in December 2018 after the FOMC marched the fed funds rate up to 2.5% looms large in the markets’ minds and feeds the widespread view that an ambitious program of rate hikes will pull the rug out from under financial assets and the economy. Many investors have also been conditioned by the post-crisis decade to assume that inflation cannot exceed 2% for a sustained period. The market view is rooted in honest-to-goodness evidence, but we think it is of little relevance now, given the way the massive pandemic fiscal stimulus programs have altered the backdrop. In the space of thirteen months from March 2020 through March 2021, Congress passed bills injecting over $5 trillion of aid – 25% of a year’s GDP – into the economy. The Herculean effort contrasted sharply with the skittish disbursement of less than 5% of GDP on the Bush and Obama administrations’ watch from 2008 through 2010. The aftermath of the crisis demonstrated that even multiple rounds of QE do not by themselves trigger inflation, especially if demoralized households and businesses are disinclined to borrow money to consume or invest, and chastened banks are subjected to regulatory strictures forcing them to maintain sizable new capital buffers and discouraging them from making any but plain-vanilla loans to highly rated borrowers. The Bernanke Fed’s three rounds of QE presumably tamped down interest rates, but the cash that bought the Treasury and agency securities barely tiptoed into the wider world before the primary dealer banks sent it right back to the Fed as excess reserves. With banks hiding their QE money under the mattress, the money supply didn’t expand in any notable way after the crisis. Thanks to Congress’ series of 2020-21 helicopter drops, the money supply has been growing at rates that would make the late Paul Volcker’s head spin (Chart 11). Inflation is fiendishly more complicated than Milton Friedman’s always-and-everywhere dictum suggests, but there’s now a whole lot of money chasing a limited amount of goods, services and assets. We expect that a receding pandemic will allow greater quantities of goods and services to be produced, and that securities underwriters and their clients are hard at work ramping up asset supply, but inflation has far more of a chance to gain traction now than it did in the decade before the pandemic. Chart 11Bringing "Always And Everywhere" Back Into Vogue? We therefore think the lower-for-longer and lower-for-ever crowd will find itself offsides at some point in the next few years. We do not think it will get its comeuppance in 2022, however, as we see long yields rising only modestly, with the 10-year Treasury yield ending next year at 2-2.25%. Though we expect the fed funds rate will end the upcoming hiking cycle well north of 2%, bringing about the end of the bull markets in equities and credit, and quite possibly inducing the next recession, we do not think markets will abandon their new-normal rates view by the end of next year. This story will be continued, likely with a greater sense of urgency, in our 2023 outlook. Investment Recommendations Consistent with the foregoing, we make the following recommendations for 2022: Overweight equities in multi-asset portfolios. Although they are not cheap, and may experience a turbulent ride in 2022 as inflation concerns wax and wane, COVID-19 infections periodically surge and the Fed tries to adjust its messaging and actions on the fly, stocks should continue to generate sizable positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash. Overweight cyclical sectors and underweight defensive sectors within equity portfolios. If we’re right to be constructive on the global economy, Energy, Industrials, Materials and Financials are better positioned to benefit than Health Care, Staples and Utilities. Overweight small-cap equities versus large-cap equities. The S&P 600 SmallCap Index has greater exposure to our cyclicals-over-defensives call and our US Equity Strategy colleagues highlight that its constituents are cheaper than the S&P 500’s and are projected to have better earnings growth. Adding small-cap exposure to equity portfolios aligns with our constructive view on the economy and markets. Underweight fixed income in multi-asset portfolios. Underweight Treasuries within bond portfolios. Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Though we do not expect the bond market to see things entirely our way next year, we think the long end of the yield curve will shift out somewhat. We therefore have little appetite for duration and Treasuries and expect spread product will outperform Treasuries and high-yield corporate bonds will outperform investment-grade corporates. Consider hybrid alternatives to traditional fixed income securities. When we roll out our multi-asset ETF portfolio next month, it will include a hybrid bucket of income-generating assets to help multi-asset investors seeking income find low-beta destinations with a fighting chance of generating positive real total returns. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the December 14, 2020 US Investment Strategy Report, "2021 Key Views: It’s The Policy, Stupid." 2 Please see the December 2021 Bank Credit Analyst, "OUTLOOK 2022: Peak Inflation – Or Just Getting Started?"
Highlights A partial reinvasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The constraints on Russia are not prohibitive, especially amid global energy shortages. On this issue, it is better to be alarmist than complacent. We would put the risk of a partial re-invasion of Ukraine as high as 50/50, albeit with an uncertain time frame over 12-36 months. The negative impact of conflict may not stay contained within Russian and eastern European markets. The US and EU are now threatening major retaliatory sanctions if Russia invades. In response Russia could reduce energy exports, exacerbating global shortages and damaging Europe’s overall economy. Investors should stay short Russian assets and overweight developed European equities over emerging European peers. Stay long gold and GBP-CZK. The dollar will be flat-to-up. Feature Chart 1Ruble Faces More Downside From Geopolitics Geopolitical tensions surrounding Russia remain unresolved and investors should continue to reduce holdings of assets exposed to any renewed conflict in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union. The ruble has dropped off its peaks since early November when strategic tensions revived (Chart 1). Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin held their second bilateral summit on a secure video link on December 7 to discuss the situation in Ukraine, where Russia has amassed 95,000-120,000 troops on the border in a major show of force. Russia also mustered troops in April and only partially drew them down after the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva where the two sides agreed to hold talks to address differences. The two presidents agreed to hold consultations regarding Ukraine. Putin accused NATO of building up Ukraine’s military and demanded “reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding the expansion of NATO in the eastern direction and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia.”1 President Putin’s red line against Ukraine joining NATO is well known. Recently he said his red line includes the placement of western military infrastructure or missile systems in Ukraine. Biden refused to accept any limits on NATO membership in keeping with past policy. After the summit National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “I will tell you clearly and directly [Biden] made no such commitments or concessions. He stands by the proposition that countries should be able to freely choose who they associate with.” 2 Biden, who had conferred with the UK, France, Germany, and Italy prior to the call, outlined the coordinated economic sanctions that would be leveled against Russia if it resorted to military force, as well as defense aid that would go to Ukraine and other eastern European countries. Thus Putin gave an ultimatum and Biden rebuffed it – and yet the two agreed to keep talking. The Russians have since said that they will present proposals to the Americans in less than a week. Talks are better than nothing. But neither side has given concrete indication of a change in position that would de-escalate strategic tensions – instead they have both raised the stakes. Therefore investors should proceed with the strong presumption that tensions will remain elevated or escalate in the coming months. Clearing Away Misconceptions Before going further we should clear away a few misconceptions about the current situation: Ukraine has unique strategic value to Russia. Like Belarus, but unlike Central Asia, Ukraine serves as critical buffer territory protecting Moscow and the Russian core from any would-be invaders. Russia lacks firm geological borders so it protects itself by means of distance and winter. This grand strategy succeeded against King Charles XII of Sweden, Napoleon, and Hitler. The collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia shorn of much of its buffer territory. Ukraine also offers access to the Black Sea. Russia has long striven to gain access to warm-water ports. The loss of control over Ukraine resulted in a loss of access. Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 only partially rectified the situation. Ukraine’s southern coastline around Crimea is the territory at risk today (Map 1). It is Ukraine’s physical existence and unique strategic value – not its democratic leanings or ideological orientation – that ensures perpetual tensions with post-Soviet Russia. Russia has a strategic imperative to reassert control or at least prevent control by foreign powers. Ideological opposition may make things worse but an anti-Russian Ukrainian dictator would also face Russian coercion or aggression, perhaps even more than the current weak democracy. In fact Russia is trying to force Ukraine to revise its constitution and adopt a federal structure so as to grant greater autonomy to separatist regions Donetsk and Luhansk that Russia helped break away in 2014. But Ukraine has not relented to Moscow’s demands of political reform. It is not authoritarianism but a permanent foreclosure of Ukrainian membership in the EU and NATO that Moscow is after. Yet it is highly unlikely that Russia would try to invade and conquer all of Ukraine. Ukraine is the largest country by territory in Europe and has 255,000 active soldiers and 900,000 reserves (contra Russia’s 1 million active and 2 million reserves) who would defend their freedom and sovereignty against an invader.3 Russia would not be able to stage a full-scale invasion with the 175,000 maximum troop buildup that US intelligence is warning about. It would have to mobilize fully, dangerously neglecting other vast dimensions of its national security, and would inevitably get bogged down fighting a vicious insurgency backed by the NATO powers. It would save blood and treasure by paralyzing Ukraine’s politics and preventing it from allying with western militaries, which is what Putin is attempting to do today. Putin uses foreign adventures to strengthen his grip at home but an adventure of this nature would impose such burdens as to threaten his grip at home. A limited re-invasion of Ukraine could yield historic strategic advantages to Russia. Moscow could focus on a partial military incursion that would annex or shore up Donbass, or extend its control from Donbass to the Black Sea, conceivably all the way to the Dnieper river. This pathway would yield Russia maritime access and a buffer space to fortify Crimea. Naval warfare could also yield control of deep-water ports (Yuzhne, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Chornomorsk), control of the mouth of the Dnieper, control of the canal that supplies water to Crimea, and a means of bottling up the Ukrainian navy and preventing foreign maritime assistance. Ukraine would be further weakened and Russia would have a larger beachhead in Ukraine for future pressure tactics. Russia is not bluffing – its military buildup poses a credible threat. If there is anywhere Russia’s threats are credible, it is in taking military action against former Soviet republics like Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014) that have pro-western leanings yet lack the collective security of the NATO alliance. At very least, given that Russian forces did deploy in Ukraine in 2014, Russian action in Ukraine cannot be ruled out. The military balance has not changed so significantly in that time and strongly favors Russia (Chart 2). The US has provided around $2.5 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2014, and has sent lethal weapons including Javelin anti-tank missiles and launchers since 2017-18, including $450 million worth of military aid under the Biden administration (and $300 million just authorized by Congress on December 7). NATO allies have also provided defense aid. This is part of Putin’s complaint but these new arms are not game changers that would prevent Russia from taking military action. Thus if the West rejects Moscow’s core demands, war is likely. This is true even if Russia would prefer to achieve its aims through political and economic rather than military means. Russia does not deem the West’s threat of sanctions as prohibitive of invasion. The West’s sanctions since 2014 have failed to change Russia’s government, strategy, or posture in Ukraine. Yes, European nations joined the US in imposing sanctions. But Germany also pursued the Nord Stream II pipeline as a means of bypassing Ukraine and working directly with Russia to preserve economic engagement and energy security. Former Chancellor Merkel forced the pipeline through despite the objections of eastern Europeans and the United States. The allies also formed the “Normandy Quartet,” excluding the US, to force Ukraine to accept the Minsk agreements on resolving the conflict. Thus the lesson of 2014-21 is not that NATO allies stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but rather that Germany and the EU, and the EU and the US, have major differences in interests and risk-tolerance in dealing with Russia. Russia does not face, or may think it does not face, a united front among the western powers. A partial reinvasion of Ukraine would bring the western allies together initially but probably not for long. Russia determines the timing of any new military incursion in Ukraine. Winter is not the ideal time to invade Ukraine, though it is possible. Russia could act in spring 2022, as the US has warned, but it could also act in the summer of 2023, the spring of 2024, or other times. From a strategic point of view, Russia has enjoyed a historic window of opportunity since 2001 when the US got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and then the US and the EU got bogged down in economic and financial crisis. Given that the American political establishment is withdrawing from foreign quagmires, reactivating fiscal policy, bulking up the military-industrial complex, and making a dedicated effort to revitalize its global alliances, Russia may believe that its historic window is closing. Russia’s domestic fundamentals are deteriorating over time. Putin could decide it is necessary to seize strategic ground in Ukraine sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: Ukraine offers unique and irreplaceable buffer space and maritime access to Russia. Russia’s military actions in 2014 led to stalemate, such that Russia remains insecure, Ukraine remains defiant, and the West is still entertaining defense cooperation or even NATO membership with Ukraine. Yet the Crimea conflict also revealed a lack of concert among western powers exemplified by Germany’s Nord Stream II pipeline. Today Russia has the military capability to seize another slice of Ukrainian territory. Western retaliatory actions would be painful but may not be deemed prohibitive. Investors cannot rule out a partial re-invasion of Ukraine. Nord Stream Pipeline Is Not The Sole Factor Is Russia not making a show of military force merely to ensure that Nord Stream II pipeline goes into operation? Will Russia not back down if the pipeline is guaranteed? A common view in Washington and the financial industry is that Russia’s military buildup is just a bluff, i.e. Moscow’s aggressive way of demanding that Germany’s new government and the European Union approve Nord Stream. The pipeline finished construction in September but now awaits formal regulatory certification. Approval was originally expected by May 2022 but has now been delayed. The pipeline would carry 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas into Europe, about half of Russia’s current export capacity outside of Ukraine. Ukraine’s total capacity is around 150 billion cubic meters. The pipeline enables Russia and Germany to bypass Ukraine, whose conflicts with Moscow since 2004 have threatened Germany’s energy security. About 18% of EU’s total energy imports come from Russia, whilst this figure is 16% for Germany. That is about 0.5% and 0.2% of EU and German GDP, respectively. Meanwhile Russian energy exports to Germany and the EU make up 0.8% and 5.6% of GDP, respectively (Chart 3). The problem with this reasoning is that the US conceded Nord Stream to Russia over the summer. The US initially raised the threat of sanctions because the pipeline strengthened Russo-German ties, diminished Ukraine’s leverage, and deprived the US of a chance to sell liquefied natural gas to Europe. But the Biden administration proved unwilling to take this aggressive approach. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has a long history of arguing that the US should prioritize strong relations with its European allies rather than punitive measures to try to block Russian gas sales. Biden met with outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel in July and agreed to let Nord Stream go forward. The only proviso was that Russia not “weaponize natural gas,” i.e. withhold supplies for geopolitical purposes, as it has done in the past.4 Before Russia’s military threats, Germany and the EU were expected to certify the pipeline by no later than May 2022 and an earlier certification looked possible because of Europe’s low natural gas supplies. Yet Russia, fresh off parliamentary elections, did precisely what Germany said it was not supposed to do. The pipeline was completed in September and reports of Russian limitations on natural gas supply surfaced in October. Moscow not only weaponized the gas but also mustered its army on the Ukrainian border again. Putin may have feared that the new German government, which officially took office on December 8, would change policy and refuse to certify the pipeline. He also could have feared that the US Congress would pass a Republican-backed provision that would require Biden to impose sanctions that would halt the pipeline. But these explanations are not satisfactory. First, the German government was not likely to halt Nord Stream. Quite the opposite, Berlin has pushed against all opposition to speed the pipeline into action. It only delayed the regulatory approval when Russia did the one thing that Germany had expressly prohibited, which was weaponize natural gas. Second, the US Congress was never likely to pass mandatory sanctions on Nord Stream operators. The Democrats opposed it, as it would have tied Biden’s hands, whereas presidents always retain discretion over foreign policy and national security. Even moderate Republicans opposed the measure, for the same reason. If either of these were the reason for Putin’s latest buildup, then the buildup will probably dissipate in the coming months. Putin also wants to force Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. But the Biden administration adopted the Minsk framework in June for the first time, which was a concession to Russia. So the latest military threats are not solely about coercing Europe to approve the pipeline or Ukraine to implement Minsk. Putin is driving at something else. Putin’s Focus On Ukraine And NATO Putin used military pressure on Ukraine’s border to force the US to accept the pipeline and the Minsk agreements. He is now using the same tactic to raise the stakes and demand that the US and its allies permanently rule out NATO membership and defense cooperation with Ukraine. Biden rejected the first demand during the summit, as mentioned. There is no way that the US or NATO will forswear any and all eastward expansion. Even on Ukraine specifically, Biden cannot give Russia a legal guarantee because it would require a 60-seat majority in the Senate (not likely). Any future president would retain prerogative over the matter anyway and Putin knows this. Moreover Ukraine is never going to join NATO. Russia would attack. And NATO members would not be unanimous (as is required for new members) because the collective defense treaty would require them to defend Ukraine. They would be signing up for a war with Russia. Still Biden is unlikely to disavow Ukrainian NATO membership because to do so would be to deny the self-determination of nations, capitulate to Russian coercion, and demoralize the Ukrainians, whom the US hopes will maintain a plucky resistance against Russian domination. It would also demoralize US allies and partners – namely Taiwan, which also lacks a formal defense treaty and would be forced to sue for peace with China in the face of American abandonment. Biden’s refusal to ban Ukraine from NATO is encapsulated in Diagram 1, an exercise in game theory that exemplifies why the risk of war should not be dismissed. Diagram 1Game Theory Suggests Russia Will Keep Applying Military Pressure Biden may give private or executive assurances on Ukraine and NATO but Putin will know that these mean nothing since Biden may be out of office as early as January 2025 and then Putin would have to renegotiate. America is not a credible negotiator because partisanship has resulted in extreme foreign policy vacillations – the next president could revoke the deal. Even after Putin is gone Russia would have to negotiate with the US to prevent the US from arming Ukraine. Hence Moscow may decide to reduce Ukraine and improve Russia’s strategic position by force of arms. This is true even if Biden forswears the NATO option, as Diagram 1 illustrates. Putin’s second demand – that the US not provide offensive weapon systems in countries adjacent to Russia – is more material. This is what the new round of talks will focus on. This new Ukraine line of talks is separate, more urgent and important, than the other bilateral dialogues on the arms race, and cyber-war. US-Russia talks on Iran are also urgent, however, and Russia’s cooperation there may be contingent on US concessions regarding Ukraine. The US may be willing to stop its defense cooperation with Ukraine but not with other allies and partners, however. It is also not clear what Putin will accept. These negotiations will have to be watched. Biden cannot make major concessions with a gun to his head. It is unclear how far the US is willing to concede on defense cooperation with countries around Russia. The US may quietly abandon Ukraine but then it would need to reinforce its other defense relationships. If Putin draws down the troops, and Biden calls a stop to defense aid to Ukraine, then a crisis may be averted. What Could Go Wrong? Economic sanctions under consideration in Washington are significant: the US could freeze bank transactions, expand restrictions on trading Russian sovereign and corporate debt, and lobby Belgium to kick Russia off the SWIFT financial messaging system. However, these sanctions may not be effective in preventing Russia from using military force. Russia has weathered US sanctions since 2014, and the smaller and weaker Iranian economy has weathered maximum pressure sanctions since 2019. Energy producers like Russia and Iran have maximum geopolitical leverage when global energy inventories draw down, as is the case today. Even in the face of Russian military aggression, the Biden administration is vacillating on sanctions targeting Russia’s energy sector that would contribute to global shortages and ultimately raise prices at the pump for voters in a midterm election year.5 Germany’s new government also hesitates to declare unambiguously that it will discontinue the Nord Stream II pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine. True, Germany signaled that the pipeline would be halted. Its energy regulator declared that the pipeline’s ownership must be unbundled, which pushes back the certification date to sometime after May 2022 – this was a geopolitical not a legalistic decision. But construction is completed, the pipeline physically exists, which will vitiate Germany’s commitment to sanctions whenever natural gas shortages occur, as is the case this winter (Chart 4). Shortages will continue to occur and Russia controls a large share of supply. It would take a catastrophe to drive Germany to restart coal and nuclear plants, so natural gas will continue to be in demand. Germany does not have liquefied natural gas import capability yet. If Europe imposes crippling sanctions on Russia, Russia could reduce energy supplies and harm Europe’s economy (Chart 5). The Russian economy and society would suffer which is one reason any military action in Ukraine would be limited in scope. Still, Moscow may believe that Germany would restrain the EU, and the EU would restrain the US, thereby preventing sanctions from being fully, uniformly, and durably implemented. Prior to Russia’s aggression, public opinion polls showed that the German public strongly supported Nord Stream. Even a majority of Green Party members supported it despite the fact that the Greens were the most critical of increasing Germany’s dependency on fossil fuels and an authoritarian petro-state. While public approval of the pipeline has surely suffered in the face of Russian aggression, a majority probably still favors the pipeline. Germany has a national consensus in support of engagement with Russia and avoiding a new cold war, given that the original Cold War cut Germany in half. For that reason invasion may only temporarily unite the western powers – it could ultimately drive a wedge between Germany and other EU members, namely in the former Soviet bloc. It would also divide the more risk-averse EU from the US in terms of how to deal with Russia. And it would weaken the Biden administration at a time when it is extremely vulnerable, exacerbating America’s internal divisions. Russian domestic patriotism would rally, at least initially. Note that Russia could miscalculate on this issue and that is one reason for high level of risk. Perhaps the West would prove far more unified and aggressive in its sanctions enforcement than it was after 2014. A falling ruble and rising inflation could cause Russian social unrest. But Russia could misread the situation. Unless the US and Europe escalate the sanctions threat massively to better deter Russia, their lack of concert is another reason for investors not to be complacent about renewed conflict. Bottom Line: The threat of sanctions may prove insufficient to deter renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine. Germany favors engagement with Russia and Europe’s energy dependency on Russia makes it vulnerable to supply disruptions. Russia has leverage given tight global energy markets, Europe’s low natural gas inventories, and US domestic political considerations ahead of the 2022 midterms. Investment Takeaways The point of this report argues that a partial re-invasion of Ukraine cannot be ruled out. Russia has the capability to reinforce de facto control of Donbas, or expand its footprint in southern Ukraine, though not to invade the whole country. The threat of economic sanctions is not yet so overwhelming as to warrant overconfident predictions of de-escalation. In this case it is better to be alarmist than complacent. Russia would want to maintain an element of surprise so the timing of any belligerence is hard to predict. For de-escalation, investors should watch for Russia to withdraw troops from the Ukrainian border, US-Russia consultations to begin promptly and proceed regularly, and for the US and allies to delay or halt defense cooperation and arms transfers to Ukraine. While global investors would quickly become de-sensitized to conflict that is entirely contained in Ukraine, the trans-Atlantic threat of major sanctions now raises the stakes and suggests that global energy shocks could negatively affect the European or global economy in the event of conflict. Any conflict could also spill outside of Ukraine’s borders, as with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down by Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists in July 2014. The Black Sea has seen a dangerous uptick in naval saber-rattling and that strategic situation would become permanently more dangerous if Russia seized more of coastal Ukraine. Russian military integration with Belarus is also a source of insecurity for EU and NATO members. Global financial markets have only started to price the geopolitical risk emanating from Russia. Our Russian GeoRisk Indicator has ticked up (Chart 6). But Russian equity performance relative to broad emerging markets is only arguably underperforming what is implied by Brent crude oil prices. Chart 6Market Slow To React To Ukraine Crisis - Risk To Downside For Russian Assets This relatively muted reaction suggests more downside lies ahead if we are right that strategic tensions will be flat-to-up over the coming months. Sell the RUB-USD on any strength. Stay long GBP-CZK. Tactically short Russian equities versus EM-ex-Asia (Chart 7). They are exposed to further correction as a result of escalating geopolitical risk. Chart 7Russia Falling Off Peaks Of Performance Versus EM-Ex-Asia Chart 8Developed Europe A Safer Bet Than Emerging Europe Amid Tensions Stick to long DM Europe versus EM Europe – our main trade this year to capture rising geopolitical risk between Russia and the West (Chart 8). Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 President of Russia, "Meeting with US President Joseph Biden," December 7, 2021, kremlin.ru. 2 White House, "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jen Psaki and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, December 7, 2021," whitehouse.gov. 3 Dan Peleschuk, "Ukraine’s military poses a tougher challenge for Russia than in 2014," Politico, April 14, 2021, politico.eu.; see also Gav Don, "LONG READ: Russia looks poised to invade Ukraine, but what would an invasion actually look like?" Intellinews, November 24, 2021, intellinews.com. 4 US Department of State, "Joint Statement of the United States and Germany on Support for Ukraine, European Energy Security, and our Climate Goals," July 21, 2021, state.gov. 5 Kylie Atwood and Natasha Bertrand, "US likely to hold off for now on energy sanctions for Russia, fearing impact on global prices," CNN, December 9, 2021, cnn.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
Highlights 1. How will the pandemic resolve? 2. Will services spending recover to its pre-pandemic trend? 3. Will we spend our excess savings? 4. How will central banks react to inflation? 5. Will cryptocurrencies continue to eat gold’s lunch? 6. How fragile is Chinese real estate? 7. Will there be another shock? Fractal analysis: Personal goods versus consumer services. Feature Chart of the WeekWill Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? “Judge a man by his questions, not by his answers” The quotation above is often misattributed to Voltaire instead of its true author, Pierre-Marc-Gaston de Lévis. Irrespective of the misattribution, we agree with the maxim. Asking the right questions is more important than finding answers to the wrong questions. In this vein, this report takes the form of the seven crucial questions for 2022 (and our answers). 1. How Will The Pandemic Resolve? As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arrived like clockwork, the number of new global cases of infection and the virus reproduction rate have formed a near-perfect mathematical ‘sine wave’. This near-perfect sine wave will propagate into 2022 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 But how will this sine wave of infections translate into mortality, morbidity, and stress on our healthcare systems? As we explained in RNA Viruses: Time To Tell The Truth, the answer depends on the specific combination of contagiousness, immuno-evasion, and pathogenicity of each variant. Yet none of this should come as any surprise. Flus and colds also come in waves, which is why we call them flu and cold seasons. And the morbidity of a given flu and cold season depends on the aggressiveness of that season’s flu and cold variant. So, just like the flu and the cold, Covid will become an endemic respiratory disease which comes in waves. The trouble is that our under-resourced health care systems can barely cope with a bad flu season, let alone with an additional novel disease that can be worse than the flu. Hence, until we add enough capacity to our healthcare systems, expect more disruptions to economic activity from periodic non-pharmaceutical interventions such as travel bans, vaccine passports, and face-mask mandates. 2. Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? The pandemic has given us a crash course in virology and epidemiology. We now understand antigens, antibodies, and ‘reproduction rates.’ We understand that a virus transmits as an aerosol in enclosed unventilated spaces, and that singing, and yelling eject this viral aerosol. We understand that vaccinations for RNA viruses have limited longevity, do not prevent reinfections, and that certain environments create ‘super-spreader’ events. Armed with this new-found awareness, a significant minority of people have changed their behaviour. Services which require close contact with strangers – going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments, going to the cinema or to amusement parks, or using public transport – are suffering severe shortfalls in demand. Given that this change in behaviour is likely long-lasting, demand for these services is unlikely to regain its pre-pandemic trend in 2022 (Charts I-3 - I-6). Chart I-3Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-6Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods will have to stay above its pre-pandemic trend. This will be a tough ask. Durables, by their very definition, last a long time. Even clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurables, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can own before reaching saturation. If, as we expect, spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, but spending on services does not recover to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall in 2022 (Chart of the Week). 3. Will We Spend Our Excess Savings? If spending falls short of income – as it did through the pandemic – then, by definition, our savings have gone up. Many people claimed that this war chest of savings would unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it didn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-7). The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. The theory states that we segment our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental, and that our willingness to spend money depends on which mental account it occupies. This contrasts with standard economic theory which assumes that money is perfectly fungible, meaning that a dollar in a current (checking) account is no different to a dollar in a savings or investment account. In practice, money is not fungible, because we attach different emotions to our different mental accounts. A dollar in our current account we will gladly spend, but a dollar in our savings account we will not spend. Hence, the moment we move the dollar from our current account into our savings account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption trends have no connection with windfall income receipts once those income receipts end up in our savings mental or physical account. Pulling all of this together, the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to change the overall trend in spending. 4. How Will Central Banks React To Inflation? The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is that while goods and commodity prices have surged exactly as expected in a positive demand shock, services prices have not declined as would be expected in the mirror-image negative demand shock. The result is that aggregate inflation has surged even though aggregate demand has not (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Chart I-9...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock Why have services prices remained resilient despite a massive negative demand shock? One answer, as explained in question 2, is that much of the shortfall in services demand is due to behavioural changes, which cannot be alleviated by lower prices. If somebody doesn’t go to the dentist or use public transport because he is worried about catching Covid, then lowering the price will not lure that person back. In fact, the person might interpret the lower price as a signal of greater risk, and might become more averse. In technical terms, the price elasticity of demand for certain services has flipped from its usual negative to positive. This creates a major problem for central banks, because if the price elasticity of services demand has changed, then surging aggregate inflation is no longer a reliable indicator of surging aggregate demand. To repeat, inflation is surging even though aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend. Hence in 2022, central banks face a Hobson’s choice. Choke demand that does not need to be choked, or turn a blind eye to inflation and risk losing credibility. 5. Will Cryptocurrencies Continue To Eat Gold’s Lunch? Most of the value of gold comes not from its economic utility as a beautiful, wearable, and electrically conductive metal, but from its investment value as a hedge against the debasement of fiat money. The multi-year investment case for cryptocurrencies is that they are set to displace much of gold’s investment value. Still, to displace gold’s investment value, cryptocurrencies need to match its other qualities: an economic utility, and limited supply. A cryptocurrency’s economic utility comes from its means of exchange for the intermediation services that its blockchain provides. For example, if you issue a bond or smart-contract using the Ethereum blockchain, then you must pay in its cryptocurrency ETH. Which gives ETH an economic utility. Furthermore, the number of blockchains that will succeed as go-to places for intermediation services will be limited, and each cryptocurrency has a limited supply. Thereby, the supply of cryptocurrencies that have a utility is also limited. With an economic utility, a limited supply, and drawdowns that are becoming smaller, cryptocurrencies can continue to displace gold’s dominance of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market. Therefore, the cryptocurrency asset-class can continue its strong structural uptrend, albeit punctuated by short sharp corrections (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value The corollary is that the structural outlook for gold is poor. 6. How Fragile Is Chinese Real Estate? A decade-long surge in Chinese property prices has lifted Chinese valuations to nosebleed levels. According to global real estate specialist Savills, prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are now barely above 1 percent, and the world’s five most expensive cities are all in China: Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai (Chart I-11). Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price only goes up. With the bulk of people’s wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a modest decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is. Therefore, in contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the Chinese government will ensure that its property market adjustment does not come from a collapse in home prices. Rather, it will come from a collapse in property development and construction activity. This will have negative implications for commodities, emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials, and machinery stocks worldwide. 7. Will There Be Another Shock? Most strategists claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are unpredictable. We disagree. Yes, the timing and source of an individual shock is unpredictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent.1 Using this definition through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). This means that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-12). Therefore, on a multi-year horizon, another shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its source or precise timing. The question is, will it be net deflationary, or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that it is not just Chinese real estate that is fragile. Through the past ten years, world prime residential prices are up by 70 percent while rents are up by just 25 percent2 (Chart I-13). Meaning that the bulk of the increase in global real estate prices is due to skyrocketing valuations. The culprit is the structural collapse in global bond yields – which, in turn, is due to persistently ultra-low policy interest rates combined with trillions of dollars of quantitative easing. Chart I-13Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation This means that bond yields have very limited scope to rise before pulling the bottom out of the $300 trillion global real estate market. Given that this dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, it would constitute a massive deflationary backlash to the initial inflationary shock. Some people counter that in an inflationary shock, property – as the ultimate real asset – ought to perform well even as bond yields rise. However, when valuations start off in nosebleed territory as now, the initial intense headwind from deflating valuations would obliterate the tailwind from inflating incomes. Investment Conclusions To summarise, 2022 will be a year in which: Covid waves continue to disrupt the economy; a persistent shortfall in spending on services is not fully countered by excess spending on goods; China’s construction boom comes to an end; inflation takes time to cool, pressuring central banks to raise rates despite fragile demand; and the probability of another shock is an underestimated 30 percent. We reach the following investment conclusions: Overweight the China 30-year bond and the US 30-year T-bond. There will be no sustained rise in long-duration bond yields, and the risk to yields is to the downside. Long-duration equity sectors and stock markets that are least sensitive to cyclical demand will continue to rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits Overweight the US versus non-US. Underweight Emerging Markets. Underweight old-economy cyclical sectors such as banks, materials, and industrials. Commodities will struggle. Underweight commodities that haven’t corrected versus those that have (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Overweight the US dollar versus commodity currencies. Cryptocurrencies will continue their structural uptrend at the expense of gold. Goods Versus Services Is Technically Stretched Finally, this week’s fractal analysis corroborates the massive displacement from services spending into goods spending, highlighted by the spectacular outperformance of personal goods versus consumer services. This outperformance is now at the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has signalled previous reversals (Chart I-16). Therefore, a good trade would be to short personal goods versus consumer services, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12.5 percent. Chart I-16Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. 2 Based on Savills Prime Index: World Cities – Capital Values, and World Cities – Rents and Yields, June 2011 through June 2021. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations 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