不動産
Highlights The ongoing transition to a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy are either positive or net-neutral for risky asset prices. Fiscal thrust will turn to fiscal drag over the coming year, but the negative impact this will have on goods spending will likely be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. A modestly hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy is likely over the coming year, potentially occurring over the late summer or early fall in response to outsized jobs growth. However, such a shift is not likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, barring a major rise in market expectations for the neutral rate of interest. This may very well occur once the Fed begins to raise interest rates, but not likely before. Investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We continue to favor value over growth on a 6-12 month time horizon, although growth may outperform in the near term. A bias toward value over the coming year supports an overweight stance toward global ex-US equities, and an overall pro-risk stance favors bearish US dollar bets. Feature Three factors continue to drive our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations. The first factor is our assessment of the global progress that is being made on the path to a post-pandemic state, and the return to pre-COVID economic conditions; the second is the likely contribution to growth from fiscal policy over the coming year; and the third is the outlook for monetary policy and whether or not monetary conditions will remain stimulative for both economic activity and financial markets. If the world continues to progress meaningfully on the path to a post-pandemic state, and if the impact of fiscal and monetary policy remains in line with market expectations, then we see no reason to alter our recommended investment stance. Equity market returns will be modest over the coming 6 to 12 months in this scenario given how significantly stocks have rebounded from their low last year, but we would still expect stocks to outperform bonds and would generally be pro-cyclically positioned. We present below our assessment of these three factors and their potential to deviate from consensus expectations over the coming year, to determine their likely impact on economic activity and financial markets. The Ongoing Transition To A Post-Pandemic World Chart I-1Enormous Progress Has Been Made In The Fight Against COVID-19 Chart I-1 highlights that meaningful progress continues to be made in vaccinating the world's population against COVID-19. North America and Europe continue to lead the rest of the world based on the share of people who have received at least one dose, but South America continues to make significant gains, and recent data updates highlight that Asia and Oceania are also making meaningful progress. Africa is the clear laggard in the war against SARS-COV-2 and its variants, but progress there has been delayed, at least in part, by India’s export restrictions of the Oxford-AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine. This suggests that, while Africa will continue to lag, the share of Africans provided with a first dose of vaccine will begin to rise once India resumes its exports and deliveries to African countries under the COVAX program continue. If variants of the disease were not a source of concern, Chart I-1 would highlight that the full transition to a post-pandemic economy over the next several months would be near certain. However, as evidenced by the recent decision in the UK to postpone the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions by 4 weeks due to the spreading of the Delta variant, the global economy is not entirely out of the woods yet. Encouragingly, the delay in the UK genuinely appears to be temporary. Chart I-2 highlights that while the number of confirmed UK COVID-19 cases has been rising over the past month, the uptick in hospitalizations and fatalities has so far been quite muted. Importantly, the rise in hospitalizations appears to be occurring among those who have not yet been fully vaccinated, underscoring that variants of the disease are only truly concerning if they are vaccine-resistant. The evidence so far is that the Delta variant is more transmissible and may increase the risk of hospitalization, but that two doses of COVID-19 vaccine offer high protection. Of course, vaccines only offer protection if you get them, and evidence of vaccination hesitancy in the US is thus a somewhat worrying sign. Chart I-3 shows that the daily pace of vaccinations in the US has slowed significantly from mid-April levels, resulting in a slower rise in the share of the population that has received at least one dose (second panel). On this metric, the US has recently been outpaced by Canada, and the gap between the UK and the US is now widening. Germany and France are close behind the US and may surpass it soon. Chart I-2The UK Delay In Removing Restrictions Seems Genuinely Temporary Chart I-3Recent Vaccination Progress In The US Has Been Underwhelming Sadly, Chart I-4 highlights that there is a political dimension to vaccine hesitancy in the US. The chart shows that state by state vaccination rates as a share of the population are strongly predicted by the share of the popular vote for Donald Trump in the 2020 US presidential election. Admittedly, part of this relationship may also be capturing an urban/rural divide, with residents in less-dense rural areas (which typically support Republican presidential candidates) perhaps feeling a lower sense of urgency to become vaccinated against the disease. Chart I-4The US Politicization Of Vaccines Raises The Risk From COVID-19 Variants But given the clear politicization that has already occurred over some pandemic control measures, such as the wearing of masks, Chart I-4 makes it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the same thing has occurred for vaccines. This is unfortunate, and seemingly raises the risk that the Delta variant may spread widely in red states over the coming several months, potentially delaying economic reopening, or risking the reintroduction of pandemic control measures. However, there are two counterarguments to this concern. First, non-vaccine immunity is probably higher in red than blue states, and CDC data suggest that this effect could be large. While this figure is still preliminary and subject to change (and likely will), the CDC estimates that only 1 out of 4.3 cases of COVID-19 were reported from February 2020 to March 2021. Taken at face value, this implies that there were approximately 115 million infections during that period, compared with under 30 million reported cases. That gap accounts for 25% of the US population, and given that red states were slower to implement pandemic control measures last year and their residents often more resistant to the measures, it stands to reason that a disproportionate share of unreported cases occurred in these states. Second, as noted above, the evidence thus far suggests that the Delta variant is not vaccine resistant, at least for those who are fully vaccinated. This is significant because if Delta were to spread widely in red states over the coming several months, the resulting increase in hospitalizations would likely convince many vaccine hesitant Americans to become vaccinated out of fear and self-interest – two powerfully motivating factors. Thus, the Delta variant may become a problem for the US in the fall, but if that occurs a solution is not far from sight. And, in other developed countries where vaccine hesitancy rates appear to be lower, it would seem that a new, vaccine-resistant variant of the disease would likely be required in order to cause a major disruption in the transition to a post-pandemic state. Such a variant could emerge, but we have seen no evidence thus far that one will before vaccination rates reach levels that would slash the odds of further widespread mutation. Fiscal Policy: Passing The Baton To Services Spending Chart I-5 highlights that US fiscal policy is set to detract from growth over the coming 6-12 months, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the fiscal response to the pandemic. This is true outside of the US as well, as Chart I-6 highlights that the IMF is forecasting a two percentage point increase in the Euro Area’s cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance, representing a significant amount of fiscal drag relative to the past two decades. Chart I-5Fiscal Thrust Will Eventually Turn To Fiscal Drag In The US… Should investors be concerned about the impact of fiscal drag on advanced economies over the coming year? In our view, the answer is no. The reason is that much of the fiscal response in the US and Europe has been aimed at supporting income that has been lost due to a drastic reduction in services spending, which will continue to recover over the coming months as the effect of the pandemic continues to ebb. Chart I-7 underscores this point by highlighting the “gap” in US consumer goods and services spending relative to its pre-pandemic trend. The chart highlights that US goods spending is running well above what would be expected, whereas there is a sizeable gap in services spending (which accounts for approximately 70% of US personal consumption expenditures). Goods spending will likely slow as fiscal thrust turns to fiscal drag, but services spending will improve meaningfully – aided not just by a post-pandemic normalization in economic activity, but also by the sizeable amount of excess savings that US households have accumulated over the past year (Chart I-7, panel 2). Chart I-6... And In Europe Chart I-7But Reduced Transfers Will Only Impact Spending On Goods, Not Services While some of these savings have already been deployed to pay down debt and some may be permanently saved in anticipation of higher future taxes, the key point for investors is that the negative impact on goods spending from reduced fiscal thrust will be offset by a significant improvement in services spending, and thus is not likely to cause a concerning slowdown in overall economic activity. Monetary Policy: A Modestly Hawkish Shift Is Likely This leaves us with the question of whether or not monetary policy will become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months, which is especially relevant following last week’s FOMC meeting. The updated “dot plot” following the meeting shows that 7 of the 18 FOMC participants anticipate a rate hike in 2022, and the majority (13 members) expect at least one rate hike before the end of 2023, raising the median forecast for the Fed funds rate to 0.6% by the end of that year. Chart I-8 highlights that while 10-year Treasury yields remains mostly unchanged following the meeting, yields moved higher at the short-end and middle of the curve. Chart I-8The FOMC Meeting Resulted In Higher Short- And Mid-Term Yields Investor fears that the Fed may shift in a significantly hawkish direction at some point over the next year have been far too focused on inflation, and far too little focused on employment. It is not a coincidence that the Fed’s guidance was updated following the May jobs report, which saw a stronger pace of jobs growth relative to April. Table I-1 updates our US Bond Strategy service’s calculations showing the average monthly nonfarm payroll growth that will be required for the unemployment rate to reach 3.5-4.5% assuming a full recovery in the participation rate, which is the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates. May’s payroll growth number of 560k implies that the Fed’s maximum employment criterion will be met sometime between June and September next year, if monthly payroll growth continues at that pace. Table I-1Calculating The Distance To Maximum Employment Chart I-9Lighter Restrictions In Blue States Will Push Down The Unemployment Rate It is currently difficult to assess with great confidence what average payroll growth will prevail over the coming year, but we noted in last month’s report that there were compelling arguments in favor of outsized jobs growth this fall.1 In addition to those points, we note the following: Blue states have generally been slower to reopen their economies, and Chart I-9 highlights that these states have consequently been slower to return to their pre-pandemic unemployment rate. Among blue states, California and New York are the largest by population, and it is notable that both states only lifted most COVID-19 restrictions on June 15 – including the wearing of masks in most settings. This implies that services jobs are likely to grow significantly in these states over the coming few months. Both consensus private forecasts as well as the Fed’s expectation for real GDP growth imply that the output gap will be closed by Q4 of this year (Chart I-10). These expectations appear to be reasonable, given the substantial amount of excess savings that have been accumulated by US households and the fact that monetary policy remains extremely stimulative. When the output gap turned positive during the last economic cycle, the unemployment rate was approximately 4% – well within the Fed’s NAIRU range. Chart I-10 also shows that the Fed’s 7% real GDP growth forecast for this year would put the output gap above its pre-pandemic level, when the unemployment rate stood at 3.5%. In fact, it is possible that annualized Q2 real GDP growth will disappoint current consensus expectations of 10%, due to the scarcity of labor supply (scarcity that will be eased by labor day when supplemental unemployment insurance benefit programs end). Were Q2 GDP to disappoint due to supply-side limitations, it would strengthen the view that job gains will be very strong this fall ceteris paribus, as it would highlight that real output per worker cannot rise meaningfully further in the short-term and that stronger growth later in the year will necessitate very large job gains. Chart I-11 highlights that US air travel and New York City subway ridership have already returned close to 75% and 50% of their pre-pandemic levels, respectively. Based on the trend over the past three months, the chart implies that air travel will return to its pre-pandemic levels by mid-October of this year, and New York City subway ridership by June 2022. This underscores that travel-related services employment will recover significantly in the fall, and that jobs in downtown cores will rebound as office workers progressively return to work. Chart I-10Expectations For Growth This Year Suggest A Rapid Decline In The Unemployment Rate Chart I-11Services Employment Will Recover In The Fall On the latter point, one major outstanding question affecting the outlook for monetary policy is the magnitude of the likely permanent impact of work from home policies on employment in central business districts. Fewer office workers commuting to downtown office locations suggests that some jobs in the leisure & hospitality, retail trade, professional & business services, and other services industries will never return or will be very slow to do so, arguing for a longer return to maximum employment (and the Fed’s liftoff date). We examine this question in depth in Section 2 of this month’s report, and find that the “stickiness” of work from home policies will likely cause permanent central business job losses on the order of 575k (or 0.35% of the February 2020 labor force). While this would be non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Outsized jobs growth this fall, at a pace that quickly reduces the unemployment rate, argues for a first Fed rate hike that is even earlier than the market expects. Chart I-12 presents The Bank Credit Analyst service’s current assessment of the cumulative odds of the Fed’s liftoff date by quarter; we believe that it is likely that the Fed will have raised rates by Q3 of next year, and that a rate hike in the first half of 2022 is a possibility. These odds are slightly more aggressive than those presented by our fixed-income strategists in a recent Special Report,2 but are consistent with their view that the Fed will raise interest rates by the end of next year. Chart I-12The Bank Credit Analyst’s Assessment Of The Odds Of The First Rate Hike The odds presented in Chart I-12 are also more hawkish than the Fed funds rate path currently implied by the OIS curve, meaning that we expect investors to be somewhat surprised by a shifting monetary policy outlook at some point over the coming year, potentially over the next 3-6 months. Payroll growth during the late summer and early fall will be a major test for the employment outlook, and is the most likely point for a hawkish shift in the market’s view of monetary policy. Is this likely to become a negative driver for risky asset prices over the coming 6-12 months? In our view, the answer is “probably not.” While investors tend to focus heavily on the timing of the first rate hike as monetary policy begins to tighten, the reality is that it is the least relevant factor driving the fair value of 10-year Treasury yields. Investor expectations for the pace of tightening and especially for the terminal Fed funds rate are far more important, and, while it is quite possible that expectations for the neutral rate of interest will eventually rise, it seems unlikely that this will occur before the Fed actually begins to raise interest rates given that most investors accept the secular stagnation narrative and the view that “R-star” is well below trend rates of growth (we disagree).3 Chart I-13 highlights the fair value path of 10-year Treasury yields until the end of next year, assuming a 2.5% terminal Fed funds rate, no term premium, and a rate hike pace of 1% per year. The chart highlights that while government bond yields are set to move higher over the coming 6-12 months, they are likely to remain between 2-2.5%. This would drop the equity risk premium to a post-2008 low (Chart I-14), which would further reduce the attractiveness of stocks relative to bonds. But we doubt that this would be enough of a decline to cause a selloff, and it would still imply a stimulative level of interest rates for households and firms. Chart I-1310-Year Yields Will Rise Over The Coming Year, But Not Sharply Chart I-14Rising Yields Will Cause An Unwelcome But Contained Decline In The ERP Investment Conclusions Among the three factors driving our global macroeconomic outlook and our cyclical investment recommendations, continued progress on the path toward a post-pandemic state and fiscal policy remain either positive or mostly neutral for risky assets. A potentially hawkish shift in the outlook for monetary policy this fall remains the chief risk, but we expect the rise in bond yields over the coming year to remain well-contained barring a sea change in investor expectations for the terminal Fed funds rate – which we believe is unlikely to occur before the Fed begins to raise interest rates. Consequently, we continue to recommend that investors should overweight risky assets within a multi-asset portfolio, and that fixed-income investors should maintain a below-benchmark duration position. We expect modest absolute returns from global equities, but even mid-single digit returns are likely to beat those from long-dated government bonds and cash positions. While value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,4 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector (and therefore growth stock) valuations (Chart I-15). Chart I-16 highlights that the attractiveness of US value versus growth is meaningfully less compelling for the S&P 500 Citigroup indexes, suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon.5 Chart I-15Value Is Extremely Cheap Chart I-16Value Vs. Growth: The Benchmark Matters The likely outperformance of value versus growth also has implications for regional allocation within a global equity portfolio. The US is significantly overweight broadly-defined technology relative to global ex-US stocks, and financials – which are overrepresented in value indexes – have already meaningfully outperformed in the US this year compared with their global peers and are now rolling over (Chart I-17). This underscores that investors should favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Favor Global Ex-US Stocks Over The Coming Year Chart I-18Concentrate Global Ex-US Exposure In Developed Markets Finally, global ex-US stocks also tend to outperform when the US dollar is falling, and we would recommend that investors maintain a short dollar position on a 6-12 month time horizon despite the recent bounce in the greenback. Chart I-19 highlights that the dollar remains strongly negatively correlated with global equity returns, and that the dollar’s performance over the past year has been almost exactly in line with what one would have expected given this relationship. Thus, a bullish view toward global stocks implies both US dollar weakness and global ex-US outperformance over the coming year. Chart I-19A Bullish View Towards Global Stocks Implies A Dollar Bear Market Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 24, 2021 Next Report: July 29, 2021 II. Work From Home “Stickiness” And The Outlook For Monetary Policy Work from home policies, originally designed as emergency measures in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to be “sticky” in a post-pandemic world. This will negatively impact the labor market in central business districts, via reduced spending on services by office workers. The potential impact of working from home is often cited as an example of what is likely to be a lasting and negative effect on jobs growth, but we find that it is not likely to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment.” The size of the impact depends importantly on whether employee preferences or employer plans for WFH prevail, but our sense is that the latter is more likely. A weaker pace of structures investment in response to elevated office vacancy rates will likely have an even smaller impact on growth than the effect of reduced central business district services employment. The contribution to growth from structures investment has been small over the past few decades, office building construction is a small portion of overall nonresidential structures, and there are compelling arguments that the net stock of office structures will stay flat, rather than decline. Our analysis suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months. The outlook for US monetary policy over the next 12 to 18 months depends almost entirely on the outlook for employment. Many investors are focused on the potential for elevated inflation to force the Fed to raise interest rates earlier than it currently anticipates, but it is the progress in returning to “maximum employment” that will determine the timing of the first Fed rate hike – and potentially the speed at which interest rates rise once policy begins to tighten. In this report, we estimate the extent to which the “stickiness” of working from home (WFH) policies and practices could leave a lasting negative impact on the US labor market. We noted in last month's report that a large portion of the employment gap relative to pre-pandemic levels can be traced to the leisure & hospitality and professional and business services industries, both of which – along with retail employment – stand to be permanently impaired if the office worker footprint is much lower in a post-COVID world.6 Using employee surveys and a Monte Carlo approach, we present a range of estimates for the permanent impact of WFH policies on the unemployment rate, and separately examine the potential for lower construction of office properties to weigh on growth. We find that the impact of reduced office building construction is likely to be minimal, and that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. Relative to the Fed’s expectations of a strong, lasting impact on the labor market from the pandemic, this suggests that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, possibly resulting in a first rate hike by the middle of next year. This would be earlier than we currently anticipate, but it underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon, and that equity investors should favor value over growth positions beyond the coming 3-4 months (a period that may see outperformance of the latter). Quantifying The Labor Market Impact Of The New Normal For Work In a January paper, Barrero, Bloom, and Davis (“BBD”) presented evidence arguing why working from home will “stick.” The authors surveyed 22,500 working-age Americans across several survey “waves” between May and December 2020, and asked about both their preferences and their employer’s plans about working from home after the pandemic. Chart II-1 highlights that the desired amount of paid work from home days (among workers who can work from home) reported by the survey respondents is to approximately 55% of a work week, suggesting that a dramatic reduction in office presence would likely occur if post-pandemic WFH policies were set fully in accordance with worker preferences. Chart II-1Employee Preferences Imply A Dramatic Reduction In Post-COVID Office Presence However, Table II-1 highlights that employer plans for work from home policies are meaningfully different than those of employees. The table highlights that employers plan for employees to work from home for roughly 22% of paid days post-pandemic, which essentially translates to one day per week on average.7 BBD noted that CEOs and managers have cited the need to support innovation, employee motivation, and company culture as reasons for employees’ physical presence. Managers believe physical interactions are important for these reasons, but employees need only be on premises for about three to four days a week to achieve this. Table II-1 also shows that employers plan to allow higher-income employees more flexibility in terms of working from home, and less flexibility to employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year. Table II-1Employer Plans, However, Imply Less Working From Home Than Employees Prefer Based on the survey results, BBD forecast that expenditure in major cities such as Manhattan and San Francisco will fall on the order of 5 to 10%. In order to understand the national labor market impact of work from home policies and what implications this may have on monetary policy, we scale up BBD’s calculations using a Monte Carlo approach that incorporates estimate ranges for several factors: The percent of paid days now working from home for office workers The amount of money spent per week by office workers in central business districts (“CBDs”) The number of total jobs in CBDs The percent of CBD jobs in industries likely to be negatively impacted by reduced office worker expenditure The average weekly earnings of affected CBD workers The average share of business revenue not attributable to strictly variable expenses The percent of affected jobs likely to be recovered outside of CBDs Our approach is as follows. First, we calculate the likely reduction in nationwide CBD spending from reduced office worker presence by multiplying the likely percent of paid days now permanently working from home by the number of total jobs in CBDs and the average weekly spending of office workers. This figure is then increased due to the estimated acceleration in net move outs from principal urban centers in 2020 (Chart II-2); we assume a 5% savings rate and an average annual salary of $50k for these resident workers, and assume that all of their spending occurred within CBDs. We also assume that roughly 50% of jobs connected to this spending are recovered. Chart II-2Fewer Residents Will Also Lower Spending In Central Business Districts Then, we calculate the gross number of jobs lost in leisure & hospitality, retail trade, and other services by multiplying this estimate of lost spending by an estimate of non-variable costs as a share of revenue for affected industries, and dividing the result by average weekly earnings of affected employees. For affected CBD employees in the administrative and waste services industry, we simply assume that the share of jobs lost matches the percent of paid days now permanently working from home. Finally, we adjust the number of jobs lost by multiplying by 1 minus an assumed “recovery” rate, given that some of the reduction in spending in CBDs will simply be shifted to areas near remote workers’ residences. We assume a slightly lower recovery rate for lost jobs in the administrative and waste services industry. Table II-2 highlights the range of outcomes for each variable used in our simulation, and Charts II-3 and II-4 present the results. The charts highlight that the distribution of outcomes based on employer WFH intensions suggest high odds that nationwide job losses in CBDs due to reduced office worker presence will not exceed 400k. Based on average employee preferences, that number rises to roughly 800-900k. Table II-2The Factors Affecting Permanent Central Business District Job Losses Chart II-3The Probability Distribution Of CBD Jobs Lost… Chart II-4…Based On Our Monte Carlo Approach This raises the question of whether employer plans or employee preferences for WFH arrangements will prevail. Our sense is that it will be closer to the former, given that we noted above that employer WFH plans are the least flexible for employees whose earnings are between $20-50k per year (who are presumably employees who have less ability to influence the policy of firms). Chart II-5 re-presents the projected job losses shown in Chart II-4 as a share of the February 2020 labor force, along with a probability-weighted path that assumes a 75% chance that employer WFH plans will prevail. The chart highlights that WFH arrangements would have the effect of raising the unemployment rate by approximately 0.35%. However, relative to a pre-pandemic starting point of 3.5%, this would raise the unemployment rate to a level that would still be within the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (Chart II-6). Therefore, the “stickiness” of WFH arrangements alone do not seem to be a barrier to the labor market returning to the Fed’s assessment of “maximum employment,” suggesting that the conditions for liftoff may be met earlier than currently anticipated by investors. Chart II-5CBD Job Losses Will Not Be Trivial, But They Will Not Be Enormous Chart II-6Sticky WFH Policies Will Not Prevent A Return To Maximum Employment The Impact Of Lower Office Building Construction A permanently reduced office footprint could also conceivably impact the US economy through reduced nonresidential structures investment, as builders of commercial real estate cease to construct new office towers in response to expectations of a long-lasting glut. However, several points highlight that the negative impact on growth from US office tower construction will be even smaller than the CBD employment impact of reduced office worker presence that we noted above. First, Chart II-7 highlights the overall muted impact that nonresidential building investment has had on real GDP growth by removing the contribution to growth from nonresidential structures and for overall nonresidential investment. The chart clearly highlights that the historically positive contribution to real US output from capital expenditures over the past four decades has come from investment in equipment and intellectual property products, not from structures. Chart II-8 echoes this point, by highlighting that US real investment in nonresidential structures has in fact been flat since the early-1980s, contributing positively and negatively to growth only on a cyclical basis (not on a structural basis). Chart II-7Structures Have Not Contributed Significantly To US Growth For Some Time Chart II-8Nonresidential Structures Investment Has Been Flat For Four Decades Second, Table II-3 highlights that office properties make up a small portion of investment in private nonresidential structures. In 2019, nominal investment in office structures amounted to $85 billion, compared with $630 billion in overall structures investment, meaning that office properties amounted to just 13% of structures investment. Table II-3Office Structures Investment Is A Small Share Of Total Structures Investment Table II-4Conceivably, Vacant Office Properties Could Be Converted To Luxury Residential Units Third, it is true that investment is a flow and not a stock variable, meaning that, if the net stock of office buildings were to fall as a result from WFH policies, then the US economy would see a potentially persistently negative rate of growth from nonresidential structures (which would constitute a drag on growth). But if the net stock were instead to remain flat, then gross office property investment should equal the depreciation of those structures. The second column of Table II-3 highlights that current-cost depreciation of office structures was $53 billion in 2019 (versus nominal gross investment of $85 billion). Had office property investment been ~$30 billion lower in 2019, it would have reduced nominal GDP by a mere 14 basis points (resulting in an annual growth rate of 3.84%, rather than 3.98%). Fourth, there is good reason to believe that the net stock of office properties will stay flat, as the economics of converting offices to luxury housing units (whose demand is not substantially affected by factors such as commuting) – either fully or partially into mixed-use buildings – appear to be plausible. Table II-4 highlights that the average annual asking rent for office space per square foot in Manhattan was $73.23 in Q1 2021, and that the recent median listing home price per square foot is roughly $1,400. In a frictionless world where office space could be instantly and effortlessly sold as residential property, existing prices would imply a healthy (gross) rental yield of 5.2%. Thoughts On The Future Of Office Properties Of course, reality is far from frictionless. There are several barriers that will slow office-to-residential conversion as well as construction costs, which will meaningfully lower the net value of existing office real estate in large central business districts such as Manhattan. In a recent article in the Washington Post, Roger K. Lewis, retired architect and Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of Maryland, College Park, detailed several of these technical barriers (which we summarize below).8 Office buildings are typically much wider than residential buildings, the latter usually being 60 to 65 feet in width in order to enable windows and natural light in living/dining rooms and bedrooms. This suggests that office-to-residential conversion might require modifying the basic structure of office buildings, including cutting open parts of roof and floor plates on upper building levels to bring natural light into habitable and interior rooms, and other costly structural modifications to address the additional plumbing and infrastructure that will be needed. Lewis noted that floor-to-floor dimensions are typically larger in office buildings, which is beneficial for office-to-residential conversion because increased room heights augments the sense of space and openness, while allowing natural light to penetrate farther into the apartment. It also allows for extra space to place needed additional building infrastructure, such as sprinkler pipes, electrical conduits, light fixtures, and air ducts. But unique apartment layouts are often needed to use available floor space effectively in an office-to-residential conversion, which will increase design costs and raise the risk that nonstandard layouts may result in unforeseen quality-of-living problems that will necessitate additional future construction to correct. Zoning regulations and building code constraints will likely add another layer of costs to office-to-housing conversions, as these rules are written for conventional buildings, meaning that special exceptions or even regulatory changes are likely to be required. So it is clear that the process of converting office space to residential property will be a costly endeavor for office tower owners, which will likely reduce the net present value of these properties relative to pre-pandemic levels. But; this process appears to be feasible and, when faced with the alternative of persistently high vacancy rates and lost revenue, our sense is that office tower owners will choose this route – thus significantly reducing the likelihood that the growth in national gross investment in office properties will fall below the rate of depreciation. In addition, the trend in suburban and CBD office property prices suggests that there are two other possible alternatives to widespread office-to-residential conversion that would also argue against a significant and long-lasting decline in office structures investment. Chart II-9 highlights that the average asking rent has already fallen significantly in most Manhattan submarkets, and Chart II-10 highlights that suburban office prices are accelerating and rising at the strongest pace relative to CBD office prices over the past two decades, possibly in response to increased demand for workspace that is closer to home for many workers who previously commuted to CBDs. Chart II-9Working From The Office Is Getting Cheaper Chart II-10Suburban Offices Are Getting More Expensive Thus, the first alternative outcome to CBD office-to-residential conversion is that an increase in suburban office construction offsets the negative impact of outright reductions in CBD office investment if residential conversions prove to be too costly or too technically challenging. The second alternative is that owners of CBD office properties “clear the market” by dramatically cutting rental rates even further, to alter the cost/benefit calculation for firms planning permissive WFH policies. We doubt that existing rents reflect the extent of vacancies in large cities such as Manhattan, so we would expect further CBD office price declines in this scenario. But if owners of centrally-located office properties face significant conversion costs and a decline in the net present value of these buildings is unavoidable and its magnitude uncertain, owners may choose to cut prices drastically as the simpler solution. Investment Conclusions Holding all else equal, the fact that owners of CBD office properties are likely to experience some permanent decline in the value of these real estate assets is not a positive development for economic activity. But these losses will be experienced by firms, investors, and ultra-high net worth individuals with strong marginal propensities to save, suggesting that the economic impact from this shock will be minimal. And as we highlighted above, a decline in the pace of gross office building investment to the depreciation rate will have a minimal impact on the overall economy. This leaves the likely impact on CBD employment as the main channel by which WFH policies are likely to affect monetary policy. As we noted above and as discussed in Section 1 of our report, the Fed is now focused entirely on the return of the labor market to maximum employment, which we interpret as an unemployment rate within the range of the Fed’s NAIRU estimates (3.5% - 4.5%) and a return to a pre-pandemic labor force participation rate. Chart II-11On A One-Year Time Horizon, Favor Value Over Growth Our analysis indicates that WFH policies may structurally raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 to 0.4%. While non-trivial, when compared with a pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 3.5%, this suggests that WFH policies alone are not likely to cause a long-term deviation from the Fed’s maximum employment objective. The implication is that job growth over the coming year could be even stronger than the Fed and investors expect, which could mean that the Fed may begin lifting rates by the middle of next year barring a major disruption in the ongoing transition to a post-pandemic world. This is earlier than we currently expect, but the fact that it would also be earlier than what is currently priced into the OIS curve underscores that fixed-income investors should remain short duration on a 6-12 month time horizon. In addition, as noted in Section 1 of our report, while value stocks may underperform growth stocks over the coming 3-4 months,9 rising bond yields over the coming year will ultimately favor value stocks and will likely weigh on elevated tech sector valuations. Chart II-11 highlights that the relative valuation of growth stocks remains above its pre-pandemic starting point (Chart II-11), suggesting that investors should continue to favor MSCI-benchmarked value over growth positions over a 6-12 month time horizon. Finally, as also noted in Section 1 of our report, we do not expect rising bond yields to prevent stock prices from grinding higher over the coming year, unless investor expectations for the terminal fed funds rate move sharply higher – an event that seems unlikely, although not impossible, before monetary policy actually begins to tighten. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst III. Indicators And Reference Charts BCA’s equity indicators highlight that the “easy” money from expectations of an eventual end to the pandemic have already been made. Our technical, valuation, and sentiment indicators are very extended, highlighting that investors should expect positive but more modest returns from stocks over the coming 6-12 months. Our monetary indicator has aggressively retreated from its high last year, reflecting a meaningful recovery in government bond yields since last August. The indicator still remains above the boom/bust line, however, highlighting that monetary policy remains supportive for risky asset prices. Forward equity earnings already price in a complete earnings recovery, but for now there is no meaningful sign of waning forward earnings momentum. Net revisions remain very strong, and positive earnings surprises have risen to their highest levels on record. Within a global equity portfolio, there has been a modest tick down in global ex-US equity performance, driven by a rally in growth stocks (which may persist for a few months). EM stocks had previously dragged down global ex-US performance, and they continue to languish. A bias towards value stocks on a 1-year time horizon means that investors should still favor ex-US stocks over the coming year, skewed in favor of DM ex-US given that China’s credit impulse continues to slow. The US 10-Year Treasury yield has trended modestly lower since mid-March, after having risen to levels that were extremely technically stretched. Despite this pause, our valuation index highlights that bonds are still expensive, and we expect that yields will move higher over the cyclical investment horizon if employment growth in Q3/Q4 implies a faster return to maximum employment than currently projected by the Fed. We expect the rise to be more modest than our valuation index would imply, but we would still recommend a short duration stance within a fixed-income portfolio. The extreme rise in some commodity prices over the past several months is beginning to ease. Lumber prices have fallen close to 50% from their recent high, whereas industrial metals and agricultural prices are down roughly 5% and 17%, respectively. We had previously argued that a breather in commodity prices was likely at some point over the coming several months, and we would expect further declines as supply chains normalize, labor supply recovers, and Chinese demand for metals slows. US and global LEIs remain in a solid uptrend, and global manufacturing PMIs are strong. Our global LEI diffusion index has declined significantly, but this likely reflects the outsized impact of a few emerging market countries (whose vaccination progress is still lagging). Strong leading and coincident indicators underscore that the global demand for goods is robust, and that output is below pre-pandemic levels in most economies because of very weak services spending. The latter will recover significantly later this year, as social distancing and other pandemic control measures disappear. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4US Stock Market Breadth Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Jonathan LaBerge, CFA Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "A Central Bank Timeline For The Next Two Years," dated June 1, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "R-star, And The Structural Risk To Stocks," dated March 31, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 For a discussion of the differences in value and growth benchmarks, please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2021," dated May 27, 2021, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Readers should note that the desired share of paid work from home days post-COVID among employees is shown to be lower in Table II-1 than what is implied by Chart II-1 on a weighted-average basis. This is due to the fact that Table II-1 excludes responses from the May 2020 survey wave, because the authors did not ask about employer intensions during that wave. This underscores that the average desired number of paid days working from home declined somewhat over time, and thus argues for the value shown in Table II-1 as the best estimate for employee preferences. 8 Roger K. Lewis, “Following pandemic, converting office buildings into housing may become new ‘normal,’ Washington Post, April 3, 2021. 9 Please see US Equity Strategy "Rotate Into Growth Stocks, Be Granular In The Selection Of Cyclicals," dated June 14, 2021, available at uses.bcaresearch.com
Overweight (High-Conviction) We remain overweight the S&P real estate index both in our cyclical and high-conviction universes, and both positions are currently up 7% since inception. While our initial rationale for putting the trade on was the flip in the correlation between this relative share price ratio and the 10-year US Treasury yield from negative to positive, now there are new catalysts that underpin this GICS1 sector. First, real assets have historically been a good inflation hedge making the S&P real estate index a popular addition to one’s portfolio in the current inflationary regime. Second, given that the market expects some turbulence thanks to the global growth slowdown, investors are adding real estate holdings as a defensive play (Chart 2). Finally, Chart 1 bottom panel shows that the supply-side of the equation is constrained as US commercial construction spending has been lagging. The implication is that in relative terms, the supply of commercial REITs has been contracting, pushing prices higher (relative construction spending shown inverted). Tack on the anecdotes that empty offices are converted into apartment buildings, and empty malls into e-commerce fulfillment centers, and there is plenty of room for growth and improvement in the industry. Bottom Line: We reiterate our cyclical and high-conviction S&P real estate overweight calls. Chart 1 Chart 2
Feature Chinese stocks remain in limbo despite robust economic data in April and early May (Chart 1). Onshore equities are pricing in policy tightening risks and a peak in the domestic economic cycle. Meanwhile, a regulatory clampdown on the tech sector continues to curb global investors’ enthusiasm towards Chinese investable stocks. The PBoC has not changed its course of policy normalization. The falling 3-month SHIBOR since March likely reflects softening demand for interbank liquidity rather than monetary easing (Chart 2). Chart 1Stay Underweight Chinese Stocks Chart 2No Easing In Monetary Policy Fiscal policy has also been consolidating with a renewed focus on reducing local government debt load and financial risks. A delay in local government bond issuance in Q1 could potentially boost bond sales in the second half of the year. However, as we noted late last month, without a synchronized policy push for more bank loans and loosened regulations on provincial government spending, an increase in special-purpose bond issuance alone will not make a significant difference in infrastructure investment nor economic growth. We still expect China's economy, which lags the credit cycle by six to nine months, to start weakening by mid-2021 (Chart 3A & 3B). Chart 3ADomestic Economic Growth Set To Slow Chart 3BPolicy Tightening Will Weigh On Earnings Growth In 2H21 Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator continues to fall despite a marginal improvement in the Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) component. The deceleration in both money supply and credit growth has more than offset a small uptick in the MCI (Chart 4). Furthermore, a rising RMB in trade-weighted and real terms will not help the profit outlook for China’s exporters (Chart 5). Overall, monetary conditions remain unfavorable for risk assets. This is consistent with the poor performance of Chinese stocks Chart 4Falling Credit And Money Growth More Than Offset A Minor Improvement In The MCI Chart 5Strengthening RMB Will Not Help The Profit Outlook For Chinese Exporters A sharp jump in state-owned enterprise (SOE) defaults since late last year is due to deteriorating corporate balance sheets. The defaults have exposed the weakened fiscal positions of local governments (Chart 6 & 7). SOE bond defaults have surpassed the number of private bond defaults this year. The more restrictive policy on local government financing, together with an acceleration in SOE defaults, will weigh on spending by local governments, local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) and SOEs. Chart 6Returns On SOE Assets Remain In Deep Contraction Chart 7SOE Bond Defaults Have Surpassed Private Bond Defaults The Politburo meeting on April 30 established new guidelines to reduce local government leverage, both on- and off-balance sheet debt. According to the new rules, local governments are strictly prohibited from obtaining “hidden debts” for new investment projects directly or through their affiliated SOEs, which include LGFVs. The directives also state that the assets of LGFVs with defaulted loans should be restructured or liquidated if companies are unable to repay their debts. In addition, financial institutions should not accept government guarantees when making decisions on lending to LGFVs or government related entities. Moreover, stricter measures in the property market have further dampened local governments’ fiscal situations since land sales account for 53% of local government fiscal revenues. Growth in government expenditures decelerated in recent months along with slowing land auctions (Chart 8). Scaled down fiscal supports will lead to subdued infrastructure investment growth this year (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Stance Has Tightened Chart 9Subdued Growth In Infrastructure Investments In addition to policy tightening in the domestic economy, Chinese offshore stocks continue to face regulatory headwinds to root out monopolies in technology, media, and telecom (TMT) companies. The antitrust investigations and fines extending from Alibaba and Tencent to Meituan highlight China’s aim to curb platform oligopolies and monopolies. Meanwhile, Chinese tech firms listed on US exchanges are facing another regulatory threat on their accounting reporting standards, which could potentially result in their delisting from the US bourses. Moreover, elevated valuations and a weakening in the earnings outlook will generate more downside risks for TMT stocks (Chart 10). Given that TMT stocks account for around 50% of the MSCI China Index’s market capitalization, Chinese investable stocks are disproportionally vulnerable to a selloff in TMT stocks (Chart 11). Chart 10ATMT Stocks: From Tailwind To Headwind Chart 10BTMT Stocks: From Tailwind To Headwind Chart 11MSCI China Is Highly Concentrated In TMT Stocks China’s official PMI and the Caixin China PMI moved in opposite directions in April due to the nature of the two surveys. The Caixin PMI covers smaller, more export-oriented businesses while the NBS Manufacturing PMI includes larger, more domestically exposed companies. The divergence highlights that the domestic economy is losing speed while external demand remains robust (Chart 12). Given the dominance of domestic demand in China’s economy (investment expenditures, household spending and government spending), strong external demand will not fully offset the deceleration in domestic growth. New orders and production subcomponents in the official PMI moderated in April from March, which indicates a slowing momentum in economic activity (Chart 13). Moreover, construction PMI fell to 57.4 from 62.3 in March, corresponding with weaker infrastructure spending and more policy tightening in the real estate sector (Chart 13, bottom panel). Chart 12Conflicting Messages From The NBS And Caixin PMIs Chart 13Slowing Momentum In China's Economic Activity The moderating momentum in China’s economy is also reflected in April’s trade data, which showed a strengthening external sector and a slowing domestic demand. A few observations support our view: First, strong imports since early this year were partly due to robust re-exports. Solid external demand boosted processing imports, which in turn contributed to China’s overall import growth (Chart 14). Secondly, Chinese imports of commodities in volume, such as copper and steel products, have plunged recently. Chinese domestic demand for commodities will likely peak in the coming months, therefore, inventory destocking pressures and weakness in underlying consumption will threaten commodities prices (Chart 15). Finally, the strengthening of coal imports in volume terms may be related to China’s increasingly stringent environmental policies. A temporary cutback in domestic coal supply boosted the demand for imports. However, in the long run, China’s push for green energy will be bearish for Chinese coal imports (Chart 16). Chart 14Solid External Demand Boosted Processing Imports Chart 15Demand Of Commodities May Be Approaching A Cyclical Peak Chart 16China's Coal Imports Likely To Decline In The Long Run Housing prices in tier-one cities continue to post major gains despite a slew of tightening regulations in the property sector introduced since the second half of last year (Chart 17). The Politburo meeting last month reiterated authorities’ concerns over a bubble in housing. We expect authorities to impose additional regulations to constrain both financing supply and demand in the property sector. In the meantime, the existing policies have successfully started to cool the real estate market. Chart 17Skyrocketing Housing Prices In First-Tier Cities Chart 18Real Estate And Mortgage Loans Tumbled Under More Restrictive Borrowing Regulations Both mortgage loans and loans to real estate developers tumbled under more restrictive borrowing policies (Chart 18). Growth in home sales has also started to roll over (Chart 19). Housing completed has dropped significantly, which confirms that construction activity is decelerating. Looking forward, the reduced expansion rate of new projects due to shrinking land transfers and stricter borrowing regulations will further dampen construction activities in the second half of this year (Chart 20). Chart 19Home Sales Growth Started To Ease Chart 20Real Estate Investments Are Set To Slow Further Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
ハイライト
米国の成長アウトパフォーマンスが弱まりつつある暫定的な兆候が見られる。
海外の製造業セクターの回復が既に米国から主導権を奪っている。このトレンドは間もなくサービスセクターへと回転するだろう。
したがって、長期投資家はユーロの下落時に買い増しを始めるべきである。
カナダ経済は2月時点の評価よりも速いペースで改善している。
これはCADが早期にアウトパフォームする可能性を示唆している。
特集
チャート I-1
ユーロがDXYを牽引する
相対的成長、ユーロ、そしてルーニー
相対的成長、ユーロ、そしてルーニー
米国経済は今年、成長のアウトパフォーマーとなっている。そのため米国では利回りの上昇がより速く進み、ドルが買われている。今年初め以降、DXY指数は先進国通貨に対する年間下落分の2.5%を反転させた。一方で、このラリーは広範囲に及んでおり、ユーロ、円、スウェーデンクローナが下落の大きな被害を受けている（チャート I-1）。
我々のバイアスは、成長のアウトパフォーマンスが今年後半に米国から世界の他地域へと回転するという点にある。これはドルにとってマイナスであり、景気循環に敏感な通貨に有利に働くだろう。今週は、このシフトから恩恵を受けるはずのユーロとルーニー（カナダドル）を取り上げる。
EUR/USD と製造業サイクル
債券利回りと経済の関係は循環的である。長期債の利回りは経済の成長見通しに関する重要なシグナル機能と見なすことができる。同時に、利回りは特に急速に上昇すると金融環境に直接影響を与える。短期の通貨予測の観点からは、利回りの上昇がどの時点で制約的になるかを見極めることが、相対的な経済成長を予測するうえで非常に有益になり得る。
チャート I-2 は、米国とユーロ圏の相対利回りが1%上昇するたびに、約12か月のラグを経て短期の相対成長が後者（ユーロ圏）に有利に転じることを示している。これは重要であり、EUR/USD と相対成長の相関は短期ではかなり強い（チャート I-3）。したがって、米国とユーロ圏の利回り差の上昇は短期的にはEUR/USD を傷つける可能性があるが、長期的にはユーロ／米国成長にとって有利に働き始めるだろう。
チャート I-2
相対債券利回りと製造業サイクル
相対的な債券利回りと製造業サイクル
相対的な債券利回りと製造業サイクル
チャート I-3
ユーロ圏の経済指標は上振れしている
ユーロ圏の経済指標が上方サプライズとなっている
ユーロ圏の経済指標が上方サプライズとなっている
債券フローとその他の市場シグナル
米国債利回りの上昇にもかかわらず、今年は欧州から米国債の買い増しが増えていない（チャート I-4）。2011年から2020年のドルブル相場では、米利回りの上昇と米国債の購入増加に直接的な相関があった。今回の違いの一つは、カナダ、オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、さらには英国などの他の安全資産債券市場が今日では魅力的な利回りを示している点だ。米利回りはG10他国と比較して全体としてあまり上昇していない。これはユーロが下落できる程度を引き続き抑制するだろう。
他方で、ユーロの上振れ余地はかなり大きい。購買力平価（PPP）の観点から見ると、ユーロは米国に対する割引をリセットするために15%上昇し得る。PPP調整は数年を要する傾向があるが、もし米国が引き続きインフレ誘導的な政策を追求するならば、定義上ユーロのフェアバリューも上昇するだろう（チャート I-5）。
チャート I-4
欧州勢は米国債保有を増やしていない
欧州勢は米国債の保有を増やしていない
欧州勢は米国債の保有を増やしていない
チャート I-5
ユーロは依然やや ##br## 割安である
ユーロは依然としてやや割安である
ユーロは依然としてやや割安である
その他の景気循環的要因もユーロにバネのような反発が起こり得ることを示唆している。銅価格は今年急騰しており、ユーロとの伝統的な関係が乖離している（チャート I-6）。銅は炭素からクリーンな電力への移行から恩恵を受けているが、ユーロも恩恵を受け得る。欧州経済は再生可能技術において長年の経験を有しており、投資資本が投入されればこれらのセクターへの意味のある資金流入が始まる可能性がある。これにより、ブルームバーグの2022年末のEUR/USD 1.23という予想は悲観的すぎると考えられる（チャート I-7）。
チャート I-6
ユーロは近くバネのような反発をする可能性がある
ユーロはまもなくコイルばねのように反発する可能性がある
ユーロはまもなくコイルばねのように反発する可能性がある
チャート I-7
ユーロに対するセンチメントはややリセットされた
ユーロに対するセンチメントがわずかにリセットされた
ユーロに対するセンチメントがわずかにリセットされた
最後に、我々は戦術的ヘッジとしてEUR/JPYをショートしており、ストップは131に厳格に置いている。また、EUR/USD の指値買いを1.15から1.16に引き上げている。
カナダの回復は加速している
チャート I-8
カナダの企業景況感調査の見通しは励みになる内容だった
カナダの企業景況感調査の見通しは好材料だった
カナダの企業景況感調査の見通しは好材料だった
カナダの回復は2月時点の評価よりも早く形になりつつあり、最新のBusiness Outlook Surveyがこれを裏付けている。投資意向と将来の売上成長の双方が非常に強く、前者は数十年ぶりの高水準に達した（チャート I-8）。注目すべき点は以下の通り：
企業の3分の2が売上がパンデミック前の水準を上回ると見ている;
多くの企業は第2波が第1波と比べて売上への影響が小さいか無いと述べている;
一部産業ではまだ供給制約が高いが、全体としてインフレ懸念は比較的抑制されている。
感染第2波が猛威を振るい、国の大部分がロックダウン下にあることを考えると、調査の堅調さは我々にとって驚きであった。とはいえ、投資支出の強さはグローバルな文脈で重要なテーマになりつつあり、カナダは今後数年で対外直接投資（FDI）の大きな流入を受ける可能性がある。
市場はカナダでの利上げペースの速まりを織り込み始めている（チャート I-9）。これは過去10年間では稀な事象であり、グローバル・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジーの同僚と共に、我々はカナダが利上げサイクルの先導をする可能性は低いと引き続き考えている。しかし、経済の勢いが米国の成長を上回ることを許せば、この見方は変わり得る。
チャート I-9
市場はカナダでの速い利上げを織り込んでいる
市場はカナダの利上げの加速を織り込んでいる
市場はカナダの利上げの加速を織り込んでいる
IMFはカナダの実質GDP成長率を今年5%、来年4.7%と見積もっている。Bloomberg Nanos Confidence Indexによれば成長はこれらを大きく上回る可能性がある（チャート I-10）。
チャート I-10
カナダのGDPは回復基調にある
カナダのGDP、回復基調
カナダのGDP、回復基調
雇用レポートは我々の2月時点の評価以降、著しく改善している（チャート I-11）。BoCモニターのサブコンポーネントを見ると、弱さは経済変数に集中していた。これは変わりつつあり、カナダの失業率は米国の失業率より速く低下している（チャート I-12）。これはCADにとって強気の材料である。
チャート I-11
カナダの雇用回復は堅調
チャート I-12
カナダの雇用は米国に追いつきつつある
カナダの雇用が米国に追いつきつつある
カナダの雇用が米国に追いつきつつある
カナダの住宅市場は加熱している。全体として住宅価格は10%上昇し、多くの都市でそれを大きく上回っている（チャート I-13）。カナダの住宅価格の軌跡は次の通りである：政府の支援とマクロプルーデンシャル措置により低価格都市と高価格都市の価格が収束した。具体的には、バンクーバー（およびある程度トロント）は価格上昇がやや緩やかである一方、他の都市は回復している。しかし、低価格都市で名目所得から逸脱し始めると、より広範なマクロプルーデンシャル措置のリスクが大きく高まる。
第二の点は重要であり、カナダの住宅価格上昇はオーストラリアや米国など他国よりも顕著であった。これは債務増加と購買力低下がカナダ経済にとって重要なマクロリスクとなる可能性が高いことを意味する。住宅建設はカナダ経済において無視できない割合を占めている（チャート I-14）。
チャート I-13
カナダの住宅市場は加熱している
カナダの住宅市場が過熱している
カナダの住宅市場が過熱している
チャート I-14
住宅建設は活況を呈している
住宅建設が活況を呈している
住宅建設が活況を呈している
結論：最近の動きはカナダ銀行が利上げを早める可能性を高めている。これがCADのさらなる上昇を可能にするだろう。
CAD と原油
原油価格はCADにとってもう一つの非常に重要なドライバーである。実際、今年の大半において金利はあまり重要な要因でなく、BoCはカナダの見通しの短期的改善を織り込まない姿勢を示してきた。Covid-19危機とワクチン接種の進展の遅さも回復を損ない、ルーニーの上昇にブレーキをかけた（チャート I-15）。
我々のコモディティ・ストラテジストは、ブレント原油が2023年に75ドルに達すると予測している。これはフォワード市場の価格より高い。フォワード価格の上昇は、CAD高と同義になるだろう。
ただし、カナダは歴史的にブレントやWTIに対して大きな割引で取引されてきたウェスタン・カナディアン・セレクト（WCS）ブレンドを販売している（チャート I-16）。環境基準の強化はカナダに不利に働く。WCSは硫黄含有量が高いためである。パイプライン容量も米国の製油所へカナダ原油を輸送する上で依然として大きなボトルネックである。
チャート I-15
ルーニーは出遅れている
ルーニーは出遅れている
ルーニーは出遅れている
チャート I-16
カナダの原油価格は回復に遅れをとる可能性がある
カナダの原油価格は回復に乗り遅れる可能性がある
カナダの原油価格は回復に乗り遅れる可能性がある
今回の救いとなる点は、米国が大規模なインフラプロジェクトに着手し始めるにつれて、CAD/USD と原油価格の相関が他通貨よりも速く上昇していることだ（チャート I-17）。米国の石油輸入の約50%はカナダから供給されている。Covid-19危機は米国の石油生産をカナダより遅らせ、これが原油価格と通貨の相関上昇を助けた。ポートフォリオの資金流入は今年カナダに加速しており、これが石油株とルーニーに恩恵を与えている。
チャート I-17
USD/CAD の原油感応度は高まっている
USD/CADの原油に対する感度が高まった
USD/CADの原油に対する感度が高まった
投資結論
チャート I-18
CADは割安である
カナダドルは割安だ
カナダドルは割安だ
CADは依然として割安である。実効実質為替レートベースで長期平均より1標準偏差下で取引されている（チャート I-18）。平均回帰に戻れば約10%の上昇余地がある。我々のPPPモデルはより慎重で、ルーニーは約5%割安であることを示唆している。これはなおも84〜85セント圏が射程内にあることを意味する。新たなカナダの回復が本格的な加速に転じれば、CADはさらに上昇する可能性がある。
Chester Ntonifor 外国為替ストラテジスト chestern@bcaresearch.com
通貨
米ドル
チャート II-1
USD テクニカルズ 1
USD テクニカル分析 1
USD テクニカル分析 1
チャート II-2
USD テクニカルズ 2
USDテクニカル 2
USDテクニカル 2
今週の米国の経済指標は堅調であった：
3月のCPIは前年同月比2.6%、前月比0.6%と、いずれも予想を上回った。
3月のPPIは前年同月比4.2%、前月比1%で、予想を上回った。
Empire Manufacturingの調査は4月に17.4から26.3へと大幅に反発した。
小売売上高は特に強く、3月は前月比9.8%であった。
NAHB住宅市場指数は4月に83と引き続き高水準であった。
DXY指数は今週0.5%下落した。堅調なデータを受けての利回りの下落は驚きである。これは債券ショートポジションが混雑したトレードになりつつあるシグナルである可能性が高い。DXY指数は4月にロールオーバーしており、これは季節パターンをサポートする動きである。
レポートリンク：
Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - 2021年3月19日
The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - 2021年3月5日
Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - 2021年2月19日
ユーロ
チャート II-3
EUR テクニカルズ 1
ユーロ・テクニカル 1
ユーロ・テクニカル 1
チャート II-4
EUR テクニカルズ 2
EUR テクニカル 2
EUR テクニカル 2
ユーロ圏の最近のデータはやや良好であった：
2月の小売売上高は前月比3%増加し、予想の1.7%を上回った。
4月のドイツおよびEUのZEW景況感は予想を下回った。
2月の鉱工業生産は前月比1%減少した。
ドイツのCPIは前月比0.5%で、予想と一致した。
ユーロは今週ドルに対して0.5%上昇し、これで2週連続の上昇となった。新たなCovid-19の波は短期的にEUR/USDの重しになる可能性があるが、これによりセンチメントとポジショニング指標がリセットされた。我々の中期指標は大きくロールオーバーしており、これは逆張りの観点からは強気材料である。
レポートリンク：
Portfolio And Model Review - 2021年2月5日
On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - 2021年1月29日
The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - 2020年11月6日
日本円
チャート II-5
JPY テクニカルズ 1
JPY テクニカル 1
JPY テクニカル 1
チャート II-6
JPY テクニカルズ 2
JPY テクニカル分析 2
JPY テクニカル分析 2
日本のデータは混在している：
機械受注は2月に再び減少し、前月比で8.5%低下し、予想の2.8%増を下回った。
しかしより好材料として、工作機械受注は3月に前年同月比65%増加した。
2月のPPIは前月比0.8%で、予想を上回った。
日本円は今週対米ドルで0.4%上昇し、4月におけるG10通貨の中で最も強い通貨の一つである。我々の中期指標は崩壊しており、投機筋はネットで円ショートのポジションを持っている。ポートフォリオヘッジとしてEUR/JPYのショートを継続している。
レポートリンク：
The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - 2021年3月5日
On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - 2021年1月29日
The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - 2020年11月6日
英ポンド
チャート II-7
GBP テクニカルズ 1
GBP テクニカル分析 1
GBP テクニカル分析 1
チャート II-8
GBP テクニカルズ 2
GBP テクニカル指標 2
GBP テクニカル指標 2
英国の最近のデータはやや良好である：
2月のGDPは前月比0.4%増加し、予想の0.6%増をやや下回った。
2月の鉱工業・製造生産および建設生産はいずれも予想を上回り、それぞれ前月比1%、1.3%、1.6%であった。
2月の対EU貿易赤字は164億となった。
英ポンドは今週対米ドルで0.3%上昇し、G10通貨の中では中位に位置し、ユーロに対しては横ばいであった。英国のワクチン接種の成功と他国の追いつき局面を受け、我々は先週EUR/GBPのショートを利確のために決済した。ポンドに対する投機的なネットポジションが高水準にあることから、中立姿勢を取っている。
レポートリンク：
Portfolio And Model Review - 2021年2月5日
The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - 2020年11月6日
Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - 2020年9月11日
豪ドル
チャート II-9
AUD テクニカルズ 1
AUD テクニカルズ 1
AUD テクニカルズ 1
チャート II-10
AUD テクニカルズ 2
AUDのテクニカル分析 2
AUDのテクニカル分析 2
豪州の最近のデータは強かった：
NABのビジネス・コンディションは3月に25となり、2月の17から改善した。
4月のWestpac消費者信頼感指数は前月比6.2%上昇し118.8となり、2010年8月以来の高水準となった。
雇用回復は堅調に推移している。3月には71Kの新規雇用が創出され、予想の35Kを上回った。失業率も5.8%から5.6%に低下した。
豪ドルは今週対米ドルで横ばいであった。しかし、最近の堅調なデータ、貿易条件の急上昇、および高い債券利回りはAUD/USDを回復トレードに適したものにしている。ただし、最近の経済指標が堅調な米国に近いメキシコの存在を考慮し、我々はAUD/MXNをショートしている。
レポートリンク：
The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - 2021年3月5日
Portfolio And Model Review - 2021年2月5日
Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - 2021年1月20日
ニュージーランドドル
チャート II-11
NZD テクニカルズ 1
NZDのテクニカル分析 1
NZDのテクニカル分析 1
チャート II-12
NZD テクニカルズ 2
NZD テクニカル 2
NZD テクニカル 2
今週のニュージーランドのデータは乏しかった：
RBNZは公式キャッシュレートを0.25%に据え置き、資産購入プログラムも維持した。住宅市場は熱を帯びており、成長見通しの不確実性が引用された。
NZIERBのビジネス・コンフィデンスは第1四半期で-13%となり、第4四半期の-6%から低下し、4四半期ぶりの下落となった。
NZDは今週対米ドルで横ばいであった。利上げ発表の日にはNZDが上昇し一方でOISカーブがフラット化したが、これはやや不可解な展開である。我々はOISカーブの反応が適切だと考えている。短期的なNZDの上振れリスクはオーストラリアとの計画されているトラベルバブルである。現在、我々はAUD/NZDをロングしている。
レポートリンク：
Portfolio And Model Review - 2021年2月5日
Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - 2020年7月10日
Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - 2019年11月29日
カナダドル
チャート II-13
CAD テクニカルズ 1
CAD テクニカル 1
CAD テクニカル 1
チャート II-14
CAD テクニカルズ 2
CAD テクニカル 2
CAD テクニカル 2
カナダの最近のデータは強かった：
カナダ銀行のBusiness Outlook Surveyは堅調であった。センチメント指標は第1四半期に2.87となり、第4四半期の1.3から上昇し、2018年以降の高水準となった。
3月の雇用レポートは特筆に値する。新規雇用は303Kで予想の100Kを大きく上回った。パートタイムとフルタイムの内訳も健全で、それぞれ175Kと128Kであった。これにより3月の失業率は7.5%に低下し、予想および2月の8.2%を下回った。
カナダドルは今週対米ドルで0.3%上昇した。本文前半でカナダドルについて時間を割いて解説したが、短期的にはやや脆弱かもしれない一方で、今後12か月で84セントに達する可能性がある。
レポートリンク：
Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - 2021年2月12日
Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - 2020年7月10日
More On Competitive Devaluations, The CAD And The SEK - 2020年5月1日
スイスフラン
チャート II-15
CHF テクニカルズ 1
CHF テクニカル分析 1
CHF テクニカル分析 1
チャート II-16
CHF テクニカルズ 2
CHF テクニカル 2
CHF テクニカル 2
今週のスイスのデータは乏しかった：
3月の失業率は3.3%で、予想および前月を下回った。
スイスフランは今週対米ドルで横ばいであり、4月のG10通貨の中で上位のパフォーマーであり続けている。先週のレポートで示したように、フランは今年の最初の3か月での出遅れの反動で反発する局面にあるかもしれない。CHFは米ドルに対して引き続き上昇する可能性があるが、評価面の懸念から我々はEUR/CHFをロングしており、ストップは1.095に厳格に置いている。我々のUSD/CHFの中期指標も反転が見込まれる。
レポートリンク：
Portfolio And Model Review - 2021年2月5日
The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - 2020年11月6日
On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - 2020年2月21日
ノルウェークローネ
チャート II-17
NOK テクニカルズ 1
NOKのテクニカル指標 1
NOKのテクニカル指標 1
チャート II-18
NOK テクニカルズ 2
NOK テクニカル指標 2
NOK テクニカル指標 2
ノルウェーの最近のデータは混在している：
2月のGDPは前月比0.5%減少した。
第1四半期の住宅価格は前期比3.4%上昇した。
3月のCPIは前年同月比3.1%で、予想の3.4%増を下回った。
CPIの失望は主に消費財価格の前月比0.6%の下落によるものであった。
ノルウェークローネは今週対米ドルで横ばいであった。Norges Bankが今年利上げを見込まれておりG10で最も早い可能性があるにもかかわらず、今月の弱いインフレデータや世界的な再ロックダウンに伴う原油価格の下落により短期的な下振れリスクがあるかもしれない。戦略的には、我々はドルの最終的な下落に備えてNOKとSEKをロングのまま維持している。
レポートリンク：
Portfolio And Model Review - 2021年2月5日
Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - 2020年9月11日
A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - 2020年4月10日
スウェーデンクローナ
チャート II-19
SEK テクニカルズ 1
SEK テクニカル 1
SEK テクニカル 1
チャート II-20
SEK テクニカルズ 2
SEK テクニカル指標 2
SEK テクニカル指標 2
スウェーデンの最近のインフレデータは強い：
リクスバンクが重視するCPIFは前年同月比1.9%上昇し、2月の1.5%増を上回った。
エネルギーを除いた数値は1.4%の上昇にとどまったが、ほとんどのインフレ指標は2020年の底から力強く反発している。
スウェーデンクローナは今週対米ドルで1.4%上昇し、今週および4月を通じてG10で最も好調な通貨の一つだった。5年物および10年物のインフレスワップは2%水準を上回って堅調に固定されており、市場はスウェーデンのインフレ上昇を一時的なものとは見なしていない可能性がある。これにより利上げ期待が前倒しされることがある。米国より高い2年実質利回りもSEKを支えるだろう。ただし、新規のCovid-19感染者は依然として懸念材料である。
レポートリンク：
Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - 2020年9月11日
Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - 2019年11月29日
Where To Next For The US Dollar? - 2019年6月7日
トレードと予想
フォーキャスト要約
コアポートフォリオ
戦術トレード
指値注文
クローズドトレード
Feature The selloff in Chinese stocks since mid-February reflects a rollover in earnings growth and multiples. Lofty valuations in Chinese equities driven by last year’s massive stimulus means that stock prices are vulnerable to any pullback in policy supports (Chart 1A and 1B). Chart 1AGrowth In Chinese Investable Earnings And Multiple Expansions Has Rolled Over Chart 1BEarnings Outlook Still Looks Promising In The Onshore Market, But May Soon Peak After diverging in the past seven to eight months, Chinese stocks have started to gravitate towards deteriorating monetary conditions index. The market may be beginning to price in a peak in economic as well as corporate profit growth (Chart 2). Defensive stocks in China’s onshore and offshore equity markets have also outperformed cyclicals since February, which confirms that investors expect earnings growth will slow in the coming months (Chart 3). A tighter monetary policy stance, coupled with increased regulations targeting the real estate, banking, and tech sectors have further dampened investors’ appetite for Chinese stocks. Chart 2A-Share Prices Start To Gravitate Towards Tightening Monetary Conditions Chart 3Defensives Have Prevailed Over Cyclicals In Both Onshore And Offshore Markets The official PMIs bounced back smartly in March following three consecutive months of decline. However, the strong PMI readings do not change our view that the speed of China’s economic recovery is near its zenith. PMIs in the first two months of the year are typically lower due to the Lunar New Year (LNY), and the improvement in March’s PMI did not exceed seasonal rebounds experienced in previous years. Weakening fixed-asset investments also indicate that economic activity is moderating. We remain cautious on the 6 to 12-month outlook for Chinese stocks, in both absolute and relative terms. Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com China’s NBS manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs in March beat market expectations with sharp rebounds after moderating in the previous three months. The improvement in the PMIs will likely provide authorities with confidence to stay the course on policy normalization. The methodology calculating PMI indexes reflects the net reported improvement in business activities relative to the previous month and there was a notable decline in PMIs in February, due to the LNY holiday and travel restrictions related to the spread of COVID-19. Additionally, the average reading of China’s official composite PMI in Q1 this year was 2.2 percentage points lower than in Q4 last year and weaker than the Q1 PMI figures in most of the pre-pandemic years. Moreover, Chinese Caixin manufacturing PMI, which focuses on smaller and private corporates, declined further in March as it continued its downward trend started in December 2020. Chart 4Q1 PMIs Slowed By More Than Seasonal Factors Chart 5Caixin PMI Shows Further Deterioration Among Private-Sector Manufacturers Growth in credit expansions in February was better than expected, supported by a substantial increase in corporates’ demand for medium- and long-term loans. Travel restrictions during this year’s LNY led to a shorter holiday, a faster resumption in manufacturing activity after the break and stronger credit demand in February. China’s Monetary Policy Committee meeting last week reiterated the authorities’ hawkish policy tone and removed dovish language prevalent in last month’s National People’s Congress, such as “maintaining the consistency, stability, and sustainability in monetary policy” and “not making a sudden turn in policymaking.” Given the strong headline economic and credit data in January and February, the authorities will be unlikely to slow normalizing monetary policy. Therefore, the risk of a policy-tightening overshoot remains high. The PBoC has continued to drain net liquidity in the interbank system since early this year, evidenced by falling excess reserves at the central bank. Excess reserves normally lead the credit impulse by about six months, signaling that the latter will continue to decelerate in the months ahead. In turn, the credit impulse normally leads the business cycle by six to nine months, meaning that China’s cyclical economic recovery will likely peak in the first half of 2021. Chart 6Corporates Demand For Longer-Term Bank Loans Resumed Their Upward Trend Early This Year Chart 7Falling Excess Reserves Leads To A Deceleration In Credit And Economic Growth Robust industrial activities and improving profitability helped to boost profit growth in January and February. The bounce in producer prices also drove up returns in industrial output, particularly in upstream industries loaded with commodity producers. Nevertheless, weak final demand is limiting the ability of Chinese producers to pass on higher prices to domestic consumers, highlighted in the divergence between Chinese PPI and CPI. In addition, China’s domestic demand for commodities and industrial metals may reach its cyclical peak in mid-2021, following ongoing credit tightening and reduced economic activity. Commodity inventories have surged to historical highs due to soaring imports (which far exceeded consumption) during 2H20. Inventory destocking pressures will weigh on commodity prices with China’s domestic demand reaching its cyclical peak. Disinflation/deflation pressures may re-emerge in 2H21, which will pose downside risks to China’s industrial profits. Chart 8Industrials Posted A Strong Rebound In The First Two Months of 2021 Chart 9Surging Commodity Prices Helped To Boost Upstream Industry Profits Chart 10Domestic Final Demand Remains Sluggish Chart 11Decelerating Chinese Credit Growth Poses Downside Risks To Global Commodity Prices Chart 12Chinas Raw Material Inventory Restocking Cycle May Be Near A Cyclical Peak Chart 13Real Estate And Infrastructure Investment Losing Steam In 2021 Investments in infrastructure and real estate drove China’s economic recovery in the second half of 2020. However, growth momentum in both sectors has slowed because of retreating government spending in infrastructure and tightening regulations in the property sector. Both home sales and housing prices, especially in tier-one cities, rose significantly in January-February this year, deepening authorities’ concerns over bubble risks in the property market. The share of mortgages, deposits and advanced payments as a source of funds for property developers reached an all-time high in February. Following the LNY, the authorities introduced a slew of new restrictions on the housing market to curb excessive demand. These were in addition to placing limits on bank lending to both property developers and household mortgages. All of these measures will weigh on housing supply and demand, and the impact is already evident in falling land purchases and housing starts. At the same time, property developers are rushing to complete existing projects. The tighter regulations on real estate financing will likely weaken growth in real estate investment and construction activities in the second half of this year. Chart 14Housing Prices In Top-Tier Cities Have Been On A Tear … Chart 15… But Bank Lending To Developers And Mortgage Loans Continue Downward Trend Chart 16Property Developers Are Rushing To Sell And Complete Existing Projects Chart 17Forward-Looking Indicators Suggest A Slowdown In Housing And Construction Activities Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
While the Fed’s dots dovishly surprised, the FOMC’s output and inflation projections were on the hawkish side. Adding the committee’s core PCE price inflation estimate for 2021 to their real GDP forecast results in a roughly 9% nominal GDP estimate, assuming the PCE and GDP deflators approximate one another. The last time the US economy hit such a high mark on a q/q annualized basis (ex-2020) was in late-2003 (Chart 1). Back then the Bush tax cuts were signed into law in late May 2003 turbocharging the economy. Chart 2 shows that the fed funds rate was pegged at 1% and the bond market was in selloff mode, with both the 10-year US Treasury yields surging violently and inflation breakevens galloping higher. While the S&P eventually shrugged off the bond market’s new equilibrium yield, drilling beneath the surface is revealing. Chart 1 Chart 2 As a reminder, back then the Fed was actually sowing the seeds of the housing bubble by keeping rates at 1%, which resulted in an economy running on steroids. Deep cyclical sectors outperformed the SPX and defensives significantly lagged the broad market especially as the economic data caught on fire in 2004 (see Appendix Charts A1, A2, A3, ). Financials were range bound and relative tech performance slumped in 2004 (for inclusion purposes Charts A4-A9 in the Appendix also show GICS2 sector relative performance). Bottom Line: Using the 2003/4 parallel as a guidepost we remain comfortable with our current positioning of preferring industrials and energy to consumer staples and communication services. Appendix Chart A1 Chart A2 Chart A3 Chart A4 Chart A5 Chart A6 Chart A7 Chart A8 Chart A9
Highlights Duration: The Fed will revise up its interest rate forecasts at this week’s meeting, but the new forecasts will remain dovish compared to current market pricing. This could pressure bond yields down in the near-term. However, any downside in yields could prove temporary given that economic growth continues to beat expectations. Corporates: The macro environment of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy will persist for some time yet. In this environment, bond portfolio managers should minimize exposure to interest rate risk and maximize exposure to credit risk. In particular, a strategy of favoring high-yield corporate bonds over investment grade corporate bonds makes a lot of sense. Inflation & TIPS: Core inflation will be relatively strong during the remainder of 2021, with 12-month core PCE likely ending the year close to the Fed’s 2% target. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Expect Some Pushback From The Fed The continuing bond market selloff will be the top item on the agenda at this week’s FOMC meeting. Meeting participants will debate whether the sharp rise in long-maturity bond yields represents a threat to the economic recovery and Chair Powell will no doubt be peppered with questions on the topic at his post-meeting press conference, as he was when he sat down with a Wall Street Journal reporter two weeks ago.1 But for our part, we’ll be focused more on the front-end of the yield curve this week. Specifically, we’ll be looking to see whether the Fed revises up its funds rate forecasts by enough to justify current market pricing or whether it uses its forecasts to push back against the bond bears. The market’s fed funds rate expectations have moved a lot since the Fed last published its own forecasts in December (Chart 1on page 1). In December, the market was priced for fed funds liftoff in December 2023 and then only one more 25 basis point rate hike through the end of 2024. Now, the market is looking for liftoff in January 2023, followed by two more rate hikes before the end of that year. Chart 1Market Priced For 3 Rate Hikes Before The End Of 2023 As for the Fed, at last December’s meeting only 5 out of 17 FOMC participants anticipated raising rates before the end of 2023. It’s logical to expect the Fed to increase its rate expectations this week as the economic outlook is much brighter than it was at the time of the December FOMC meeting. Back in December, we still didn’t know whether the Democrats would win control of the Senate, enabling passage of President Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. Doubts also remained about how quickly COVID vaccination would occur. Chart 2The Data Can't Disappoint The Fed will probably respond to these pro-growth developments by revising up its interest rate expectations, but we doubt that these revisions will bridge all of the gap with the market. Employment and inflation both remain far from where the Fed would like them to be, and the Fed will want to send the message that its policy stance remains highly accommodative. We could see the Fed’s median fed funds rate forecast shifting to call for one rate hike by the end of 2023, but not the three currently priced into the yield curve. In this scenario, the Fed’s pushback could prompt some near-term downside in bond yields. The question is how long the Fed’s messaging will impact the market in the current environment of surging economic growth. The Economic Surprise Index shows that the economic data can’t even manage to disappoint expectations, a development that usually coincides with rising yields (Chart 2). Bottom Line: The Fed will revise up its interest rate forecasts at this week’s meeting, but the new forecasts will remain dovish compared to current market pricing. This could pressure bond yields down in the near-term. However, any downside in yields could prove temporary given that economic growth continues to surpass expectations. We maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and we will continue to use our Checklist (see last week’s report)2 to determine an appropriate time to increase duration. The Spread Buffer In Corporate Credit Treasury yields troughed last August, and since then returns have been hard to come by in the US bond market. This is not too surprising. Fixed income is hardly the ideal asset class for a reflationary economic environment. However, there are steps a bond portfolio manager can take to maximize profits in an economic environment that is characterized by (i) rapid economic growth, (ii) rising inflation expectations and (iii) monetary policy that remains accommodative. Specifically, bond investors should minimize their exposure to interest rate risk (i.e. duration) and maximize exposure to credit risk. That is, shy away from long duration assets with little-to-no credit spread and favor shorter duration assets where the credit spread makes up a large proportion of the yield. This sort of strategy has worked well since the August trough in Treasury yields. The Investment Grade Corporate Bond Index – an index with relatively long duration and a small credit spread – is down 4.08% since August 4th (Chart 3). Notably the worst returns have come from the highest rated credit tiers where the credit spread makes up a smaller proportion of the yield. Notice that Aaa-rated Corporates have lost 9% while Baa-rated bonds are only down 2.52% (Table 1). In contrast, total returns from the High-Yield Index – an index with lower duration where the credit spread makes up a much larger proportion of the yield – have held up nicely. The overall index has returned 6.65% since August 4th with the lowest credit tiers once again performing best. Chart 3Move Down In ##br##Quality Table 1Corporate Bond Returns Since The Aug. 4 2020 Trough In Treasury Yields Performance for both the Investment Grade and High-Yield indexes improves if we look at excess returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. That is, if we hedge out the interest rate risk and focus purely on spread movements. Though even here, we find that the lowest rated credits with the widest spreads deliver the best returns. If we assume that this reflationary economic environment persists for the next 12 months, can we expect the same low rate risk/high credit risk strategy to succeed? One way to investigate this question is to look at the 12-month breakeven yields and spreads for different segments of the corporate bond market (Table 2). The 12-month breakeven yield is the yield increase that the index can tolerate over the next 12 months before it delivers negative total returns. Similarly, the 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening that an index can tolerate over the next 12 months before it delivers negative excess returns (where excess returns are measured versus a duration-matched position in Treasury securities). Table 2Corporate Bond 12-Month Breakeven Yields And Spreads The overall Investment Grade Corporate Index, for example, has an average maturity of 12 years and a 12-month breakeven yield of 27 bps. This means that, if we assume that the investment grade corporate bond spread holds steady, then the odds of the index delivering negative total returns over the next 12 months are the same as the odds of a 12-year Treasury yield rising by more than 27 bps. An assumption of flat investment grade corporate bond spreads seems reasonable given that spreads are already historically tight (Chart 4). Moving down in quality within investment grade helps a bit, the Baa credit tier has a 12-month breakeven yield of 30 bps compared to a 12-month breakeven yield of 21 bps for the Aa credit tier. A similar benefit is observed if we look at the 12-month breakeven spread: 14 bps for Baa and only 6 bps for Aa. However, the real improvement comes when we move out of investment grade entirely and into high-yield. To calculate fair breakeven yields and spreads for high-yield bonds we need to incorporate default loss expectations. The current macro environment of strong growth and accommodative monetary policy should lead to relatively low default losses. That being the case, we assume a base case of a 2.5% default rate and 40% recovery rate for the next 12 months. Using this assumption, we calculate a 12-month breakeven yield of 75 bps for the High-Yield Index and a 12-month breakeven spread of 46 bps. This represents a significant extra buffer compared to what is offered by even the lowest investment grade credit tier. Not only that, but the 75 bps 12-month breakeven yield from the High-Yield Index looks even better when we consider that high-yield spreads are not as overvalued relative to history as investment grade spreads, and have more room to tighten as the economic recovery progresses (Chart 5). Chart 4Investment Grade Valuation Chart 5High-Yield Valuation Table 2 also presents two other default loss scenarios, and it shows that we need fairly pessimistic default loss expectations to make high-yield breakeven yields and spreads comparable to what is offered by investment grade bonds. Even if we assume a 4.5% default rate and 30% recovery rate for the next 12 months, we still get a 32 bps breakeven yield from the High-Yield Index, comparable to what we get from the Baa credit tier. Bottom Line: The macro environment of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy will persist for some time yet. In this environment, bond portfolio managers should minimize exposure to interest rate risk and maximize exposure to credit risk. In particular, a strategy of favoring high-yield corporate bonds over investment grade corporate bonds makes a lot of sense. Inflation & The Inverted TIPS Curve Chart 6Inflation Will Peak In April February’s Consumer Price Index was released last week, and it showed that core CPI managed only a 0.1% increase on the month. This caught some off guard given that “rising inflation” has become a popular market narrative during the past few months. Our view is that core inflation will rise significantly between now and the end of the year, and that 12-month core PCE inflation will end the year close to the Fed’s 2% target. We arrive at this view for three reasons. First, base effects will lead to a large jump in 12-month inflation measures in March and April. Chart 6 illustrates the paths for both 12-month core PCE and core CPI assuming modest 0.15% monthly gains between now and the end of the year. Because the severely negative inflation prints from last March and April are about to fall out of the rolling 12-month sample, 12-month core inflation is on the cusp of rising to levels considerably above the Fed’s target. This means that after 12-month inflation peaks in April, the question will be how much it declines during the remainder of the year. One reason why we think it might not fall that dramatically is that bottlenecks are already emerging in both the goods and services sectors, and prices will come under upward pressure as the economy re-opens and consumers are encouraged to deploy some of the excess savings they’ve built up during the pandemic. Producer prices are currently surging, as are survey responses about price pressures from the NFIB Small Business Survey and the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing Surveys (Chart 7). Finally, shelter is the largest component of core inflation (accounting for almost 40% of core CPI). It would be difficult for overall core inflation to rise significantly without at least some participation from shelter. With that in mind, we now see evidence that shelter inflation will soon put in a trough (Chart 8). Chart 7Price Pressures Are Building Chart 8Shelter Inflation About To Bottom The permanent unemployment rate and Apartment Market Tightness Index are both tightly correlated with shelter inflation. The permanent unemployment rate has stopped climbing and will move lower during the next few months as increased vaccination rates allow for more of the economy to re-open (Chart 8, panel 2). The Apartment Market Tightness Index is also well off its lows, and it will soon jump above the 50 line, joining the Sales Volume Index (Chart 8, panel 3). Consumers are also increasingly seeing signs of rental inflation. A question from the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations showed a very sharp increase in expected rents in February (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 9Stay Long TIPS As for TIPS strategy, we are hesitant to back away from our overweight TIPS/underweight nominal Treasuries position with inflation on the cusp of a such a significant move higher, especially with the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate still below where the Fed would like it to be (Chart 9). We are also not yet willing to exit the inflation curve flattening and real yield curve steepening positions that we have been recommending since last April, even though the 5/10 TIPS breakeven inflation slope has become inverted (Chart 9, bottom panel).3 With the Fed targeting an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, an inverted inflation curve is more natural than a positively sloped one. This is because the Fed will be trying to hit its inflation target from above, rather than from below. Further, the short-end of the inflation curve is more sensitive to the actual inflation data than the long-end. This means that the curve could flatten even more as inflation rises in the coming months. Bottom Line: Core inflation will be relatively strong during the remainder of 2021, with 12-month core PCE likely ending the year close to the Fed’s 2% target. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on the implications of what Powell said in this interview please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Panic From Powell”, dated March 9, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Panic From Powell”, dated March 9, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
In the January 19th Special Report we instituted a long S&P REITs / short S&P homebuilders pair trade with a 10% stop loss. Yesterday, our stop was triggered and we are obeying it and closing this pair trade. Among other reasons, one of the macro drivers that compelled us to put this pair trade on was the 10-year US Treasury yield: historically the correlation between the relative share price ratio and interest rates would snap positive especially following a recession. Hence, a pullback in yields was also a key risk we highlighted for this pair trade. The 10-year US Treasury yield peaked near 1.19% and has continued to correct breaking below 1.04%, which at the margin boosts the allure of homebuilding stocks and consequently put our pair trade offside. While the original reasoning for putting this pair trade on remains intact, we refrain from fighting the trend and opt to move to the sidelines for the time being. We will be on the lookout for a better-timed entry point in the near future. Bottom Line: Obey the trailing stop and close the long S&P REITs / short S&P homebuilders pair trade for a loss of 10%.