先進国

Neutral In light of the likely slowdown in Chinese data, last week we downgraded the S&P machinery index from overweight to neutral. This sub-surface industrials sector move also comes on the heels of our previous upgrade in the more domestically focused S&P railroads index, and does not affect the broad sector’s overweight stance. As China goes, so do machinery stocks. The latest Chinese manufacturing PMIs hooked down and any sustained weakness will weigh heavily on demand for US machinery new orders (not shown). Adding that to the waning impulse of Chinese total social financing aggregates including BCA’s downbeat forecast, and the risk/reward of being overweight machinery stocks loses traction (see chart). Bottom Line: We reiterate our recent downgrade on the S&P construction machinery & heavy trucks index to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CSTF – CAT, CMI, PCAR & WAB. ​​​​​​​

Highlights Duration: The Treasury market has moved quickly to price-in expectations of a strong economic recovery, while the Fed has been more cautious about moving its own rate forecasts. We think that the market’s expectations are well founded and that the Fed will eventually move its dots higher. Stick with below-benchmark portfolio duration. Corporate Bonds: Junk spreads already embed a significant decline in the default rate during the next 12 months, but reasonable assumptions for corporate debt growth and profit growth suggest that this outcome will be achieved. Investors should continue to favor spread product over Treasuries and continue to hold a down-in-quality bias within corporate credit. Economy: Disposable personal income fell in February compared to January, but it has risen massively since last year’s passage of the CARES act. The large pool of accumulated household savings will help drive economic growth as the pandemic recedes. Feature There is widespread anticipation that the economic recovery is about to kick into high gear. To us, this anticipation seems rather well founded. The United States’ vaccination roll-out is proceeding quickly and the federal government is pitching in with a tsunami of fiscal support. But it’s important to acknowledge that this positive outlook is still a forecast, one that has not yet been validated by hard economic data. The risk for investors is obvious. Market prices have already moved to price-in a significant amount of economic optimism and they are vulnerable in a situation where that optimism doesn’t pan out. In this week’s report we look at how much economic optimism is already discounted in both the Treasury and corporate bond markets. We conclude that the most likely scenario is one where the economic data are strong enough to validate current pricing in both markets. Investors should keep portfolio duration below-benchmark and continue to favor spread product over Treasuries, with a down-in-quality bias. Optimism In The Treasury Market The most obvious way to illustrate the economic optimism currently embedded in Treasury securities is to look at the rate hike expectations priced into the yield curve relative to the Fed’s own projections (Chart 1). The market is currently looking for four 25 basis point rate hikes by the end of 2023 while only seven out of 18 FOMC participants expect any hikes at all by then. Chart 1Market More Hawkish Than Fed We addressed the wide divergence between market and FOMC expectations in last week’s report.1 We noted that the main reason for the divergence is that while the market is focused on expectations for rapid economic growth the Fed is making a concerted effort to rely only on hard economic data. This sentiment was echoed by Fed Governor Lael Brainard in a speech last week:2 The focus on achieved outcomes rather than the anticipated outlook is central to the Committee’s guidance regarding both asset purchases and the policy rate. The emphasis on outcomes rather than the outlook corresponds to the shift in our monetary policy approach that suggests policy should be patient rather than preemptive at this stage in the recovery. The upshot of the Fed’s excessively cautious approach is that its interest rate projections will move toward the market’s as the hard economic data strengthen during the next 6-12 months, keeping the bond bear market intact. As evidence for this view, consider that the US Economic Surprise Index remains at an extremely high level, consistent with a rising 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 2). Further, 12-month core inflation rates are poised to jump significantly during the next two months as the weak monthly prints from March and April 2020 fall out of the 12-month sample (Chart 3). Then, pipeline pressures in both the goods and service sectors will ensure that inflation remains relatively high for the balance of the year (Chart 3, bottom panel).3   Chart 2Data Surprises Remain Positive Chart 3Inflation About To Jump Finally, the hard economic data still do not reflect the truly massive amount of fiscal stimulus that is about to hit the US economy. Chart 4 illustrates how large last year’s fiscal stimulus was compared to what was seen during recent recessions, and this chart does not yet incorporate the recently passed $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan (~8.7% of GDP) or the second infrastructure focused reconciliation bill that is likely to pass this fall. Our political strategists expect 2021’s second budget bill to be similar in size to the American Rescue Plan though tax hikes will also be included and, due to the infrastructure-focused nature of the bill, the spending will be more spread out over a number of years.4  Chart 4The Era Of Big Government Is Back Bottom Line: The Treasury market has moved quickly to price-in expectations of a strong economic recovery, while the Fed has been more cautious about moving its own rate forecasts. We think that the market’s expectations are well founded and that the Fed will eventually move its dots higher. Stick with below-benchmark portfolio duration.  Optimism In The Corporate Bond Market Chart 5What's Priced In Junk Spreads? The way we assess the amount of economic optimism baked into the corporate bond market is to calculate the 12-month default rate that is implied by the current High-Yield Index spread (Chart 5). We need to make a few assumptions to do this. First, we assume that investors require an excess spread of at least 100 bps from the index after subtracting 12-month default losses. In past research, we’ve noted that High-Yield has a strong track record of outperforming duration-matched Treasuries when the realized excess spread is above 100 bps. High-Yield underperforms Treasuries more often than it outperforms when the realized excess spread is below 100 bps.5 Second, we must assume a recovery rate for defaulted bonds. The 12-month recovery rate tends to fluctuate between 20% and 60%, with higher levels seen when the default rate is low and lower levels when the default rate is high (Chart 5, bottom panel). For this week’s analysis, we assume a range of recovery rates, from 20% to 50%, though we expect the recovery rate to be closer to the top-end of that range during the next 12 months, given our expectations for a rapid economic recovery. With these assumptions in mind, we calculate that the High-Yield Index is fairly priced for a default rate between 2.8% and 4.5% for the next 12 months (Chart 5, panel 2). If the default rate falls into that range, or below, then we would expect High-Yield bonds (and corporate credit more generally) to outperform a duration-matched position in Treasuries. If the default rate comes in above 4.5%, then we would expect Treasuries to beat High-Yield. To figure out whether the default rate will meet the market’s expectations, we turn to a simple model of the 12-month speculative grade default rate that is based on nonfinancial corporate sector gross leverage (aka total debt over pre-tax profits) and C&I lending standards (Chart 6). If we make forecasts for nonfinancial corporate 12-month debt growth and pre-tax profit growth, we can let the model tell us what default rate to anticipate. Chart 6Default Rate Model Debt Growth Expectations We expect corporate debt growth to be quite weak during the next 12 months (Chart 7). This is mainly because firms raised a huge amount of debt last spring when the Fed and federal government made it very attractive to do so. Now, we are emerging from a recession and the nonfinancial corporate sector already holds an elevated cash balance (Chart 7, bottom panel). Debt growth was also essentially zero during the past six months, and very low (or even negative) debt growth is a common occurrence right after a peak in the default rate (Chart 7, top 2 panels). It is true that the nonfinancial corporate sector’s Financing Gap – the difference between capital expenditures and retained earnings – is no longer negative (Chart 7, panel 3). But it is also not high enough to suggest that firms need to significantly add debt. Chart 7Debt Growth Will Be Slow For our default rate calculations, we assume that corporate debt growth will be between 0% and 8% during the next 12 months. However, our sense is that it will be closer to 0% than to 8%. Profit Growth Expectations Chart 8Profit Growth Will Surge Our expectation is that profit growth will surge during the next 12 months, as is the typical pattern when the economy emerges from recession. Year-over-year profit growth peaked at 62% in 2002 following the 2001 recession, and it peaked at 51% in 2010 coming out of the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 8). More specifically, if we model nonfinancial corporate sector pre-tax profit growth on real GDP and then assume 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021, in line with the Fed’s median forecast, then we get a forecast for 31% profit growth in 2021. If we use a higher real GDP growth forecast of 10%, in line with our US Political Strategy service's "maximum impact" scenario, then our model forecasts pre-tax profit growth of 40% for 2021.6 Default Rate Expectations Table 1 puts together different estimates for profit growth and debt growth and maps them to a range of 12-month default rate outcomes, as implied by our Default Rate Model. For example, profit growth of 30% and debt growth between 0% and 8% in 2021 maps to a 12-month default rate of between 3.2% and 3.8%. This falls comfortably within the range of 2.8% to 4.5% that is consistent with current market pricing. Table 1Default Rate Scenarios In fact, for our model to output a default rate range that is higher than what is priced into junk spreads, we need to assume 2021 profit growth of 20% or less. This is quite far below the estimates we made above based on reasonable forecasts for real GDP. Bottom Line: Junk spreads already embed a significant decline in the default rate during the next 12 months, but reasonable assumptions for corporate debt growth and profit growth suggest that this outcome will be achieved. Investors should continue to favor spread product over Treasuries and continue to hold a down-in-quality bias within corporate credit. Economy: Household Income Update Last week’s personal income and spending report showed that disposable household income was lower in February than in January, a decline that is entirely attributable to the fact that the $600 checks to individuals that were part of the December stimulus bill were mostly delivered in January. These “Economic Impact Payments” totaled $138 billion in January and only $8 billion in February. This drop-off of $130 billion almost exactly matches the $128 billion monthly decline seen in disposable personal income. Consumer spending also fell in February compared to January, a result that likely owes a lot to February’s bad weather conditions, particularly the winter storm that caused much of Texas to lose power. Though spending has recovered a lot from last year’s lows, it remains significantly below its pre-COVID trend (Chart 9). In contrast to spending, disposable income has skyrocketed since the pandemic started last March. Chart 10 shows that disposable personal income has increased 8% in the 12 months since COVID struck compared to the 12 months prior. Moreover, it shows that the increase is entirely attributable to fiscal relief. Chart 9Households Have Excess ##br##Savings Chart 10Disposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers The result of below-trend spending and a surge in income is a big jump in the savings rate. The personal savings rate was 13.6% in February, well above its average pre-COVID level (Chart 9, panel 3), as it has been since the pandemic began. This consistently elevated savings rate has led to US households building up a $1.9 trillion buffer of excess savings compared to a pre-pandemic baseline (Chart 9, bottom panel). Perhaps the biggest question for economic growth is whether households will deploy this large pool of savings as the economy re-opens or whether they will continue to hoard it. In this regard, the individual checks that were part of last year’s CARES act are the most likely to be hoarded, as these checks were distributed to all Americans making less than $99,000. The income support provisions in this month’s American Rescue Plan are much more targeted. Only individuals making below $75,000 will receive a $1,400 check and the bill also includes expanded unemployment benefits and a large amount of aid for state & local governments. All in all, we anticipate that a substantial amount of household excess savings will be spent once the vaccination effort has made enough progress that people feel safe venturing out. This will lead to strong economic growth and higher inflation in the second half of 2021.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed Looks Backward While Markets Look Forward”, dated March 23, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20210323b.htm 3 For more details on our outlook for core inflation in 2021 please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Limit Rate Risk, Load Up On Credit”, dated March 16, 2021, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Political Strategy Second Quarter Outlook 2021, “From Stimulus To Structural Reform”, dated March 24, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on this excess spread analysis please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The "maximum impact" scenario assumes that the full amount of authorized outlays from the American Rescue Plan will be spent, with 60% of the outlays spent in FY2021. For more details see US Political Strategy Second Quarter Outlook 2021, “From Stimulus To Structural Reform”, dated March 24, 2021, available at usps.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

特別レポート

The inflation/deflation debate has been dominating the news flow and we are compelled to offer our thoughts in two-part series of Special Reports on this widely discussed, but also widely misunderstood topic. Over the past year, we have been inundated with countless questions about our outlook on inflation given the dual monetary and fiscal stimuli that have been ongoing since Covid-19 hit (Chart 1). We take this opportunity to provide detailed answers on everything inflation in this series of Special Reports. Specifically, in this first report we focus on the long-term and structural forces behind US core CPI inflation. We go in depth into the drivers behind the current deflationary trend and also examine what other variables might break that trend in the future. We also try to ignore the medium-term outlook because the inflation story is well-known as the financial media is littered with charts that slice and dice the ISM manufacturing release in every possible way showing that inflation will rebound. Hence, there is no disagreement about the medium-term path for the core CPI inflation. Chart 12020 Stimuli The important question that we look to answer in this Special Report is whether this rebound is a paradigm shift that will push the US into a new era of consistently high (i.e. above 3%/annum) core CPI inflation, or is it a merely counter trend inflationary spike within the broader deflationary megatrend? Laying The Groundwork Before we wrestle with the structural forces behind inflation, first we must get the question of quantitative easing (QE) and its effects on the real economy and inflation out of the way. Undoubtedly, QE is an integral part of any discussion about the real-word and/or financial asset price inflation, and while it tickles the public’s imagination with hyperinflationary fears, the reality is that those fears are largely misplaced (Chart 2). In fact, pundits have established a consensus: “QE only affects the financial economy as it increases bank reserves that can never escape in the real economy. On the other hand, fiscal stimulus affects the real economy and can cause genuine inflation.” There clearly hasn’t been any material inflation since the GFC, so the argument of “QE only affecting the financial economy” appears to be correct, but at closer look there is room for a different interpretation. What is important to understand is that QE is nothing but a tool, sometimes a signaling tool, in the Fed’s arsenal, and like any tool, it can be used in different ways. Chart 2Boogeyman?  The fact that there has not been any material real-world inflation since the housing bubble is neither because QE is structurally deflationary nor because it “cannot touch” the real economy, but because policy makers chose to use the QE tool to rescue creditors (the financial sector) rather than debtors (the real economy) during the GFC. Delving deeper in the Great Recession, the banks were largely undercapitalized with cash accounting for a tiny portion of overall assets and Treasury holdings being at historic lows (Chart 3). The rest of the assets were tied to loans and other risky securities. Once NINJA loans and other subprime loans along with the derivative CLOs/CDOs house of cards began imploding, the banking sector could not stomach the losses owing to the nonexistent cash buffer, and the entire system went into insolvency mode. This is when the Fed stepped in with QE (and the Treasury with TARP in order to recapitalize the banks) to bail out the nervous system of the US economy by boosting reserves and giving freshly printed money to the banks in exchange for their Treasurys, MBS and other risky securities. By providing support to the banking system, the Fed was counterbalancing a deflationary financial industry shutdown (the Richard Koo balance sheet type recession) rather than injecting an inflationary real economic stimulus. As a result, nearly all of the newly created money was stuck in the financial system in the form of new reserves, and as far as the real economy was concerned, no new money entered directly into the real world. This is how the consensus of “QE only affecting the financial economy” was formed, and why we did not observe a long-lasting rise in CPI despite all of the GFC-brought about stimuli. Chart 3Banks Were Well-capitalized Fast-forward to today, and the backdrop could not be more different. The banking sector was well capitalized, so doing an aggressive QE to boost reserves and to stimulate the financial sector would have only provided marginal benefits. The deflationary shock came through the real economy, not the financial economy, meaning that a real (i.e. fiscal) stimulus was needed. Once again, the QE tool comes to the rescue. This time however, QE was also used to finance Main Street stimulus programs as the Fed bought long dated Treasury (and other) securities that pushed interest rates to rock bottom levels and helped facilitate government stimulus spending. Consequently, a more meaningful fraction of QE money reached Main Street and had an effect on the real economy and was not just locked in new reserves. As a reminder, when rates fall to zero and the Fed embarks on QE, the lines between monetary and fiscal policies get blurred. When QE (instead of the foreign or private sectors) is used to facilitate government expenditures, which later on gets distributed into the real economy, QE can provide inflationary support and can reach the real economy. Chart 42008 Versus Today Perhaps the best way to illustrate the difference between 2008 and 2020 is by showing M2 money supply data. The spike in M2 data in 2020 dwarfs the one in 2008; in 2020 QE money reached the real economy and ended up in private sector’s bank accounts (thus contributing to M2 growth), whereas in 2008 QE money was mainly locked in bank reserves. True the money multiplier and M2 money stock velocity are still in hibernation, and were we to see a sustainable inflationary impulses both of these indicators would have to show signs of life (Chart 4). So does this mean that there are grounds for longer-term inflationary concerns since in 2020 QE actually reached the real economy? To answer this question, we now dig deeper into the secular inflation forces and split them in two camps: pro-inflationary and anti-inflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #1: The Buenos Aires Consensus Our view since last June has been that fiscal deficits are here to stay as far as the eye can see and the shift from the Washington to the Buenos Aires Consensus1 is a paradigm shift with staying power. The most important long-term consequence of the Buenos Aires Consensus will be higher inflation. And we are not talking just the asset price kind – which investors have enjoyed over the past decade – but of the more traditional flavor: consumer price inflation. Crudely put, as long as fiscal support remains in place (proverbial helicopter drop, Chart 5) after the pandemic is long forgotten it can serve as a meaningful catalyst for structural inflation, instead of being a one-off counterbalancing short-term boost. To reiterate just how much more powerful fiscal spending is outside of a recession, we conduct a labor market analysis and show that a large percentage of the present-day stimulus is being used to counterbalance the deflationary pandemic shock, rather than contributing to driving inflation higher. Table 1 shows our proxy for total payroll losses incurred by America households as a direct result of the pandemic. Our estimate is $501 billion from March 2020 until today. Chart 5Helicopter Checks The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also publishes detailed statistics on the dollar flow of every pandemic stimulus program to a specific economic sector. As of today, US households received $1,400 billion, but some of the stimulus categories simply defer a payment that households still have to make in the future, instead of injecting brand-new money. After stripping those categories out, we arrive to a cleaner number of roughly $1,000 billion – that is how much new money US households received. Next, we subtract our total payroll loss proxy resulting into a net inflow of approximately $500 billion or 2.3% of 2020 US GDP. This is a respectable sum and 2.3% is significant. However, it has one major drawback. The 2.3% GDP stimulus number assumes that every single dollar was actually spent into the real economy, which we know is not true. Table 1The Counterbalancing Effect A recent New York Fed study on how American households used their stimulus money concluded that: “36.4% of the stimulus money was used to boost savings, 34.5% to paydown debt, 25.9% was spent on essentials and non-essentials, and finally the rest of the money (3.2%) was donated”. It is worth noting that this study also looked at the expected spending patterns for the new round of stimulus checks, and the results were generally the same. To obtain a more realistic number of how much of the net $500 billion inflow actually entered the economy, we multiply it by 25.9% (how much money was used on spending according to the NY Fed) and arrive at a better estimate of $130 billion or 0.6% of 2020 US GDP, which is by no means an astronomical number that will shatter into pieces the current deflationary megatrend. This empirical exercise demonstrated how a large percentage of the present-day stimulus is being used to counterbalance the deflationary pandemic shock. However, if our thesis of a Buenos Aires Consensus in which governments spend even outside of recessions pans out, then there will not be the aforementioned counterbalancing effect, and all the fiscal dollars will go straight to contributing to rising inflation until the deflationary megatrend is broken. Pro-Inflationary Driver #2: Demographics In the long run, inflation tends to oscillate alongside a country’s demographics. More specifically, it is the relative size of the three age cohorts (young, working-age, and old) that plays a key role in driving inflation. People who are in the working-age cohort are at their peak productivity, which implies that their contribution to the production of goods and services is greater than the demand for new credit they generate, meaning that they produce a deflationary pull. The opposite is true for the other two age cohorts (the young and the old). Neither one is contributing to the production of goods & services, while both still generate new credit in the economy (for example student loans), and the end result is an inflationary pull. Hence, it is the interplay between these three age cohorts that serves as a structural force behind inflation. To put some numbers behind this conceptual framework, we turn our attention to a paper “The enduring link between demography and inflation” written by Mikael Juselius and Előd Takáts. In the paper, the authors conduct rigorous cross-country analysis and find that indeed, people 30-60 years of age (the working-age cohort) exert deflationary pressure, while the other two cohorts contribute to rising inflation. Chart 6 plots the age-structure effect for the US against inflation. The authors also quantified that over the 40-year period (1970-2010) the increase in the working-age population (due to baby-boomers) has lowered inflationary pressures by almost five percentage points in the US (Chart 7). Meanwhile, by extrapolating the likely path of demographic data by 40 years (2010-2050), the authors observed a shift from deflationary to inflationary age pressure mainly due to the incoming increase in the proportion of the old cohort. Their estimate of the expected pull on inflation in the US will be approximately two and a half percent (Chart 8). Chart 6Demographics Are A Mighty Force Chart 7From Deflationary... Chart 8...To Inflationary Going forward, US demographics will be more inflationary than deflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #3: De-Globalization The “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization” is our third pro-inflationary driver. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US sustains its aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. Chart 9 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart 9The Tide Is Turning De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. And now, President Biden is continuing in Trump’s footsteps. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. And its decline was pre-written into its “source code.” Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, first outlined in a 2014 GPS Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future and this should prove inflationary. Pro-Inflationary Driver #4: US Dollar Bear Market The path of least resistance is lower for the US dollar and it represents our final pro-inflationary driver. Chart 10 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the peak was in early-2020. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy (Buenos Aires Consensus) of the current administration that may continue into 2024. Chart 10Time For A Downcycle? True, the US dollar remains the global reserve currency, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. While the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects some normalization in the US budget deficit over the next 4 years since the pandemic shock will be over, looking further into the future the CBO forecasts a further reacceleration in deficit spending. Assuming a stable to grinding lower current account deficit in the next several years, the path of least resistance is lower for the currency. BCA’s US dollar model also corroborates the twin deficit message and suggests ample structural downside for the USD (Chart 11).  The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback in a reflexive manner. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Importantly, the 1970s is an interesting period to examine in more detail. As the Nixon administration floated the greenback this aggravated the inflationary pressures (Chart 12) that were building all along the 1960s when the US adopted the Mutually Assured Destruction Doctrine along with the Cold War space race that eventually saw the US landing on the moon in 1969. Chart 11A Bearish Outlook Chart 12The Greenback In The 1970s A lower greenback is synonymous with rising commodity and import prices and given that the US is the consumer of last resort (70% PCE), the commodity/import price pendulum will swing from a deflationary to an inflationary force. Anti-Inflationary Driver #1: Technology’s Creative Destruction Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” forces dominate technology companies in general and Silicon Valley in particular, and represent our fist anti-inflationary driver. These creative destruction forces in the tech industry are inherently deflationary. As a result, tech business models have evolved to thrive during disinflationary periods. Chart 13 shows the software sector deflator derived from national accounts, and since the mid-1980s more often than not it has been mired in deflation. US semiconductor prices, computer hardware prices, and almost any tech related category from the PCE, PPI and CPI releases looks more or less the same as software, underscoring that this is a technology sector wide modus operandi. More recently, Uber Technologies and Airbnb, to name a few, continually bring existing capacity online and that adds another layer of deflation forces at work in select industries they operate in. Tack on technology infiltrating finance and soon the extremely opaque health care services industry that comprises almost 20% of US GDP or $4tn and a deflationary impulse will likely reverberate across these large segments of the US economy that have managed to sustain high pricing power over the decades. Chart 13Technological Progress Is Deflationary Thus, these creative destruction processes remain alive and well in tech land and will continue to exert deflationary/disinflationary pressure (of the good kind) on the US economy. Anti-Inflationary Driver #2: Income & Wealth Inequality The growing trend in income and wealth inequality is our second anti-inflationary force. We first want to focus on the issue of income inequality as it leads to wealth inequality. Income inequality refers to the distribution of wages and profits generated by the economy. It is the proverbial “share of the pie” that households from different socioeconomic brackets receive. The link with inflation comes through the marginal propensity to save statistic of those different brackets. Lower income households have nearly nonexistent propensity to save as they live paycheck to paycheck. Therefore, any additional income inflow they receive gets immediately syphoned into the real economy. In contrast, the top 10% have a high propensity to save as all of their living expenses are well covered, so any additional income they receive is stashed away into savings and does not enter the real economy. This is why following the Trump’s tax cut that benefitted the top 10% there has not been a durable spike in CPI inflation. The fact that in the US the income share of the top 10% is growing at stratospheric rates at the same as time as the bottom 90% are struggling to cover even a $400 unexpected expense needs no introduction. The exact reasons as to why that happened would require a separate Special Report, but one of the main reasons is the multi-decade suppression of unions, which does not allow employees to bargain effectively for a larger slice of corporate profits. Given that profits are an exact mirror image of labor expenses, it is not surprising that the union movement is being marginalized (Charts 14 & 15). Staying on the topic of inflation, as we already outlined, when the lower and medium socioeconomic brackets receive more income, it does not disappear in the savings accounts, but instead it is redirected into the real economy causing a healthy inflationary uptick. Chart 14No Power = No Money Chart 15The Tug Of War​​​​​​​ Chart 16 shows the wealth share of the top 10% of American households on inverted scale. Since the 1920s, inflation and the wealth share of the top 10% has moved in opposite directions. There were two distinct periods when the wealth share of the bottom 90% rose: from the early 1930s until the early 1950s, and from the mid-1960s until the mid-1980s. Both of these periods were accompanied by rising CPI inflation. Chart 16Wealth Equality Is Inflationary At the same time, when looking at any other period outside of those golden days for the bottom 90%, US inflation was anemic. This empirical evidence further underscores the importance of income and wealth distribution in the economy, and given the current US political and economic realities, we do not expect any material changes in labor dynamics to take root. The top 10% will continue benefitting at the expense of the bottom 90%, which will keep US CPI inflation suppressed. Concluding Thoughts In this Special Report our goal was to look beyond the already known medium term inflation outlook, and present both sides of the argument about the long-term inflation trend. We took a deep dive into six structural forces behind inflation that we identified. Four of those forces were pro-inflationary, while the remaining two were anti-inflationary (Table 2). We also assigned a value on our subjective strength scale for each force. Each value incorporates how quickly a particular force will come to fruition, and how strong it will be over the next 5-to-10 year period. Based on our analysis, we conclude that there are rising odds that the deflationary megatrend has run its course and has reached an inflection point of turning inflationary. Table 2Inflation Dots In the next Special Report from our Tinkering With Inflation series, we will conduct a thought experiment and explore a world in which our forecasts prove to be accurate, and a new inflationary paradigm engulfs the US economy. Under such a backdrop what will the US equity sector winners and losers, especially given the related shift in the stock-to-bond correlation? Stay tuned.   Arseniy Urazov Research Associate ArseniyU@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Buenos Aires Consensus is our catchall term for everything that is opposite of the Washington Consensus: less globalization, fiscal stimulus as far as the eyes can see, erosion of central bank independence, and a dirigiste (as opposed to laissez-faire) approach to economics that seeks to protect “state champions,” stifles innovation, and ultimately curbs productivity growth.